NationStates Jolt Archive

It may be a bit distasteful to talk about the Pope's successor right after the Pope dies. However, such talk is inevitable, as the new pope will be elected soon.
I personally think that the next pope must continue the legacy of John Paul II. That he was a great pope that should be emulated at the top is undeniable. However, big problems were forming toward the end of his papacy.
The end of communism that John Paul II helped to bring about was a boon for Catholicsm, indeed for all of Christianity. The world became more free and open to ideas, and Catholicsm specifically has grown rapidly in Eastern Europe. In addition, the church in Africa and Asia has been growing at a breathtaking rate.
But there has been a problem in the core of Catholicsm: Western Europe and America. Western Europe has been shedding Catholics like a snake sheds its skin, but I profess ignorance at the exact situation. Instead, I will focus on the US and Canada.
Catholicsm has remained more or less intact in members, and is actually growing in the South. But the problem lies in the deep divides that have been created. The Pope was the first to call for a "Culture of Life", yet many Americans seem to not want that. Most American Catholics support the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, birth control, and most recently, most American Catholics supported Michael Schaivo. In addition, there has been a left/right divide in Catholicsm, each professing to celebrate a "purer" Christianity. Both pick and choose what to agree with the Vatican on.
Whichever side is right is irrelevant to the fact that a problem exists. The Pope, as great of a guy as he is, did little to address this. He also failed to address the even bigger crisis in Western Europe.
The issue of Islam is also sticky. The Pope did much to address this. I just want to see a pope that continues to engage the Muslims. In particular, I want him to help protect and preserve the Eastern Churches of the Middle East that are under attack by Muslim extremists.
Finally, I myself have a problem that I try to look to the Vatican for guidance, but their answer is inconclusive: why are their social teachings so different from other Christians. Those who know me will know that I am a staunch supporter of capitalism, and firmly believe that it helps all in the long run. Yet not since Pope Pius IX has this issue been addressed thouroughly, and he simply said something about a "third way" between capitalism and socialism. But I have questions that remain unanswered. Do they still believe that money is the root of all evil? Is a profit motive allowed, and if so, when does it turn into greed?
For these reasons, I'd like to see a pope that is proactive on these issues. Too liberal of a pope would alienate newer Catholics. Too conservative of a pope may be the end of the churches in Europe and America. We need someone who is intellectual and authoritative. We also don't need a pope from Africa, for while that may be a good idea, the church there is far too young to rapidly Africanize the institution. We need someone from a more established church, like in Latin America or Europe.
The church needs change. JP2 was a great man, but a few issues developed around the end of his life that he couldn't control. But we need to keep one aspect of his legacy alive: we Catholics must always maintain dialogue with eachother, and our brothers and sisters in Christ.

I agree almost wholeheartedly with your assessment of the situation. While I think we need a centrist Pope in order to unite Catholics, but I also think we need a Pope that will be able to adapt to changing politics and aditudes, and work for change when neccesary.

Thus, I hope for more of an "evolutionary" Pope, one who will help the church grow in its foundations, rather than "revolutionary".

BTW, mods, would you mind if this thread was not merged with the others? I regard it as independent of other threads, as these are specifically my thoughts. Thanks for your understanding.

Okay Jp2 sounds like a robot, which is pretty much what the Vatican made him be, it has been a disgraceful last few months, though I knew his death would cloud it.

Africanize the church? Wtf?

A too liberal pope probably wouldn't exist as anyone too liberal is not truly catholic from my point of view. Too liberal including against war and mass sufferage, for gay rights etc whilst conservatives are neither of those things, so I think a too liberal Pope is the least of your problems.

The new pope is probably going to be taken as a celebrity, as televised as a presidential as trivial to the masses as the latest contestant voted off American Idol.

And if your one of those people who think birth control is wrong, I'm not even gonna bother.

Okay Jp2 sounds like a robot, which is pretty much what the Vatican made him be, it has been a disgraceful last few months, though I knew his death would cloud it.

Africanize the church? Wtf?

A too liberal pope probably wouldn't exist as anyone too liberal is not truly catholic from my point of view. Too liberal including against war and mass sufferage, for gay rights etc whilst conservatives are neither of those things, so I think a too liberal Pope is the least of your problems.

The new pope is probably going to be taken as a celebrity, as televised as a presidential as trivial to the masses as the latest contestant voted off American Idol.

And if your one of those people who think birth control is wrong, I'm not even gonna bother.

Well, I do think that the birth control stance is a little archaic. As for the Africanization comment, there will undoubtedly be more archbishops annointed for Africa. While I think that this needs to be done, it should be done slowly. The African church is much too young. Giving Africans a major role in the Vatican right now would be like giving a five year old a large corporation: they can't make it work. Their are, however, more established churches. They are in Eastern and Western Europe, Latin America, and the Philipines.

Oh, and one last thing I want from the Pope. Out of the nine times he visited the US, two were to Alaska. Alaska is a great place, but who lives there? When this next pope visits the US, can he actually visit the bigger cities? :D

No thoughts on this?

bump

I think it's almost certain the next pope will be Cardinal Ratzinger. From Grand Inquisitor of Rome to Pope. I'm not entirely sure if that's a good thing, though....

Well, I do think that the birth control stance is a little archaic. As for the Africanization comment, there will undoubtedly be more archbishops annointed for Africa. While I think that this needs to be done, it should be done slowly. The African church is much too young. Giving Africans a major role in the Vatican right now would be like giving a five year old a large corporation: they can't make it work. Their are, however, more established churches. They are in Eastern and Western Europe, Latin America, and the Philipines.

But whats the difference between one learned christian and another. Are you calling chritianity a corporation. Isn't it all about compassion, not money lending and politics.

Do they still believe that money is the root of all evil?

Umm, I think it was "Love of money is the root of all evil."

The next Pope should probably be more progressive on feminist issues. JP2, for all the good he did, wasn't exactly "with it" when it came to the role of women in the world.

You're right about the "picking and choosing" of Catholic policies by United States politicians. It seems to be "The Pope supports it!" whenever he's in favor of one particular policy, but it's always a rationalization; nobody listens to him before they make their decision.

And I thought the Church only grew by 1% here in the U.S.? Doesn't that seem kind of stagnant? If the U.S. population grew at that rate, we'd be in big trouble.

I think JP2 tried to stay out of the messy parts of politics, though, and let the individual countries work it out. It would... look bad.. if it seemed as though he was meddling, or one's representatives were taking their cues from the pontiff.

I believe that the Church needs to find a way to communicate with "today's" audience, espically the young people. I've read on this forum and many other how former Catholics felt that the church wasn't responsive, or they felt alienated in the church. The next Pope needs to find a way to reach out to these people and to apply Jesus teaching, the Church teachings to today's youth. Now for the issues.

Birth Control: change it to allow condoms and pills

Abortion: Stay the course do not change

Women priest: Stay the same, we have nuns. Now before you think that nuns are just "below" the Fathers (Catholic Priest). You need to think about Mother Theresa, Saint Joan of Arc, and other famous Catholic nuns that did ALOT for the world. Being a nun isn't a bad thing. Sometimes I talk to the nuns at the local semitatry (don't know how to spell it) and I enjoy my converstation with them.

Women right: I believe that other than Fathers and Nuns, the Pope should take an equality stance on the sexs.

Other than that, I think the next Pope can learn from Pope John Paul the II.

A too liberal pope probably wouldn't exist as anyone too liberal is not truly catholic from my point of view. Too liberal including against war and mass sufferage, for gay rights etc whilst conservatives are neither of those things, so I think a too liberal Pope is the least of your problems.

The Pope along with the majority of Catholics, was anti-war and against the death penalty.

I'm not Catholic, not even Christian, and there will be those who will say my views don't, or shouldn't count-

To that a chuckled "whatever"

JP2 did so much for his religion, and was such a impressive role model that I think his sucessor will have a very hard time 'filling his ring'.

I have seen articles on the various 'most likely to be elected' over the last few months, and have listened to my parents and their friends ( yes I was raised in the Catholic church ) - and I am rather concerned, as those 'most likely too' all seem to be of a far different mold that JP2. They seem to hold far more conservative views, 'isolationist' views

And I think that would be a terrible setback for the RC. The RC needs to move forward.

The RC has never held women as the equal of men -either among the secular or the clergy. This must to change

(I personally feel that women can have as priestly a calling as men, but thats a change that will come slowly I fear. )
And no -nuns are not the equal of priests within the church and again never have been.

The RC needs to openly repudiate the unwritten, but strongly held, 11th commandment - 'Go Forth and Multiply'-birth control beyond abstinence and the rythmn method must be allowed.

Abortion -The stance on this is never going to change, given the belief that life ( personehood ) begins at conception and that an unborn's right to life is more valid that the mothers.

I am amused. You all are blithely throwing your opinions out into the dark, but none of you have mentioned anything about likely successors to His Holiness. Just spouting your opinions without a thought of whether they have a chance of becoming Vatican doctrine? Pure foolishness. Why don't you discuss the men whose policies have a realistic chance of becoming Church law?

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/nation/11301064.htm

I am amused. You all are blithely throwing your opinions out into the dark, but none of you have mentioned anything about likely successors to His Holiness. Just spouting your opinions without a thought of whether they have a chance of becoming Vatican doctrine? Pure foolishness. Why don't you discuss the men whose policies have a realistic chance of becoming Church law?

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/nation/11301064.htm
I have one in mind. I can't remember his name off the top of my head, but he is an Austrian archbishop. He may come across as too patrician, for he is a count, and three members of his family were once cardinals. But he is the most intellectual of the cardinals.

You're right about the "picking and choosing" of Catholic policies by United States politicians. It seems to be "The Pope supports it!" whenever he's in favor of one particular policy, but it's always a rationalization; nobody listens to him before they make their decision.
It's not just politicians. The clergy and laypeople love doing it, too.

I think JP2 tried to stay out of the messy parts of politics, though, and let the individual countries work it out. It would... look bad.. if it seemed as though he was meddling, or one's representatives were taking their cues from the pontiff.
His hallmark was involvement, or else he wouldn't rally the Poles against the USSR. But he went on to hate almost every politician. He scolded Pres. Clinton for his sex incident, and both Bushes for their wars in Iraq. Politically, he was opposed to capitalism, communism, socialism, and every other ism that didn't involve some form of heavy church influence. He was an advocate of personal liberty, yet hated what it brought. He repeatedly admonished the Poles after communism for "material influences".

But whats the difference between one learned christian and another. Are you calling chritianity a corporation. Isn't it all about compassion, not money lending and politics.
Compassion is a red herring. It is a friend of poverty, not a cure for poverty, as it trumps itself up to be. We have seen, however, that the free markets have lifted millions from poverty in Asia, India, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. As nice of a woman as Mother Theresa was, the free market did more than a million Mother Theresas could hope to accomplish.

I think it's almost certain the next pope will be Cardinal Ratzinger. From Grand Inquisitor of Rome to Pope. I'm not entirely sure if that's a good thing, though....
Cardinal Ratzinger seems like a good administrator, though I think we need a theologian. In any event, he shouldn't live for much longer. It seems as if the cardinals will want an older guy to become pope.

The Pope along with the majority of Catholics, was anti-war and against the death penalty.
And there was many things that the majority of Catholics disagreed with him on. Take birth control. Catholics that like one administrative decision of the Pope's conviniently forget that he had others that were contraversial to everyone. Luckily for him, he was one of the few humans whose mere presence rose above himself.

Umm, I think it was "Love of money is the root of all evil."
And they have never addressed how money can be a good thing. No one seems to realize that money can lift people out of poverty, or buy them a comfortable life. My theory is that the axiom was created in the Middle Ages to justify why so many of the serfs had very little money. At the same time, it was to help breed anti-Semitism, seeing how the Jews were forced to become bankers or starve to death.
Of course, the popes of that era were rarely impoverished. They built palaces, fortresses, bought land, etc. It was during this time period that St. Peter's Basillica was built. I don't know how much it costed, but from the look of it, it was probably enough to feed a small country for generations.
Then again, they may have a point. During this period of great wealth, many popes were known for their wild parties. In the 15th century, in fact, a small nursery was maintained in the Vatican for the pope's illigitimate children. And of course, that was the period when they sold indulgences, rumored to forgive raping the Virgin Mary if it were possible.

bump

One thing we can already say about the new pope is that he's in some stupid way connected to glory of olives :p

One thing we can already say about the new pope is that he's in some stupid way connected to glory of olives :p
We're getting a little too silly, here.

the major issue I have with catholism (except their stance on birth control) is how can one of the richest organizations in the world preach charity?

I would have more respect for it as a religeon if they remembered that charity begins at home - huge double standard there in my opinion (and yes I respect all religeons and peoples right to practice their faith)

We're getting a little too silly, here.

Well the whole topic is a little silly to me since it's very highly possible that there'll be another conclave before the 2008 election.

I think it will all boil down between Arinze, Ratzinger and Sodano (I really hope it's Arinze, maybe that would help with the racist problem we're having in Poland), I'm not really acquainted with their views though.

And I bet all kinds of money that whoever it is, he'll choose the name John Paul III :)

Well the whole topic is a little silly to me since it's very highly possible that there'll be another conclave before Bush's successor is chosen.


WOW Bush was pope as well as president of the USA?

In a serious manner, I think that the Roman Catholic Church needs to maintain the same ideals that John Paul II has been upholding during his papacy. The reasons set forth in Humanae Vitae ( Paul VI, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html) are sufficient to justify the bans on abortion, birth control, and premarital sex. Basically, if the Catholic Church wants to maintain any credibility, they have to maintain those bans. The only reason so many on this forum are opposed to these bans is due to the effects of society. If they were to lift these bans so that they may become more 'hip' or 'cool', then it would show that there really is no set law of right and wrong, or rather that what is right and wrong is defined by society and not by the God that they believe in. Basically, they believe that sex is meant to be there for two reasons, as an expression of love, and for procreation (to allow God to form another human being). If a family does not have the means to support many children, then they do allow the biological methods of birth control. Since that is their belief, then I feel it is quite logical to ban birth control and promiscuous sex. As for the choice of Pope, that should be based solely on the spiritual way in which he could lead the church, and should not have as much to do with politics as others on this forum have suggested.

In response to allegations against their charitable spirit, most of their money, I have found, does go towards charity, but their riches are largely because of the possession of priceless works of arts, and the maitenance of their real estate. I hardly think it logical that you would expect them to sell the Sistine Chapel. They probably could give a little more, but I know that in Canada, at least, they are the largest charitable organization.

Well the whole topic is a little silly to me since it's very highly possible that there'll be another conclave before Bush's successor is chosen.

So you believe that Pres. Bush has a significant influence on who the next pope is?

So you believe that Pres. Bush has a significant influence on who the next pope is?

I now have a great example for my syntax class about how important it really is :D Look up :)

In a serious manner, I think that the Roman Catholic Church needs to maintain the same ideals that John Paul II has been upholding during his papacy. The reasons set forth in Humanae Vitae ( Paul VI, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html) are sufficient to justify the bans on abortion, birth control, and premarital sex. Basically, if the Catholic Church wants to maintain any credibility, they have to maintain those bans. The only reason so many on this forum are opposed to these bans is due to the effects of society. If they were to lift these bans so that they may become more 'hip' or 'cool', then it would show that there really is no set law of right and wrong, or rather that what is right and wrong is defined by society and not by the God that they believe in. Basically, they believe that sex is meant to be there for two reasons, as an expression of love, and for procreation (to allow God to form another human being). If a family does not have the means to support many children, then they do allow the biological methods of birth control. Since that is their belief, then I feel it is quite logical to ban birth control and promiscuous sex. As for the choice of Pope, that should be based solely on the spiritual way in which he could lead the church, and should not have as much to do with politics as others on this forum have suggested.

Perhaps many on these forums believe that, but I don't. To be honest,I only feel as if their stance on contraception is archaic. Life is no happy accident. People choose to have sex, and it is never some random thing that happens. Therefore, humans can choose the creation of life, and ought to be allowed to moderate its creation. However, humans have no right to end that life once it has been created, except of course in the most extraordinary of circumstances. That's just my two cents, though.

Did I scare everyone away?

bump

I now have a great example for my syntax class about how important it really is :D Look up :)
My syntax is fine.

i dont know anything about the "candidates" so i cant speculate on who would make the best pope. just as well really since i have utterly no say in the matter

but i hope the new pope addresses the worst problems of the church in the US. namely the priest shortage, the loss of membership to the protestant churches and the pedophilia scandal.

if the priest shortage could be fixed, it would go a long way toward fixing the sex scandals. no incentive to keep priests around "at all costs".

married priest, female priests or not expecting priests to serve for life could go most of the way to fixing that problem.

married priests would almost instantly fill all the empty spots and maybe even allow for the re-opening of smaller churches in rural areas. it would also fix the disproportianate amount of gay priests (there is no "problem" with gay men being priests in a celibate priesthood, but its better to have their numbers be more in line with the general population)

even with a celibate priesthood, the number of women willing to do the job would almost certainly fill the empty spots around the country.

if they cant be married and they cant be women, then maybe expecting a man to be a priest for 10 years at a time (allowing for re-upping) instead of life would allow men to both serve god and then have a family after their time as a priest is up

loss of membership is more difficult since most of that is due to people not being able to live with the conservative policies of the church-- no divorce, no birth control etc.

I hear that they are moving to have John Paul II renamed as John Paul the Great.

As for the next Pope, it is best not to speculate. Because there are so many potential Popes (114 Cardinals, all elligble to be voted as pontiff) and because campaigning is discouraged, it is very difficult for outside observers like us to make a realistic prediction. We dont know the many divisions and factions that lie within the Catholic Church's upper hierarchy. We can only make a stab by selecting the three limited labels of 'conservative', 'moderate' and 'liberal'. And remember that no commentator expected the Archbishop of Krakow (John Paul II) to be elected Pope.

i dont know anything about the "candidates" so i cant speculate on who would make the best pope. just as well really since i have utterly no say in the matter

but i hope the new pope addresses the worst problems of the church in the US. namely the priest shortage, the loss of membership to the protestant churches and the pedophilia scandal.

if the priest shortage could be fixed, it would go a long way toward fixing the sex scandals. no incentive to keep priests around "at all costs".

married priest, female priests or not expecting priests to serve for life could go most of the way to fixing that problem.

married priests would almost instantly fill all the empty spots and maybe even allow for the re-opening of smaller churches in rural areas. it would also fix the disproportianate amount of gay priests (there is no "problem" with gay men being priests in a celibate priesthood, but its better to have their numbers be more in line with the general population)

even with a celibate priesthood, the number of women willing to do the job would almost certainly fill the empty spots around the country.

if they cant be married and they cant be women, then maybe expecting a man to be a priest for 10 years at a time (allowing for re-upping) instead of life would allow men to both serve god and then have a family after their time as a priest is up

loss of membership is more difficult since most of that is due to people not being able to live with the conservative policies of the church-- no divorce, no birth control etc.
It's why I feel we need an intellectual pope on the throne. They are perfectly able to keep their stances on certain issues if they can change their presentation. However, the Church does need to change a few positions, IMHO, to face new realities. I believe that with a little thought and creativeness in its implementation, the Church can change many rules in ways that are consistent with the teachings of Christ.

Then again, we can reflect on the fact that Christ showed us that there is no one way to do things. There is a reason why four Gospels exist instead of one: there were four different people with four different interpretations, and there are profound differences. Change may be hard, but change in the church does not equal blasphemy.

I hear that they are moving to have John Paul II renamed as John Paul the Great.
I think a different epitaph would suit him better, like John Paul the Great Communicator. Yet I hope that he is cannonized in my lifetime. There are only two popes in the 20th century that should be. One is John XIV. The other is JP2.
As for the next Pope, it is best not to speculate. Because there are so many potential Popes (114 Cardinals, all elligble to be voted as pontiff) and because campaigning is discouraged, it is very difficult for outside observers like us to make a realistic prediction. We dont know the many divisions and factions that lie within the Catholic Church's upper hierarchy. We can only make a stab by selecting the three limited labels of 'conservative', 'moderate' and 'liberal'. And remember that no commentator expected the Archbishop of Krakow (John Paul II) to be elected Pope.
Therein lies another way we can reform the church. The Pope can claim infalliability all he wants, yet the claim is hard when each pope has a slightly different theology. We need to have glasnost in the Roman Catholic Church, and encourage it to change and evolve even quicker.
I was touched by how the Vatican is heading in that direction. I read that reporters learnt of the Pope's death literally seconds after it was certified. They did via text messaging. The TV audiences found it out even before the crowd in St. Peter's Square. It shows that the Church is willing to adapt to our world of interactiveness and globalization. Now it has to be consistent.

It's why I feel we need an intellectual pope on the throne. They are perfectly able to keep their stances on certain issues if they can change their presentation. However, the Church does need to change a few positions, IMHO, to face new realities. I believe that with a little thought and creativeness in its implementation, the Church can change many rules in ways that are consistent with the teachings of Christ.

Then again, we can reflect on the fact that Christ showed us that there is no one way to do things. There is a reason why four Gospels exist instead of one: there were four different people with four different interpretations, and there are profound differences. Change may be hard, but change in the church does not equal blasphemy.
oh i like that thought, i had never heard of it before but it resonates with me. different gospels showing that there can be different points of view and approachs to the same truth.

the church will never move FAST to change policies. (im old enough to remember how disconcerting vatican 2 was) but, as you say, it can move to find a way to fit morality in with the realities of modern life.

the church will never move FAST to change policies. (im old enough to remember how disconcerting vatican 2 was) but, as you say, it can move to find a way to fit morality in with the realities of modern life.
Well, the Church may want to reconsider reorganizing itself to a certain extent. Most businesses and countries today, for example, are trending towards horizontal organization. Final word still comes from the top, but for the most part, the low level teams do everything on their own, and not wait for some higher ranking department to help them.
I don't think the church should fully implement this. Horizontal organization is oriented around people's preferences. Christianity is ultimatly God's preferences. But it may help with presentation. The liturgy, for example, should retain a basic skeleton ordered by Rome, but it should be allowed for regional changes. Or at least that is my feeling on this.

id agree with that. with a whole worlds worth of catholics out there, a vatican approved localized liturgy makes good sense.

id agree with that. with a whole worlds worth of catholics out there, a vatican approved localized liturgy makes good sense.
That's actually what the Byzantines did. The only problem was the period of absolute monarchies in Europe. It fragmented the Orthodox Church, and it still hasn't fully recovered. There are big differences between the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches, among others. However, in this day and age, absolute rule on such a large scale seems unlikely.

bump

The next pope should be named Sixtus. So far, there have been five popes with the name sixtus meaning the next one will be Sixtus VI. :D

The next pope should be named Sixtus. So far, there have been five popes with the name sixtus meaning the next one will be Sixtus VI. :D
Sixtus does not mean six in Latin. It is sextus instead.

I don't think that the Church should be so quick to move towards reform. Obviously yes, the changes proposed are all things of Ordinary Magisterium and changes could be made such as married priests (new ones at least, those already priests obviously couldn't), and so are not like a change to Extraordianry Magisterium, like Mary's Assumption. However, even though it can, I am not so sure it should. I mean, it is an institution separate from the mainstream. I cannot see any reason why it should abandon the position it holds now so that it can conform to the will of society. To do so would merely show that God is irrelevant to morality. If, in the end, it is society that changes the Church, then it implies that society is really the determining factor ijn morality. If he established a church on earth, and it just sways about with the wind, then what is left? Does God change in his idea of what is right and what is wrong? The Church should think very carefully before it even begins to think about a reform.

Also, I really can't see why the pope of the Roman Catholic Church should concern himself too much with the status of Protestant membership. They gave him up long ago.

I don't think that the Church should be so quick to move towards reform. Obviously yes, the changes proposed are all things of Ordinary Magisterium and changes could be made such as married priests (new ones at least, those already priests obviously couldn't), and so are not like a change to Extraordianry Magisterium, like Mary's Assumption. However, even though it can, I am not so sure it should. I mean, it is an institution separate from the mainstream. I cannot see any reason why it should abandon the position it holds now so that it can conform to the will of society. To do so would merely show that God is irrelevant to morality. If, in the end, it is society that changes the Church, then it implies that society is really the determining factor ijn morality. If he established a church on earth, and it just sways about with the wind, then what is left? Does God change in his idea of what is right and what is wrong? The Church should think very carefully before it even begins to think about a reform.

Once upon a time, the Church endorsed the Inquisition, the Crusades in the Middle East and the Baltic, and the bloody Reconquista of Spain and Morrocco. Truth be told, no one can know for sure if God wanted this more than the Church's state today. What I am saying is that the Church always evolves. We shouldn't concern ourselves with being exact, but rather, should be focusing on how to bring more people to God. One of the ways I want to do this is by recovering our flock in Europe and America.

It's great that we have so many professed non-Catholics and non-Christians putting in their two cents on what should happen with the Church.

I meant that in the most sardonic way possible. There's a reason the Church is not a democracy; because truth is not a democracy. Thank God for that. True faith is humility in the face of authority, not arrogance which presumes authority.

Two things on this thread;

1) The Churchs teaching on the all-male priesthood will never change, because it can never change. It never amazes me how many times this issue is brought up, how many times the Church responds with a firm "no" - and how many times people hear a "maybe" and bring it up again. It will never happen; Christ chose 12 male Apostles; the priesthood has always been male, and will continue to be male. There have never been (and will never be) women priests. Any who claims such does so in open falsehood. Case closed. (Don't come back with; 'the Church hates women', either: were it not for the unmoving stance of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage, the right of women to choose their vocation, the dignity of the female [as in Mary, the mother of God], etc, women would still be treated like property. The Church changed that; the secular world resisted)

2) The Churchs teaching on artificial contraception will never change, even though those sects around it have changed their teachings. Up until the '30s, practically every major Christian denomination condemned the use of artificial contraceptives; to date, the Catholic Church remains a bulwark against the "sexual revolution" and will never change. There is nothing wrong with Church teaching, there is something wrong with society. The Church will not bend to the out-of-control libido and condone a perversion of the sexual faculty.

Once upon a time, the Church endorsed the Inquisition, the Crusades in the Middle East and the Baltic, and the bloody Reconquista of Spain and Morrocco.

Thank God; too. The Cathars were a huge threat to Langue d'Oc, the Moriscos and Morannos put Spain in dire straights, and the Moslems were hammering the Christian world with Jihad (I celebrate October 7-10; look the dates up). 'To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant'