Roman Catholics Choose A New Pope
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-03-14/roman-catholics-choose-new-pope
The Roman Catholic Church has a new pope. Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio took the name of Francis yesterday at the Vatican as he became the first Jesuit pontiff. Dubbed a conservative with a common touch, the Argentinian is known for his outreach to his country’s poor. He’s a theological conservative who backs the Vatican’s stand on abortion, gay marriage and the ordination of women. The first Latin American pope represents a cultural bridge between two worlds -- he’s the son of Italian immigrants from the New World, an area that represents a growing segment of the world’s billion Roman Catholics. Diane and her guests discuss the challenges facing Pope Francis and the Roman Catholic Church.
Guests
Jason Horowitz
reporter for The Washington Post.
Maureen Fiedler
host of public radio's Interfaith Voices and Sister of Loretto.
James Martin
Jesuit priest, culture editor of America magazine, author of numerous books including "My Life with the Saints" and "The Jesuit Guide to (almost) Everything: A spirituality for Real Life."
Ross Douthat
op-ed columnist for The New York Times and author of "Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics."
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Latino Rites:
http://www.efn.org/~hkrieger/latino.jpg
from the series, "Churches ad hoc",
http://www.efn.org/~hkrieger/church.htm
I am not currently able to listen to the show, but having seen the headline to this article on Facebook, I felt compelled to respond. For all the surprising good feelings of hope and renewal that the election of Francis has inspired within me, I'm going to rain on the parade a bit by pointing out that the article is sort of misleading. "Roman Catholics" did not choose our new Pope, the Cardinals, who are appointed to their offices, did. The headline suggests a democratic process that does not currently exist in our community, which may or may not be fine, but just pointing out that the headline should perhaps reflect that for the sake of accuracy. The most faithful answer may be that the Holy Spirit has chosen our new Pope through the Cardinals, but that is harder to fact check, no?
Does he remind anyone else of John Paul 1?
I know that many of my friends who are Catholic have, in past years and never more than now, hoped for a less conservative pope. The majority overwhelmingly wanted a pope who at least accepted the facts that some women do have to have abortions, that homosexuality is not a sin, therefor gay marriage is not, and that women should have more leadership roles in the church. Although they are thrilled to have a new pope, enormous disappointment is evident.
I wonder; is the Catholic church attempting to hold on to unyielding conservativism in the hopes that the people will turn around...not the church?
By the way, before the influx of "the Bible says homosexuality is a sin!"...it doesn't. The small handful of mentions of homosexuality states that homosexuality is an "abomination", which according to Hebrew law meant "ritually unclean". In other words they thought it was icky, but more importantly did not produce children at a time when infant mortality was very high.
Ask that guest again whether the new Pope thinks contraception is OK. He ducked that question quite well.
Christine what women "have to have an abortion?"-- 99% of women use it as a form for birth control. That is like saying 150 years ago "some people have to have slaves" and making a morally relativistic argument to supprt human bondage. Both are wrong, both are evils and it should be the churches role to contin=ually oint this out.
I`m a lousy Christian, so.. GOD in his only personal appearance freed the slaves from Egypt.. He parted the sea.. You would think slavery would be the BIGGEST no no. Nah.Slavery is cool in Christianity. Even with today`s technology there is no definitive proof that Sodom and Gomorrah ever existed,let alone what were their sexual preferences.According to myth,these towns were mining towns,which used slaves.Why can`t I assume GOD set the slaves free..??
Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden..?? GOD was angry of their union... Maybe GOD wanted Adam and Eve and Fred..??
Is GOD stupid..?? He gave Moses the 10 Commandments,missing was anal intercourse.MAN SHALT NOT LIE WITH MAN...NOT THERE...
Thou shalt not bear false witness,is there. And Christians are the biggest liars on Earth.
I think its wrong to be too critical of the new Pope for "hanging out with the wrong crowd" unless it was for obvious personal or political gain. Jesus hung out with tax collectors and prostitutes. As a clergyperson you are are not supposed to hang out with the saints, they are O.K., it is the broken, the busted, and the messed up who need your influence. If Pope Francis was trying to bring positive change to this messed up world, then let him do it wherever and with whomever he can.
Christina and her friends ought not be so discouraged and disappointed. Consider the actual reality of the situation: All the Cardinal-electors are late-middle age or older who were appointed by 'conservativev' Popes. Essentially no chance that any of them would have been elevated to that office had they been "progressive", let along 'liberal'. The Church moves at less-than-tortoise pace.... The Spirit is unrelenting in where and how it inspires. Keep the faith!
Christina - I disagree with your comment: "..and that women should have more leadership roles in the church."
This is from a remark from John Allen, CNN Sr. Vatican Analyst last night:
"everything short of priestly ordination, obviously. But I think outside that realm -- in other words, if you can get past that -- and I know it's hard for a lot of people to get past that -- but, actually, the Catholic Church compares relatively well to other institutions.
In the United States, for example, one-quarter of diocesan chancellors -- that's sort of the CEO position below the bishop -- are women, which actually outperforms, say, Fortune 500 companies, major law firms, and the military, in terms of the percentage of senior leadership positions that are held by women."
Christina Bochn... wrote:
I know that many of my friends who are Catholic have, in past years and never more than now, hoped for a less conservative pope. The majority overwhelmingly wanted a pope who at least accepted the facts ... that homosexuality is not a sin, therefor gay marriage is not ..."
"By the way, before the influx of "the Bible says homosexuality is a sin!"...it doesn't. The small handful of mentions of homosexuality states that homosexuality is an "abomination", which according to Hebrew law meant "ritually unclean". In other words they thought it was icky, but more importantly did not produce children at a time when infant mortality was very high."
As fascinating a rationalization as I have ever heard! Bravo, Christina!
The Bible doesn't say homosexuality is a sin? Yeah, Christina, it does. God did not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because he thought what they were doing was "icky" (see Gen 13:13). And Paul speaks to Timothy on this as well (1Ti 1:9,10):
"We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality [Strongs G733], for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine " (Also see 1 Co 6:9). But, perhaps those folks are all just "icky"?
Nice try.
Yes, some hundred Catholics of a very particular stripe just chose one.
They apparently chose an 'humble' man who seems very sure that the loving Father who made us all feels us worthy of eternal torment if we use our genitals in ways repugnant to some of my shepherd ancestors who heard voices....
I once saw a 'reverse ventriloquist' act in which a man claimed to be 'just a dummy'...that was an humble man as well.
(Oh, and Ross, the proper term for someone not 'confrontationalist' and for which you seemed to be groping might be any of 'neutral' [State murder and kidnapping was a nuanced issue after all, as opposed to condoms' use to prevent disease], 'glozing', 'equivocating', or 'collaborationist'.)
JYSD0310 wrote:
"Christina - I disagree with your comment: "..and that women should have more leadership roles in the church."
Can't agree I think based on early Christian (note I do not designate "church") history, women can play a larger role. One of the best sermons I ever heard was preached by a woman (subsitute minister) at my brother's church (UCOC).
In fact, here is one interesting factoid. Check out Matt 28:1,7,8 and also the Mark 16 account. This is the account of the resurrection. The two Marys come to the tomb and the stone is rolled away. They are instructed to go and tell the disciples that Jesus is risen, which they do. (The disciples don't believe the women!) So the Gospel (the good news of the resurrection) is actually preached in its fulfillment for the FIRST TIME, by women. Interesting, huh?
JYSD...
I, too, heard John Allen's *take* on women in the church. While I cannot dispute his statistics I do think he missed a larger point-- that the role of women (1) at the more local level -- running parishes *in toto*, not jst being the person who asks the Bishop for permission & approval of every decision, and not just being in charge of keeping the altar looking neat, and (2) being directly involved in decision-making in parishes, in dioceses, and, yes, in Rome itself, is absent. IF there is 'some of that'..... it is so rare as to be largely invisiblethe and the exception. Consider that at the special liturgy we had to pray for the Cardinal-electors prior to the start of the conclave was 4:1 attended by women over men.... It is women who have, through the centuries, saved the Church; if the Church is to stay vibrant it will be because women carry the load. Yes, there is the promise of the *Advocate...with you.... until the end of time*..... but 'you' is not a unisex term. Women must be *elevated* to "more equal" roles.
Christians sell,marriage is between a man and a women..At best even that is either a lie or a mis statement. Marriage in churches are unions of a man and a woman of the same denomination or sect. Two Catholics OKAY...One Catholic (man or woman)and one Protestant (man or woman).NO..NO.
NO mix and matching...Children of that kind of ABOMINATION are labeled bastards. It is kinder not to inflict that kind of pain and abort the fetus,before that child is subjected to a lifetime of BULLYING,VICIOUSNESS...
Clifford,
I should mark your post offensive, because it is. But, since it is so full of falsehoods and stuff you just made up, I think I should rather let your foolishness stand for all to see.
I wish I had heard more of this program. I haven't differentiated the voices and didn't realize Ross Douthat was there. (I am curious about how he thinks,.) My point (s) is that, here, in comments, I see the polarization of, "He didn't say it was evil, He said it was icky." And, "Oh yeah?" This doesn't go anywhere does it. I have come to consider The Church's teaching as G-d's best chance to make a stab at teaching personal responsibility universally. So that, there are likely to be many particular exceptions or indulgences or some such given to people who are respectful and responsible to the Creator and all creation. This is my, "let 'em teach like Paul, 'if you can be perfect, try to be,'" concept. As for going forward. The church has great trouble with secrecy. I suppose it was the priest who failed so well to answer Diane's question of what specifically do departments of the Curia do. This needs opening up. Here is where qualified women, for example, should have no bars on their ability to serve. An open "cabinet" ought not demand Holy Orders. Women telling the Pope (and eventually us) how it is in there is a good idea. Women at many chancellery duties. No need to change the "universal teaching" but more understanding that populate the earth is no longer a first world need and the developing world does need to develop in so many ways. Does that sound elitist? The first world also needs to develop in many of the same ways. The mystery of the Mass can easily remain a mystery in gender specific roles, to some extent.That which gets us to worship and come to G-d is not so important as that we do so. He came to heal, feed and clothe the needy and to forgive us all our sins. We are here to help that--sometimes with our political votes.
As a man who has been ordained as a Deacon in the Catholic Church and Studied for my Masters Degree in Pastoral Studies at a fine Jesuit University, I am pleased to have a Jesuit who selected the name Francis as our new pope. I am pleased that this man appears to have compassion for the poor and he has demonstrated that in many ways. I do not expect that this man will change any of the major tenets of the Church. He is conservative to the core. So that is the good and the bad. To my gay friends, to the women of the church, to the dedicated lay leaders of the church, I apologize. I only ask that you pray for our new pope. Pray that God reaches into his heart and changes his soul.
I am now laicized and looking to see if there is a Church that could accept my return.
to "Blueneck BillyBob,"
What age are you living in? My father came from a "mixed" marriage. It was cool to hear that my grandma took the kids out and over to the Baptist church because the particular priest at the time said, "a woman cannot go up in the choir loft." When Al Smith was being vilified by the Baptists Grandpappy pulled the kids back. Thankfully Dad was, through the strokes in old age, able to sing, and remember and harmonize. And Gramma kept well in touch with each priest in the parish through our generation's growing up. It was enlightening.
to: JYSD0310 Regarding John Allen's (CNN analyst) comment,
And these women need to be heard !
Thanks to Herman Krieger for an ennobling American experience here.
Unisex:
http://www.efn.org/~hkrieger/unisex.jpg
"Ries wrote:
I think its wrong to be too critical of the new Pope for "hanging out with the wrong crowd" unless it was for obvious personal or political gain. Jesus hung out with tax collectors and prostitutes. As a clergyperson you are are not supposed to hang out with the saints, they are O.K., it is the broken, the busted, and the messed up who need your influence. If Pope Francis was trying to bring positive change to this messed up world, then let him do it wherever and with whomever he can.
March 14, 2013 - 10:45 am"
Years ago, the Pope would wash the feet of a Beggar from the Streets of Rome, then they seem to have gravitated to washing the, presumably cleaner, feet of Cardinals etc.
http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2013/03/13/images-of-pope-francis-...
Pope Francis has condemned the denial of Baptism for Bastards.
I heartily agree and firmly believe that no Priest, or any other Church Official has the Right to refuse Communion or any other Rite to one who asks for it.
It is the height of arrogance to assume powers that even Jesus would not exercise.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
anewsboy wrote:
"My point (s) is that, here, in comments, I see the polarization of, "He didn't say it was evil, He said it was icky." And, "Oh yeah?" This doesn't go anywhere does it. "
Actually, Christina claimed that homosexuality was not "sin" and her argument for that was specious - a rationalization. My response was not simply argumentative. "Oh yeah?" would simply be argumentative. I provided scriptural evidence to support my view that the act of homosexuality is sinful according to scripture. I think it's pretty clear. If you think otherwise, bring a case and I would be interested to hear it. If you don't accept the scriptural teaching on homosexuality, and some don't, then that is up to you. To me, however, as a Christian, the Christian Bible is our touchstone as to what is right and wrong. We're not going to agree on every interpretation, no. But there are things on which scripture is unequivocal and I think this is one of them - a principle as solid in scriptural teaching as gravity is to physics.
That's qualitatively different than "Oh yeah?".
"That which gets us to worship and come to G-d is not so important as that we do so."
On that we agree 100%.
My Ex-Wife was born during the depths of the Depression and the Family was having a really hard time due to lack of steady work and poor wages.
After the birth of their second Child, my Late Ex-Mother in Law was counseled by her Priest to continue having kids.
She said, we can't afford any more kids and my Husband refuses.
Leave him, said the Priest!
I can't do that said Mom!
Very well, you are Ex-Communicated, said the Priest.
Mom was a very Pious Woman who faithfully attended Mass every Sunday, for the next 30 years, always yearning to take Communion.
She didn't like me very much, thinking me arrogant, Anti-Catholic plus a Hillbilly and Hungarian to boot and we had some nasty arguments because her Daughter had married outside the Faith.
Nevertheless, it made me feel bad to see her in such pain and one Sunday after Mass, I said,"For Christ's Sake, Helen, no Village Priest can summarily Excommunicate a Worshiper ".
"Courts must be convened, Trials must take place, etc, etc".
She took Communion the very next Sunday and every Sunday after and died, happily, in what she believed and I hoped was a State of Grace.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"Blueneck BillyBob wrote:
Christians sell,marriage is between a man and a women..At best even that is either a lie or a mis statement. Marriage in churches are unions of a man and a woman of the same denomination or sect. Two Catholics OKAY...One Catholic (man or woman)and one Protestant (man or woman).NO..NO.
NO mix and matching...Children of that kind of ABOMINATION are labeled bastards. It is kinder not to inflict that kind of pain and abort the fetus,before that child is subjected to a lifetime of BULLYING,VICIOUSNESS...
March 14, 2013 - 11:19 am"
The RC Church will not marry a Couple unless both Parties are RC, Greek Orthodox and Anglican will not Marry unless both Parties are Christians (Baptized, not including Bastards, I suppose).
No falsehoods there.
"1555
In England a pregnant woman was burned at the stake for sorcery. She suffered a miscarriage at the stake and her still living baby was thrown back into the flames. [Kirsch, 242]"
"[Crime No.16-68] Of murder : (1562+) Jersey Unnamed pregnant woman is burned alive at stake in Jersey's Royal Square; she gives birth during ordeal and baby is thrown back into flames."
Better that the Child of a Sinner be dead as well as the Sinner.
No falsehoods there.
"ecgberht2 wrote:
Clifford,
I should mark your post offensive, because it is. But, since it is so full of falsehoods and stuff you just made up, I think I should rather let your foolishness stand for all to see.
March 14, 2013 - 11:29 am"
So, no longer must we just avoid offending eggie's tender feelings by upsetting his precarious self-image, but those of his Religion as well.
Were I not terrified of being expelled from eggie's Blog, I might call that Hypocricy, or worse.
Next time one of your Brothers of different Fathers rages at "Liberals that crush those who disagree with them", may I remind them of their inconsistency?
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
How Jesuit he will be is questionable. The Jesuits exiled him. It seems that pains have been taken to associate "Francis" with Francis of Assisi rather than Francis Xavier, Jesuit missionary and martyr.
"The RC Church will not marry a Couple unless both Parties are RC ... No falsehoods there."
Uh, yeah, that's False.
I am not Catholic. My wife is Roman Catholic. We were married in the Catholic Church ... by a priest. We have two sons ... but no bastards.
My cousin, a Lutheran (but not really practising) was married by a priest, to a Catholic girl, in a Catholic Church. She was pregnant (and showing) at the time. She wore white.
My uncle, also not Catholic, married a Catholic girl, in a Catholic Church. I was a toddler so I don't know if they were married by a priest or not. They have four children, two girls, two boys, no bastards. All were raised Catholic. And, oh, by the way, in case you think my aunt wasn't "Catholic enough", in attendence at their wedding was her sister ... the nun.
Director's Note: No Catholics were excommunicated in the making of these events.
Neither one of you knows what you are talking about, so we are par for the course.
"Were I not terrified of being expelled from eggie's Blog, I might call that Hypocricy, or worse."
It's not called "flag as offensive" for nothing. I've never marked any post offensive when someone simply disagreed with me. If you think you know of an instance, bring it. Clifford talking about people's children as bastards is extremely offensive. Yet I didn't flag his post.
When other posters attack me personally, or threaten me physically, that violates Dr Show Code of Conduct. Those I flag.
It's not that hard to figure out, mchaun. All you have to do is be civil. It's the first one on the list:
"Be civil. We're all here to take part in a conversation. If you want to be heard -- and not banned -- keep your posts on topic without resorting to threats, obscenities, racism, sexism, or anything else offensive".
ecgberht2 wrote:
"Were I not terrified of being expelled from eggie's Blog, I might call that Hypocricy, or worse."
It's not called "flag as offensive" for nothing. I've never marked any post offensive when someone simply disagreed with me. If you think you know of an instance, bring it. Clifford talking about people's children as bastards is extremely offensive. Yet I didn't flag his post.
When other posters attack me personally, or threaten me physically, that violates Dr Show Code of Conduct. Those I flag.
It's not that hard to figure out, mchaun. All you have to do is be civil. It's the first one on the list:
"Be civil. We're all here to take part in a conversation. If you want to be heard -- and not banned -- keep your posts on topic without resorting to threats, obscenities, racism, sexism, or anything else offensive".
March 14, 2013 - 5:24 pm
You still haven't learned to read.
The Bastards reference was an aside to begin with, and meant people who had been denied Baptism because of their Bastardy and thus ineligible to be married in a Church that required Baptism.
"The RC Church will not marry a Couple (Out of Hand) unless both Parties are RC..". Like many RC processes, Mixed Marriage requires a Dispensation, in the case of Marriage, an agreement establishing the Religious Life and Upbringing of the Children.
"Neither one of you knows what you are talking about, so we are par for the course."
I know what I'm talking about with my Mother in Law, Marriages in Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican and Methodist Churches, are you calling me a Liar??
There was nothing uncivil or offensive in my or BBB's Comment.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com