How will the Catholic Church change with a new Pope?

Just curious what everyone thinks. John Paul II was very traditional in a lot of ways and sort of a “hard-liner.” While he did some things remarkable for a Pontiff (eg apologizing for not doing more to stop the Holocaust), he overall “held the line” and didn’t back down on some issues that where compromise may have increased the “popularity” of Catholicism.

Will the RCC pick another conservative hardliner or are they looking for a more “modern” Pope?

more “modern” pope?

define “modern”

temporally yes…

church dogma is church dogma…

sin is sin…

a new “modern” take on adultry perhaps?

I don’t think so…

-Imp

I think the pedophilia scandal will have an impact- I expect that the new Pope will have to say some strong things about that almost immediately. That will probably lead to a more hardline pontiff.

I don’t think the pope really matters anymore. Considering many want to bestow the “Great” title next to this deceased ones name, he watched the church’s profits (pun) and followers discrease in rational size by nearly 1/3.

A few things a “modern” Pope might do, Imp, would be to drop a few bits of Church doctrine that even they don’t claim came from the Bible. A good example is the rule that priests can’t marry. According to an article I read a while back, this prohibition is creating something of a crisis for the Church as they’re having trouble attracting young men to become priests.

how about not pushing the ineffectiveness of condoms on the world? this alone has caused massive irreparable damage in Africa, as a great way to prevent the spread of disease and the birth of unwanted children is now being altogether NOT used because the Pope said that condoms were uneffective at preventing pregnancy and preventing the spread of disease.

so I’d like to see a modern pope, allow priestal marriage, and decry the importance of condoms, and finally solve the worlds energy crisis.

in other words, become a liberal democrat and not a catholic…

-Imp

That's about how I see it.  I respect any organization that can maintain it's doctrines for over a thousands years. There's no need to change just because sensibilities of the past 50 years or so don't jive with their traditions. I'm not a Catholic because I disagree with them about stuff- but I see no reason to recommend how they ought to change from the outside.  The new Pope should do what's best for [i]Catholicism[/i], and not change anything to meet demands of people who have no interest in being Catholic.

John Paul II was a ‘hardliner’ because he saw the wavering of faith that came from a century of increasing skepticism. While he ‘shored up’ the faith, little was done in those doctrinal disputes. The issues that divide the church from mainstream thought are still there and will eventually have to be addressed. I think he did what was immediately important and did it well, but it remain’s to be seen whether the new pope will try to begin the rapproachment between the church and secular world, or simply hold the line established by John Paul.

JT

Why should a Church address disputes between it’s thought, and secular thought? By definition, secular thought will always differ from the opinions of the Church, and secular thought will probably completely change in a generation or two.

Well, mostly because the followers of any religion have both secular and spiritual lives. With the exception of the monastic life, most folks must find ways of living in both the secular world as well their churches. When the dissonance between the secular and religious beliefs get large enough, something must give.

JT

What does this mean?

It’s certainly not a coherent point.

May God bless his soul.

Yes in a way I totally agree with you, but on the other hand the Pope and the Catholic church - in a way - carriy responsibility for their believers.
So I think they have to work on some points. E.g. their attitudes towards condoms and prevention. They don’t say their statements for their owns. They say this claiming it were the will of God. And that is the point where it is blasphemous, in my opinion. I’m sorry, I do not want to be offending any religious feelings of somebody here, but how can a human dare to say he/she knew the will of God?

wandertaube,

Anything the pope says is through the will of god. He is the Vicar of Christ and his words are infallible.

JT

tentative:

Yes, but he has not been infallible for every time. Only since the First Vatican Concil. Until then he, too, could err. Umm, I think he still can err today. The unfallibility is only given when he teaches in a special way. I don’t remember how this was called (somewhat in latin :slight_smile: ) .

Is this all based on the Bible? Do you know whether in the Bible there is information for reasoning the existence of the Pope?

If God is allmighty, what is the Pope needed for on earth?

wandertaube,

I sort of went out of my way to not know the particulars of the infallibility issue, and no, there is no direct biblical reference to the pope although catholic apologists will be happy to provide references to the connection between Peter and the succession of papal authority. I am really out of my element here, so I must defer to someone with better history notes than I have.

JT

heres a historical note: pope urban said crusades are great. issue solved, popes arent infallible.

its a good thing all our news networks spent hours upon hours repeating ‘hes freaking dead’ (more or less), when they could have been giving giving the public valuable information about crises that actually affect their lives. …hahaha!!!

the pope cant change his mind, or the mind of his predecessor. hes like dubya, if he doesnt have resolve pouring out of every orifice, his whole credibility is shot.

Hmmm…I think the Crusades were pretty cool. At least, cool to read about.

Well, it's blashphemous in my opinion too- I'm a Protestant. Nevertheless, there's no good reason for the Pope to chance his stance on things like contraception, outisde of secular demand, and modern cultuirals issues, like that fact that people scoff at the idea of having sex with only one person for the most part. 

Well, that’s my point. I don’t know how the Catholics justify the authority of the Pope, but it’s a part of their faith. What you’re realling talking about has nothing to do with contraception, and everything to do with undermining a key tenet of Catholicism, it looks like here.

 Well, we've got two different definitions of 'secular' here. When you say 'living a secular life', you mean anything outside of going to Church, apparently.  When I talk about 'secular opinions', I mean opinions that conflict with Church teachings, and stem from sources outside the Church.  To put the two usages together- there's no reason why a person living their secular lives have to be guided by secular opinion. 

And the current thoughts of secularism will give, in a generation or two.