Anonymous wrote:This poor was way too liberal on illegal immigration and other things. The world is going right again so the church needs to go back to the norms.

No. Leadership doesn't cave to whims and winds.

Anonymous wrote:This Pope was way too liberal on illegal immigration and other things. The world is going right again so the church needs to go back to the norms.

Time for a Black pope! This would be both revolutionary and right leaning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Francis appointed 80% of the College of Cardinals. So here is the real question: if they choose a Pope who is like Francis with respect to the teachings of Jesus, will Trump be able to prevent himself from complaining about it on Truth Social?

And when he cannot, how will this affect his relationship with Catholic voters?

The Catholics that are remaining in the church are more conservative (at least in the US and in parts of Latin America). This is especially true if the young families. They are generally not as aligned with much of the PF agenda.

I wonder if the College of Cardinals will be thinking about that.

I don't think so. They are thinking about a leader for the global church, not the failed policy of only welcoming reactionary, backwards Catholics (the 30%) and then ignoring the pastoral needs of the normal people (the other 70%) and their possible financial contributions.

+1 and I also disagree with PP's premise about U.S.Catholics anyway. You are just paying attention to the controversial people.

This poor was way too liberal on illegal immigration and other things. The world is going right again so the church needs to go back to the norms.

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.

I think if you spent more time in Episcopal, Unitarian and Quaker communities you would not be so quick to draw this conclusion.

Respectfully, you are glossing over the “systematic” part which knocks out the Unitarians from this conversation. PECUSA is aging and shrinking at a much higher rate than other denominations all while its Anglican conservative cousin ACNA is growing. I honestly am not too familiar with Quakers and their inner workings; I’ll check it out.

QuaKers, like Presbyterians, are reasonable and generally educated people, thus more likely to be nonbelievers.

Vance spent an entire week at the Vatican lobbying for a postliberal Pope to replace Francis. I'm thinking they want Erdo or Burke.

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.

But if an African pope were chosen, he would be.

Correct.

A Black pope would be a PR grand slam. It would send a message that it is not all about a bunch of grumpy old White men running the show.

The news would be all about how the church welcomes all races into the church. This is known already by those in the Catholic church.

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.

I think if you spent more time in Episcopal, Unitarian and Quaker communities you would not be so quick to draw this conclusion.

Respectfully, you are glossing over the “systematic” part which knocks out the Unitarians from this conversation. PECUSA is aging and shrinking at a much higher rate than other denominations all while its Anglican conservative cousin ACNA is growing. I honestly am not too familiar with Quakers and their inner workings; I’ll check it out.

Anonymous wrote:I have a strong feeling, and it may just be the pastrami I ate recently, but I think the next pope will be from Africa.

There certainly are good candidates from Africa, or even Brazil.

There is a black madonna, why not a bro’ pope?

The strongest African candidate is Cardinal Sarah, for whom the conservative wing of the Church have been longing for years. However, while technically still eligible, he turns 80 in June. I'd rate his chances as quite low.

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.

I think if you spent more time in Episcopal, Unitarian and Quaker communities you would not be so quick to draw this conclusion.

The next pope will likely be someone who goes more by feels and attention rather canon law like Pope Francis. It seems the way of the world now.

It won’t be someone from Africa or the US right now because as others said, they tend to be too conservative.

Someone from Asia might be a good choice, I suspect it will be a European as the EU is pulling into itself and away from the US.

It won’t be someone from Africa or the US right now because as others said, they tend to be too conservative.

Someone from Asia might be a good choice, I suspect it will be a European as the EU is pulling into itself and away from the US.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The seminarians worldwide are much more conservative than in times past (I have my theories).

Please elaborate. I read this recently and wondered why.

My theories:

1. Keeping with secular trends, the younger men are more conservative in reaction to the prevailing culture. In this case, conservative Catholics have viewed Vatican II as a failure. The young men today have only grown up in a post Vatican II world and many view it as a failure. Additionally, priests tend to come from much larger Catholic families (not all of them, but they are disproportionately over represented). Those 5+ kid Catholic families are overwhelmingly conservative. And priests come from those type of families.

I suspect as well that large conservative families are also probably more supportive of their sons seeking the priesthood. As one priest told me, a mom is more likely to be supportive of her son entering the seminary if she has four other sons but it is harder to do when he is an only son.

2. As the secular culture has become more affirming and young men are more comfortable being out, I *think* fewer men are going to the seminary as a refuge. So a number of young men who would be inclined to be more progressive are not showing up to the seminary in the first place.

Combine the two trends and you have a turbo charged conservative young clerical class. The older, more senior clerics are aware of it (ink has been spilled on the topic, but I can’t find the interviews right now) and many of them see it as a problem, but not one easily solved.

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.

*edit* (which in itself is mutually exclusive terminology)