Pope Leo XIV is a trans man.
X, of course.
You don’t doubt this conclusion, do you? How can you question a guy who has dedicated his life to superimposing the outlines of skulls on celebrity photos and deciding what sex they are? Also, they’re a Christian.
Bones never Lie, but people do ~ wake up from their Lies ~
Genesis 1:27, 2 Timothy 3:13 ~ Glory to God and praise to Jesus.
Browse his Xitter feed and you will discover that practically no one is the the sex they say they are.
It’s funny how they keep inventing new fake ways of telling. Many of which assume that humans are completely homogeneous.
I don’t care how often the fascists call him “woke” or how much they “trans-vestigate” him. I don’t care how many gullible libs in the MSM or the Dems call him “progressive” because of some staged charity events.
Leo is still an authoritarian, misogynistic, anti-LGBTQ, spreader of supernatural bullshit who covered up sexual abuse committed by his clerics; leader of the most evil organization in human history.
I will never sing the praises of the Pope and want Catholicism scoured from all thought and memory.
“Leo is still an authoritarian, misogynistic, anti-LGBTQ, spreader of supernatural bullshit who covered up sexual abuse committed by his clerics; leader of the most evil organization in human history.”
Therefore, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-calls-ai-pope-image-joke-experts-say-its-no-laughing-matter-2025-05-05/
#2–Yup. I grew up catholic, ditched the whole shitshow at about 11. The RCC and its functionaries don’t deserve anybody’s respect, for anything. “Evil” hardly covers its list of crimes. (Note that Captain Cassidy has a good post today on the new pope and what that means.)
There’s only one way to be sure. The Pope must be defrocked!
transvestigators are one of many categories of creeps that are literally beyond parody. clown timeline.
Even if new Old Guy With Silly Hat was as good a person as some are making him out to be, it doesn’t matter because the RCC itself is still a huge, corrupt, and completely opaque organization that isn’t going to change just because of one man.
The sedes stercoraria may be a myth, but maybe they need to reinvent it.
Duos habet et bene pendentes!
Came here to comment on the sedes stercoraria.
If it were real he’d better hope his bottom surgery was really good!
Groping the Pope, this thread has taken an unpleasant turn.
@Akira Don’t forget ‘who is funded by Nazi gold’
“Bones never Lie, but people do”
So was that stupid claim about Pope Leo posted by a bone, or a person?
Could someone use this as a test for the biological sex of a person?
An fb meme or two has noted that :
That’s a good point.
I wonder if inhedistant future a trans man – or transwoman or both will actually become Pope. Currently I guess onRepug las a Catholci Trasnwoman cardinal might be eligible? Or will that ugly old reliugion vanish first and not last and evolve long enough to get there?
According to the doctrine of the Trinity in Catholicism and some other Christian cults and overgrown cults; isn’t Jesus and God one and the same? So when giving Glory to God and praise to Jesus they’re actually praising and giving glory to the exact same individual? Who si also the Holy Ghost too? Really weird belief that one..
Clarity fix :
I wonder if in the distant future a trans man – or trans woman or both – will actually become Pope. Currently I guess on Repug laws about sex determined at birth being unchangeable I guess Transwoman Cardinal might be eligible?
How is that supposed to work when the jawline is clearly off by more than an inch on both sides? Whose skull is that supposed to be? Not Leo’s.
“Bones never lie” is really only applicable in archaeological or forensic situations.
If you want to try it on a living specimen, you will need an x-ray or MRI image.
#2 How about we make jokes about him being from Chicago? Like how Portillo’s is now holy ground and he’ll excommunicate anyone who claims deep dish isn’t pizza.
My phrenological interpretation of this is that the female skull has a much larger brain case. This would seem to indicate that women would make better popes.
@15 StevoR I actually hope that does not happen unless they also change everything else out of recognition along with it (Return the stolen wealth, turn over all their kiddy fiddlers, open up their financial records, etc etc).
indianajones, it’s not a corporation!
(You mistake the organisation for the religion, and are confused as to which is the dog and which is the tail)
@#18 “How about we make jokes about him being from Chicago?” Best one I’ve seen is ‘Malört and saviour’
@StevoR #15 – I doubt it. Even a relatively progressive pope like Francis warned his fellow bishops for . Given the slow pace at which the Church of Rome is adjusting to modern times, and the substantial push-back from conservative bishops, it may take centuries, if not forever, for the church to accept trans people.
I was wondering, by the way, if this Skull & Gait is serious or satire.
John Morales, I’m not sure Indiana Jones is all that wrong. Catholicism is a religion, but the Catholic Church declares itself to be an entity, a holy being. The Church with a capital “c” is not congregational, and quite explicitly rejects the idea that wherever two or more are gathered together it’s a church. The things Jones refers to in the parentheses are, as is the question of papal eligibility, a matter for the Church not the believers.
“Catholicism is a religion, but the Catholic Church declares itself to be an entity, a holy being.”
No. It does not.
Here is how it actually declares itself to be: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html
The RCC itself is an entity, semantics, or in this case wall of poorly formatted text, be damned. By it’s own doctrine, rules etc, the Pope can put on his infallible hat and do all the things I suggest. They never will, and I can dream it is done to them by force but oh well. @25 Matthew Currie nailed it.
“By it’s own doctrine, rules etc, the Pope can put on his infallible hat and do all the things I suggest.”
Its own doctrine says nothing of the kind; those are all secular things.
Given that claim, it is evident that you misunderstand the concept of Papal infallibility — it’s specific to matters of doctrine.
Here, for you, my added emphasis:
“The fourth chapter, lastly, contains the definition of papal infallibility. First, all the corresponding decrees of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, 680 (Sixth Ecumenical), of the Second Council of Lyons, 1274 (Fourteenth Ecumenical) and of the Council of Florence, 1439 (Seventeenth Ecumenical), are repeated and confirmed. It is pointed out, further, that at all times the popes, in the consciousness of their infallibility in matters of faith for the preservation of the purity of the Apostolic tradition, have acted as the court of last instance and have been called upon as such. Then follows the important tenet that the successors of St. Peter have been promised the Holy Ghost, not for the promulgation of new doctrines, but only for the preservation and interpretation of the Revelation delivered by the Apostles. The Constitution closes with the following words: “Faithfully adhering, therefore, to the tradition inherited from the beginning of the Christian Faith, we, with the approbation of the sacred council, for the glory of God our Saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of Christian peoples, teach and define, as a Divinely revealed dogma, that the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when he, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, decides that a doctrine concerning faith or morals is to be held by the entire Church he possesses, in consequence of the Divine aid promised him in St. Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Saviour wished to have His Church furnished for the definition of doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not in consequence of the Church’s consent, irreformable.””
(https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm)
—
“@25 Matthew Currie nailed it.”
Nah. Matthew is also mistaken by a metaphorical use.
Too lazy to look up primary sources, but Google’s bubbly AI can summarise the idea:
“The phrase “body of the church” refers to the collective group of believers in Jesus Christ, often described as a single, interconnected entity with Christ as its head. It’s a metaphor used to explain the relationship between believers and their connection to Christ, emphasizing their unity and interdependence, as different parts of one body work together.”
Oh FFS Morales! The Pope can and does wield enormous power, secular and otherwise right up to ex communication. Are you seriously trying to say that if the Pope came out, with his infallible hat on, said that, as a matter of doctrine the RCC will now open its books, its paedophile records and all the other stuff that IJ said, and did it in front of the worlds cameras, do you REALLY THINK that, as one the world would point at your posts @ 26 and 28 in this thread and say ‘nuh uh, Morales has it exactly right, I guess the RCC will just HAVE to keep it’s nazi gold and its paedophiles after all. We’ll get them eventually some other way or not though, just you wait!’. Because I don’t and I wipe my arse with ‘the corresponding decrees of the fourth council of Constantinople’ et al.
indianajones:
“Oh FFS Morales! The Pope can and does wield enormous power, secular and otherwise right up to ex communication.”
Fuck’s Sake is on my side, so no point appealing to it.
Presumably he could, but that’s not the doctrine of infallibility. Again, it refers to matters of doctrine only.
More to the point, anyone who is not properly Catholic is unlikely to get elected Pope, are they?
Whether or not that is within his temporal power, it has nothing to do with the doctrine of infallibility.
And yet, it was to the effect of those decrees you appealed when attempting to justify your claim; can’t have it both ways.
Bollocks I can’t. The original thing was it would be a shame if nothing else changed about the church but that they installed a trans woman as pope one day,
The appeal to the infallible hat thing, however weirdly they internally define doctrine vs temporal power vs anything else that the RCC grants itself is to be internally consistent with it’s own rules. Whatever they are. This is a case where the Genie can, in faact, grant more wishes. I don’t care about the, and find the, ‘corresponding decrees of the third council of Constantinople’. and wipe my arse with those too. I simply don’t care what they or any RCC pronouncements declare.
What I do care about is the Pope using every power at his disposal, including that which he and the church arbitrarily grants themself, imaginary or not, to follow through out loud and in public with them all of sudden dosing the right thing. Even using the real threat of an imagined hell to ensure compliance from their followers. That is what the pope ought to do and if the 7th council of the doctrinal angels of the pin head dance academy has rules that say nuh uh, then, out loud and in public change the fucking rules and THEN do the right thing. Using secular actual and real powers for everyone, and then on top of that the extra special imaginary ones that his followers believe in for his followers.
“Bollocks I can’t.” → ‘I am having it both ways; it’s stupid and meaningless and I care not for it, but it’s necessary for my idea to work, so that I appeal to it’.
Fair enough. If that’s your stance. Silly, but your call.
You are still wrong.
“The appeal to the infallible hat thing, however weirdly they internally define doctrine vs temporal power vs anything else that the RCC grants itself is to be internally consistent with it’s own rules.”
You have demonstrated you have no idea about what the actual rules are, and that you cannot sustain your claim.
“What I do care about is the Pope using every power at his disposal, including that which he and the church arbitrarily grants themself, imaginary or not, to follow through out loud and in public with them all of sudden dosing the right thing.”
Well, sure. That would be nice. But that’s not what you wrote at the time, and therefore not to what I object.
Anyway. It ain’t gonna happen; how would a Pope that thought that way possibly be elected by the Conclave of Cardinals?
(Think about it!)
—
Here’s something a bit analogic; consider boss Trump. He’s the boss of the USA.
Got executive power. So.
cf. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/01/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-declares-a-national-emergency-at-the-southern-border/
Huh. He can declare an emergency at whim. Use his power.
So you figure the Pope can do the same thing.
Thing is, Trump gets away with it because Congress and the High Court don’t themselves use their Constitutional powers to stymie him; and yes, clearly the constituency of each of those bodies very much affects to what extent they embody the spirit of the Constitution or lean towards weal or woe.
No such tripartite balance in the Church election; there are just the Cardinals.
It might inform you to be aware that the last non-Cardinal Pope was Urban VI (c. 1318 – 15 October 1389), born Bartolomeo Prignano.
Cardinals elect their own, and it’s an arduous enough process just to get there.
So is it your position that the changes I suggest are possible, or are impossible, or that it is silly to use the magic hat to help the process along? Not difficult mind you, but impossible is the standard here.
indianajones, my position is — in your ordering — that the changes I suggest are possible (but most unlikely); and that they are perforce not impossible; and that the “magic hat” idea is not applicable other than via some sort of Trumpian contempt for the ethos and norms of the office, which I submit would be quite the obstacle to being elected Pope for anyone exhibiting such traits.
I’ve already intimated that I think it would be a grand thing; alas, your basis is well and truly in the realm of wishful thinking, because the doctrine is not what you imagine it is. That was my very point.
(Gotta take things as they are, not as one would wish them to be)
Nearly there John, nearly there. Their doctrin all rests on a fantasy (existence of God). It is therefore all arbitrary. Further therefore them saying that infallibility only applies sometimes, those limits are also arbitrary, no? And could be arbitrarily changed just as easily (of difficultly) as anything else about the RCC by the RCC.
I don;t care what their doctrine is, how they got there or how it changes. If it is indeed silly me for not getting the nitty gritty of that, it is important as getting the wrong ingredients for a flying potion and ending up with the ingredients for an invisibility one instead. IT’S ALL MADE UP, THERE IS NOTHING TO MEANINGFULLY UNDERSTAND.
So, while we are discussing whether it would be a good idea for the RCC to appoint a trans woman as pope, I say that the church should change all the other things first. And the Pope should do this using everything at his disposal, including the imaginary magic ones. The minutiae of how the fucking imaginary, made up, arbitrary, idiotic doctrines, rules, spells and mystical objects, work; if I get those details wrong, who but the most tediously nit picking (insert epithet here) outside the RCC could possibly give the tiniest iota of the essence of the air borne copulation? Why would they do so?
I suppose so, in some magical universe.
In ours, the historical weight of 2,000 odd years has a certain inertia.
And no, there is nothing arbitrary about the papacy.
Pope is the successor to Peter (“The Rock”), Cardinals successors to the Apostles, whole thing going on there about which you are clearly blithefully unaware.
Dogma; Canon; Revelation.
I already quoted: “Then follows the important tenet that the successors of St. Peter have been promised the Holy Ghost, not for the promulgation of new doctrines, but only for the preservation and interpretation of the Revelation delivered by the Apostles.”
You most clearly don’t get it: they are Uber-Conservatives: they preserve the Faith.
(You know how long it took them to apologise about persecuting Galileo? Over 350 years)
Yet you wrote “By it’s own doctrine, rules etc, the Pope can put on his infallible hat and do all the things I suggest.”
Again: you surely can both appeal to its doctrine and rules while utterly failing to grok them, but it’s stupid.
If you get them wrong, then saying stuff like “By it’s own doctrine, rules etc” is not in any way persuasive, unless one is a persuadable ignoramus.
Because Catholics have an effect on society. Duh.
Peter. St Peter. The almost certainly mythical First Disciple of the almost certainly mythical miracle performing son of God. That non arbitrary way of determining who the first pope was therefore making all the rest of the papal succession non arbitrary along side it. Along side the cardinals who again are the successors to the almost certainly mythical OG 12 apostles. Non arbitrarily.
And of course I can appeal to their own doctrine to convince them. It wouldn’t convince me, I am already convinced the RCC should return nazi gold etc anyway though. But it would make the popes job easier trying to convince the faithful. While we are all wishfully thinking about which order a fantasy pope would be a trans woman and also enact my list too. It’s wishful thinking John, and you choose to harsh our buzz by pointing out in ridiculously tedious detail why the Smurfs are immutably 3 apples high and therefore the animators can’t change their blueness with paint after 2000 years, Despite how obviously (in what is a wishful thinking universe anyway remember) they could if they just wished hard enough and loved long enough.
Not only can you, you indeed have done so.
See, I’m most certainly not Catholic, but even I see the problem with your claim; what it is is what it is, not what you fondly imagine it to be.
Anyway, sure. Go and preach that gospel.