So nothing important is going to change then? Or am i misreading that?

Devotees of Ireland's 12th century Saint Malachy believe that he predicted back then that the new Pope will be the very last one:

http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/St-Malachy-predicted-Pope-Benedicts-successor-will-be-last-pope-190715001.html [irishcentral.com]

I'm Argentine and proud that the first non-european pope is from Argentina!!! congratulations Bergolio!!

Soy argentino y es un orgullo que el primer papa no europeo sea argentino!!! felicidades Bergolio!!

The tradition was started when a Pope named Mecurious (Mercury) was elected. He thought that a Christian Pope with a pagan name wasn't kosher (so to speak), so he took the name "John" (I think it was John).

For Catholics this is big deal.. So congrats to them. I'm only really commenting because of an accidental moderation up there ^. Anyway, in world that increasingly tries to tear things down, at least the Catholics know where he stands on some issues. Nothing will change, and they'll stand by their beliefs and that's okay because it's a free world..... So with that... See ya.

Do Jehovah's Witnesses buck this trend? Look at some of the "new light" that has come from their cardinals [4witness.org] as they have grown in understanding of the Bible [wikipedia.org].

And the current President of the United States use to be a community Organizer and teach Constitutional law. These days his administration uses drones to bomb communities and seems to look the other way when Constitutional rights are stripped from US citizens.

I guess people can change, or they play a great act.

In the new Pope's world, being truly humble would be following the examples of Christ without the power of being a Cardinal. Perhaps it may be better to say the Pop was less egotistical then other Cardinals. Mother Teresa was humble, Pope Francis I is a powerful man who's done good deeds.

Religious fellows are nerds in their own right too. They are up there with Star * groups, but less fan fiction recently. They do try though.

Sociologically, they operate in similar ways as well. I say this as both a Star * fan and a religious fellow (though not a Catholic). In both groups, identity is tied to adherence ("Are you a Buddhist too?" is not far from "Are you a Trekkie too?"), consumption patterns reflect attachment (one has X-Wing models, the other crucifixes), intense debates occur over canon (the Gnostic gospels and the SW prequels have much in common, except one has better acting), and both groups hold in high regard those who have specialized knowledge about the object of their interest.

Theologians can persuade themselves of anything. Anyone who can worship a trinity and insists that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything -- just give him time to rationalize it.
                                                      -- Robert A. Heinlein, JOB: A Comedy of Justice [wikipedia.org]

I'm thinking this is done on purpose. I imagine it is very hard to fire the pope.

If the cardinals like the pope, it shouldn't be too hard to find a like-minded replacement. If on the other hand the pope falls out of favor, he won't be around to long in any case.

Plus they get all the positive buzz from the retirement/replacement process.

If the old covenant was replaced by Jesus, why does the Catholic Church care if they are celibate or not?

So, nobody who supports, say, laws against murder can ever possibly be humble?

I wasn't sure if I should even respond to such obvious flamebait, but some of what you say is unfortunately believed by quite a few people (even gay rights supporters) so it is still worth debunking.

Marriage is a secular institution. First off it is a ceremony that is recognized by almost every culture in history, including athiest societies such as the former USSR. Christmas and barmitzvahs are religious in nature, but marriages certainly are not. A marriage is a legal union that society recognizes as forming a single household from what was once two independent individuals. Marriages are useful for defining laws and traditions that govern how these unions are handled. Things like property rights can turn into difficult matters so it is important to have concrete laws to settle disputes (just look how messy most divorces or some inheritance splits can become).

Most religions throughout history have also added non-secular meaning to the institution of marriage, but that is a separate matter. Would you want the government to stop you from getting married if the Koran said that all marriages not recognized by Allah were null and void? That is the same argument used by anyone who says someone cannot be married because their religion is against it.

I agree that having homosexual parents is probably not a 100% optimal situation. The "optimal" situation is probably something like two upper middle class well educated parents who don't divorce and live in one of the best school districts in the country. But should lower middle class people not be allowed to adopt because it is not optimal to have kids in a household with money problems? Should parents who never went to college not be allowed to adopt because they are less likely to provide the same enriching educational environment as two parents with post-graduate degrees?

All studies I have seen conclusively shown that homosexual parents can raise emotionally mature, intelligent, and well rounded adults. I am pretty sure studies show that they do much better than average even. Any opinion that homosexual parents cannot to an adequate job is either very ignorant or very bigoted.

Why is it mutually exclusive? This is such an incoherent rambling I am not even sure how to respond. I love my neices and nephews, but if my brother requests a legal document that states I take care of his children if he dies that does not mean I love them less because I asked the government to make it legal. I feel silly even writing something like that, but I think you may actually believe the comments you are making so it is worth pointing out how erroneous these opinions are.

Society is overwhelming against non-traditional marriages in cases of polygamy and incenteous marriages not because they are just untraditional. It is because of the female oppression that accompanies societies that practice the former, and the medical problems inherent in the latter.