Fan of Virginia Woolf and Tadeusz Borowski. Follower of Jesus with an interest in all religions. Multi fandom nerd and animal lover. She/her pronouns. Neurodivergent (Tourette Syndrome).
If a serial killer repents to Christ, he is saved.
If a prostitute repents to Christ, he is saved.
If a guilty man repents to Christ, he is saved.
If a homosexual repents to Christ, he is saved.
If a white supremacist repents to Christ, he is saved.
If a sangoma repents, he is saved.
If an atheist repents, he is saved.
Whether a man or woman is transgender, lesbian, bisexual, a satanist, an abortionist, feminist, conservative, republican, billionaire, destitute, agnostic, OnlyFans pornstar, purist, sexist, misogynistic, racist, a witch, a warlock, narcissist, schizophrenic, jewish, muslim, hedonistic, or simply lives by the philosophy of trying to be a good person - their souls were died for on the cross too.
Let our own bitterness and grief be set aside for this fact, that once repentant, they are free of blood guilt. While not all sin is equal, we are all equally wicked and sinful.
And if any man and woman shall lay down their sins and confess them in sorrow and weeping to their recognized Lord and Savior, then their heart confesses itself to belong to Christ. Their soul, Spirit, and body is now His. He forgives them, and they are anew. They are reborn from spiritual death, and live to sin no more.
The old is gone. Their wickedness, their sins, their evils are cleansed by the Blood of the Lamb. Who are we to deny their faith and withhold lovingness and forgiveness for our new brothers and sisters? Heaven declares a joyous celebration for one sheep that was lost, is now found! Should we not revel and shout in praise to God, for one more life has laid down to the salvation of the Cross! Praise be to God, and to the Son of the Almighty who has made it possible for such!
Not me scrolling through the Conclave tag only to see no one talk about the deliberate positioning and framing of the women in this movie.
Pulling up this movie I completely expected to only encounter Sister Agnes as the one woman we see in the trailer, the conclave a space that has been kept from the female members of the church. Now, color me surprised when I started the movie and most of the establishing shots we got were focused on all the women working in the Vatican.
And it is such a deliberate choice, it does the film a disservice not to talk about it.
Because while Cardinal Lawrence is having his fifteenth breakdown during sequestering and Bellini finds the ambitious asshole within himself, Ray does all the leg work, and Bel---- we see the women work.
We see the kitchens, we see them cook, we see them stand aside. Most of the time when the Cardinals are conspiring it is the women who interrupt because they are busy working, walking, running errands.
And there is power in that.
I think it is very deliberate how often (and with such lingering gaze) the camera shows us the lives of the other half - partially to connect to the wider themes of the movie, on how Bellini asks for women to get more power but never thanks them, and how Benitez stumps them all by thanking the women preparing their meals when asked to say the prayer (considering his own probably tumultuous relationship to gender within the church).
But it also stands in direct opposition to a long tradition in story telling: servants don't exist. How often the heroes of a regency romance are "alone" because the two hand maidens and three maids don't really count.
Conclave doesn't do that.
It doesn't let us look away.
Between all the petty drama, the politics, and the real life consequences of the conclave, we never stop looking at the people doing all the work.
Yes, we follow the ups and downs of Lawrence and Co, but in doing so the movie reminds us again and again of the women working the kitchen.
And that was just such a powerful artistic choice in a movie about a famously misogynistic church... I loved it. And I had to talk about it.
I enjoy explaining my faith to atheists. Not to convert or convince them or anything but just because the perspective I have on faith they don't often hear.
I tell them to imagine that feeling when you're with someone you love and feel so loved by. That feeling when you look out upon the ocean and are in awe of how vast it is. That feeling when you have a deep, long, and needed hug. That feeling when the breeze is flowing gently and the temperature is just right in the afternoon.
I tell them we both experience that feeling. I just decide to name it differently.
Well, this IS the hyperfixation dumping ground ...
N.B.: I watch cardinals and rising politics in the Church like someone watches college football, hotly anticipating Draft Day. Papal Election is effectively Draft Day for 1 of them. I have an advanced degree in medieval history, so I'm REALLY into papal elections as a cultural and historical phenomenon.
So what's the big deal about the Pope? How did he get to be leader of the Catholic Church?
This goes waaaay back. A see is a bishop's seat. A bishop is a man who handles the administrative duties of a geographic area known as a diocese, as well as the sacramental (baptizing babies, giving Communion, marrying people, giving Extreme Unction, hearing confessions) and pastoral duties (caring for parishioners, distributing charity, preaching sermons, reading the Bible) of a priest. It's a position of leadership, enabling the bishop to create new priests.
Per Catholic tradition, the first man to be the Bishop of Rome was St. Peter, Jesus's bestie/right hand man/leader of the original 12 Apostles. During early centuries of the Church, the see of Rome was always considered to be a little more special than the other ancient sees of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Byzantium/Constantinople because of that association. This is called Petrine Doctrine (Rome is special due to Peter being the first holder of the position). This was made concrete in 451, when Bishop Leo of Rome somehow managed to prevent the Huns from sacking the city. It was perceived as a miracle and an indicator that there truly was something special about Peter's See and the man who occupied it. By 500, we have the Pope -- papa, or father, to the whole Church in Western Europe.
It's important to know that minus the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, and a few others that made their own church in response to doctrinal differences, there was only one mainline Christian church across Eurasia. This was the case until 1054.
How did we get a conclave in the first place?
The Papacy -- the government of the Pope -- runs as an elected monarchy. It has done so since 1059. In 1054, the Great Schism between the Western Latin and the Eastern Greek Church happened, wherein the Bishop of Rome (Pope) and the Patriarch of Constantinople mutually excommunicated each other over doctrinal differences, including clerical celibacy, married priests, the dominance (or not) of God the Father, and others.
The Western Latin's Church's response to this was, "We effed up. We need to get rid of corruption." Thus a massive series of reforms followed. Some of these reforms post-1054 included changing the way the Pope was chosen. Prior to this, sometimes, the people of Rome picked him. Other times, the dying Pope chose his successor. And sometimes, kings and emperors would give their input/pressure.
Essentially, there was no systematic way to choose the Pope. That was a vulnerability that led to corruption and abuse of office. Thus the establishment of a papal election. Bishops and Archbishops that were particularly esteemed were given the title of Cardinal and a red hat. The red hat isn't just sartorial -- you can vote for who the next pope is. The first elections were tiny -- less than 10 cardinals. First papal election under this system was Alexander II in 1061.
Conclave -- the election happening in behind closed doors -- only kicks off in the 1200s, when it was concluded that even with only cardinals choosing the Pope, they could still be corrupted by external influences. Also, the number of cardinals -- bishops and archbishops who oversaw an ever-increasing Christian population -- was higher. Somewhere between 30 and 50 cardinals participated in the conclaves regularly during the Middles Ages.
You know that "papal election that took 3 years" that the internet/newspapers are talking about? Yeah, to fix that problem (which was the 1268-71 election of Gregory X), the Church made conclave in 1276. 1276 was a particularly bus-firey year in which 3 conclaves were held, because 3 pope died within 6 months of being elected. Indeed, the last Pope voted in 1276 died in 1277 due to the ceiling collapsing on him while he was working one day (John XXI, who was a doctor of medicine who was still practicing even as Pope).
Conclave and Recent History
English speakers have a tendency to smoosh things together. Char le Magne = Charlemagne. Timur the Lame = Tamerlane. Con clave = conclave. "Con clave" means 'with key', literally. It meant any lockable room, but it's taken on special meaning with the papal conclave, or the secret election of the pope. While the pope is in office nobody talks about what went down in the conclave that elected him. (This did create an awkward situation when Benedict XVI resigned, ending his papacy but not his life; people could talk about his conclave while he was still alive, which is weird. We'll talk about him later.)
When a pope dies or resigns, a conclave is called. The cardinals go to Rome to vote. Since 1492, the vote has been held in the Sistine Chapel in Vatican Palace. Yes, it is a museum today, but it's also a living workplace. I advise you not to rush through the Vatican Museum tour to get to the Sistine Chapel -- it is the last room, and you will miss out on all of the other marvelous artworks commissioned by the Church from Raphael and other great artists.
Up until 1996, the cardinals literally ate, slept, and bathed in the Sistine Chapel. Yes, it sucked as much as you think it did, which is why John Paul II permitted the cardinals to bunk over at the St. Martha Guesthouse. St. Martha's has gotten a lot of attention in recent years because Pope Francis refused to move out -- he came to the conclave as Cardinal Bergoglio, and then returned to his rooms as Pope Francis. Thus he remained, never moving into the Papal Apartments. Francis was notoriously anti-swag, much to the distress of ecclesiastical tailors in Rome -- no more fancy robes to make. As a result, there's literally only one left now within Vatican City walls.
Since the 1830s, the conclaves have taken less than a week. However, there are up to 4 votes a day, so you still get multiple rounds in that time. John XXIII was the last pope to go over 10 rounds, with 11 rounds in 3 days in 1958. This was a byproduct of the Cold War, with two cardinals unable to attend due to Communist regimes. Politics was definitely on the platter, and Roncalli, the future John XXIII, duked it out with a much younger Armenian cardinal, Agagianian. Roncalli won it, despite his age, because Agagianian was not only Armenian (no non-Italian pope since Adrian VI in 1523), but also only 52 years old. Long papacies are not always desirable.
John Paul II is the most recent election that went over 5 rounds. In 1978, conclave was called to elected a pope after Paul VI died. They elected Albani Luciano, who took the name John Paul. Very cute, done in under 5 votes.
Then John Paul corked it 33 days later. The second Conclave of 1978 was complicated by the fact that the consensus candidate was now dead. As a result, after 7 rounds of the Italian heavyweights slugging it out, on the 8th round, a 58-year-old Polish cardinal named Karol Wojtyla was elected in an October Surprise. And again, the non-Italian and age factors do matter.
So since I've hit upon age and national origin, I think that's the topic of the next post.
NB: I watch this stuff like people watch college football; the conclave is draft day for 1 guy. I have an advanced degree in medieval history, so this is my chance to scream about this for a short season, only for it to go underground like a cicada, then return in 7-15 years to scream again.
Let's talk about the last 25 years, because they are weird.
Popes have a shelf life. They're generally elected as old men in their own time: prior to the modern era, popes could be in their 40s and 50s. In the modern era, Catholic men in their 60s and 70s are picked because they aren't going to live THAT long. Governance is temporal power -- things that belong to this earth, not to God and the eternal. Nobody wants a pope ruling for decades. There are surprises, however.
In 1978, Paul VI died after a good-size reign of 15 years. Not too short, but getting a little long. The August conclave of 1978 elected Cardinal Albino Luciano, who took the regnal name John Paul. First of his name -- very cute!
He corked it 33 days later.
Just when everyone got home from the conclave, BACK to Rome they went to choose a new guy. Now, the problem is that the consensus candidate was dead -- John Paul had won it in 4 votes. The conclave still only took 3 days, but what ultimately happened was the two remaining heavyweights couldn’t muster enough votes to pull it on either side. Thus, we end up with a 58-year-old Polish Karol Wojtyla. Very young, not Italian – the first non-Italian since Adrian VI in the 1520s. He was considerate enough to take on John Paul as his name too so the monogram would only have to add an II rather than a whole new name.
John Paul’s tenure of 27 years is ridiculously long for a pope. It also proved to be a problem as he began to deteriorate due to Parkinsons’ very publicly. It also didn’t help that he had been a vibrant, young pope who went skiing and was very athletic. The contrast between young John Paul II and the hunched-over, suffering man he was at the end of his life could not be more stark.
And this is where Joseph Ratzinger comes in. To this day, Pope Benedict XVI is still more commonly referred to as Ratzinger, because his body of theology and management of the Vatican precedes his papacy. He was actually ceding power when he became pope; he was head of most of the major bodies of the Vatican under JPII from about 1982 onward. Ratzinger was not a pastoral leader; he did work in churches, but he was more firmly rooted in academia and then in administration. He was brilliant, but cold.
That, and he also preferred the company of cats to people. For me, that’s valid. But it does create a problem when you are the leader of a transnational church that needs a people person to bind them together. Ratzinger could often be clinical in his writing, being very detached from the sinners he wrote about. As a result, it felt as if he had a compassion gap: the person was could be kind to those he met, but the written word was harsh. In conversation, Ratzinger was soft-spoken with the charisma of a parked car.
In the 2005 conclave, the final two men in the ballots were Jorge Bergoglio (future Francis) and Ratzinger; Ratzinger always had a hefty lead, as he was viewed as someone consistent with JPII and would continue the administration. After such a long tenure, a new person was welcome, but perhaps not a theological change. That said, there was a Bergoglio lobby that did not cease to whip votes for him until Bergoglio said openly that he did not want the papacy. If hadn’t, we might have seen Francis start his tenure about 8 years earlier.
When Ratzinger became Benedict XVI, he anticipated he would be pope for a short time… no matter how long God planned to keep him on earth. Ratzinger had been up close and personal with JPII’s decline, and he did not want that to be him, on the world stage, decaying in public.
So Benedict XVI became the first post to resign since the Western Schism of 1378-1417(ish). The Western Schism had seen the election of a Roman pope but then the cardinals had buyers remorse, decamped to Avignon, and then voted in another. Then as it is now, there is no way to de-pope someone without killing them (which is the sin of murder, which is bad). The only way to end a papacy other than death is to willingly resign. In 1417, the competing popes were forced to resign, and nobody really went peacefully….
Benedict retired before he became frail and a spectacle. He willingly resigned. But now there was a theological problem: 2 popes.
Casual viewers of the Catholic Church may notice that Francis and Benedict come from two different ends of the theological spectrum. Despite harping and shrill cries of heterodoxy, neither one is a heretic – the Catholic theological interpretation spectrum is just that big. However, the two of them disagreed on how to approach key issues in the Church. This became a problem under the doctrine of papal infallibility.
Papal infallibility was established in 1870 under Pius IX, the only pope with a confirmed reign longer than John Paul II. He won the papacy at age 54 in 1846 and reigned until 1878, during which time the Papal States were merged into modern Italy. This left the Pope as the lord of a one-square mile country known as Vatican City. It was a huge change. Since the 500s, the Papacy and its curia lived off of and used lands throughout Italy to support itself. When one was elected pope, they were essentially the elected monarch of these lands as well as the international Catholic church.
With the formation of the state of Italy, those lands were now gone. One can interpret the doctrine of papal infallibility as a last grasp at power… or, if one is a believer, a codification of what was already known by Catholics. While the pope is pope, he is theologically infallible. He doesn’t have to be perfect at math or grammar, but if he says something related to theology, it is doctrine. He is infallible in that capacity.
So what happens when you have Benedict XVI as pope emeritus and Francis as the active pope? They come from different ends of the theological interpretation spectrum.
And neither of them are wrong. Both are infallible, somehow.
In short, it got messy fast. Francis would signal support for clerical marriages and making celibacy optional, and Benedict would write an entire book on why that was wrong. Benedict wrote a letter on how the sex scandal within the Church was due to deteriorating Western and traditional values, while Francis blamed the Church institution and the conspiracy of silence: we did it, we need to fix it. LGBTQ issues had the same conflict: Benedict stated these people were constantly in sin and needed to be celibate to participate in church life, and Francis argued it wasn’t his job to judge them, but God’s; they should be included.
This subtweeting and indirect bickering continued almost to the last, with Benedict XVI dying in December 2022, just after Christmas. As emeritus, he didn’t get the big papal funeral, which was fine and understandable. But now Francis himself was starting to decline, and his peak years had been spent with a constant theological debate undermining him among more conservative parts of the Church. This magnified an already dramatic shift from the theology of JPII (which was mostly Ratzinger anyway).
I think – and I think most popewatchers also thought – that Francis might resign when the time came. When he took office in 2013, he said he might make it a tradition, jokingly. Francis was always in favor of a church for the poor and without ego. Resignation is sacrificing your ego as a pope. Francis could live with that…
…but I think he realized that his successor would have the same problems he did if he was alive. There can only be one pope. This is not the Easter Orthodox Church, where the Patriarch of Constantinople is “First Among Equals” in a council. As a result, I think Francis decided to die in the saddle to spare his success the theological problems, especially if they were miles apart.
Now that Robert Prevost of the US has become Leo XIV, that may not be the case. Leo XIII was a pope at the turn of the 20th century that wrote doctrine on the dignity of work, the importance of social justice, using capitalism responsibly, and legitimized unions in order to help these goals along. The name Leo XIV suggests Prevost will be consistent with that mission – and that of Francis, without being Francis II.
Leo XIV is a big surprise, for sure. He is from the Americas, like Francis. He is not Italian, which I thought for sure was going to happen – we haven’t had an Italian since John Paul I in 1978. Prevost does have some questions about two sex scandals around him, though this seems to be heavily disputed; Prevost has engaged the problem and addressed the issue, rather than some of the egregious cases that JPII and B16 just ignored or swept under the table. It’s still unsatisfying, since it doesn’t seem like resolutions have been reached yet, but it’s better than the conspiracy of silence.
That said, he seems to be concerned about the environment (like Francis). He may be onboard for priests marrying, but he’s not overtly in favor of adding women to the diaconate. He seems more reserved about LGBTQ; he decried “more genders than do exist” but he also didn’t support a blanket policy that forbade anyone from blessing same-sex couples; it should be a bishop’s choice in his diocese. He’s ok with giving communion to divorced and remarried Catholics; he won’t stigmatize them or weaponize the sacrament, as some conservatives threaten to do.
Overall, I think he will park the bus on some issues like LGBTQ outreach, but he’ll be more dogged about workers’ rights, protection of migrants, and the environment. I wasn’t joking when I said Prevost might have been elected for the purpose of bitching out American president Donald Trump in English.
Prevost in his style seems to be more traditional, as he let them put the mozzetta on him, while Francis noped right out of that. That said, he picked the name Leo XIV, which conveys the idea of social justice for workers and common people. Leo XIII was the first pope to be recorded in sound or in film – that, combined with the long-ass speech Leo XIV delivered (particularly compared to Francis), suggests to me that the @ pontifex social media may be very active, even if we don’t get as many sit-down interviews or random question sessions like Francis had.
One thing I wished more people grasped is that wheelchair use is a full spectrum rather than just ambulatory/nonambulatory (and some non wheelchair users can't even get that right!)
Some people need a wheelchair for isolated outings like Disney or the mall.
Some people need one to leave the house
Some people need one for a couple months at a time on and off but can get by without it most of the time
Some people can take a couple steps but that's it
Some people have to stay in their wheelchair and can't move to a couch or regular chair.
Some people need extra equipment like slings or transfer boards to get in and out of their wheelchair.
Some only need their wheelchair on bad days.
All of the situations I just described are based on real people I know (and me!) and I would bet money that all of us have dealt with bullshit from people who don't understand that it's a spectrum.
Whenever you visit a Church, be it for Mass or because you're just visiting it for prayer or as part of a tour. Try and light a candle for those that are unable to attend Church. For those that are bedbound/housebound. For those in hospital. For those who live in countries at war. For those whose family members would persecute them. For new mothers who are just so exhausted. For those with mental and/or physical disabilities. For those who couldn't get the time off work. For those having to travel to see a family member in hospital. For those inquiring into the faith but are too scared to make the leap to attend Church. For those living in countries where there faith is persecuted. For those that do not live near a Church.
Let your little candle and prayer for them be a shining presence for them. "Lord God, let this candle be a shining presence for all those that cannot make it to Church, for whatever reason. Lord, have mercy on them and on me."
honest to god we've got to start naming the elderly as a vulnerable group & calling their disabilities, disabilities. we sugarcoat and distance these things by only calling them "elderly," "old & frail," etc. most of them are disabled.
too many people completely separate disability from themselves in their mind. it's something that happens to other people. other sad people i don't want to think about. are they really even people, it's too much to bear thinking about that happening to a person... those background characters over there. it would never be me, i can't cope with thinking about that possibility.
this mass denialism of the fragility of the human body (YOUR human body) has created a whole category separate from the disabled - the "elderly." since anyone can join it if they live long enough.. no they can't be disabled. that's scary, and worse it's political. so they are just "old." so what they lost their hearing, their mobility, their heart function? that's just how it goes for old people. as if that's not a person as real as you. as if you wouldn't be devastated if that happened to you today (and it can btw). as if you won't be when it's your turn to be old, and disabled.
simultaneously the disabled are dehumanized as not people, and the elderly are dehumanized as not disabled. so the illusion of disability as separate can be upheld.
We must admit at once that the Bible is a difficult book, a book sealed with seven seals. And, as time runs on, it grows no easier. The main reason for that, however, is not that the Book is written in an "unknown tongue" or contains some "secret words that man may not repeat." On the contrary, the very stumbling-block of the Bible is its utter simplicity: the mysteries of God are framed into the daily life of average men, and the whole story may seem to be all too human. Just as the Incarnate Lord himself appeared to be an ordinary man.
Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View by Georges Florovsky.
Will never not be striking to me how often I will be going through something (or about to go through something) and I will receive a question/prayer request on here which touches upon that kind of suffering prompting me to give advice and support on the subject matter. It's a bit like how we can be good at giving advice but bad at following our own. Unfortunately for me, God is grabbing me by the scruff of my neck and dangling me in front of my own words and going "Look!"
I think it's important to remember, as a rule of thumb, if you take advantage of a social service, it actually makes it easier for other people who need that service to access it. Most of the time, when these services get cut, it's because politicians will look at usage and say "see, no one is really using this thing, we can afford to trim the budget for food stamps by at least half". Whereas if you decide to step up and use these programs, even if you feel like you "don't really need it", at bare minimum it's another data point advocates can use to say "hey, look, people are using this thing, this is an important service we are providing, do not cut our funding".
I work at a nonprofit, and it is absolutely wild explaining to folks that being part of a program that reduces their energy bill actually helps us get funding to help even more people get energy bill savings.
You aren’t taking resources from anyone by using programs you qualify for. You are making a case for those programs being important enough to continue to exist and (in many cases) grow.
i just wanna say that even if you have degenerative diseases, life can still get better with age. i don't know how long i have left and i just seem to keep getting sicker, but im steadier and happier and more secure in myself than ever.
i started my 20s healthy and my 30s deathly ill and i'm much happier now. i wouldn't even trade health for everything else i've gained since.
contrary to the popular misconception, health isn't everything or even the most important thing. it's good to have! but you can make a happy life as a sick person, in whatever time you have
I was what I considered able bodied at 21 and now at 29 even though I'm losing my ability to get from bed to wheelchair and back independently, I'm still happier and live a fuller life than I did back then. My future holds a ventilator, but it also holds wheelchair hikes around national parks, trips to the ocean, seeing tide pools, tons and tons of art, new skills to learn and then forget in favor of learning even more new skills, bad choices, good choices, it still holds joy and happiness and that's what matters to me. Not what machines I'm hooked up to or other peoples definition of "a good life."
