new pope soon--white smoke..EDIT Germany's Ratzinger is new pope

[GrimReefa]

Originally posted by DjTj

Although what goes on in the Vatican is more and more irrelevant to American culture and politics (cf. John Kerry), the Catholic Church is increasingly important to the Third World.

I wouldn't write them off just yet...

Another excellent point. The third world is the great new Catholic frontier, right?

Would have been nice to have elected a pope who could have represented the values shared by those people.

It's also the Islamic frontier.

Now, if I'm a third-worlder, which Church represents me better? A church which is lead by people who live in (perceived) abject poverty, who claim (in some cases, accurately) repression and mistreatment from western powers, especially the United States and Europe? Or one that is lead by a European, has always been lead by a European, and shows no signs of ever being led by a non-European, who lives in a gigantic castle surrounded by other Europeans who he appointed?

These are the kinds of things you would like to see the Church take into account. Even non-Catholics would rather see third-worlders turn to Catholicism over Islam...

[Destino]

At the risk of being unpopular I'll go ahead and say I'm unhappy with the move of the church to go more conservative. I certainly don't expect the church to take up the causes and values of moonbat liberals in the US, but I would like to see some things change. Allowing priests to have families of their own for example is a major issue with me. The abusers in the church are there in large part because this failed tradition allows them to better hide their strange way of life.

I'd like to see the church with a new type of liberation theology. One that is not grounded in talk of revolution and dishonest socialism, like the current version. But instead one that is as unblinking in it's demand of human rights as the current church is on abortion. Too many times in the past the church has been overly cautious in its defense of human dignity in the 3rd world. They need to go after these corrupt government and expose apply pressure for change. Ignoring human suffering is a path to hell, as was stated by Jesus himself.

[ntotoro]

Originally posted by GrimReefa

And since there hasn't been another Crusades since the Reformation, I'd say that King was right.

The Reformation was because of corruption in the Vatican and the Church, not because of a difference in doctrine.

Nick

[GrimReefa]

Originally posted by ntotoro

You picked a very poor example. While Vatican City is geographically within the boundaries of Italia, the country itself is very secular. What people do with their own time is what they do, regardless what the Church says. No one has ever been excommunicated for using a condom. The problem is not the Church, but with progressive secularists in the US who don't like anything that makes them think twice about doing something that someone else may consider to be morally reprehensible.

The Church has been conservative and always will be. This isn't something new. You throw around terms such as bigot, but it seems you're less-tolerant than you even want the Church to be, simply because there are people in this world who don't agree with you.

Nick

THAT'S THE POINT!!!

Italy, the capital of Catholicism, has become increasingly secular?

Why?

Because the Catholic Church is out of step with the views of the population. Even in Italy, what the Pope says is irrelavant. How long before what the Pope says becomes scary? How long before millions are so turned off by the outdated beliefs of the Church before they start leaving altogether?

[ntotoro]

Originally posted by Destino

At the risk of being unpopular I'll go ahead and say I'm unhappy with the move of the church to go more conservative.

:obvious:

Allowing priests to have families of their own for example is a major issue with me.

This is one area I can support. The practical reasons for not allowing Priests to marry no longer exist in the Church. Even Eastern Orthodox Priests are allowed to marry, as long as they do so before exiting Seminary.

Nick

[ntotoro]

Originally posted by GrimReefa

Italy, the capital of Catholicism, has become increasingly secular?

Why?

It's not just becoming more secular, though. Italy has always been secular, in terms of policy. To call it the capital of Catholocism isn't entirely fair, especially considering Vatican City is its own separate country, much like San Marino.

Once you get south of Rome, though (particularly Naples, Calabira and Sicily), the country becomes much more conservative and religion more important.

Nick

[Fatty P For The Pulitzer]

Originally posted by GrimReefa

Why? I'll tell you why....

What is your beef with the Catholic Church? The Church isn't going to conform to values they believe are immoral so they can include more people. Haven't done it in 2000 years, and aren't going to start now. And you're right about the priesthood declining, but wrong about membership. Membership in America and Europe may be down, but it is booming in the 3rd world. I wasn't against a 3rd world Pope, I actually like the sound of a couple of them, but the Church doesn't need one because that is where it is having its most success. And a 3rd world Pope wasn't going to come in and turn the Church upside down. In my opinion, an outspoken 3rd world Pope would've been worse for the progressives wanting change in the Church because he would've exposed all the neglect the 3rd world gets. More badmouthing Americans and Europeans, which would've pi$$ed you off even more. But the cardinals wanted someone who will defend the tradition of the Church in the developed world, hence Ratzinger, one of the most loyal defenders aside from JP2. Your reasons for why the Church needs to change are the exact reasons why the Church chose Ratzinger. The Church is not going to change to accomodate progressives, the Church wants progressives to listen to their message and change themselves. You clearly don't know a whole lot about Jesus' message and the role of the Pope. The Pope's job isn't to tweek Jesus' teachings as values change, it's to reinforce his message among the changing values. That's the problem with Catholics (and non-Catholics) in developed countries, they wanted someone to come in and rewrite the Bible and throw out Catholic tradition so they can justify self-gratification.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by GrimReefa

And since there hasn't been another Crusades since the Reformation, I'd say that King was right.

Are you honestly sticking to a statement that 1,100,000,000 people in ONE religion are irrelevant?

http://www.adherents.com/Na/i_c.html

[lckelsey4]

What is your beef with the Catholic Church? The Church isn't going to conform to values they believe are immoral so they can include more people. Haven't done it in 2000 years, and aren't going to start now. And you're right about the priesthood declining, but wrong about membership. Membership in America and Europe may be down, but it is booming in the 3rd world. I wasn't against a 3rd world Pope, I actually like the sound of a couple of them, but the Church doesn't need one because that is where it is having its most success. And a 3rd world Pope wasn't going to come in and turn the Church upside down. In my opinion, an outspoken 3rd world Pope would've been worse for the progressives wanting change in the Church because he would've exposed all the neglect the 3rd world gets. More badmouthing Americans and Europeans, which would've pi$$ed you off even more. But the cardinals wanted someone who will defend the tradition of the Church in the developed world, hence Ratzinger, one of the most loyal defenders aside from JP2. Your reasons for why the Church needs to change are the exact reasons why the Church chose Ratzinger. The Church is not going to change to accomodate progressives, the Church wants progressives to listen to their message and change themselves. You clearly don't know a whole lot about Jesus' message and the role of the Pope. The Pope's job isn't to tweek Jesus' teachings as values change, it's to reinforce his message among the changing values. That's the problem with Catholics (and non-Catholics) in developed countries, they wanted someone to come in and rewrite the Bible and throw out Catholic tradition so they can justify self-gratification.

EXCELLENT POST!

People don't turn away from the church becasue its too conservative, they don't go to church because they're too obssessed with themselves. Modern governments and economies have facilitated this process of self-gratification, and made people leave the Church. The Church has done nothing to drive them out. What you are seeing is a shift from people following religion to them following socialist states and marketing campaigns.

This was the best move the church could have made. If they ever allow women priests then the traditionalists will split away.

With regards to child molestation, the solution to this isn't to let priests marry, the solution is go hard after the priests that do this. Letting them marry just finds a way to solve a problem through accomodation rather than through enforcement.

[GrimReefa]

Originally posted by Fatty P For The Pulitzer

I get fired up by the non-Catholics who could care less about Catholicism or religion in general, but wanting my spiritual leader to throw 2000 years of tradition down the drain to join the progressive movement. They're never going to elect someone who will "liberalize" the Church in order to accept progressives, they're going to elect someone to confront the progressives and teach them our way of life. The pope has no political power over anyone, so I'm not sure why non-believers are upset with this.

I was baptized Catholic. Both my parents were raised Catholics. All four of my grandparents were raised Catholics. My Uncle is a Jesuit Priest. The only church which I have ever attended is the Catholic Church.

But my Catholic credentials aside...why should non-believers care?

Because the continent of Africa is infested with AIDS, and the Church's laughable position is "abstain". Because the Catholic Chruch is telling American voters to ignore issues like poverty & war and focus only on abortion. Because the Catholic Church is the alternative for millions of third-worlders to Islam, and it would be nice if the impression was given that they might be represented in Rome someday.

There was no candidate for the papacy that would "throw 2000 years of tradition down the drain". John Kerry wasn't running for Pope. The most "liberal" candidate was against abortion and stem cell research. But the Church picked the most alienating, divisive candidate they could find. And that is an unwise move for a Church struggling with a Crisis of Faith to begin with.

[Fatty P For The Pulitzer]

Originally posted by ntotoro

This is one area I can support. The practical reasons for not allowing Priests to marry no longer exist in the Church. Even Eastern Orthodox Priests are allowed to marry, as long as they do so before exiting Seminary.

Nick

Allowing priests to marry is the one major radical change to Catholic doctrine that we could see in our lifetimes. Don't expect to see a change in their views on abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, stem cell research, etc. etc., just because they are acceptable in the secular societies. Catholics who support issues like these are going to have to come to grips with that.

[ntotoro]

Originally posted by Fatty P For The Pulitzer

Allowing priests to marry is the one major radical change to Catholic doctrine that we could see in our lifetimes. Don't expect to see a change in their views on abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, stem cell research, etc. etc., just because they are acceptable in the secular societies. Catholics who support issues like these are going to have to come to grips with that.

I've always felt that way, but people seem to believe the Church should change to match their own views. That seems to be more an American point-of-view than anything else. People around the rest of the world accept the Church as it is and know they can either take it or leave it. Here, people expect the Church to act like a popularity contest.

I think everyone will agree many forms of Islam are far more draconian than anything the Catholic Church of the 21st century can drum up, but no one seems to have worries about Islam in general or Islamists in particular. A 3rd World Pope wouldn't change that because Islamists still hate everything and everyone who doesn't agree with them.

Nick

[lckelsey4]

I think everyone will agree many forms of Islam are far more draconian than anything the Catholic Church of the 21st century can drum up, but no one seems to have worries about Islam in general or Islamists in particular. A 3rd World Pope wouldn't change that because Islamists still hate everything and everyone who doesn't agree with them

And there isn't a media in Islamic countries pushing hard for them to make strides to 'bridge the gap' with other religions like there is in Europe and the U.S. for Catholics to do so.

[Kilmer17]

Abstinence works. But you actually have to PRACTICE abstinence. Not just SAY your going to do it.

[Fatty P For The Pulitzer]

Originally posted by GrimReefa

Because the continent of Africa is infested with AIDS, and the Church's laughable position is "abstain". Because the Catholic Chruch is telling American voters to ignore issues like poverty & war and focus only on abortion. Because the Catholic Church is the alternative for millions of third-worlders to Islam, and it would be nice if the impression was given that they might be represented in Rome someday.

This is the problem I have with the Church too. They're too soft on America, it's like we're a lost cause. They didn't do anything to confront the child molestation charges, and actually promoted the Cardinal from Boston to a position in the Vatican, instead of punishing him for allowing the molestation in his diocese. And right now there isn't much of an alternative to AIDS in Africa because Americans and Europeans don't want any part of it. Alize, or however his name is spelled, would've helped here, but it would've infuriated progressives. I guess they want to try to quell progressivism and secularism before the go after America and Europe and their treatment of Africa and other impoverished 3rd world areas. I don't know what they plan on doing about these issues, and I am with you that more needs to be done to address them, but I feel they chose Ratzinger because they feel Europe and America are bigger priorities. The Church is not getting more conservative by electing this guy, they've always been ultra-conservative. This was to keep the status quo basically, and I'm not turn my back on the Church because they elected a traditionalist.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by GrimReefa

I was baptized Catholic. Both my parents were raised Catholics. All four of my grandparents were raised Catholics. My Uncle is a Jesuit Priest. The only church which I have ever attended is the Catholic Church.

But my Catholic credentials aside...why should non-believers care?

Because the continent of Africa is infested with AIDS, and the Church's laughable position is "abstain". Because the Catholic Chruch is telling American voters to ignore issues like poverty & war and focus only on abortion. Because the Catholic Church is the alternative for millions of third-worlders to Islam, and it would be nice if the impression was given that they might be represented in Rome someday.

There was no candidate for the papacy that would "throw 2000 years of tradition down the drain". John Kerry wasn't running for Pope. The most "liberal" candidate was against abortion and stem cell research. But the Church picked the most alienating, divisive candidate they could find. And that is an unwise move for a Church struggling with a Crisis of Faith to begin with.

again, you seem to believe that the church should match your personal world view.

How is electing someone who was JP2's "right hand" a divisive candidate?

This was one of the quickest papal elections on record, the Cardinals from all around the world didnt seem all too divided. Why would you assume he is devisive at all?

Proof is there staring you in the face that John Pauls popularity was enormous, yet you insist that someone who closely matches his beliefs is a bad pick?

whatever dude, if you say something enough, it must be true to you, right?

[Destino]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Abstinence works. But you actually have to PRACTICE abstinence. Not just SAY your going to do it.

You don't need a safety vest or life boats if you don't sink. So it's easy, just don't allow the boat to sink and we don't have to mess with all these saftey classes and equipment. We'll save a bundle!

[lckelsey4]

again, you seem to believe that the church should match your personal world view.

This is a trend that many people in this country and europe seem to want, every single organization to conform to their world view. Pretty soon so many accomodations are made that entities don't even know what they are or even were anymore.

[GrimReefa]

Originally posted by Fatty P For The Pulitzer

What is your beef with the Catholic Church? The Church isn't going to conform to values they believe are immoral so they can include more people. Haven't done it in 2000 years, and aren't going to start now.

Oh really? Been to any stonings lately? How about a witch burning? Inquistion still around?

And you're right about the priesthood declining, but wrong about membership. Membership in America and Europe may be down, but it is booming in the 3rd world. I wasn't against a 3rd world Pope, I actually like the sound of a couple of them, but the Church doesn't need one because that is where it is having its most success. And a 3rd world Pope wasn't going to come in and turn the Church upside down. In my opinion, an outspoken 3rd world Pope would've been worse for the progressives wanting change in the Church because he would've exposed all the neglect the 3rd world gets. More badmouthing Americans and Europeans, which would've pi$$ed you off even more.

Pi$$ed me off? All progressives hate America, didn't you know that?

A 3rd World Pope, exposing all the neglect the 3rd World gets, means the Church would shift it's focus from social issues like abortion and stem cell research - where it is generations behind it's time - to issues of economic exploitation, where it is generations ahead of it. When the Pope says that Africans should avoid AIDS by not having sex, everyone roles their eyes. If the Pope says that ignoring the suffering of millions of people living in abject poverty is wrong, and that Catholics everywhere should do their best to uplift their less fortunate brothers the world over - well, then we can make progress.

But the cardinals wanted someone who will defend the tradition of the Church in the developed world, hence Ratzinger, one of the most loyal defenders aside from JP2. Your reasons for why the Church needs to change are the exact reasons why the Church chose Ratzinger. The Church is not going to change to accomodate progressives, the Church wants progressives to listen to their message and change themselves. You clearly don't know a whole lot about Jesus' message and the role of the Pope. The Pope's job isn't to tweek Jesus' teachings as values change, it's to reinforce his message among the changing values. That's the problem with Catholics (and non-Catholics) in developed countries, they wanted someone to come in and rewrite the Bible and throw out Catholic tradition so they can justify self-gratification.

Jesus' message. I always get a kick out of this.

I don't know the Bible backwards and forwards. But it seems to me that Jesus message was that we should treat each other as we ourselves would want to be treated. It seems to me that he said what you do to the least of his bretheren (the poorest? the oppressed?), you do to him. It seems to me that he said moral judgement was reserved for God.

He did not say that bigotry and moral judgement was ok if it was directed towards homosexuals (although that is in the Bible, right next to the bit about not eating shellfish). I CERTAINLY don't remember ever hearing about Jesus' position on whether clergy should be allowed to have families (by the way, contrary to popular belief, the Church has not always prohibited that), or if women should be allowed to have roles of leadership within the Church.

It is possible for the Catholic Church to modernize somewhat without distorting the message of Jesus.

[Fatty P For The Pulitzer]

Originally posted by GrimReefa

Because the Catholic Church is the alternative for millions of third-worlders to Islam, and it would be nice if the impression was given that they might be represented in Rome someday.

There was no candidate for the papacy that would "throw 2000 years of tradition down the drain". John Kerry wasn't running for Pope. The most "liberal" candidate was against abortion and stem cell research. But the Church picked the most alienating, divisive candidate they could find. And that is an unwise move for a Church struggling with a Crisis of Faith to begin with.

With membership doing so well in 3rd world areas though, I guess they feel that trying to draw away from Islam is something that can be successful by adding more Cardinals to these areas, but not bringing in a Pope from there yet. I still think the Church's biggest threat right now is secularism in the developed world.

And as for Ratzinger being divisive, I disagree. The people wanting the Church to conform to the issues of abortion, homosexuality, etc. etc., see him as divisive maybe, but by all accounts, he is going to be a carbon copy of JP2. JP2 was loved by the people, even those who disagreed with his philosophies. I can't say he was the ideal choice, but I do not think he was a bad choice.

[Kilmer17]

Originally posted by Destino

You don't need a safety vest or life boats if you don't sink. So it's easy, just don't allow the boat to sink and we don't have to mess with all these saftey classes and equipment. We'll save a bundle!

apples and porsches.

But your example would work as well. But I dont see ship builders advocating not sailing.

[Fatty P For The Pulitzer]

Originally posted by GrimReefa

It is possible for the Catholic Church to modernize somewhat without distorting the message of Jesus.

Agreed, but as I mentioned earlier, the most radical changes you're going to see are allowing priests to marry, and maybe allowing females to have greater roles in the Church. As for the Church allowing bigotry against homosexuality, are you crazy? Because they say it's immoral makes them bigots? I grew up all around Catholics and in Catholic schools as well, and I've always been taught to hate the sin, but love the sinner.

[GrimReefa]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas

Are you honestly sticking to a statement that 1,100,000,000 people in ONE religion are irrelevant?

http://www.adherents.com/Na/i_c.html

I shouldn't have said the Church. I should have said the Papacy.

And march to irrelavance doesn't mean it's irrelavant now, or will be tommorow. March to irrelavance means it's influence is on the decline.

40 years ago people were afraid that if JFK was elected President, he would be a puupet of the Vatican. Nobody believed that about John Kerry, because they know that the Pope has little sway over what Catholics actually do or believe anymore. The Papacy is on its way to becoming an office of merely symbollic importance, like the monarchy in England, only the English monarchs at least are aware that they have little to know influence over their followers.

[Destino]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

apples and porsches.

But your example would work as well. But I dont see ship builders advocating not sailing.

Of course not, if they stopped sailing we wouldn't be building anymore ships. Sailing is what boats do and no matter how many people label it a dangerous activity, sailing will continue as long as there are boats. So it's best to know your boating saftey before you go sailing.

[ntotoro]

Originally posted by GrimReefa

40 years ago people were afraid that if JFK was elected President, he would be a puupet of the Vatican. Nobody believed that about John Kerry, because they know that the Pope has little sway over what Catholics actually do or believe anymore.

Actually, it was more like people voting for him knew Kerry was a borderline progressive secularist and not necessarily a devout Roman Catholic. I'd suspect more of those people were anti-Bush, anyway, and not necessarily pro-Kerry. Not that Kennedy was really a practitioner of the Church's policies, with his boozing, womanizng and all.

Kerry's family isn't even the Irish-Catholic story he wanted people to believe. He wanted Catholics to believe he was from that cloth to earn their vote as the next Kennedy, but his family was actually Jewish and the family name Irish-ized from Kohn.

Nick