The challenges ahead for Pope Francis, Catholics, and the Church worldwide

IM80,
In your original post, you expressed wishes that the Pope have strength to carry the church forward. Again, what changes would you anticipate? Want?

I'll have to give your request for specifics some prayerful thought, Jerseyjack.

Reading the last few posts from the hardliners, I fear a bucket of hate speech spewing forth! :-(

Reading the Times article of today puts the matter of recognition for civil unions by the Church perhaps back on the table under Pope Francis. I personally believe that civil unions would be acceptable to most of the Catholic laity I know. Civil unions with all the legal protections. However I am sure civil unions will not be performed in a Catholic Church. It's not easy changing 2,000 years of belief that marriage must be between a man and a woman. This issue is perhaps 25 years old? A blink of time for the Church!

Are proponents for gay marriage looking for acceptance or affirmation? Two very different things.

With more women and girls taking active roles in the Church, there may be women clergy someday. I would accept and support the Church's decision.

Within my own family, divorce has brought much pain. Could the new Pope address a way
to bring divorced Catholics hope for a path to full return to the Church? I would support such a direction.

IM80 said:

Reading the last few posts from the hardliners, I fear a bucket of hate speech spewing forth! :-(

It's quite sad that you think people discussing how the church is going to respond (if at all) to the pedophile priest problem is "hate speech."

ktc said:

IM80 said:

Reading the last few posts from the hardliners, I fear a bucket of hate speech spewing forth! :-(

It's quite sad that you think people discussing how the church is going to respond (if at all) to the pedophile priest problem is "hate speech."

I think you misread the post, IM80 was telling us that she was about to spew forth a bucket of hate speech. Perhaps she is about to tell us about her "800 pound elephant".

Oh, I did misread her post. "Spewing hate speech" doesn't seem very Christian or turn-the-other-cheekish...

L.P., silly, it's an 8000 pound elephant!

Continuing my thoughtful response to JerseyJack's request:

The Church priesthood now admits applicants who are widowers and married clergy from other Christian religions. If this someday extends to priests who want to marry, I will accept the Church's position.

IM80, Can civil union be accepted by the church if they don't accept homosexuality?

According to the NYT story today on what he said as a cardinal in Argentina:

"Faced with the near certain passage of the gay marriage bill, Cardinal Bergoglio offered the civil union compromise as the “lesser of two evils,” said Sergio Rubin, his authorized biographer. “He wagered on a position of greater dialogue with society.”

In the end, though, a majority of the bishops voted to overrule him, his only such loss in his six-year tenure as head of Argentina’s bishops’ conference. But throughout the contentious political debate, he acted as both the public face of the opposition to the law and as a bridge-builder, sometimes reaching out to his critics.

“He listened to my views with a great deal of respect,” said Marcelo Márquez, a gay rights leader and theologian who wrote a tough letter to Cardinal Bergoglio and, to his surprise, received a call from him less than an hour after it was delivered. “He told me that homosexuals need to have recognized rights and that he supported civil unions, but not same-sex marriage.”

IM80 said:

According to the NYT story today on what he said as a cardinal in Argentina:

"Faced with the near certain passage of the gay marriage bill, Cardinal Bergoglio offered the civil union compromise as the “lesser of two evils,”

Nice to know that after all the hemming and hawing, this overstuffed homophobe still considers civil unions to be an "evil". What rank hypocrisy!

So he was saying one thing in public (gays are the devil's work) and another (compromise) in private. This is a man of god? A jerk. Whole article includes other eye-openers, which IM80 decided to omit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/world/americas/pope-francis-old-colleagues-recall-pragmatic-streak.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

dave said:

So he was saying one thing in public (gays are the devil's work) and another (compromise) in private. This is a man of god? A jerk. Whole article includes other eye-openers, which IM80 decided to omit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/world/americas/pope-francis-old-colleagues-recall-pragmatic-streak.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

If you check carefully, Dave, you will see I responded specifically to a question asked me by JerseyJack re the Pope and civil unions.

More food for thought:


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/opinion/in-praise-of-priestly-marriage.html?ref=todayspaper

dave said:

So he was saying one thing in public (gays are the devil's work) and another (compromise) in private. This is a man of god? A jerk. Whole article includes other eye-openers, which IM80 decided to omit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/world/americas/pope-francis-old-colleagues-recall-pragmatic-streak.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

He sounds exactly like Pennboy, who has been posting similar messages about gays and gay marriage year after year.

That must be so frustrating for you, having to tolerate "hate speech" on a message board you control.

I would never have guessed you felt that way.

This man is called a "jerk"!?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/world/europe/pope-francis-meets-with-other-religious-leaders.html?ref=todayspaper

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=pope%20francis&source=web&cd=11&ved=0CGIQFjAK&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fworld%2F2013%2Fmar%2F22%2Fpope-francis-cancels-daily-paper&ei=Rl1MUauKLu3l4APfpIGQCg&usg=AFQjCNGVW-qSwcKS4Hjy9k6BeNuNl4mJnw

A thoughtful man.

You know, I don't think anyone has said anything negative about Pope Francis in any of these threads. What you are hearing is incredible frustration and anger at the failure of the church hierarchy and leadership up to this point to deal with the massive problems and genuine harm being causes by some (not all) priests, bishops, and cardinals. And a serious skepticism that the problems that have been going on for decades are going to go away any time soon.

This is a serious question: What can this new pope, who seems like a great man and a very good person, albeit not a perfect one, DO about the problems the church faces? How could he effectively address the challenges? What needs to happen?

dave said:

This is a man of god? A jerk.

PeggyC, You might want to re-read some of the above posts.

dave said:

And more...
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/22/another_catholic_sex_abuse_cover_up/

Refer to http://forum.maplewoodonline.com/discussion/comment/2222702#Comment_2222702

They knew he actively covered up. His successor removed Mahony from all public duties once the court documents became public and the cover-up was proven.

Yet,

Responding to protests over his attendance at the conclave in Rome to elect a new pope, Cardinal Roger Mahony told Catholic News Service this week that the Vatican told him to come to Rome and participate.

“Without my even having to inquire, the nuncio in Washington phoned me a week or so ago and said, ‘I have had word from the highest folks in the Vatican: You are to come to Rome and you are to participate in the conclave,’” Mahony told the news service.

This is very revealing.

rukidding said:

dave said:

This is a man of god? A jerk.

PeggyC, You might want to re-read some of the above posts.

OK, so I was wrong about that. But ignoring the more inflammatory posts and looking at the ones from people like me who are willing to give him a chance and see where things go, I return to my question: What can he do? What SHOULD he do? What needs to happen? So far, most of what we've seen on this thread has been taking shots at each other and more generally at the church. If we leave that aside, what solutions are possible?

PeggyC said: You know, I don't think anyone has said anything negative about Pope Francis in any of these threads

OK, we can forgive this statement, as most likely due to paint fumes and packing issues. :-D

And if you two are done pointing out that I was mistaken, could you take my questions about how to approach the challenges more seriously? Or are you having more fun picking holes in my post? (Yes, I'm a little frustrated. You seem more interested in picking on other posters than in answer the questions.)

A guy who turns people over to the equivalent of the Gestapo is a jerk. I think I'm pretty much downplaying it, too.

Thanks, Dave, for continuing to take the thread in a negative direction. Oh, well. I give up.

Some people would just prefer to spew vitriol. Millions are wrong...they are right. Yes, everyone is wrong. Any opinion other than theirs has to be wrong. Criticize, make fun of others, calls them names...yep, that's the way to change someones mind. It works every time.

I started this thread pointing to the challenges ahead. I have included several "character studies" of the man who is Pope as a background for what lies ahead. He's been in the job 15 minutes and you expect solutions to problems?

Some of the stuff I've included directly address some comments by Cardinal Bergoglio on gay marriage, married clergy, etc. as British detectives are wont to say: "It's early days yet."

dave said:

A guy who turns people over to the equivalent of the Gestapo is a jerk. I think I'm pretty much downplaying it, too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/world/americas/jesuit-priest-rejects-popes-connection-to-kidnapping.html?ref=todayspaper

What does "it is too early" mean? It means they know what is right but refuse to change.

dave said:

So he was saying one thing in public (gays are the devil's work) and another (compromise) in private. This is a man of god? A jerk. Whole article includes other eye-openers, which IM80 decided to omit.

His "compromise" was not for the benefit of gays.

The political situation was that gay marriage was certainly to be adopted if the Church took only a hard stance against it. He hoped his compromise would get civil unions into law, the "lesser evil". Luckily, his more dogmatic and less astute cohort Bishops did not accept his reasoning.

Its like the abortion debate here. If you have a state legislator trying to to get a law against abortion after the first week of pregancy, he would most likely not get the votes and and even if he did that law would fail in the Federal courts. Instead they try the "lesser evil compromise" of denying abortion after 12 weeks or as tried now in N Dakota, 6 weeks.

dave said:

What does "it is too early" mean? It means they know what is right but refuse to change.

No, it relates to my comment that the Pope has been Pope for only a couple of weeks, less than that if you start from his actual installation just a couple of days ago.

Incidentally, what I said was "It's early days yet" -- not "it is too early." There is a difference in intent. One is a positive, direct observation; your quote is negative.

dave said:

What does "it is too early" mean? It means they know what is right but refuse to change.

Dave,
Do what you want to do. You don't need the Pope or the Church's approval!

Let's face it, if they changes their minds, you'll just dismiss them for being "jerks" for not changing sooner.