Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by Lorac, Feb 11, 2013.
Ziglet has clearly established himself as the Felix of the pair, his fate now has him finding empty church wine bottles scattered around the apartment and smelly mitres tossed on the couch.
I'm not certain a "younger" pope will guarantee anything new for the church. Any younger priests I've had have often been more militant, and often less interested in integrating into the community. I figure they're just a shorter road travelled from the seminary, and that's not necessarily a good thing...
That is a solid theory except for the fact that the youngest Cardinal is 53. So they are all far removed from seminary.
And me on my death bed needed to maximize every second, too!
A younger pope would mean nothing IMO, bek is younger and she seems to think there is nothing wrong with the status quo and isn't exactly what I'd call progressive. I think any pope of any age would be exactly the same. The Catholic church doesn't want to progress, nor do they seem to see a need to.
I don't mind some change angelskates as long as the Church sticks with the deposit of the faith. Of course I would want corruption cleaned up....
What would you change? What do you think needs changing? What changes bring about "corruption cleaned up" in your opinion?
Vatican's new spin on Cardinal O'Brien's resignation:
True enough, except I was talking exactly about priests in their 50s versus 70s-80s. But that's just my experience.
I agree with Angelskates.
Well I'd like to see the Church be more open with what's going on. I'm not sure I agree for example with if there is a secret file that file only being known to the current Pope when we are electing a new pope. In general I think less secrecy would be a very good thing.
The Church could change its rules on the priesthood allowing married priests. I'm not necessarily against the current rule but it can be changed...Things like that.
The liturgy can always be changed. Practices etc.
I have a really strong background in theology and Scripture. There are things about the Church's teaching that I struggle with but always on those things I can see where the Church is coming from in Scripture and Tradition... I feel Catholicism has by far the best theology.
Now before people start calling me arrogant I'll say this, why would anyone be any particular religion if they didn't think their religion had the best theology...? I will agree that sadly the church doesn't always live its theology....
I became Catholic because inspite its members the Church after all is a hospital for sinners and those sinners certainly include me. I believe in our Church and I believe the way our Church at the very least decides its teachings is the most Scriptural way to do so.
Good riddance to bad rubbish - this is hypocrisy at its worst.
I'm still shocked by the whole Cardinal O'Brien scandal - he's the cardinal for my diocese. I was confirmed by him, all my siblings and cousins were too and he's been our bishop for as long as I can remember (I even remember him giving me a prize at school on prize giving day). That being said, I think his resignation message kind of says it all. It seems especially shocking considering his outspoken stance on gay marriage. He was even given a "Bigot of the Year" award by a gay rights charity here last year.
Catholic teaching is based on tradition/Scripture. Given the Church's traditional teaching on said subject the Cardinal probably wouldn't be able to advance in the Church if he argued for anything different.
I doubt he wanted to marry any of the young men involved.
Even though he did so dishonestly? The man has admitted his guilt:
It's my understanding that the victims actually came forward some time ago, not just in the last few days. And no one can really believe that he thought other people were making up allegations very similar to what he actually did while the victims of his conduct remained silent.
His failure to make a specific public apology to his victims and to admit that they were men is intolerable.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
A Cardinal who on record as supporting priests being allowed to get married, because of issues with celibacy, but was named bigot of the year for opposing same-sex marriage, who is being exposed as a priest who hit on at least one seminarian and three priests.
I wonder if he ever met J. Edgar Hoover.
No kidding he did it dishonestly! Where was I saying he was being honest? I was stating where the hypocrisy would come from. His wanting to move up in the Church. So saying doing what needs to be said. Its not shocking that people would say one thing and do the opposite in order to move up in their career...
Perhaps he may have still believed it but was having a hard time living. But the hypocrisy isn't shocking.
God I loved that show!Before my time, but I caught it on reruns
I disagree--someone doesn't have to be a militant homophobe in order to advance in any ecclesial structure. All that one has to say is the issue is a sensitive one and socially contested, so we need to dialogues while also upholding core Church teachings. That leaves doors open to move in any number of directions without demonizing any particular side.
Far too often those who are the most outspoken against same-sex relationships are hiding their own same-sex sexual activities.
Pre-conclave discussions and preparations are underway:
Conclave begins Tuesday:
My bet is Odilio Scherer of Brazil. He's relatively young by papal standards (63), the pope was supposed to make a big trip to Brazil this year before his resignation. The biggest expansion of the church right now is in Latin America and Africa. That being said, the other choice I think is Peter Turkson of Ghana, again, younger by papal standards, could help bring an even bigger presence to Africa where they have big potential for expanding their base, and I believe he is on the more conservative end of the church. If they want to keep it in Europe Erdo of Hungary, Barbarin of France are potential picks, and of course if they want an Italian Cardinal I think Angelo Scola, Angelo Bagnasco and possibly Amato, but I don't think they want to elect anyone who is older than 70. I believe Ratzinger was more of a transitional pope after such a long papacy that preceded him that they'll want someone who will be in that role for a generation. I could be wrong, they could go with someone who could be a complete surprise.
They could go with Marc Oulette of Canada...
There is no way they will elect a black Pope. Scherer maybe but my bets are on somebody European.
I heard the Canadian is on the short list.
I'm Canadian and that thought makes me
Another Canadian Catholic who shudders at the thought of Oulette as Pope. So does my 80 yr old devout mother.
Cell phone jamming devices--crackdown on indiscreet cardinals
Everything I've heard about him indicates that he is extremely conservative; particularly about all issues involving women.
Quebeckers cool to Cardinal Ouellet’s papal candidacy.
Thanks for the info.
He's probably going to win then.
So one of my racist Appalachian hillbilly relatives mused on Facebook this morning that if we had a conclave to elect presidents in the U.S. we never would have "got stuck" with a black president.
I am now wishing for Cardinal Turkson of Ghana to be chosen. Just for the sake of seeing what kind of meltdown these people, all of them Catholic, have.
That's funny because, if we'd had a conclave, whose to say we wouldn't have had a black president ages ago and a woman at some point too.
I agree with your sentiment but unfortunately the African bishops are amongst the most conservative ones. :/
The only possible good outcome if Oulette were to become Pope is that perhaps it would further unite the women of the church to actively protest the exclusion of women. His actions certainly have here in Canada.
Separate names with a comma.