The Pope resigns / New Pope discussion

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
He looks humble and nervous. Better impression than Benedict XVI who seemed too thrilled to say he dreaded being elected.
 
out of the fire, rises, Franciscum

white-smoke-8498ca9a7205d2fdfce412b84b6f2fc938fc76ff-s40.jpg
 
Con - has the same old views on abortion and homosexuality. Criticized Argentina allowing same sex marriage.

Pro - he took public transportation as archbishop and supposedly cooked his own meals.

:shrug:
 
Does anyone expect much to change? I sure don't.

This church is only growing in places where gay rights do not exist.

There will be no married priest anytime soon. With married priests comes children up the ying yang, remember no birth control.
Who supports these priests' children? And then there is divorce, child support??
 
what is positive, i suppose, is that this pope cares about the poor.

which is very unusual for conservatives.

as for SSM and abortion and vaginas, did we expect anything different?
 
I believe a Pope cares about the poor when he starts selling off the valuables in the Vatican to go to charity :)
 
.
CBS News papal consultant Monsignor Anthony Figueiredo said Bergoglio “did not want to be pope.”

“This man did not expect to be pope,” Figueiredo said, adding that Bergoglio’s selection is an “incredibly courageous choice.”

The new pope, who had a lung removed when he was a teenager due to a lung infection, reportedly got the second most votes after Joseph Ratzinger in the 2005 papal election to replace Pope John Paul II. Bergoglio is the first Jesuit to become pontiff.

CBS News reports that Bergoglio is not a favorite of the Vatican curia.

“This man now has a clear mandate from 115 cardinals to come in and clear out the curia,” Monsignor Figueiredo said.
 
He didn't want to be Pope? Would be funny if we'll get a scene like from the movie "Habemus Papam" with the newly elected Pope just running away and hiding :lol:

Seriously, I wouldn't get my hopes up about reforms and stuff, won't happen.
 
Disappointed given some of the other options out there, but at least it's something sorta fresh and new.

At least going to give the guy a shot for a few years.
 
seems he's really focused on poverty and not being wealthy, and that he acknowledges other religions exist.

Paul Ryan -- a rich kid who took a summer job flipping hamburgers so you know he's self-made and knows about workin' for a livin' -- is going to hate him.
 
Well, it's about as progressive a choice as one could hope for given the state of the Catholic Church and its hierarchy. Definitely more a "man of the people" than Ratzinger ever was, and has some encouraging views on the overly clerical nature of the Church, but he's still virulently homophobic and hasn't offered much in the way of hope on reforming the church's view on the role of women in the church. But who knows. There's definitely a greater chance of seeing some meaningful reform than had we gone with Turkson or any of the Italians.
 
I'm not being overly optimistic that the Catholic Church will do a 180 and be more in touch with the times. It saddens me that the church has so many leaders with very archaiac views, as if found in many religions. Maybe when I'm 75, religious leaders will think as they should've at the age I am now.
 
I just don't know what you want from the Church, honestly. Be more in touch with the times? That's not exactly the Church's job.
 
Hey, I grew up Catholic and it was a big part of my life. I've heard some people say the whole Catholic culture never really leaves you and you always feel some sort of connection to it. I say I don't identify as Catholic, yet I say I am because I was raised as one. I certainly don't agree with its social views and some of it's traditions, so it's not like I'm overly defendant of the church.

As for being in touch with the times not being the Church's job, I find that comment odd. Are you saying it is supposed to keep it's medieval mindset?
 
I think the argument is that the church's job is to be a (or the) moral authority throughout times, changing or not. The church and its teachings should be constant and unwavering regardless of changing times. If the church changes whenever the culture does, then it loses the moral heft of its positions coming down from God.

Some would argue, anyway. I would argue that God gave us the intelligence to learn about, experiment, and form a better understanding of the world around us, and if that's true then we should be able to reinterpret our understanding of God's teachings in light of that increased understanding.
 
I think the argument is that the church's job is to be a (or the) moral authority throughout times, changing or not. The church and its teachings should be constant and unwavering regardless of changing times. If the church changes whenever the culture does, then it loses the moral heft of its positions coming down from God.

Some would argue, anyway. I would argue that God gave us the intelligence to learn about, experiment, and form a better understanding of the world around us, and if that's true then we should be able to reinterpret our understanding of God's teachings in light of that increased understanding.

Thanks for clarifying. I also agree with most of what you said.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with religious leaders being more open to women's issues and the gay community - which is what I was referring to. I don't mean the church should sell out, but not be so dogmatic.
 
An organisation that huge should really adapt to the changing social landscape. We now understand that scrutinising against gays and women is ridiculous. Why stay so rooted in 12th century ideals?

That said it is great to see a pope from South America and one who is in touch with the poor.
 
I believe the Church could and, at some point must, shed the dogma that rests on tradition alone. Some of this stuff could be let go of very easily. The business of strict celibate priesthood was a medieval innovation initially on practical grounds (preventing clerical dynasties, not to mention the costs of supporting a priest's family), the evidence suggests the very early Church did have women acting in clerical roles and as our departed Melon pointed out time and time again the prohibition on homosexuality is based upon a terrible misunderstanding of scripture.

That leaves abortion. You can't please everyone.
 
I believe the Church could and, at some point must, shed the dogma that rests on tradition alone. Some of this stuff could be let go of very easily. The business of strict celibate priesthood was a medieval innovation initially on practical grounds (preventing clerical dynasties, not to mention the costs of supporting a priest's family), the evidence suggests the very early Church did have women acting in clerical roles and as our departed Melon pointed out time and time again the prohibition on homosexuality is based upon a terrible misunderstanding of scripture.

That leaves abortion. You can't please everyone.

Yeah I completely agree with this, particularly with regards to marriage. Paul was very explicit about the potential harm of celibacy and it has manifested itself.
 
I heard a newscaster say "Latin America has been waiting 20 centuries for this!"

Um ..... yeah. Pretty sure that would have been pretty low on their wish list up until the last handful of centuries.
 
This pope reportedly as only one lung. And he's 76 years old. They couldn't have agreed on a Latin American cardinal was a little younger and more healthier?
 
If I heard correctly, he lost the lung when he was quite young. If he's made it this far, I think he's doing fine managing with just the one.
 
I just don't know what you want from the Church, honestly. Be more in touch with the times? That's not exactly the Church's job.

To be less irresponsible with the millions of followers would be a good start. Maybe condoms for Africans isn't such a bad idea
 
Back
Top Bottom