The Next Pope

[Left Coast]

The world's population is increasing -- any of you doubt that?

No, I don't. The world is mostly religious, though. We were talking specifically about non-religious people and countries.

Having babies isn't the only way that any nation increases its population -- we have this thing call "immigration." Does that mean that some of the demographics will change, that culture will shift? Of course. But why is that something to be fearful of? And I think it can be said that demographics and culture won't change all that much. My own experience in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, one of the most diverse places on the planet, our immigrants retain much of their previous culture and belief, but also absorb much of the culture (if not religious beliefs) of their new home. And the natives -- to be clear -- still outnumber the immigrants.

I don't generally dispute this. Though I will note most immigrants to the West are religious.

As I said, Toronto is one of the most multicultural places on earth. We are loaded with people from every religion, language, culture and nation. Many of the people who live here come from places where a gay man like myself would, just as a matter of daily practice, be villified or even killed. And yet, the Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs show up at Pride, and gay folks show up at "Taste of South Asia," the "Polish Festival" on Roncesvalles or the Ukrainian Festival at Bloor-West Village. And we all get along. We work together.

I think that's wonderful.

I hated Benedict XVI for his disgusting letter (while he was Cardinal Ratzinger and head of Doctrine of Faith) called "On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons." He didn't have either the smarts or the humanity to even consider how bloody demeaning it was. Any of you want to tell me why I should want to stand by and be treated like some lower life-form that needs your pity -- but not your acceptance? If you think that, I say "[insert naughty word here] you!"

I'm as gay as you are, EH. Please don't lecture me on homophobia.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm as gay as you are, EH. Please don't lecture me on homophobia.

I wasn't lecturing you on homophobia. I was lecturing (although it's a bit late now) Josef Ratzinger. And those in his church who share his views.

 

[Left Coast]

I wasn't lecturing you on homophobia. I was lecturing (although it's a bit late now) Josef Ratzinger. And those in his church who share his views.

Perhaps Benedict is reading your thoughts on the matter from heaven?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Perhaps Benedict is reading your thoughts on the matter from heaven?

I'm sure you will understand if I say, "I doubt it."

 

[LuisDantas]

I would bet the trend is generally similar to the kids of religious parents. Most people inherit the worldview of their parents. America is kind of an outlier there - we have an abnormally large rate of conversion and deconversion.

I am under the impression that this is significantly situational. Some national communities are very, very hostile to changes and challenges to what they see as their traditional beliefs. Others are very malleable, even curious. Political realities factor in somewhat as well.

 

[Left Coast]

I am under the impression that this is significantly situational. Some national communities are very, very hostile to changes and challenges to what they see as their traditional beliefs. Others are very malleable, even curious. Political realities factor in somewhat as well.

Of course. It's a multivariate situation. But there's a general trend where people inherit worldviews from their caregivers. This is just as true for non-religious folks as religious folks, I would submit.

 

[Glaurung]

Uh... what?

I mean... do you actually believe in that?

Wow!

It's not a matter of belief but of demographics. In the west, irreligion will continue to trend upwards for the foreseeable future. But in the long-term the irreligious' share of the global population is set to decline as the west fails to replace itself. Predicting the future is a fool's errand, but I do think it's a mistake to assume that current trends (in one part of the world) will continue perpetually as some kind of long-term historical inevitability.

My read is different. The obsession of some uber-traddies with TLM and believing they're more Catholic than the Pope (literally) is a mostly American thing. They are loud, obnoxious minority clinging to a bygone era of Church history. I suspect they will increasingly fade into irrelevance and the Church will move on as she has for centuries.

It's actually people like the current pope who are clinging to a bygone era. African and Asian Catholics are overwhelmingly conservative. The current generation of young priests and seminarians are also notably more conservative than their elder counterparts. The Francis pontificate is liberal Catholicism's dying gasp.

In any case, access to the TLM only became a problem because Francis and a handful of hardline liberal prelates made it a problem. I don't buy their bull excuse that a handful of cantankerous trads threatened the unity of the Church. If they really gave a damn about the Church's unity they would have long cracked down on the liberal dissent that has not only been allowed to fester but has been actively coddled by the current pontificate. The double standard is blatant.

You understand that the TLM was also an imposition in the 16th century, yes? The Church banned other Western liturgies. This isn't new.

The TLM was a standardization of what had already long existed. Rites over two-hundred years old were allowed to continue. If Vatican II followed the example of Trent in this regard, the TLM would have been allowed to continue due to its antiquity.

The NO was unprecedented in that it was an imposition of an entirely new liturgy that was essentially cooked up by a committee and forced upon everyone on pain of 'obedience'. Talk about clericalism...

What a remarkable thing to say! The most secular nations on earth are China, Sweden, Czech Republic, United Kingdom, Belgium, Azerbaijan, Vietnam, Australia, Norway and Denmark. They all seem to be repopulating themselves nicely, thank you very much, with little chance of finding themselves empty of any citizens at all..

As @Left Coast pointed out, this is pure copium. China's population is set to tank and Europe is propping itself up with immigrants. (Immigrants who tend to be religious and not all that fond of the LGBT). Which is my point. The people who are having children at or above replacement level tend to be religious. Now let that trend run for fifty to eighty years.

Yes, there's no reason why both cannot continue to be offered. It's totally ridiculous, especially when they have "charismatic masses". It's obviously in demand and it's actually a part of reviving the Church and her heritage, so they're only hurting themselves by suppressing it. They are going to drive people away who want to be devout Catholics.

As I said to @Left Coast. The double standard is so blatant that I cannot give this pope the benefit of the doubt. The crackdown is ideologically driven. This pope's sympathies have never been subtle.

 

[danieldemol]

That is a remarkable thing to say! China is on the verge of major problems right now because of their past policies restricting how many kids their citizens are allowed to have. Their population is shrinking.

Can you explain why they aren't necessary problems in a country which continues to suffer heavily from overpopulation problems?

 

[Glaurung]

Alternatively, I could be wrong and the cardinal electors double down on progressivism and elect a Francis II. A Francis II with the courage to actually implement the progressive/liberal wish list. Married priests, deaconesses/priestesses, gay marriage, open communion with Protestants and a complete 180 on Catholic sexual teaching.

If this were to happen, then my disillusionment with Rome and its claims would be validated. My nominal allegiance to Catholicism would shatter utterly. If this were to happen, then the Catholic Church - having falsified its claims to indefectibility - will absolutely cease to exist by the 22nd century if not earlier.

 

[LuisDantas]

Of course. It's a multivariate situation. But there's a general trend where people inherit worldviews from their caregivers. This is just as true for non-religious folks as religious folks, I would submit.

While that is true, I think that it is also a bit misleading. Thanks for bringing my attention to it.

What happens is that caregivers from certain backgrounds (I am trying real hard not to pile on the usual suspects by naming them here in this thread) present their worldviews to their offspring with a whole lot less perception of choice (or even REAL choice) than those of other backgrounds.

Secularists are really a non-problem once one takes that into account. Despite a lot of mistrust and hatred directed towards us, hardly any group cares more for freedom of belief, creed, religion and practice.

Of course, that results in traditions having to stand or fall on their own merits as opposed to obedience to one's guardians. That is a good thing, but will not consistently be perceived as such.

 

[Rival]

Married priests, deaconesses/priestesses, gay marriage, open communion with Protestants and a complete 180 on Catholic sexual teaching.

The first two are legitimate. Priests continued to marry well into the 900s and Deaconesses are in the NT, as is the teaching that the priests have only one wife, which supposes marriage is fine for them.

 

[blü 2]

The scandals haunting Pope Francis

unherd.com

I make no secret of my disdain for the current regime in Rome. But I have become cautiously optimistic as this pontificate enters its final years.

The two reforming popes in the last century have been Giuseppe Roncalli (John XXIII) (who snapped Rome into the 20th century) and Jorge Bergoglio (Francis) (who has an essential decency, but has been too ill these last few years to be seen as a leader). In between have been the set-in-concrete right wingers Eugenio Pacelli (Pius XII), Giovanni Montini (Paul VI), Karol Wojtyła (John Paul II) and Josef Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) who was a bumbler but will be ever praised for reinventing the papal resignation.

When it comes to popes, God sure knows how to move in mysterious ways. Alternatively, the Holy Spirit has a lot to answer for.

 

[Glaurung]

The first two are legitimate. Priests continued to marry well into the 900s and Deaconesses are in the NT, as is the teaching that the priests have only one wife, which supposes marriage is fine for them.

I would accept more married men into the priesthood and even the phasing out of mandatory celibacy for diocesan priests. I would oppose lay deaconesses although I could get on board with opening up a deaconess-type office for nuns. Regardless, my view is that the Catholic Church is committed to male exclusive Holy Orders as a matter of dogma. (Whatever you may think of that).

 

[Rival]

Regardless, my view is that the Catholic Church is committed to male exclusive Holy Orders as a matter of dogma.

How come? Phoebe is called a Deaconess in Romans 16:1.

I'm not quoting any translation as I've taken that from the Greek.

 

[Glaurung]

How come? Phoebe is called a Deaconess in Romans 16:1.

I'm not quoting any translation as I've taken that from the Greek.

I don't dispute deaconess existed as a title in the early Church. I question the claim that these deaconesses were ordained clergy.

 

[Rival]

I don't dispute deaconess existed as a title in the early Church. I question the claim that these deaconesses were ordained clergy.

Why shouldn't they have been?

 

[Glaurung]

Why shouldn't they have been?

The weight of the tradition is simply against it. If I believe that the traditions of the Apostolic Church (Catholic and Orthodox) have been guided by the Holy Spirit, then the fact that the ordained clergy has been exclusively male for all or at least the vast majority the Church's history should indicate something to me.

I'm not against women acting as lectors at Mass or leading a choir; participating in processions or even distributing communion (although I think EMCs are far too overutilized) but I see no reason to open up the can of worms that would be women's ordination into Holy Orders. Even if it is limited to the deaconate.

 

[Left Coast]

It's actually people like the current pope who are clinging to a bygone era. African and Asian Catholics are overwhelmingly conservative. The current generation of young priests and seminarians are also notably more conservative than their elder counterparts. The Francis pontificate is liberal Catholicism's dying gasp.

Nah. People can be 'conservative' regardless of which liturgy they prefer. TLM doesn't have a monopoly on that. And Francis has been 'liberal' in some ways and yet 'conservative' in others. These labels are clunky and inaccurate when applied here.

In any case, access to the TLM only became a problem because Francis and a handful of hardline liberal prelates made it a problem. I don't buy their bull excuse that a handful of cantankerous trads threatened the unity of the Church.

Then I'm sorry, you haven't paid attention. It's well known that TLM parishes, especially in America, have become breeding grounds for uber-trad folks who think Vatican II was an illegitimate Council, NO Masses are invalid, Francis isn't a legitimate Pope, etc. I've met some of these people. It's a real phenomenon.

If they really gave a damn about the Church's unity they would have long cracked down on the liberal dissent that has not only been allowed to fester but has been actively coddled by the current pontificate. The double standard is blatant.

I see both happening. See his recent statements on surrogacy, women in the priesthood, even gay people in the priesthood.

The TLM was a standardization of what had already long existed. Rites over two-hundred years old were allowed to continue. If Vatican II followed the example of Trent in this regard, the TLM would have been allowed to continue due to its antiquity.

The TLM has been allowed to continue. I can go to a parish that offers the TLM 10 minutes from my home.

The NO, like the TLM, is also a standardization. Different liturgies predominate in different eras.

The NO was unprecedented in that it was an imposition of an entirely new liturgy that was essentially cooked up by a committee and forced upon everyone on pain of 'obedience'. Talk about clericalism...

All liturgies are "cooked up." Liturgies are inventions of people. The TLM was also an invention. Like the NO, it contains elements from earlier liturgies, but there was a time in Church history when it didn't exist.

 

[Left Coast]

While that is true, I think that it is also a bit misleading. Thanks for bringing my attention to it.

What happens is that caregivers from certain backgrounds (I am trying real hard not to pile on the usual suspects by naming them here in this thread) present their worldviews to their offspring with a whole lot less perception of choice (or even REAL choice) than those of other backgrounds.

Secularists are really a non-problem once one takes that into account. Despite a lot of mistrust and hatred directed towards us, hardly any group cares more for freedom of belief, creed, religion and practice.

Of course, that results in traditions having to stand or fall on their own merits as opposed to obedience to one's guardians. That is a good thing, but will not consistently be perceived as such.

This perception that non-religious people are all totally open-minded and would be just fine with their kids becoming, say, very religious, or adopting very different political or moral beliefs from them, I think is an inaccurate generalization. All you have to do is look at the way some irreligious folks around here talk about religion and religious people to see exactly how they'd feel about one of their own kids adopting those beliefs.

The pressures on kids to obtain approval from their parents, to be accepted and loved, is the same no matter what worldview we're talking about.

But rather than armchair philosophize about it, let's look at some data. What percentage of kids raised by non-religious parents are non-religious themselves, as adults?

 

[LuisDantas]

This perception that non-religious people are all totally open-minded and would be just fine with their kids becoming, say, very religious, or adopting very different political or moral beliefs from them, I think is an inaccurate generalization.

Why, sure. Taken to that extreme it certainly would be.

All the same, the general trend is still there and appears to be well supported by the data and directly observable facts.

All you have to do is look at the way some irreligious folks around here talk about religion and religious people to see exactly how they'd feel about one of their own kids adopting those beliefs.

I'm well aware.

It doesn't really make that extreme a difference, though.

The pressures on kids to obtain approval from their parents, to be accepted and loved, is the same no matter what worldview we're talking about.

Sorry, but that is just not true. We just have to take a hard look around. Or even collect some anedoctal data, in this particular stance.

But rather than armchair philosophize about it, let's look at some data. What percentage of kids raised by non-religious parents are non-religious themselves, as adults?

That is actually not the proper question to ask, and not just because there is so little ability to even define what would count as a non-religious person. There is also the much greater matter of how much acceptance of variation of belief stance (not "religiosity", which is a whole different kind of thing) is typical or even legally possible in various communities.

The answers are apparently both fairly clear and incredibly taboo. Also rather unsurprising, once you take into account how assymetrical the situations are in practice. It isn't really possible for even very "extreme" secularists to hide the existence of theists, even radical ones, among their communities.

Besides, it is not really possible - let alone accepted - for secularists to threaten their offspring with legal consequences, eternal hellfire, or violence from the authorities. As I pointed out above, it is a very asymmetrical situation.