When the pope dies, what changes will occur?

Originally posted by jeeze louise
Pyros. I am not suggestion that the church should change it's fundamental beliefs, the Golden Calf was about worshipping a different God!

I am talking about keeping up with times where issues such as birth control, family planning, and women in the clergy! For example by telling married couples all over the world that condoms are not to used, they are asking for more HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

They continually take one step back, they have made no progress in following world iniative.Their job as leaders, is to be leaders! Instead they force their flock to follow practices that can only have detrimental results for everyone involved

Your statement is completely contradictory. The use of (or more precisely, the prohibithion of the use of) condoms, family planning, and birth control are fundamental beliefs of the Catholic Church.

Belief systems exist for a reason. Mostly because people believe in them.

If you believe that the Catholic Church should change to better meet your standards of what is a progressive, modern institution, are you ready to get out your red pen and start editing the Bible? Maybe you have some commandments you feel need some updating? Or maybe you think some of the beattitudes should be rephrased?

Originally posted by jeeze louise
I am talking about keeping up with times where issues such as birth control, family planning, and women in the clergy! For example by telling married couples all over the world that condoms are not to used

Disciplines can change. Theological rules can not.

By 'family planning' do you mean abortion? Please specify so I may
comment better. If you are referring to abortion, this is a rule that
will never change. Abortion kills a defenseless human. The pope
doesn't have the authority to change this rule. It's a theological
rule - not a discipline.

Women Clergy - Can't happen. The pope doesn't have the authority
to change that. The 'men clergy only' teaching is in the 'never can change'
rules. It's based on the belief that Christ taught that only men could be
priests because only men were at the Last Supper when the first priests
were ordained (by Christ himself). If He wanted women priests, he would
have had women at the last supper and ordained them with the rest. No
pope will ever have the authority to change the rule. It's completely
unchangeable.

Birth Control - This enters into the 'sin' of Onanism. (I don't believe in, but
I'll give you the Catholic teaching on it). Onanism is another 'sin' that will
never change and no Pope has the authority to change the teaching of this.
It is based on the Old Testament sin of 'spilling seed' (Masterbation) and
God punishing by death. The Catholic Church says God is unchanging and
therefore any sin in the old testament that God would punish with death
is still a mortal sin today. Condoms would fall into Onanism because the
seed is being spilled. If Onanism is being committed outside of marriage,
you then add adultry to the sin of Onanism.

A rule that can change - Married priests. This is a discipline of the church,
not a theological teaching. This discipline is based on the advice of St. Paul
in the New Testament and it is not a teaching from Christ ... therefore, the
Pope DOES have the authority to change this discipline unlike the
theological 'truth' of only men being priests.

Originally posted by jeeze louise
They continually take one step back, they have made
no progress in following world iniative.

Thank God no 'progress' has been made for the Church
to become worldly. It's not the job of the church leaders
to embrace Secular Humanism, it's the job of the church
leaders to make sure their flocks get to heaven. Many of
them have been doing a lousy job of it, but not for the
reason you mentioned. Modernism does not equal
'helping the flock get to heaven'. Most of the time,
modernism does just the opposite.

A couple things could happen.

1. At the time of anti Pope JP2's death it could be the literally prophecied three days
of darkness in which three quarters of the globe would be destroyed.



2. A huge freemason leader could enter in as pope and totally destroy the latin mass and set up the way for the antchrist.





Its really hard to say what will happen, but one thing is for sure an that is the entire hierarchy is filled with freemasons disguised as true catholics.

Many people here are pointing out that the Catholic religion is unchanging in comparison/compliance with modern society.

I would like to start off by saying that I am a Pagan. I am telling you this so you can see that my views are separate from that of the Catholic church. I am seeing things from a different angle (for those of you out there who think that the Catholic beliefs are outdated).

Change should only be made for the better. While I do believe that people should get past things such as age, race, gender, and sexual orientation, I also believe that our society is slowly sewing its own destruction. By allowing abortions society is slowly desensitizing itself to murder and by using birth control society leads itself deeper into overpopulation.

I agree with the Catholic idea of not using birth control. The desired result of this is often misunderstood. I see it not as a way to spread disease and cause accidental pregnancies, but, rather, as a way of stopping them.

By not using birth control, people (if they were smart enough to realize it) would be more inclined to wait until marriage to have sex. This would lower the teen pregnancy rate. It would also lessen the overpopulation of Earth. It would also lower the number of people with sexually transmitted diseases.

The problem is that people in society today don't see the real meaning of sex. It does not exist as a form of recreation (though many use it as such). It is a method of reproduction. It's purpose is to create a new life. If people would start seeing sex in this light, the issues of teen/accidental pregnancy and STDs would fade away. It is likely that the problem would still exist but it would be minute.

Originally posted by daniel191159
By not using birth control, people (if they were smart enough to realize it) would be more inclined to wait until marriage to have sex.

No they wouldn't.. they would just end up with an unwanted pregnancy.. and denying them access to contraception or knowledge of it would guarentee it.

This would lower the teen pregnancy rate.

There is no arguing with the hormones of a teenager.. or trying to tell a teenager not to do something.. that would just encourage them.

The problem is that people in society today don't see the real meaning of sex.

I kind of agree.. society promotes meaningless sex.. it should be valued.

It does not exist as a form of recreation (though many use it as such).

If this were true women would ONLY desire sex when ovulating.

It is a method of reproduction. It's purpose is to create a new life.

It can also a very powerful form of communication.

If people would start seeing sex in this light, the issues of teen/accidental pregnancy and STDs would fade away. It is likely that the problem would still exist but it would be minute.

If people saw sex in YOUR 'right way' they would only have sex every five years for the purpose of procreating.. and would have to try really hard to pretend they were not enjoying it because pleasure might come under 'recreation' when that is not what sex is for. There is NOTHING right about this. It's just silly. We are obviously designed to enjoy it.. if you think a god created us or that we were divinely planned.. why would humans have such a strong sex drive?

And as for the next pope.. hopefully the next one will be more for human beings than for $religion. Lets hope he doesn't knowingly protect child molestors etc. from being charged.. and has the good moral sense to not try scare people in impoverished, diseased ridden countries into not using condoms by telling lies about their reliability.

When the Pope dies, what things will change?

His view, for one...

There's been plenty of change in the catholic church.

Vatican 2 in the 1960's: Changed from Latin only to mass spoken in any language.

Even the current Pope has changed the way things are done:
attempting peace with Islam, reaching out to eastern orthodox churches, visiting the wailing wall and regetting the church's failure during the holocaust.

The last Spanish inquisition was in the 1800's, so that's a huge turn around in 200 years.

THERE WILL BE NO CHANGES.
HE IS NOT GOD.

Originally posted by jeeze louise
The current pope is known for his very conservative ideals

This in fact was a rather liberal pope, relatively speaking.

what changes can we expect to see?

I haven't heard anything about the particular guy expected to become pope being at all liberalizing or interested in keeping up the current pope's programme.

Will the Catholic Church begin to come out of the dark ages,

The RCC has been out of the 'dark ages' for quite some time. THis pope has an astronomical obersavtory in his residence, has the vatican convene a scientific meeting every year with scientists from many fields, and is himself extremely interested in science and nature. His early poems apparently are very nature orientated. This is also the pope who 'accepts' evolution. Not too many large religious leaders will do that these days.

on birth control, stem cell research, and women in the clergy, among others.

I think its far too much to expect an organization that was created, what, 1500 years ago, to be able to quickly deal with stuff that just happened, what, a few years ago? The RCC position on birth control is relatively sensible. THey demand that you not use it, but also demand that you not have sex outside of marriage. So no 'rule abiding catholics' are going to be getting pregenant anyway no? I mean, why have sex outside of marriage but then not wear a condom? As far as women in the clergy, well, why should the church allow it? ITs matter of dogma. They've specifically had this rule as a matter of faith for a long time. What does it matter if society around them has liberalized? No one claims its a rational position. And stem cells, hell, most people can't deal with stem cells, why the heck should the church?

What will the new pope do to improve the image of the Catholic Church? Will he finally reveal the real secrets of the fatima?

They've all been revealed. The third secret was revealed recently no? It was that the pope would suffer an assasination attempt but survive.

Or will the Catholic Church continue to run as they always have? Keeping more conspiracies and secrets than any other organization?

The church is over a thousand years old. Of course its going to have picked up some secrets in those years. THe next pope is going to be voted on by the college of cardinals. Whoever he is he's not going to be radically different in either direction.

What makes those things so great that we need to change to please you? Really I want to know. Abortion is murder and condems promote sex b4 marriage.

The pope by far is the most liberal of all popes. He has made more ppl saints then all the other past popes combined. He evan made evolution okay.

I can see in the future priests being able to marry and women being able to become priests. Hell if priests could marry I would be one.

Why are they keeping him alive artificailly? I thought they would of let him naturally die....isn't that the oint of of it in the end if your Christian?

I'll warn people that I'm an ex-Catholic atheist with a very extensive Catholic education, so I know more about the Catholic Church than most people.

Anyway, I don't like it when people talk about the RCC using falsities. My preference is to point out flaws intrinsic to the faith, and historical contradictions of the beliefs in the modern church. This is important because sometimes some of my statements may seem to be in defense of the church, when really they're statements to correct false ideas about it. I think it's always better to argue from the point of truth.

That said, I have a lot of respect for JPII, even though I disagree with him on a very wide range of issues, not the least of which being the entire God issue. He's a rather intelligent person. Honestly, I fear the next pople may well be more conservative than JPII. The College of Cardinals has always been more conservative than JPII.

I don't understand why the Catholic doesn't bless gay unions, with the requirement that they be celibate and adopt a child (there are so many children out there in need of adoption). That's not changing the definition of marriage, from a theological perspective at the least. The RCC has always sympathized with the plight of gays (insomuch that it acknowledges that sexual orientation may well be unchangeable), but always seems reluctant to take that extra step to fully embrace them. I remember, when I was in high school, reading some thoughts and perspectives from gay Catholics in Catholic magazines. They were all very sad and disheartening, with an underlying tone of denied love, which may well have been subconcious on the part of the authors. I still can't understand why the church could deny love like that, particularly when it has always upheld God as being love. That to me is a contradiction.

Finally, I think that Terry Schiavo became a straw man for pro-lifers, and if it weren't for that, I think the RCC wouldn't have supported putting the tube back in. The church doesn't normally support heroic measures for extending a person's life like that.

The new pope choice WILL make a difference.

If the cardinals choose a Latino, that will galvanize Latin America. If they choose an African (however unlikely) it will excite black people all over the world, but also put Catholics into conflict with Islam. A European, I don't know, a toss up, they're generally more liberal, but we're still talking about the catholic church.

Originally posted by LadyV
Why are they keeping him alive artificailly?

? They aren't.

I thought they would of let him naturally die....isn't that the oint of of it in the end if your Christian?

The RCC position is that something like prolonging death is pointless, but prolonging life is a good thing. So a person on life support who is incurable and will die without the life support can (not must, but can) be taken off life support and 'allowed to die', whereas a person who is merely suffering and incurable can't be euthanized. The pope is fully competent, and merely has a feeding tube. He's also old and incurable. If it came down him being on life support, they'd say 'pull the plug' and 'allow him to die'.

I don't understand why the Catholic doesn't bless gay unions, with the requirement that they be celibate and adopt a child (there are so many children out there in need of adoption). That's not changing the definition of marriage, from a theological perspective at the least. The RCC has always sympathized with the plight of gays (insomuch that it acknowledges that sexual orientation may well be unchangeable), but always seems reluctant to take that extra step to fully embrace them. I remember, when I was in high school, reading some thoughts and perspectives from gay Catholics in Catholic magazines. They were all very sad and disheartening, with an underlying tone of denied love, which may well have been subconcious on the part of the authors. I still can't understand why the church could deny love like that, particularly when it has always upheld God as being love. That to me is a contradiction.

That's an easy one that gets back to one of the main purposes of marriage in the Catholic church and that is to have children and raise them in the faith. It's one of the vows you take in a Catholic wedding. Since it's not possible to procreate with the same sex (so far) they can't receive the blessing. A lot of people don't realize it but to a Catholic a marriage is one of the sacraments. It's not just something that you get drunk and do in Vegas on the weekend.

One of the ways you can get your marriage annuled through the Church is if your spouse doesn't want children.

Originally posted by LadyV
Why are they keeping him alive artificailly? I thought they would of let him naturally die....isn't that the oint of of it in the end if your Christian?

It is quite ironic that after this whole feeding tube frenzy, that the Pope would get a feeding tube too.

Originally posted by Marid Audran

I don't understand why the Catholic doesn't bless gay unions, with the requirement that they be celibate and adopt a child (there are so many children out there in need of adoption). That's not changing the definition of marriage, from a theological perspective at the least. The RCC has always sympathized with the plight of gays (insomuch that it acknowledges that sexual orientation may well be unchangeable), but always seems reluctant to take that extra step to fully embrace them. I remember, when I was in high school, reading some thoughts and perspectives from gay Catholics in Catholic magazines. They were all very sad and disheartening, with an underlying tone of denied love, which may well have been subconcious on the part of the authors. I still can't understand why the church could deny love like that, particularly when it has always upheld God as being love. That to me is a contradiction.

That's an easy one that gets back to one of the main purposes of marriage in the Catholic church and that is to have children and raise them in the faith. It's one of the vows you take in a Catholic wedding. Since it's not possible to procreate with the same sex (so far) they can't receive the blessing. A lot of people don't realize it but to a Catholic a marriage is one of the sacraments. It's not just something that you get drunk and do in Vegas on the weekend.

One of the ways you can get your marriage annuled through the Church is if your spouse doesn't want children.

Read my post carefully because I didn't mention gay marriage in regards to the Catholic church. I, myself, approve of gay marriage, but in that post, I didn't say the Catholic church had to change its position on the issue. All I advocated was blessed, celibate, gay unions, not marriage. That would be fundamentally different from a marriage. It's analogous to celibate laity and ordained clergy. They may seem similar, but in reality they are vastly different in very fundamental manners.

Well, to be honest, it largely depends on who is elected. We can be reasonably certain that whomever is elected is going to be conservative in their views, as the current pope appointed all but five of the voting cardinals (that leaves 129 to 5). However, the new pope is also quite likely to be non-white, as the majority demographics have shifted to Adrica, Asia, and Latin America. Let's look at the top contenders:

Francis Arinze of Nigeria - He's old. He's black. He's extremely conservative, and has no love of homosexuals. However, the black catholic movement is still quite young, and the demographic may prove less important than re-centralizing Europe. As the World's first Black Pope, my guess is that he would want to make some big events in order to leave an impression, but not rock the boat, so as to ensure the future possibility of additional non-white Popes. I suppose, if elected the new Pope, he would probably start a crusade against gays, and bring a lot of humanitarian efforts to third world countries. So... a blend of intolerance with charity.

Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga of Honduras - He's Latino, hates the media, is a big supporter of decentralization of the Church, and of cancelling Third World Debt. Though over 60, he might still be considered too young for the job. I would expect that if he were the new pope, that there would be enormous political pressure to cancel third world debt, to donate to the World Bank, but I wouldn't expect the Church to become any less centralized than it already is. Catholocism is, by its very nature, a very hierarchal religion. Not being very media friendly, however, he may be skipped over to avoid giving the press one more reason to give the Vatican a bad name.

Jean-Marie Lustiger - French, Jewish, and over 75. While those might be assets in any other setting, for consideration as the Pope, this counts as three strikes. There's very little political advantage to electing a French Pope at the moment, and electing a Jew to the post of Pope could be one of the biggest disgraces to both religions since the dragging of "civilized" Pocahontas around Europe in the Colonial days. Additionally, his age, around 80, will be a big problem, as the required retirement age for voting Cardinals is 75. So if an exception is made, and he's given the pointy hat, you can be sure it was a very certain, precise political move on their part.

Lubomyr Husar of the Ukraine - Dual citizenship, he's also an American. This can be both his biggest asset and biggest liability. Were the superpower of the countries, and the superpower of religions to be tied together... well, I leave that up to you to imagine. Additionally, this would bridge the gap between east and west catholicism.

Dionigi Tettamanzi of Italy - Though he represents only the minority number of Catholics now (Italy has less than 5%), this is probably the safest bet, house-odds. If he's elected, I wouldn't expect anything particularly new and exciting. Perhaps more returns towards tradition and a favoring of the Opus Dei movement.

Christoph Schönborn of Austria - Truth be told, this guy is my favorite, and I hope he wins. He seems to be the smartest of the bunch, but at just barely over 60, he's kind of a whipper-snapper in the eyes of the voting cardinals. Of all the candidates, I would expect him to make the biggest waves, and possibly do the most good the Church has seen in centuries.

Jaime Lucas Ortega y Alamino of Cuba - Another Latino, and communist sympathizer. Not much to say about him, except possibly that if he is elected, we can expect there to be a lot of friction between the Vatican and the U.S. because of the latent conflict in ideologies.

Godfried Danneels of Belgium - The only Liberal Papal candidate with any real chance, in much the same way that Nader is the only Independant candidate to run for U.S. President with a chance. But the boy has wit and smarts. He's Mr. Popular, but sometimes Mr. Popular isn't enough to win the race, and wit isn't enough to lead a religion. If he's elected, I'd expect a bit more tolerance from within the church, but otherwise, too much political pressure to make many waves.

Dionigi Tettamanzi of Italy - Though he represents only the minority number of Catholics now (Italy has less than 5%), this is probably the safest bet, house-odds. If he's elected, I wouldn't expect anything particularly new and exciting. Perhaps more returns towards tradition and a favoring of the Opus Dei movement.

Italy is less than 5% catholic