What sort of pope will Pope Francis be?

[WhyNot]

@MsWhatsit

There is one very big and important difference between FAM and NFP, which is that with NFP (aka, the Catholic church’s recommended method), you are supposed to completely abstain from sex during the woman’s fertile periods. With FAM you can just use a barrier method instead.

Completely abstaining from sex during the exact time that a woman is most likely to be interested in sex seems like a terrible idea to me, for a lot of reasons.

Also, that study was based on people who use the method correctly. I think you’d agree that there’s a rather steeper learning curve, and much more potential for error, with symptothermal charting than there is for using a condom or a birth-control pill.

All contraception effectiveness reports, including the one at my second link, give both “perfect use” and “typical use” failure rates. Both perfect use and typical use failure rates for NFP/FAM are statistically identical to birth control pill perfect use and typical use failure rates.

Look, I’m not saying I’m hunky dory with the RCC position on birth control. I’m very much not. NFP is crappy for new moms, for breastfeeding moms, for women near menopause or those with irregular menstrual periods. And of course, it does squat for disease prevention. I wish Catholic women who can’t/shouldn’t use NFP had other, better options for them, absolutely. But I am firm in wanting to correct the impression that NFP/FAM is only as good as “praying the baby away”. That’s not a policy position, that’s science.

[MsWhatsit]

I feel you. I used FAM for a while myself and got very tired of people saying, “Ha ha, you know what we call people who use the rhythm method? PARENTS! Haw haw haw” etc. So I am with you on the ignorance-fighting. I just can’t support it as a one-size-fits-all method of birth control, for the reasons you gave.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

It’s not for everyone; just Catholics.

[KarlGrenze]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

It’s not for everyone; just Catholics.

Yet I know more non-Catholics than Catholics who use it.

[astorian]

Never mind, for a moment, what I’ve seen here on the SDMB.

I’ve found that there are a lot of people rejoicing AND a lot of people weeping on both the Far Left and the Far Right of the Church.

There are hard core traditionalists who are sure that Francis is on their side AND hard core trads who are wailing that he’s a closet liberal who’s going to ruin everything.

There are liberals who are disgusted, convinced that Francis is a war criminal AND liberation theologians who are giddy with the idea that Francis is secretly one of them.

At this point, nobody really KNOWS what Francis intends to do, including me. I’ve already offered my take: I see him as a caretaker Pope when something much bolder is needed. But I’d love to be wrong.

Doctrinally, I stand with the traditionalists far more often than not… but to me, that’s now a secondary issue. What I really WANT (and what I think the Church needs) is a thorough housecleaning. The vast majority of priests in the U.S. have done absolutely nothing wrong, but the vast majority of bishops in the United States HAVE engaged in coverups of sex crimes. It’s absurd that Bernard Law is one of the ONLY bishops to resign as a result.

At the very least, dozens of bishops should be sacked. And that will be just the first step.

[KarlGrenze]

@astorian

At the very least, dozens of bishops should be sacked. And that will be just the first step.

And maybe he will do that. But then, it would still take some time to dismiss someone and have someone else (capable) in line for promotion, right?

[monavis]

@For You

It is simply not realistic to think that the roman catholic church should be apolitical. An organization of its breadth and influence is by its very nature political, the spirituality part is merely a tool for facilitating their influence. I mean, priests, IIUC, take a vow of poverty, but they sure do a pathetic job of making their poverty evident.

The ends of the church are fundamentally the same as the ends of a given government, to secure and effect influence over commoners. In that respect, they must step carefully around the detritus of an oppressive regime lest they come to be recognized as a serious competitor to the regime. If the church is not explicitly targeted by the government, it will attempt to calculate the optimal course for survival and maintenance of its own influence.

Hence, the archbishop might explain that the basic survival of the church would be more important than provoking a confrontation, because if a potentially hostile government were to raze the church, who then would be left to vend morality in a way that only the church is fit to handle properly?

From what I understand, the Catholic faith relies on the church itself in ways that most other christian sects do not: a good Catholic must receive the holy sacrament from a priest in the correct setting, after confession and penance, or they might not gain salvation. Strong Catholic indoctrination, such as is pervasive in Latin America, bolsters the perceived importance of the church in the minds of the masses, so they will understand that Jorge’s behavior was an effort to preserve the church in a potentially unstable situation.

In the end, what most of us consider due morality is of no consequence, Catholics will get that the church had to be kept safe and healthy, so how the archbishop behaved will be accepted/forgiven.

All RC priests do not take a vow of poverty, Just those (like the Jesuits) and some orders, My relative did not. but he also doesn’t have money, but is provided with a decent home. but is not now allowed to do much because of his many breakdowns.

[monavis]

@KarlGrenze

Yea, and that seems to be covered in the part quoted by doreen that you excluded.

Look, I’m not a fan of natural family planning (which again, is used by non-Catholics), but it is an effective method of birth control (again, ask some Dopers who practice it). That the typical very poor Catholic doesn’t practice them, or know they exist, or how to use it, is a problem, and is due in part to lack of education. Hmm… what Catholic group is well known for championing education of the masses?

As to the comments regarding the new Pope, the article on BBC cites a couple of civil rights spokepersons in Argentina who admit that the he was NOT involved with the junta, there are no ties with him to the junta, and that while he may not have been vocal opponent, there are examples of others who kept asking the military “Don’t do this” or “Release X person”, and the military simply refused to pay attention to them. So even IF he had say anything, he may still have been ignored, as others were.

The guy is conservative, I do not like him that much (I’d rather have my favorite priest be Pope ), but to consider him the worst of the worst, it is an overstretch. If he focuses more on education and helping the poor (which means a lot of education), and gives some austerity back to the church, that may be more than what the previous Pope did.

I don’t know the new Pope, and he does seem like a nice person, as good as any, of course he has to tow the RC line or he wouldn’t have been elected. One doesn’t get to be a Cardinal unless he sticks to the Churches line. The group that elect a Cardinal is mostly picked by a current Pope because they tow the line(or seem to).

[Broomstick]

monavis, the idiom you are looking for is “toe the line”, not “tow the line”. The error is understandable given the identical pronunciation, please take the correction in the spirit intended, which is to be helpful and not critical.

[monavis]

@Broomstick

monavis, the idiom you are looking for is “toe the line”, not “tow the line”. The error is understandable given the identical pronunciation, please take the correction in the spirit intended, which is to be helpful and not critical.

Thanks for the correction.

[Sarahfeena]

@MsWhatsit

There is one very big and important difference between FAM and NFP, which is that with NFP (aka, the Catholic church’s recommended method), you are supposed to completely abstain from sex during the woman’s fertile periods. With FAM you can just use a barrier method instead.

Completely abstaining from sex during the exact time that a woman is most likely to be interested in sex seems like a terrible idea to me, for a lot of reasons.

Good thing you don’t have to completely abstain from sex! Man, people, use your imagination.

[MsWhatsit]

@Sarahfeena

Good thing you don’t have to completely abstain from sex! Man, people, use your imagination.

You obviously knew what I meant, as I’m sure did everyone else reading the thread. And I still think this is a ridiculous and hypocritical Church law, but I’m sure that’s a discussion for another thread.

[Sarahfeena]

@MsWhatsit

You obviously knew what I meant, as I’m sure did everyone else reading the thread. And I still think this is a ridiculous and hypocritical Church law, but I’m sure that’s a discussion for another thread.

Sure I knew what you meant, but you also know what I meant. As far as a teaching of the Church goes I’m not hot on it, but I don’t think it’s all that restrictive or confining, actually. I think it’s a great alternative for a lot of people who don’t want to use another method, and if you want to argue against it there are other good arguments, but the difficulty of completely abstaining from sex for a week out of the month isn’t really one of them, since no one said you actually have to do that. (OK, maybe by the strictest interpretation…)

Bringing this around to the subject of this particular pope…I think there was no way anyone was going to be elected who isn’t a supporter of basic Church doctrine. I like the humility angle, though, I think the Church could use it right now.

[Smapti]

Pope Francis breaks Canon Law by washing women’s feet during Holy Thursday ritual.

Meanwhile, an Argentine priest claims that, in a behind-closed-doors conversation in 2010, the now-Pope expressed his support for same-sex civil unions.

I think we can rule out “business as usual” at this point.

[Marley23]

It was very much business as usual in public, though, because he said the law was the work of Satan.

[GIGObuster]

@Smapti

Pope Francis breaks Canon Law by washing women’s feet during Holy Thursday ritual.

Meanwhile, an Argentine priest claims that, in a behind-closed-doors conversation in 2010, the now-Pope expressed his support for same-sex civil unions.

I think we can rule out “business as usual” at this point.

Looking interesting I say. (Funnily enough, I made once a tale where one of my characters slips into a holy celebration disguised as a priest and reveals herself to a new pope and he still washed her feet. He already knew about her plans, but I have to say that the real world is getting more interesting.)

On the recent memorial to Martyred Monsignor Romero from EL Salvador, the preacher mentioned that the new Pope told friends that he looked forward to see if Romero could become a saint some day. It could be that he does not care now what the surviving military thugs from the Latin American countries think. Indeed, they and many of the right wing other there, need to be eternally reminded about the evil things they did in the recent past.

Sure, I expect the Pope to continue many other retrograde positions, but one can look forward at some glacial paced change.

[OttoDaFe]

As if that weren’t enough to give the traditionalists apoplexy, turns out that one of the women was a Serbian Muslim.

That does it — tomorrow I start stockpilin’ against Armageddon.

[tomndebb]

@Smapti

Pope Francis breaks Canon Law by washing women’s feet during Holy Thursday ritual.

Despite the headline writer’s hysteria, it is not against Canon Law to include women in the ritual of washing feet. It is probably against a directive of some sort that does not rise to the level of Canon Law, (although I have not yet found that directive, either), but it is not even addressed in Canon Law.

[MsWhatsit]

@tomndebb

Despite the headline writer’s hysteria, it is not against Canon Law to include women in the ritual of washing feet. It is probably against a directive of some sort that does not rise to the level of Canon Law, (although I have not yet found that directive, either), but it is not even addressed in Canon Law.

You didn’t actually click the link, did you?

[Gyrate]

@tomndebb

Despite the headline writer’s hysteria, it is not against Canon Law to include women in the ritual of washing feet. It is probably against a directive of some sort that does not rise to the level of Canon Law, (although I have not yet found that directive, either), but it is not even addressed in Canon Law.

It is, however, also inducing hysteria in the traditionalists. I love this bit:

“This is about the ordination of women, not about their feet,” wrote the Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a traditionalist blogger. Liberals “only care about the washing of the feet of women, because ultimately they want women to do the washing.”

He should be happy - it’s traditional for women to do the washing up.