Favorites (23 April) listed are Italian, Swedish, Congolese, Philippine, Argentine, and Hungarian. The youngest, an Italian, 60. The rest so old one may chosen because he will soon enough die. The African too conservative. From this group I go with the Argentine. Too bad there's not a Pole, Canadian, or Russian.

I want Francis back. He was a kind man, a humble man, a Christian man. Is there another such amongst the candidates?

This time it may be Africa's chance for a pope...

I want Francis back too. What a big loss!

I thought the same: that the next Pope could be from Africa. But, as @tim wood noted, they are too conservative, and it is unlikely that the devoted cardinals of Francis want them.

Let's see what happens...

Sedes Vacans

Habemus papam.

Eminentissimum ac reverendissimum Dominum Robertum Franciscum
Sanctae Romane Ecclesiae Cardinalem Prevost
qui sibi nomen imposuit Leo XIV.

He is American.

Pope Leo XIV (born Robert Francis Prevost).

a Christian man

I was going to make the old joke about 100% of popes being Christian, but then considering some of the pontiffs I am not even sure if this is true :rofl:. It takes some pretty significant disregard for the faith to buy the office with bribes, use it to aggrandize oneself through violence, and to spend most of one's time in veritable orgies.

And not all bears shit in the woods either. :joke:

Well we have Leo XIV. It is not as gentle a name as Francis, but we will see, and I will judge by how he deals with children, women, the poor, how Christian he is. "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." Mark 10:14

I hear the Vatican went with an American in order to avoid tariffs.

Not being Catholic, the philosophical question that occurs to me is why the fuss about nationality? Surely such a figure transcends nationality.

The "figure" may transcend nationality, but the pope is also a real-life politically, geographically, socially, theologically, and intellectually rooted person. He is elected, after all, by cardinals who do not have to transcend anything too inconvenient.

Pope Leo the 13th -- 1878-1903 -- was big on advocating for the rights of workers, calling for fair pay, fair working conditions, and the right to join unions. As far as I know, he did not consign capitalists to the lowest pit in hell. I'll take care of that when I become pope. Will I have to convert to Catholicism first?

There always was, is, and will be endless bitching and carping regardless of who is elected pope, president, mayor, or dog catcher. As the Bible says, the people are grass, quick to wither. So, some are thrilled and some are appalled by Pope Leo XIV's election.

A North American Pope seemed the least likely source; I thought an African or Asian pope would have signaled where it is that Catholicism is most actively increasing in population.

I guess, but the stress laid on nationality (and also to some degree nationalism) sits awkwardly with the supposed universality of the Catholic faith.

Awkward it is, but there is a lot of awkward juxtapositions within Christian (or any other religion's) institutions. For example, the matter of the church's wealth in the presence of poverty. Granted, the church isn't as rich as it used to be, what with various dioceses bankrupted after sexual scandals, another awkward matter.

Sex, wealth, earthly power, etc. is much less awkward (but not nicer) in secular institutions, because they set out to be in the world and of the world. So one isn't surprised (and not delighted) to find corruption in the corporate suites on Wall Street, Hollywood, Washington, Canberra, Moscow, or wherever. But the church (broadly) is supposed to be in the world but not of the world. It's a tough act to pull off--no easier now than 1000 years ago.

Yes, all true. Anyway, it’s been interesting to see how big a story it has been, it’s been headlines here in Australia ever since Francis’ demise. There’d be nothing like that over the election of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

It has been a big story. I don't think it became 'big news' just because media elected to make it big. According to BBC reporters on the scene, there were many people from around Europe who had traveled to Rome specifically to be present (from his death to his replacement). Plus it is a jubilee year and that had brought extra visitors in.

Then too, the Roman Catholic establishment knows how to put on a good show and they have a great stage there at St. Peter's, and that helps. If it were left up to Methodists to manage the funeral--or worse, Baptists--it would have been more of a blip in the news cycle. Size matters, and there are a lot more Catholics (1.2 billion) than Anglicans in the world.

I was somewhat surprised that there was not more coverage of the reaction of Catholics in Chicago. But then, once Mr. Prevost became a priest he moved on and up from his Chicago roots. There were a couple of interviews with former classmates in Chicago which were about what one would expect.

Would it be a good thing if the conclave was open? The rule about sausage and law not being made in public comes into play here. Who knows (other than the cardinals) what goes on under the veil of the holy spirit and mysterious proceedings? What horses were traded? Who was shafted in the process and by whom? Etc.

Remember pope Gregory IX declared cats the incarnation of Satan in the 13th century.

Less cats, more rats. Greater spread of the Black Death

An historical myth. According to my sources it has some truth mixed with exaggeration.

Around 1233, Pope Gregory IX issued a papal bull called Vox in Rama, which described alleged satanic rituals involving black cats. While it did associate cats (especially black ones) with heresy and devil worship, it did not universally declare cats as the "incarnation of Satan" or call for their general extermination across Europe although it did contribute to fear or superstition about cats, especially black cats, which lives on.

While there may have been some localized killings or persecution of cats due to this association, there is no historical evidence that it led to a widespread or systematic reduction of cat populations across all of Europe.

The Black Death (1347–1351) occurred over a century later. It was primarily spread by fleas carried by black rats. A theoretical link is sometimes made that fewer cats meant more rats, and therefore more fleas and more plague. However, it's far from established.