There was another thread a few months back (“Next Pope?”) but the recent hospital visit predictably starts this ball rolling again.
So it seems JPII is recovering so this is still in the hypothetical but any updated thoughts on the next Pope? Here’s a list of the current odds on favourites- just so people have some names to work with.
So do these odds look right? Would any of these candidates take the church in a new direction, be able to gain the church political stature, or put more bums in pews? What should be the prime goals of the next Pope.
Putting more bums in the pews might be a secondary goal of the next Pope of the RCC. More accurately, more bums in the pews would be the result of the Pope achieving his goals, but not the goal in and of itself.
“Take the church in a new direction.” I’m not sure what you mean by this. A new marketing strategy? Exploring new product lines? Abandoning globalization?
“Gain political stature.” Although I’m sure the pontiff would not mind having a little more influence with politicians around the world, I also doubt that this is a goal.
The College of Cardinals will pick a man who they believe will be best for the institution of the RCC. That will be someone who will be a theological traditionalist; not someone who is going to make drastic changes in church polity or ecclesiology. You’re not going to see a Pope reverse the church’s stance on women priests, or contraception, or gay marriage or the like if that’s what you mean by “a new direction.”
The job of the Pope is not to grow the church, or increase its power and influence. Although they would wish that for the church, those things are in the hands of God. The Pope’s job is to be a faithful pastor, teacher, and defender of the faith to the people of God according to the grace given to him.
I’m not familiar with most of the names suggested as successors, but most Catholics consider JPII to have been a very, very good Pope. I would expect to see more of the same in the next guy.
Especially on the “take the Church in a new direction” front. I’m not a Catholic, but the RCC is all about tradition. New directions are not something you see much of.
Also, JPII appointed a ton of Cardinals. That makes it more likely that their choice of Pope will reflect his views.
Well Skammer I was wondering if some in the RCC leadership might feel a need for “revitalization” or to make the Church seem “more relevent” to the world populace or just their members. While I can respect your idealism about the Pope’s true role as a pastor and defender of the faith, there have been differing views in the past on how to do it.
I don’t mean any insult by attributing worldly motives to the selecting Cardinals. I guess Marley23’s point is a good one- JPII has to some degree established a legacy of his vision through his appointments.
I finally found the figure I wanted: he has appointed almost all of the Cardinals who will pick the next Pope. I found an article from 2002 that said 116 of those 123 Cardinals were JPII’s. So I guess the question would be “what is the legacy of that vision?”
I’m sorry if my post sounded a bit too idealistic. It’s certainly true that over the centuries, there have been Popes who were in it for the power and influence, and there have also been times when it was appropriate for the Pope to nudge the church in a different direction.
But I think with the modern process of selecting the Pope, the popularity of JPII, and the fact that nearly all the electors are JPII appointees themselves, the RCC is likely to get more of the same with the next Pontiff.
That may be a good thing or a bad thing; but that’s a separate debate.
I can honestly say there has never been anything that I remember you saying that left a negative impression with me and I hope this quote isn’t the first. But it sounds very dismissive of someone that is the spiritual leader of over a billion people. Please tell me I’m wrong and over-sensitive. I don’t mind the atheists here that don’t think of him anymore than they do their garbagemen, but most of us Catholics love the man as much as we love our own parents. I’m hard-pressed to think of anything JPII has done in over 2+ decades to be even remotely pit-worthy.
(Shit, now the Pit will be flush with rants) :smack:
By the way, the bums were whom Jesus was sent here for. Along with all the other “undesireables” you may think of.
I’m not trying to flame you, but opening a thread on the odds of the next Pope while JPII is likely on his last leg is, well, insulting.* Let the body cool, first.
FWIW, here’s the odds I’m getting. Tettamanzi seems to be a shoe-in.
*Yeah, I’m looking up the odds as well. But I’m a Catholic. I’m used to feeling guilty.
Allowing Ratfinker to go on his gay priest witch-hunt after the pedophile priest scandals came out? Allowing Ratfinker to blame the whole pedophile priest fiasco on some sort of gay shadow-hierarchy in the seminaries? Oh, I can think of a few. Most of them involving Ratfinker, not surprisingly.
I’m just curious if there is any momentum behind the idea of an American Pope (by American, I mean “from the United States,” not “from the Americas.”)
And if not, why not? Is it because the history of the church in the U.S. is only several hundred years old (as opposed to 2000 years in Europe?), or is there some other reason?
For a balanced view of Cardinal Ratziger (“Ratfinker” viceJayJay), see some of Tomndebb’s past posts on Catholicism where he’s come up. It’s my impression that most of the Curia and College of Cardinals see him as too confrontational and contrary to grace to be an acceptable candidate.
One name I’ve heard mentioned over and over is Cardinal Arunze from Nigeria(?) – who is scholarly, compassionate, conservative enough to suit the Old Guard and forward-looking enough to suit the more liberal group.
He presided over the near-disintegration of the Church and its worst period of scandal since the Reformation. He has been completely out of touch with the Church’s real problems.
By “bums” the OP meant “asses”–you know, British English. Asses hitting the pews, with the bodies attached contributing money to that creaking and leaning tenement, the Roman Catholic Church.
duffer, I don’t read what CarnalK as an insult. In Canada, “bums” is slang for “butts”, and you often see in discussions of sports teams that one of the management’s goals is to “get more bums in the seats” - i.e. - to increase attendance. I’m assuming from the rest of his post that CarnalK used the word in that sense, not in a derogatory sense.
Because the US is in de facto schism with Rome. Divorce has become more or less legal, as you can now get an annulment nearly 100% of the time. The policy on sexuality in general is a joke, as the priests are all gay and having sex anyway, so who are they to judge?
Most Catholics now laugh at the idea that contraception, pre-marital sex, and masturbation will get you sent to hell. Hell, they laugh at the idea of hell. And the priests are all gay.
So just choose an old Italian pru(d)(n)e to preside blithely over the final act. Bring popcorn and RC Cola.
Heh, I hope that’s a misprint and you are not really looking for negative impressions.
As others have said, it was not meant in a bad way. It is actually a very common saying in the secular world of theatre paraphrased from “the goal is to put bums in seats”, meaning patrons buying tickets.
I also wanted to address zev- I have a feeling an American Pope is just as unlikely as an American SG of the United Nations for many of the same reasons. The perception of an American takeover might be hard to overcome with the third world members.
