Who will be the next pope?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the 70% that have been driven away? Why should the Church only be for RWNJ? No business can survive by ignoring 70% of its customers. What about the majority that those short-sighted, selfish bigots also known as JPII and Benedict ignored?

FYI The far right is putting such a stranglehold on the Church IT WILL NOT SURVIVE IT. So much money is being wasted on christo-nationalist nonsense and siphoned away on real needs of the Church - leaking roofs, broken boilers, etc. The far right is starving money from Church infrastructure. Once the far right is done weaponizing the Church, there will be nothing left. But who am I to say?...I only worked for the Church and know of what I speak.

IMHO, the “70%” are not coming back. Vatican II was an explicit effort to retain the 70% and it did not work and it alienated a lot of lower case “O” orthodox families in the process. My personal theory is that the Catholic Church cannot “out progressive” the secular culture so any effort to do so is doomed to failure. JPII was an extremely good (but flawed) Pope who through force of will renewed the Church (and the seminaries, particularly) from its post-Vatican II problems.

The PF pontificate, which is more closely aligned with the VII project saw a retreat in vocations beyond the prevailing trends of his elevation to the papal office. That must be taken seriously.

I simply don’t agree that far right projects are siphoning away money from parish needs. That is not how parish finances work in most dioceses.

Whether you like it or not, it is the conservative bloc of the church that tries to live out some version of Catholic holiness and in particular that produces Catholic families. It comes at the expense of other important projects, but what is a church with empty pews?

It might be a Church doing even more good in the world, which is its own version of Catholic holiness.

The 70% are free to do that right now . . . and it is not happening in any measurable way.

I sincerely appreciate the desire of left leaning Catholics to see the Church live out its social mission mandate as handed down directly from Jesus. But it just doesn’t happen meaningfully or systematically from the left, either. It normally* devolves into political action and organizing from the left.

There have been isolated examples of success like the Catholic Worker houses, but those stand out for being beyond the norm.

I think the proclaimed oppression of the orthodoxy of right-leaning Catholics is simply an excuse to mask that left-leaning Catholics simply are not interested in an organized, systematic religion beyond the social justice mandate on a nebulous level.

As someone who worked for the Church, I can tell you that you are wrong on so many levels. Left-leaning Catholics aren't interested in an organized, systematic religion!?!?!? Far right projects aren't siphoning away money from parish needs!!?!?! You have no idea what is going on. Any assertion that conservative Catholics (which in itself is not mutually exclusive terminology) are somehow more "holy" betrays how non-Christ-like "conservative" Catholics are. No one is more holy than anyone else.

Why didn’t you tell us you worked for the Church? That changes everything….

Look, I’m sure you have gained insights from working in a church (I presume you mean a parish) or the Church (at a national or diocesan level, as the case may be). But your insights are neither unique nor secretive. Many of us have worked for parishes, and financial councils (parish and diocesan level) and various other boards of small and large scale. The best practice that parochial vicars around this country have almost universally settled on is that if a parish cannot support itself financially then it will be merged with another parish and closed. While the parishes are newer and a little more vibrant throughout the south and southwest, this playbook has been refined and nearly perfected throughout the northeast, Midwest and rust belt.

You don’t name the alleged Christian nationalist projects they you suggest are starving parishes of needed CapEx funds, but presumably you mean things like the Eucharistic Congress and the Napa Institute. Those projects are either exclusively or overwhelmingly funded via dedicated fund raising/revenue generation (although the USCCB did kick in some dollars for the Eucharistic Congress). The idea that those projects are stripping away needed CapEx dollars from parishes just doesn’t square with the dollars.

Finally, some of the progressive-led dioceses have been guilty of the worst gross financial mismanagement. Archdiocese of DC, under Cardinal Gregory (a close Pope Francis ally) shut down its TLM* parishes (ultra conservative for those that don’t know) at the direction of PF. Those were some of the most generous parishes in the diocese and DC later found itself in financial trouble it is still trying to come back from. I’m not suggesting they keeping the TLM parishes open would have fixed the problems, but closing those parishes certainly exacerbated the financial problems of the diocese as those people spread to other dioceses.

I stand by my other comments. Left-inclined people of all persuasions (including Catholic) are less centralized and less authoritarian by nature or ideology. That doesn’t exactly mix well with a globally centralized, universal, systematic, dogmatic faith. I mean the issues there are glaringly obvious. For example, it is liberal German bishops suggesting one of kind of Catholicism can be practiced in Germany while another type in Africa even though that sort of defeats the whole point. I’m not sure why you find this so offensive. I’ve told you both sides have their strengths and their major blind spots.

*I am not a TLM parishioner nor do I think I ever will be. But I am sympathetic to them, even if they also turn me off at times.

Boy, are you an insufferable mansplainer. You are clearly really young and don't realize how little you know. As someone who worked for the church, I don't need some young, white guy explaining church mergers. You clearly have no idea what the right wing money is and where it is going and I'm certainly not going to share. You haven't even guessed correctly. As for the liberal German bishops, I wholeheartedly agree that regions should be more free to practice Catholicism as they choose. No, it doesn't defeat the whole point. Well, only if you are an insufferable mansplainer who can't function without the scaffolding provided by rules and regulations mandated by some distant autocrat. And who says the Catholicism practiced in Africa is actually Christianity? Homophobia and sexism are prejudices, prejudice is hate, and hate is not Christian. That Bishop Sarah is nuts. That's not Catholicism. That's oppressive, autocratic patriarchy masquerading as a "faith". He may as well be Putin. He's also going to be 80 years old. What a dinosaur!!! That's what our faith should be??? NO

AND FYI JPII and Benedict consolidated power in Rome over the past few decades, so your idea of what the faith is shows a lack of historical knowledge.

[Anonymous]

My Dad's an ex Catholic and what alienated him and most of his siblings was the orthodoxy at the expense of people, while covering up abuse of children.

I come from a large Catholic immigrant family that mostly abandoned the faith and it was the rigid rules and sex abuse cover up that drove us out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My Dad's an ex Catholic and what alienated him and most of his siblings was the orthodoxy at the expense of people, while covering up abuse of children.

I come from a large Catholic immigrant family that mostly abandoned the faith and it was the rigid rules and sex abuse cover up that drove us out.

Did you go to another faith? If so, which one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My Dad's an ex Catholic and what alienated him and most of his siblings was the orthodoxy at the expense of people, while covering up abuse of children.

I come from a large Catholic immigrant family that mostly abandoned the faith and it was the rigid rules and sex abuse cover up that drove us out.

A very common story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My Dad's an ex Catholic and what alienated him and most of his siblings was the orthodoxy at the expense of people, while covering up abuse of children.

I come from a large Catholic immigrant family that mostly abandoned the faith and it was the rigid rules and sex abuse cover up that drove us out.

Where did you go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the 70% that have been driven away? Why should the Church only be for RWNJ? No business can survive by ignoring 70% of its customers. What about the majority that those short-sighted, selfish bigots also known as JPII and Benedict ignored?

FYI The far right is putting such a stranglehold on the Church IT WILL NOT SURVIVE IT. So much money is being wasted on christo-nationalist nonsense and siphoned away on real needs of the Church - leaking roofs, broken boilers, etc. The far right is starving money from Church infrastructure. Once the far right is done weaponizing the Church, there will be nothing left. But who am I to say?...I only worked for the Church and know of what I speak.

IMHO, the “70%” are not coming back. Vatican II was an explicit effort to retain the 70% and it did not work and it alienated a lot of lower case “O” orthodox families in the process. My personal theory is that the Catholic Church cannot “out progressive” the secular culture so any effort to do so is doomed to failure. JPII was an extremely good (but flawed) Pope who through force of will renewed the Church (and the seminaries, particularly) from its post-Vatican II problems.

The PF pontificate, which is more closely aligned with the VII project saw a retreat in vocations beyond the prevailing trends of his elevation to the papal office. That must be taken seriously.

I simply don’t agree that far right projects are siphoning away money from parish needs. That is not how parish finances work in most dioceses.

Whether you like it or not, it is the conservative bloc of the church that tries to live out some version of Catholic holiness and in particular that produces Catholic families. It comes at the expense of other important projects, but what is a church with empty pews?

It might be a Church doing even more good in the world, which is its own version of Catholic holiness.

The 70% are free to do that right now . . . and it is not happening in any measurable way.

I sincerely appreciate the desire of left leaning Catholics to see the Church live out its social mission mandate as handed down directly from Jesus. But it just doesn’t happen meaningfully or systematically from the left, either. It normally* devolves into political action and organizing from the left.

There have been isolated examples of success like the Catholic Worker houses, but those stand out for being beyond the norm.

I think the proclaimed oppression of the orthodoxy of right-leaning Catholics is simply an excuse to mask that left-leaning Catholics simply are not interested in an organized, systematic religion beyond the social justice mandate on a nebulous level.

As someone who worked for the Church, I can tell you that you are wrong on so many levels. Left-leaning Catholics aren't interested in an organized, systematic religion!?!?!? Far right projects aren't siphoning away money from parish needs!!?!?! You have no idea what is going on. Any assertion that conservative Catholics (which in itself is not mutually exclusive terminology) are somehow more "holy" betrays how non-Christ-like "conservative" Catholics are. No one is more holy than anyone else.

Why didn’t you tell us you worked for the Church? That changes everything….

Look, I’m sure you have gained insights from working in a church (I presume you mean a parish) or the Church (at a national or diocesan level, as the case may be). But your insights are neither unique nor secretive. Many of us have worked for parishes, and financial councils (parish and diocesan level) and various other boards of small and large scale. The best practice that parochial vicars around this country have almost universally settled on is that if a parish cannot support itself financially then it will be merged with another parish and closed. While the parishes are newer and a little more vibrant throughout the south and southwest, this playbook has been refined and nearly perfected throughout the northeast, Midwest and rust belt.

You don’t name the alleged Christian nationalist projects they you suggest are starving parishes of needed CapEx funds, but presumably you mean things like the Eucharistic Congress and the Napa Institute. Those projects are either exclusively or overwhelmingly funded via dedicated fund raising/revenue generation (although the USCCB did kick in some dollars for the Eucharistic Congress). The idea that those projects are stripping away needed CapEx dollars from parishes just doesn’t square with the dollars.

Finally, some of the progressive-led dioceses have been guilty of the worst gross financial mismanagement. Archdiocese of DC, under Cardinal Gregory (a close Pope Francis ally) shut down its TLM* parishes (ultra conservative for those that don’t know) at the direction of PF. Those were some of the most generous parishes in the diocese and DC later found itself in financial trouble it is still trying to come back from. I’m not suggesting they keeping the TLM parishes open would have fixed the problems, but closing those parishes certainly exacerbated the financial problems of the diocese as those people spread to other dioceses.

I stand by my other comments. Left-inclined people of all persuasions (including Catholic) are less centralized and less authoritarian by nature or ideology. That doesn’t exactly mix well with a globally centralized, universal, systematic, dogmatic faith. I mean the issues there are glaringly obvious. For example, it is liberal German bishops suggesting one of kind of Catholicism can be practiced in Germany while another type in Africa even though that sort of defeats the whole point. I’m not sure why you find this so offensive. I’ve told you both sides have their strengths and their major blind spots.

*I am not a TLM parishioner nor do I think I ever will be. But I am sympathetic to them, even if they also turn me off at times.

Boy, are you an insufferable mansplainer. You are clearly really young and don't realize how little you know. As someone who worked for the church, I don't need some young, white guy explaining church mergers. You clearly have no idea what the right wing money is and where it is going and I'm certainly not going to share. You haven't even guessed correctly. As for the liberal German bishops, I wholeheartedly agree that regions should be more free to practice Catholicism as they choose. No, it doesn't defeat the whole point. Well, only if you are an insufferable mansplainer who can't function without the scaffolding provided by rules and regulations mandated by some distant autocrat. And who says the Catholicism practiced in Africa is actually Christianity? Homophobia and sexism are prejudices, prejudice is hate, and hate is not Christian. That Bishop Sarah is nuts. That's not Catholicism. That's oppressive, autocratic patriarchy masquerading as a "faith". He may as well be Putin. He's also going to be 80 years old. What a dinosaur!!! That's what our faith should be??? NO

AND FYI JPII and Benedict consolidated power in Rome over the past few decades, so your idea of what the faith is shows a lack of historical knowledge.

Sounds like you're ripe to leave Catholicism.

[Anonymous]

Pope should be someone who actually believes in Jesus's philosophy and willing to embrace all humans. However, as CEO of Catholicism, they've to favor interests of people who can benefit the organization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fear is that the next Pope will be more conservative, as a kind of pendulum swing.

Now African cardinals are indeed conservative.

But racism being what it is, I think you'll need to wait a long time (when you're well and truly dust) before someone from Africa ascends to the Papacy.

Not everyone in Africa is black.

Not everyone is Africa is Catholic.

According to the NYTimes article on possible candidates: 18% of the African continent is Catholic. And African nations are producing the most seminarians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the 70% that have been driven away? Why should the Church only be for RWNJ? No business can survive by ignoring 70% of its customers. What about the majority that those short-sighted, selfish bigots also known as JPII and Benedict ignored?

FYI The far right is putting such a stranglehold on the Church IT WILL NOT SURVIVE IT. So much money is being wasted on christo-nationalist nonsense and siphoned away on real needs of the Church - leaking roofs, broken boilers, etc. The far right is starving money from Church infrastructure. Once the far right is done weaponizing the Church, there will be nothing left. But who am I to say?...I only worked for the Church and know of what I speak.

IMHO, the “70%” are not coming back. Vatican II was an explicit effort to retain the 70% and it did not work and it alienated a lot of lower case “O” orthodox families in the process. My personal theory is that the Catholic Church cannot “out progressive” the secular culture so any effort to do so is doomed to failure. JPII was an extremely good (but flawed) Pope who through force of will renewed the Church (and the seminaries, particularly) from its post-Vatican II problems.

The PF pontificate, which is more closely aligned with the VII project saw a retreat in vocations beyond the prevailing trends of his elevation to the papal office. That must be taken seriously.

I simply don’t agree that far right projects are siphoning away money from parish needs. That is not how parish finances work in most dioceses.

Whether you like it or not, it is the conservative bloc of the church that tries to live out some version of Catholic holiness and in particular that produces Catholic families. It comes at the expense of other important projects, but what is a church with empty pews?

It might be a Church doing even more good in the world, which is its own version of Catholic holiness.

The 70% are free to do that right now . . . and it is not happening in any measurable way.

I sincerely appreciate the desire of left leaning Catholics to see the Church live out its social mission mandate as handed down directly from Jesus. But it just doesn’t happen meaningfully or systematically from the left, either. It normally* devolves into political action and organizing from the left.

There have been isolated examples of success like the Catholic Worker houses, but those stand out for being beyond the norm.

I think the proclaimed oppression of the orthodoxy of right-leaning Catholics is simply an excuse to mask that left-leaning Catholics simply are not interested in an organized, systematic religion beyond the social justice mandate on a nebulous level.

As someone who worked for the Church, I can tell you that you are wrong on so many levels. Left-leaning Catholics aren't interested in an organized, systematic religion!?!?!? Far right projects aren't siphoning away money from parish needs!!?!?! You have no idea what is going on. Any assertion that conservative Catholics (which in itself is not mutually exclusive terminology) are somehow more "holy" betrays how non-Christ-like "conservative" Catholics are. No one is more holy than anyone else.

Why didn’t you tell us you worked for the Church? That changes everything….

Look, I’m sure you have gained insights from working in a church (I presume you mean a parish) or the Church (at a national or diocesan level, as the case may be). But your insights are neither unique nor secretive. Many of us have worked for parishes, and financial councils (parish and diocesan level) and various other boards of small and large scale. The best practice that parochial vicars around this country have almost universally settled on is that if a parish cannot support itself financially then it will be merged with another parish and closed. While the parishes are newer and a little more vibrant throughout the south and southwest, this playbook has been refined and nearly perfected throughout the northeast, Midwest and rust belt.

You don’t name the alleged Christian nationalist projects they you suggest are starving parishes of needed CapEx funds, but presumably you mean things like the Eucharistic Congress and the Napa Institute. Those projects are either exclusively or overwhelmingly funded via dedicated fund raising/revenue generation (although the USCCB did kick in some dollars for the Eucharistic Congress). The idea that those projects are stripping away needed CapEx dollars from parishes just doesn’t square with the dollars.

Finally, some of the progressive-led dioceses have been guilty of the worst gross financial mismanagement. Archdiocese of DC, under Cardinal Gregory (a close Pope Francis ally) shut down its TLM* parishes (ultra conservative for those that don’t know) at the direction of PF. Those were some of the most generous parishes in the diocese and DC later found itself in financial trouble it is still trying to come back from. I’m not suggesting they keeping the TLM parishes open would have fixed the problems, but closing those parishes certainly exacerbated the financial problems of the diocese as those people spread to other dioceses.

I stand by my other comments. Left-inclined people of all persuasions (including Catholic) are less centralized and less authoritarian by nature or ideology. That doesn’t exactly mix well with a globally centralized, universal, systematic, dogmatic faith. I mean the issues there are glaringly obvious. For example, it is liberal German bishops suggesting one of kind of Catholicism can be practiced in Germany while another type in Africa even though that sort of defeats the whole point. I’m not sure why you find this so offensive. I’ve told you both sides have their strengths and their major blind spots.

*I am not a TLM parishioner nor do I think I ever will be. But I am sympathetic to them, even if they also turn me off at times.

Boy, are you an insufferable mansplainer. You are clearly really young and don't realize how little you know. As someone who worked for the church, I don't need some young, white guy explaining church mergers. You clearly have no idea what the right wing money is and where it is going and I'm certainly not going to share. You haven't even guessed correctly. As for the liberal German bishops, I wholeheartedly agree that regions should be more free to practice Catholicism as they choose. No, it doesn't defeat the whole point. Well, only if you are an insufferable mansplainer who can't function without the scaffolding provided by rules and regulations mandated by some distant autocrat. And who says the Catholicism practiced in Africa is actually Christianity? Homophobia and sexism are prejudices, prejudice is hate, and hate is not Christian. That Bishop Sarah is nuts. That's not Catholicism. That's oppressive, autocratic patriarchy masquerading as a "faith". He may as well be Putin. He's also going to be 80 years old. What a dinosaur!!! That's what our faith should be??? NO

AND FYI JPII and Benedict consolidated power in Rome over the past few decades, so your idea of what the faith is shows a lack of historical knowledge.

Not the PP you're responding to. But it sounds as if you don't like being schooled by someone who knows more about the workings of the Church than you. I'm guessing you're a parish secretary/receptionist who leans hard left and think you know more than you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the 70% that have been driven away? Why should the Church only be for RWNJ? No business can survive by ignoring 70% of its customers. What about the majority that those short-sighted, selfish bigots also known as JPII and Benedict ignored?

FYI The far right is putting such a stranglehold on the Church IT WILL NOT SURVIVE IT. So much money is being wasted on christo-nationalist nonsense and siphoned away on real needs of the Church - leaking roofs, broken boilers, etc. The far right is starving money from Church infrastructure. Once the far right is done weaponizing the Church, there will be nothing left. But who am I to say?...I only worked for the Church and know of what I speak.

IMHO, the “70%” are not coming back. Vatican II was an explicit effort to retain the 70% and it did not work and it alienated a lot of lower case “O” orthodox families in the process. My personal theory is that the Catholic Church cannot “out progressive” the secular culture so any effort to do so is doomed to failure. JPII was an extremely good (but flawed) Pope who through force of will renewed the Church (and the seminaries, particularly) from its post-Vatican II problems.

The PF pontificate, which is more closely aligned with the VII project saw a retreat in vocations beyond the prevailing trends of his elevation to the papal office. That must be taken seriously.

I simply don’t agree that far right projects are siphoning away money from parish needs. That is not how parish finances work in most dioceses.

Whether you like it or not, it is the conservative bloc of the church that tries to live out some version of Catholic holiness and in particular that produces Catholic families. It comes at the expense of other important projects, but what is a church with empty pews?

It might be a Church doing even more good in the world, which is its own version of Catholic holiness.

The 70% are free to do that right now . . . and it is not happening in any measurable way.

I sincerely appreciate the desire of left leaning Catholics to see the Church live out its social mission mandate as handed down directly from Jesus. But it just doesn’t happen meaningfully or systematically from the left, either. It normally* devolves into political action and organizing from the left.

There have been isolated examples of success like the Catholic Worker houses, but those stand out for being beyond the norm.

I think the proclaimed oppression of the orthodoxy of right-leaning Catholics is simply an excuse to mask that left-leaning Catholics simply are not interested in an organized, systematic religion beyond the social justice mandate on a nebulous level.

As someone who worked for the Church, I can tell you that you are wrong on so many levels. Left-leaning Catholics aren't interested in an organized, systematic religion!?!?!? Far right projects aren't siphoning away money from parish needs!!?!?! You have no idea what is going on. Any assertion that conservative Catholics (which in itself is not mutually exclusive terminology) are somehow more "holy" betrays how non-Christ-like "conservative" Catholics are. No one is more holy than anyone else.

Why didn’t you tell us you worked for the Church? That changes everything….

Look, I’m sure you have gained insights from working in a church (I presume you mean a parish) or the Church (at a national or diocesan level, as the case may be). But your insights are neither unique nor secretive. Many of us have worked for parishes, and financial councils (parish and diocesan level) and various other boards of small and large scale. The best practice that parochial vicars around this country have almost universally settled on is that if a parish cannot support itself financially then it will be merged with another parish and closed. While the parishes are newer and a little more vibrant throughout the south and southwest, this playbook has been refined and nearly perfected throughout the northeast, Midwest and rust belt.

You don’t name the alleged Christian nationalist projects they you suggest are starving parishes of needed CapEx funds, but presumably you mean things like the Eucharistic Congress and the Napa Institute. Those projects are either exclusively or overwhelmingly funded via dedicated fund raising/revenue generation (although the USCCB did kick in some dollars for the Eucharistic Congress). The idea that those projects are stripping away needed CapEx dollars from parishes just doesn’t square with the dollars.

Finally, some of the progressive-led dioceses have been guilty of the worst gross financial mismanagement. Archdiocese of DC, under Cardinal Gregory (a close Pope Francis ally) shut down its TLM* parishes (ultra conservative for those that don’t know) at the direction of PF. Those were some of the most generous parishes in the diocese and DC later found itself in financial trouble it is still trying to come back from. I’m not suggesting they keeping the TLM parishes open would have fixed the problems, but closing those parishes certainly exacerbated the financial problems of the diocese as those people spread to other dioceses.

I stand by my other comments. Left-inclined people of all persuasions (including Catholic) are less centralized and less authoritarian by nature or ideology. That doesn’t exactly mix well with a globally centralized, universal, systematic, dogmatic faith. I mean the issues there are glaringly obvious. For example, it is liberal German bishops suggesting one of kind of Catholicism can be practiced in Germany while another type in Africa even though that sort of defeats the whole point. I’m not sure why you find this so offensive. I’ve told you both sides have their strengths and their major blind spots.

*I am not a TLM parishioner nor do I think I ever will be. But I am sympathetic to them, even if they also turn me off at times.

Boy, are you an insufferable mansplainer. You are clearly really young and don't realize how little you know. As someone who worked for the church, I don't need some young, white guy explaining church mergers. You clearly have no idea what the right wing money is and where it is going and I'm certainly not going to share. You haven't even guessed correctly. As for the liberal German bishops, I wholeheartedly agree that regions should be more free to practice Catholicism as they choose. No, it doesn't defeat the whole point. Well, only if you are an insufferable mansplainer who can't function without the scaffolding provided by rules and regulations mandated by some distant autocrat. And who says the Catholicism practiced in Africa is actually Christianity? Homophobia and sexism are prejudices, prejudice is hate, and hate is not Christian. That Bishop Sarah is nuts. That's not Catholicism. That's oppressive, autocratic patriarchy masquerading as a "faith". He may as well be Putin. He's also going to be 80 years old. What a dinosaur!!! That's what our faith should be??? NO

AND FYI JPII and Benedict consolidated power in Rome over the past few decades, so your idea of what the faith is shows a lack of historical knowledge.

I am middle aged and not white. But I am a guy, so you got me there! English is not my first language. Indeed, for the Easter Triduun, we twice attended Mass at a non-English ethnic parish where my native tongue is spoken. My wife minored in my home language; so she could follow along but I silently beamed with pride as my kids who don’t understand the language followed along with the liturgy and said the responses in English. And for the Vigil we attended a beautiful Mass where my wife and I sponsored two people received into the Church. The parish baptized and confirmed 50+ individuals split almost right down the middle between English and Spanish speakers so half the service was in English and half in Spanish (literally alternating readings/responsorial psalms, with printed translations so everybody could follow along). It was a beautiful Easter Vigil Mass with overflow capacity and the pews looked like what you would purport to want: diverse and full, but you would probably hate these people because they are too conservative for your liking.

If you have specific examples of right wing money taking needed CapEx dollars from parishes I am happy to engage you on the topic.

Having one type of Catholicism in Germany and another in Africa DOES defeat the whole purpose. As you know (I am not mansplaining, simply establishing that you and I believe the same thing), every Sunday we affirm that we believe in a Catholic (universal, worldwide) and Apostolic (in communion with the apostles) Church. The whole point is that we believe this is the worldwide church established by Jesus through his apostles. It does defeat the whole point if we cease being universal and apostolic.

JPII, Benedict and Francis did indeed consolidate power. But that doesn’t change that Catholicism in Mexico, Vietnam, Canada, Nigeria, and Germany are all supposed is supposed to be the same. The faith knows no borders.

Respectfully, I think your politics are leading your faith, when it should be the other way around. The issues that you seem to suggest should lead the way are secular issues. I just don’t think the Church is going to out progressive the secular culture. Thus, it is a doomed pathway.

[Anonymous]

Full disclosure: I’m not a Cardinal, not even a non-voting cardinal, so this is some rando’s highly speculative opinion.

The next Pope must be absolutely clean of any connection to the sex abuse scandals. Morally and practically, that would be a disaster for the Church. -Points to younger candidates and rule out US candidates.

The next Pope must excel at diplomacy without shrinking from commitment. He must be a uniter of the faithful in a polarized world, exhibiting strength against the secular will of authoritarians lest the Church cede power to governments. The instability of the world is a pastoral crisis and an opportunity. The next Pope must offer stability. This too argues for a younger candidate (I do not think this is the time for a stopgap)
-Rule out the most “left” Grech, probably Zeppi
-Rule out all the Africans and other “hard right” Erdo, Eijk

Parolin and Tagle are the top of everyone’s lists and tick the boxes. Parolin has an advantage in knowing more of the other Cardinals and having their respect. Tagle has the edge in charisma. Tagle is acknowledgement of the expanding non-Western Church. Theologically they are both quite similar to Francis, although not identical.

Aveline has a real chance- a uniter, moderate/liberal, European but came from Algeria.

A very long shot, Pizzaballa. Stunning leadership in the Holy Land, but only 60. Sacrificial, diplomatic, scholarly, and beloved by Francis. Although I think a younger Pope is in the cards, I don’t know if they will go for someone just two years older than JPII at the time of his election. But also, stability.

And then there are the ones no one is talking about.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My Dad's an ex Catholic and what alienated him and most of his siblings was the orthodoxy at the expense of people, while covering up abuse of children.

I come from a large Catholic immigrant family that mostly abandoned the faith and it was the rigid rules and sex abuse cover up that drove us out.

Did you go to another faith? If so, which one?

My parents raises us Methodist.

What broke my grandmother particularly is the priest refusing to let her daughter be buried in the Catholic cemetery because she was unbaptised (threbaby only lived a couple hours). You could say it was just that priest and the church has changed now, but the fact is the church kicked my grandparents when they was already down during the worst week of their lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My Dad's an ex Catholic and what alienated him and most of his siblings was the orthodoxy at the expense of people, while covering up abuse of children.

I come from a large Catholic immigrant family that mostly abandoned the faith and it was the rigid rules and sex abuse cover up that drove us out.

Did you go to another faith? If so, which one?

My parents raises us Methodist.

What broke my grandmother particularly is the priest refusing to let her daughter be buried in the Catholic cemetery because she was unbaptised (threbaby only lived a couple hours). You could say it was just that priest and the church has changed now, but the fact is the church kicked my grandparents when they was already down during the worst week of their lives.

Did you remain observant as a Methodist? I am sorry for what your grandmother went through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fear is that the next Pope will be more conservative, as a kind of pendulum swing.

Now African cardinals are indeed conservative.

But racism being what it is, I think you'll need to wait a long time (when you're well and truly dust) before someone from Africa ascends to the Papacy.

Not everyone in Africa is black.

Not everyone is Africa is Catholic.

According to the NYTimes article on possible candidates: 18% of the African continent is Catholic. And African nations are producing the most seminarians.

The Americans continue to flee the Catholic Church and they are not coming back. The sex scandal and the fact that they still are hiding and protecting people is just too much.

I think they need an African pope. That’s where the growth potential is.

Btw - they don’t care about holiness or doctrine. They care about the Church. Keeping the Church alive and lush with funds. They will always put the Church before all else. Westerns get that. Others haven’t figured that out yet.