Posted on 02/18/2013 7:31:50 AM PST by rhema
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but the Catholic Church is not going to change its teaching on any of the fun stuff (contraception, female “ordination,” homosexuality, abortion, etc.) with the next pope.
Nor will it ever.
When news of the pope’s retirement broke, Nicholas Kristof pondered on Twitter: “At some point, the church will accept contraception and female and non-celibate priests. Could it be in the next papacy?” Countless groups issued press releases clamoring for a “progressive” pope.
The Rainbow Sash Movement called for the next pope to stop emphasizing “purity.” The Women’s Ordination Conference announced it would hold vigils and raise pink smoke to raise awareness of the need for “female priests.” I can’t wait to see what Maureen Dowd will say.
So while most Catholics worldwide heard the news of the pope stepping down and gave him a giant, global air-hug, a few dissenting groups used the news to get attention by banging their pans and loudly rejecting church teaching and disrespecting the head of their faith. It was unkind.
Mr. Kristof and friends are wringing their hands about what we call “irreformable, infallible moral teachings of the ordinary magisterium.”
He might want to look that up.
In layman’s terms: What the church’s critics, especially those now giddily wondering if Pope Benedict’s successor will shake things up, just don’t seem to understand is that church teachings on these issues are unchangeable.
Even if we entertain the human possibility of a rogue pope, the reality is such a thing is currently sociologically impossible. About half of the current College of Cardinals (the men who will select the next pope) were appointed by Blessed Pope John Paul II. The other half were put there by Pope Benedict XVI. As you can imagine, they are all orthodox, or faithful to church teaching. On everything.
While most editorial pages have spent the last eight years harping on Catholic social teaching and running hit pieces on bishops and the pope, Benedict has been filling the ranks with shepherds who will continue the church’s 2,000-plus year tradition of holding firm on the most important social issues.
And not only will the church remain orthodox with Pope Benedict’s successor, it should.
Our call to live counter-culturally is as old as the church itself. We believe in a God who lived among us, died for us, and showed us the way to live lives of courage and conviction – whatever our culture. Catholics are called, yes, to engage with the society around them, but not to adapt ourselves to the popular sentiments of our time.
Instead, Catholics are called to live in radical service to our God. This includes loving our neighbor as ourselves. This also includes letting go of pleasure as the path to happiness (spoiler: it’s not). There’s nothing modern – or moderate – about that.
And besides, a quick scan of the world shows: suffering, suffering, and more suffering. Men using women for sex and leaving them to hold the bag. Children without fathers. Mothers killing their babies. The definition of marriage sold to the highest, or most aggressive, bidder.
Many are already rushing to exclaim, “Maybe we will get a pope who will respect women’s rights!” We have a pope who respects women’s rights. A woman’s right to be born, despite a world that values women less than men. A woman’s right to preserve fertility equality with men as a part of the sexual experience. A woman’s right to be respected for the socially cheapened roles of mother and wife. Thankfully, the next pope will defend these women’s rights as well.
The Catholic Church has an Old Man River thing going on. She just keeps rolling, she keeps on rolling along. You can stand on the shores. Or jump in. It’s your choice. But she’s not changing course. Thank God.
HEAR HEAR !!!!
ELCA leaders couldn't translate that last sentence. They lack a biblical lexicon to do so.
“non-celibate priests. . .”
This is always a good one. As if a man has to be married to keep him from molesting the vulnerable.
How about the Boy Scouts only accept married men, under that auspice? No that’s a completely different subject. that’s under the file “how to undermine the US military and everything that makes it good. It’s where they WANT to pervert the young.
Oh.
The Catholic Church would destroy its claim of authority if it changed doctrine.
However, the rule of clerical celibacy is a law and not a doctrine. Exceptions to this rule are evident from the founding of the church until today.
This traditional practice is unlikely to change, and I'm not suggesting that it should, I'm merely pointing out that it could.
Thank God it will not change. It’s the world that needs to change, not the church.
Changing basic tenets of the faith is not positive but instead an admission of gross error in the past. In fact is is an admission of lack of inspiration and divine guidance.
The Mormons have that issue directly confronting them now. They are being forced to admit that Joseph Smith was a charleton.
Life is basic to Christianity. Abandon it knowingly and you abandon Christianity
That would be a sad day for Catholicism
Changing basic tenets of the faith is not positive but instead an admission of gross error in the past. In fact is is an admission of lack of inspiration and divine guidance.
The Mormons have that issue directly confronting them now. They are being forced to admit that Joseph Smith was a charleton.
Life is basic to Christianity. Abandon it knowingly and you abandon Christianity
That would be a sad day for Catholicism
“Does truth change? “
No, truth doesn’t change, but when , mostly USA, clergy tell their congregants that things are a “matter of conscience”, then the Church DOES change.
Not when Catholics have easy access to the REAL teachings of the Church, in the Catechism. I don't accept someone's OPINION of Church teaching as fact, I check it for myself.
>>>Would not be too sure about that (see: The Boy Scouts will never allow gay Scoutmasters)>>>
You’re comparing a hundred or so year old organization with one that’s over two thousand years old.
You’re comparing a hundred or so year old organization with one that’s over two thousand years old.
...prior to VatII very few Catholics would have believed a nearly thousand year old rite of worship would be scrapped in the name of some illusory quest for ecuminism and Christian unity...just saying, longevity means little when it gets in the way of what is perceived to be cultural manifest destiny...
Actually, it’s a pointless one to drag into the discussion of the changelessness of the Church, even from a Latin point of view, seeing that both Eastern-Rite Uniates and the Anglican-Rite Ordinariate have married priests (to say nothing of the Vatican recognizing the validity of Orthodox ordinations of married men).
Priestly celibacy is not a doctrinal matter, and unlike the others could easily be changed, seeing that it is a discipline of the Latin Rite only, not required by the decisions of any council you Latins consider ecumenical nor by any ex cathedra papal pronouncement, nor likely to ever be so required, as that would be an impediment to reunion with us Orthodox, drive the Uniates back to Orthodoxy and close off the opening Pope Benedict made to Anglicans who are trying to be proper Christians, confessing the Apostolic faith, rather than the latest enthusiasms from Canterbury or 815 2nd Avenue.
Um. . . the Tridentine Rite was about 400 years old when Vatican II replaced it. Admittedly it is similar to the Liturgies of the Latin West which it had replaced and uniformized, particularly those in local usage at Rome, though less so with the various Liturgies now grouped as the Gallican Rite, Celtic Rite, Sarum Rite. . . (mostly retrospectively by modern liturgists).
The Church will; always hold, for instance, that homosexual acts are gravely wrong; that abortion is gravely wrong; that targeting of noncombatant civilians in warfare is always wrong. But whether anyone ever hears of these doctrines, or whether it is made plain that these are not just ideals, they are requirements; or whether anyone is ever rebuked or disciplined for violating them--- well, that's another matter entirely.
Non-enforcement of a law is just as effective (for the Enemy's purposes) as repealing a law. Even more effective: because the violators evade responsibility for their actual bad behavior, by pointing to their perfect "law".
The Church will; always hold, for instance, that homosexual acts are gravely wrong; that abortion is gravely wrong; that targeting of noncombatant civilians in warfare is always wrong. But whether anyone ever hears of these doctrines, or whether it is made plain that these are not just ideals, they are requirements; or whether anyone is ever rebuked or disciplined for violating them--- well, that's another matter entirely.
Non-enforcement of a law is just as effective (for the Enemy's purposes) as repealing a law. Even more effective: because the violators evade responsibility for their actual bad behavior, by pointing to the fact that they still have a perfect "law".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.