We have a pope!
April 20th, 2005 at 3:48 am by David FarrarBy coincidence I was up (working) at 3.50 am and Fox News shows white smoke coming from the Vatican. No bells ringing yet, or the name of the new Pope.
UPDATE: The bells are ringing. A Pope in near record time. The 265th pope was elected on the 4th ballot.
UPDATE II: And they have appeared to announce the new Pope is Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. For once the favourite does win.
I must note, for the sake of the National Business Review, that on 28 January 2005 I revealed my assistance to the good Cardinal’s campaign 
Cardinal Ratzinger will be known as Pope Benedict XVI. Pope Benedict XV reigned from 1914 to 1922.
No tag for this post.
April 20th, 2005 at 4:12 am
A quick result… I predict Ratzinger.
Vote:April 20th, 2005 at 4:15 am
I also predict that the pope (whoever he is) will pick the name John Paul III.
Vote:April 20th, 2005 at 4:38 am
Well, I was half-right: it’s Ratzinger as Benedict 16th.
Vote:April 20th, 2005 at 5:47 am
Heh… I bet Russell Brown is going to be pissed, which is just icing on the pontifical cake.
Vote:April 20th, 2005 at 6:57 am
Cardinal Ratzinger’s nickname was “the Red Baron”
Vote:where is Snoopy?
April 20th, 2005 at 7:35 am
Given his age he must be a transitional figure, but I guess he has been running the show during Pope John Paul’s infirmity, and I presume there are a number of useful things to finish off. He must have given some assurances on reforms to get the necessary majority after 3 unsuccessful ballots.
Vote:April 20th, 2005 at 8:01 am
Tim – He has been El leaders right hand man for the last 20 years. Considering the state of JPII for the last few years its safe to assume he has been the defacto admin pope. Whats with the smoke though. Strange people those Catholics.
Allah protect us.
Vote:April 20th, 2005 at 8:05 am
of course the alarming news here is not only the election of a deeply consevative pope, (who/which will cause many of those watching and waiting for change to turn away, and will no doubt hasten the decline of the church in the first world), but the information that dpf watchs fox news…cor!..
surely you must watch it as a work of fiction…i mean, it’s laughable in the transperancy of it’s biases…
haven’t you read the credible audits of fox showing widespread/institutional manipulation/bullshitting…double cor!
as a source of information it is suss in the extreme..
yours in all modesty (whoar.co.nz)
Vote:yours in all modesty (whoar.co.nz)
April 20th, 2005 at 8:40 am
Is the new pope so conservative that he would support Dubya in war?
Vote:April 20th, 2005 at 8:49 am
I doubt that he will support Mr Bush in his present military adventures. The new pope looks pretty fit so he could be round longer than we anticipate. He could actually end up reforming some aspects but not what the liberals want eg women priests.
Vote:April 20th, 2005 at 9:08 am
And again the pundits at tradesports correctly called the new pope and region. Just as they did with all the states in the last US election. They missed the country, but had Germany 2nd, Italy was 1st.
Vote:April 20th, 2005 at 9:28 am
Berend, is that the win you have when you’re not having a win?
Vote:April 20th, 2005 at 10:56 am
Hai Adolf,
Not sure what you mean, but what I mean is there were basically three different contracts. You could bet on the region, the country and the name. For every contract you had a list of options, region was Europe, Asia etc. For countries you had Italy, Germany, France, etc. And then the names of course.
I sold Ratzinger yesterday evening unfortunately, made just $55 on him, where I could have had $480, argghg.
Vote:April 20th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
I clicked on your Wikapedia link.. and the text read:- “…At 78 years of age he fucked a donkey and got a facial from an orangatang. He is the oldest pope elected in 275 years, and is the first German pope since Adrian VI (1522
Vote:April 20th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
Mike – anyone at all can edit Wikipedia. Over a hindred thosuand contribute to it. You do sometimes get the odd vandal bvut their vandalism tends to disappear in a matter of seconds.
Vote:April 20th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
I heard a report that he would rather shrink the church than adopt some reforms. Apparrently he was bitten by “liberalism” in the 60s so he has been conservative since. So the lefties have lost that one, may have some implications here with the Clark liberal social agenda being deeply unpopular with catholics.
Vote:April 20th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
The amount of hatred for Benedict XVI that comes out of the MSM is so plentiful that I know instinctively that the cardinals elected exactly the right man.
Vote:April 20th, 2005 at 4:40 pm
This all reminds me of the pre-Gorbachev Soviet Union, where one aging leader would succeed another who had been decrepit and ineffective for years. Presumably the cardinals thought that B16 deserved a few years in order to get his name in the history books, rather than for any long term improvements he might deliver or issues that he might tackle.
I think they’d be better to skip a generation and find someone younger and more energetic. JP2 was best when younger and tackling Eastern European Communism, rather than as an incapacitated old man out of touch with problems such as aids in Africa.
Vote:April 20th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
They’re Popes not Gods…
Vote:April 20th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
Yes they are Popes not Gods but when they speak(in certain contexts) they are believed to speak with God’s voice, which is pretty spookey
Vote:Is it true this one was in the Hitler Youth?
April 20th, 2005 at 5:01 pm
“…rather than as an incapacitated old man out of touch with problems such as aids in Africa.”
David, abstinence works. Condoms don’t.
Vote:April 20th, 2005 at 5:18 pm
I wasn’t thrilled at Ratzinger’s election, preferring someone who will advocate for social justice (didn’t Jesus do some of that?), but I must admit I was moved by the photo of Ratzinger, in his first appearance on the balcony of St Peters as Benedict XVI. I thought he looked humble and rather shy. Unusual traits in a modern leader, which I suppose just goes to show that he isn’t. Anyway, I wish him well in what promises to be a gruelling job.
Vote:April 20th, 2005 at 5:18 pm
The point is abstenance does not work afterall a catholic priest described celibacy as better than no sex at all.
Vote:April 20th, 2005 at 5:40 pm
Ratzinger was indeed a member of the Hitler Youth. Since membership for German and Austrian children was compulsory it would have been odd if he hadn’t been.
Vote:April 20th, 2005 at 6:39 pm
And I’m on a highway to hell. I like rock music.
Vote:April 20th, 2005 at 7:04 pm
Condoms reduce risks they are not risk free eg a warning on condom packet;
Vote:“Condoms, when used properly, may help to reduce the risk of catching or spreading many Sexually Transmitted Diseases (“STDs”) such as syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia infections, genital herpes, and AIDS; however, they cannot eliminate the risk.”
In Africa they use condoms as balloons so even with all the supply to people the policy is not working, so the answer is not that simple. Marriage should be made easier for people. While not agreeing generally with the RC’s the new pope has got a few things right. As for social justice I thought there was enough of that already and it generally leans leftward.
April 21st, 2005 at 6:49 am
Most condom failures are due to lack of knowledge in how to use them correctly. When used properly they lower the chances of STD transmission to less than 0.0001%, as they form an impermeable barrier preventing the spread of pathogens (the transmission of genital ulcers – herpes and syphillis – is still possible, but the chances are also greatly reduced) .
I suggest that disease transmission rates in African countries where condoms are readily available is due to a lack of proper sex education, not some non-existant flaw in condom design.
In this respect condom use and abstinance programs are very similar. They both work great in theory but stink in reality. The best way to prevent the spread of disease – and that’s what’s important here: peoples lives, not religious or social agendas – is to explain that the safest form of sex is with a single disease free partner, but that any sex outside such a relationship MUST use a condom for protection. Trying to teach one of these without the other is dangerous and futile.
Vote:April 21st, 2005 at 7:26 am
Education is great providing people turn up for classes and nowadays students for example are not that conscientious. The advocates of condom use [and to a limited extent I am one] fail to realise that there are a certain proportion of the populace who are plainly promiscuous and that problem is never confronted. The old liberal cry of “people must be educated” is often a failed effort. It requires more than education. Why is it that in the USA warnings are on condom packets and yet over here we are taught that condoms are safe without warnings?
Vote:April 21st, 2005 at 8:09 am
Who must also remember that the population as large wasn’t at risk nor infected by STDs. Just a few well-known composers had it. STDs became a huge problem after the 60s.
Saying you can have sex as much as you want as long as you use a condom is sort of saying like you can drive as fast as you can, only remember to brake in time.
Just read about the behaviour in the community most at risk: the gay community.
Vote:April 21st, 2005 at 8:15 am
Aids in NZ
Vote:HIV/AIDS – adult prevalence rate:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
0.1% (2003 est.)
HIV/AIDS – people living with HIV/AIDS:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
1,400 (2003 est.)
HIV/AIDS – deaths:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
less than 200 (2003 est.)
CIA World Factbook
April 21st, 2005 at 10:53 am
Berend de Boer wrote: ‘. . . that the population as large wasn’t at risk nor infected by STDs. Just a few well-known composers had it. STDs became a huge problem after the 60s.’
You are totally wrong. Just to give two examples, the “pox” (syphilis) and “the clap” (gonorrhea) have been widespread across human populations for hundreds (prob thousands) of years.
Berend de Boer wrote: ‘Saying you can have sex as much as you want as long as you use a condom is sort of saying like you can drive as fast as you can, only remember to brake in time.’
Your analogy makes no sense. Plenty of people – prostitutes, porn actors and almost every gay man I’ve ever met – are able to practise safe sex with bewilderingly huge numbers of partners without contracting any diseases. Anecdotally, a gay friend of mine from high-school estimated that the first year he came out of the closet he had sex with about six hundred guys – always with a condom – and he’s never had a positive STD test.
Vote:April 21st, 2005 at 11:44 am
“Anecdotally, a gay friend of mine from high-school estimated that the first year he came out of the closet he had sex with about six hundred guys – always with a condom – and he’s never had a positive STD test.” There is also a lot of luck involved
Vote:somebody else who did the same thing would catch every disease imaginable. Are you gay?
April 21st, 2005 at 12:07 pm
Luck has little to do with it. As I’ve said earlier, condoms form an impenatrable barrier through which pathogens cannot pass – if you use them properly.
If they were as unreliable as people like yourself claim then the sex industry would collapse. As recent headlines have shown it’s currently thriving.
Vote:April 21st, 2005 at 12:31 pm
“form an impenatrable barrier… if you use them properly”
Why do they say on some packets that they are only 9x% effective at preventing pregnancy and infection?
Trying to argue that they are 100% effective is idiotic with admission to the opposite from the horses mouth.
Condoms break.
“If they were as unreliable as people like yourself claim then the sex industry would collapse.”
What complete crap. The sex industry thrived before condoms were in common use. It is thriving now because of decriminalisation and increased liberal acceptance of pimps, ho’s and Johns.
Vote:April 21st, 2005 at 12:54 pm
There have been numerous studies performed on couples in which one partner is HIV positive and the other isn’t (discordant couples) proving that proper condom use prevents transmission of the disease. (Control discordant couples that didn’t use protection showed a 10% infection rate.)
The 2% pregnancy rate amoung condom using couples is highly controversial – the studies that cite a 2% failure rate count breakages and slippages due to improper use, as well as occasions in which the couple did not use a condom – again, suggesting that better education is the solution.
I understand that many condom warnings are in place to protect the companies from potential litigation.
And all this seems rather academic – promoting condom use is still much more effecitve than abstinance promotion programs which tend to lead to STD and teen pregnancy epidemics.
The sex industry thrived before condoms (and decriminalisation), but so did STD transmission, mostly because of ignorance about the nature of disease transmission (and it continues to do so in many parts of Africa – the myth that having sex with a virgin cures you of AIDS being a prime example).
Vote:April 21st, 2005 at 1:29 pm
Cant have it both ways Im afraid. They cant be devout catholics who IGNORE the churches teachings on abstinance and monogamy but FOLLOW the churches teachings on condoms.
The truth is, if everyone one the planet followed the churches teachings on morality and sex there would be very few with STDs and no births out of wedlock. That is what the church preaches, not just one part here and another there and you get to choose which ones you want to believe and follow. It is a package deal.
You cant look at these issues in isolation. If the church says you shouldnt use a condom you cant just ignore the fact that they also say you should abstain from sex until marriage, be faithful to your partner and not divorce.
In other words, you cant say that the church is wrong in not advocating condom use when they are also advocating the behaviors that negate the need for condoms.
The church saying you shouldnt use condoms has NOT killed a single person. Fucking alot of different people who fuck alot of different people is what increases you chances of getting a disease. The only way you can justify blaming the church for these deaths is if you are convinced that humans are nothing more than animals ruled by their instincts and incapable of breaking from them.
Vote:April 21st, 2005 at 4:44 pm
This is the same church that says USING ANY CONTRACEPTION IS THE SAME AS MURDER.
Vote: