The Next Pope

[Left Coast]

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

But that's just it. It's just as "extreme" to a non-religious parent when their child becomes religious as when a religious parent sees their child become non-religious. You're watching someone you raised adopt positions you find abhorrent. The psychological and sociological processes are all still there.

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

Sorry, which general trend?

I'm well aware.

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

How do you know, if we don't look at actual data? How in the world would it not make a difference to the worldview a child ends up with to have atheistic or even anti-theistic parents? You really believe that exerts no influence?

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.

You don't think there's even anecdotal evidence of children raised in irreligious households knowing that their parents would react poorly if they became religious?

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.

It would be done the same way it's done in most all studies of these groups: by self-identification.

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.

Whether there is some hypothetical "acceptance" of variation of belief in a household isn't the question we're asking, though. You said: "True... but it is not like secularists consistently have only - or even mostly - secularist offspring."

That is the statement I was responding to and hoping to evaluate. The question is very simply: do irreligious parents raise mostly irreligious kids?

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.

I'm not even sure what we're talking about here.

 

[Left Coast]

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.

It's well-known that secular authoritarian regimes have had no qualms with suppressing religion. In those societies, it very much is possible for parents to threaten their children with legal consequences or violence.

And again, if the threat of hellfire or whstever other asymmetrical consequences you think there are that exist in religious families makes that big a difference in how the kids turn out, let's look at the numbers!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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 scandal of the current pontificate makes the prospect of a Francis II unlikely. I anticipate that the next conclave will seek to elect a moderate conservative whose policies will be more in line with those of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

A business that intentionally alienates its most loyal customers is an irrationally run business. A church that intentionally alienates its most devout adherents is an irrationally run church. A Catholic Church that continues to deprecate its own liturgical heritage: a Catholic Church that will not affirm its own moral doctrines without ambiguity - perpetually seeking to 'compromise' on its own teachings - undermines its claims to being the custodian of divine revelation.

The next pope has a big mess to clean up. But his opening move is actually quite obvious. End the crusade against the TLM and rescind most of Francis' restrictions on it. Allowing more access to traditional services (be those services the TLM or the NO with smells and bells) will upset the hardline liberals but they will be an irrelevant screeching minority the day Francis dies.

The fundamental issue with the Francis vision is that it attempts to address a world that no longer exists. Liberal Catholicism may have made a degree of sense in the 1970s but it makes no sense in the 2020's. A Christianity that stands for little but unthreatening platitudes is not compelling in a secular culture hostile to religion. The only churches that will survive these coming decades are those with an uncompromising message. Until the Catholic Church sees that it will continue to flounder: being a parody of itself, a once great church.

I'm not going to say much, since I'm not Catholic, so I don't really have a dog in the race. That said...

I think that Francis is largely misunderstood. For example, the media constantly constantly presents him as a progressive, and in fact he is nothing of the sort. This misunderstanding is in large part due to Francis inability to express himself clearly, and then he gets mad when others in the church ask him to clarify. He makes highly confusing statements like "Who am I to judge" Say what? You're the Pope -- it's your JOB to tell Catholics what is right and wrong. But the misunderstanding is also due to the media desperately wanting a liberal pope,. Quite frankly the media edits what he says to such a large degree that they step over the line into misrepresentation.

Let's look for a moment at the issue of homosexuality. Francis has worked hard to make the church a welcoming place for gays. That is NOT THE SAME as thinking that it is not a sin. His traditional morals about homosexuality become crystal clear when you consider that homosexuals are not allowed in the seminaries. People were confused when he advocated blessing gay couples. However, the blessing he referred to was of the INDIVIDUAL, not the relationship. It would be no different than blessing someone who committed any other reputed sin.

Since you bring up the Latin Mass, let me offer a thought or too. It's not that Francis has a problem with the Latin Mass. It's that the Latin Mass has been appropriated by people who oppose Vatican 2. It has become a symbol for that rebellion. There is no way Francis can preserve the unity of the Catholic church without putting down that rebellion.

Probably the only issue that *I* have with the CC, is the way it treats women as second class citizens. I realize that Francis has done some great things at expanding the influence of women in the church. However, until women have the same authority as men (meaning the priesthood) they have a LONG way to go. This thing about priests having all the authority, and nuns being their servants, is just downright oppressive. I really don't see this issue as one of religion, as much as human rights for women. It's no different to me than any other religion or ideology that keeps women "in their place."

 

[JACC2312]

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 scandal of the current pontificate makes the prospect of a Francis II unlikely. I anticipate that the next conclave will seek to elect a moderate conservative whose policies will be more in line with those of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

A business that intentionally alienates its most loyal customers is an irrationally run business. A church that intentionally alienates its most devout adherents is an irrationally run church. A Catholic Church that continues to deprecate its own liturgical heritage: a Catholic Church that will not affirm its own moral doctrines without ambiguity - perpetually seeking to 'compromise' on its own teachings - undermines its claims to being the custodian of divine revelation.

The next pope has a big mess to clean up. But his opening move is actually quite obvious. End the crusade against the TLM and rescind most of Francis' restrictions on it. Allowing more access to traditional services (be those services the TLM or the NO with smells and bells) will upset the hardline liberals but they will be an irrelevant screeching minority the day Francis dies.

The fundamental issue with the Francis vision is that it attempts to address a world that no longer exists. Liberal Catholicism may have made a degree of sense in the 1970s but it makes no sense in the 2020's. A Christianity that stands for little but unthreatening platitudes is not compelling in a secular culture hostile to religion. The only churches that will survive these coming decades are those with an uncompromising message. Until the Catholic Church sees that it will continue to flounder: being a parody of itself, a once great church.

I disagree, Pope Francis is showing that the Church is not the realm of the selfdescribed as Free from Sin, The Church is the gathering of the brethren that the Holy Spirit calls for Conversion and for salvation through perseverance in the faith and the sacraments. The Holy Spirit doesn't call us to pray in Latin, I myself know to pray the Our Father, The Hail Mary in Latin and would be able to answer all the Mass in Latin. That doesn't make me more catholic, more alike to the apostles.

We love the heritage of The Latin Mass as a treasure given to us by Our ancestors in the Western Europe of centuries ago, I myself am Descendant from Spaniards, What more fiercely catholic can I be?, But Catholicism is not based on Language, otherwise we should look for the abolition of English as a barbaric language and impose either French, Portuguese, Italian or Spanish as true heirs of Latin, the Romance languages. Catholicism is the True Family of God on Earth and Our Dutty is not to impose Latin but to Spread the Gospel to every creature and Baptise them. Yes I agree we should preserve the Latin Mass as a preacious Jewel of Our Western Christianity Legacy but we shouldn't relly on it to spread the Gospel to the World in their languages.

 

[Glaurung]

I disagree, Pope Francis is showing that the Church is not the realm of the selfdescribed as Free from Sin, The Church is the gathering of the brethren that the Holy Spirit calls for Conversion and for salvation through perseverance in the faith and the sacraments.

Firstly, conservatives and traditionalists usually do not claim to be free from sin. On the contrary, they tend to be quite conscious of their sins. Secondly, the Church is an institution (which claims to be founded by Christ) whose primary mission is the salvation of souls.

The Holy Spirit doesn't call us to pray in Latin, I myself know to pray the Our Father, The Hail Mary in Latin and would be able to answer all the Mass in Latin. That doesn't make me more catholic, more alike to the apostles.

If you read my orignal post, I never made any claims about the Latin Mass in and of itself. I said that the next pope - who I predict will be conservative-ish - should rescind Francis' restrictions in order to bring the traditionalists and conservatives back into the fold. Francis has systematically alienated them for no reason other than his own pathologies.

We love the heritage of The Latin Mass as a treasure given to us by Our ancestors in the Western Europe of centuries ago, I myself am Descendant from Spaniards, What more fiercely catholic can I be?, But Catholicism is not based on Language, otherwise we should look for the abolition of English as a barbaric language and impose either French, Portuguese, Italian or Spanish as true heirs of Latin, the Romance languages. Catholicism is the True Family of God on Earth and Our Dutty is not to impose Latin but to Spread the Gospel to every creature and Baptise them. Yes I agree we should preserve the Latin Mass as a preacious Jewel of Our Western Christianity Legacy but we shouldn't relly on it to spread the Gospel to the World in their languages.

You have misunderstood what the orignal post was even about. It also helps that you read the linked article. Again, my point about the TLM is that rescinding Francis' restrictions would be an obvious and easy way for the next pope to win the good will of the Catholics Francis has alienated. (Trads are part of the pope's flock too, no matter how much he may hate that). That this thread has become about the TLM misses the point of the OP.

 

[Glaurung]

I think that Francis is largely misunderstood. For example, the media constantly constantly presents him as a progressive, and in fact he is nothing of the sort. This misunderstanding is in large part due to Francis inability to express himself clearly, and then he gets mad when others in the church ask him to clarify. He makes highly confusing statements like "Who am I to judge" Say what? You're the Pope -- it's your JOB to tell Catholics what is right and wrong. But the misunderstanding is also due to the media desperately wanting a liberal pope,. Quite frankly the media edits what he says to such a large degree that they step over the line into misrepresentation.

As much as I dislike this pontificate, I agree that this pope has suffered from bad faith criticism. It is also true that the media is not particularly trustworthy when it comes to covering the Catholic Church. Nonetheless, I think the hole Pope Francis has dug himself into is largely of his own making as per the linked article in the orignal post.

Let's look for a moment at the issue of homosexuality. Francis has worked hard to make the church a welcoming place for gays. That is NOT THE SAME as thinking that it is not a sin. His traditional morals about homosexuality become crystal clear when you consider that homosexuals are not allowed in the seminaries. People were confused when he advocated blessing gay couples. However, the blessing he referred to was of the INDIVIDUAL, not the relationship. It would be no different than blessing someone who committed any other reputed sin.

The reason the Church is cracking down on homosexuality in the seminaries is because the decades long policy of turning a blind eye to it blew up in the bishops' faces when the sex abuse scandals hit. That and the general scandal of same-sex activity in seminaries being rife (for decades) was a bad look.

As for Fiducia Supplicans, the whole thing is sophistry that outraged the Africans. (And many others).

Since you bring up the Latin Mass, let me offer a thought or too. It's not that Francis has a problem with the Latin Mass. It's that the Latin Mass has been appropriated by people who oppose Vatican 2. It has become a symbol for that rebellion. There is no way Francis can preserve the unity of the Catholic church without putting down that rebellion.

If Biden can publicly support abortion and get a photo op with the pope then a few online trads questioning Vatican II is rather small potatoes in my view. The Germans have been on the verge of schism for a while and yet the real problem is that some Latin Mass attendees are nutcases. The trad problem is real, but the hammer is not the solution to every perceived nail.

Probably the only issue that *I* have with the CC, is the way it treats women as second class citizens. I realize that Francis has done some great things at expanding the influence of women in the church. However, until women have the same authority as men (meaning the priesthood) they have a LONG way to go. This thing about priests having all the authority, and nuns being their servants, is just downright oppressive. I really don't see this issue as one of religion, as much as human rights for women. It's no different to me than any other religion or ideology that keeps women "in their place."

The Church teaches that the male only priesthood is an article of irreformable dogma. That cannot and will not change. Even the current Pope understands that.

 

[JACC2312]

Firstly, conservatives and traditionalists usually do not claim to be free from sin. On the contrary, they tend to be quite conscious of their sins. Secondly, the Church is an institution (which claims to be founded by Christ) whose primary mission is the salvation of souls.


If you read my orignal post, I never made any claims about the Latin Mass in and of itself. I said that the next pope - who I predict will be conservative-ish - should rescind Francis' restrictions in order to bring the traditionalists and conservatives back into the fold. Francis has systematically alienated them for no reason other than his own pathologies.


You have misunderstood what the orignal post was even about. It also helps that you read the linked article. Again, my point about the TLM is that rescinding Francis' restrictions would be an obvious and easy way for the next pope to win the good will of the Catholics Francis has alienated. (Trads are part of the pope's flock too, no matter how much he may hate that). That this thread has become about the TLM misses the point of the OP.

Anyway, I dicussed the Specific issue brought on the Latin Mass, on the othe hand Speaking of Free from Sin was a figure to speak about those who seem to be more conservatives than the pope himself. As if they pretended to be better Christ representatives, or even worse implying that the Holy Spirit didn't apoint well the Conclave. TRUE Traditional Catholics follow the Pope on the base of the Promise of Christ that He apointed Peter to lead his flock, so disobedience or revolt is the most uncatholic act. Yes the Pope is not God, neither are we.

 

[Glaurung]

Anyway, I dicussed the Specific issue brought on the Latin Mass, on the othe hand Speaking of Free from Sin was a figure to speak about those who seem to be more conservatives than the pope himself. As if they pretended to be better Christ representatives, or even worse implying that the Holy Spirit didn't apoint well the Conclave. TRUE Traditional Catholics follow the Pope on the base of the Promise of Christ that He apointed Peter to lead his flock, so disobedience or revolt is the most uncatholic act. Yes the Pope is not God, neither are we.

The traditionalists and the conservatives want to practice or at least believe as the Church has taught them perennially. The Catholic Church has legitimacy only in so far as it faithfully teaches what it claims has been passed down to it by revelation and tradition. The notion that the pope can teach whatever he wants (tradition be damned) reduces what is supposed to be the religion of Christ into a voluntaristic cult.

Yes, the pope is entitled to reverence. But that reverence does not make him an unquestionable divine oracle who is immune from all criticism. I am sick and tired of the gaslighting. The post Vatican II Church is in a doctrinal and liturgical hole and Francis has made it worse.

 

[JACC2312]

The traditionalists and the conservatives want to practice or at least believe as the Church as taught them perennially. The Catholic Church has legitimacy only in so far as it faithfully teaches what it claims has been passed down to it by revelation and tradition. The notion that the pope can teach whatever he wants (tradition be damned) reduces what is supposed to be the religion of Christ into a voluntaristic cult.

Yes, the pope is entitled to reverence. But that reverence does not make him an unquestionable divine oracle who is immune from all criticism. I am sick and tired of the gaslighting. The post Vatican II Church is obviously in a doctrinal and liturgical hole and Francis has made it worse.

I totally disagree, From the very Sacred Scripture the Day of Pentecost the Apostles emerged to speak in many languages, the Scripture says that everybody could understand in their languages, not that everybody understood Aramaic or Hebrew, thus the Latin rite is not a mass for the Ages and for all the peoples just because it is in Latin, The MASS is the True TRADITION while latin is the "tradition", and no, the Post vatican II is the Church that has reach far more peoples who were apart from the Gospel and has led them to Worship the True God in their own languages. The
Core of the Faith is clearly stated in the CREED, and the Core of the Liturgy is the consecration of the Species into the Body and Blood of The Lord. this Consecration can be made in any language.

 

[Glaurung]

I totally disagree, From the very Sacred Scripture the Day of Pentecost the Apostles emerged to speak in many languages, the Scripture says that everybody could understand in their languages, not that everybody understood Aramaic or Hebrew, thus the Latin rite is not a mass for the Ages and for all the peoples just because it is in Latin, The MASS is the True TRADITION while latin is the "tradition", and no, the Post vatican II is the Church that has reach far more peoples who were apart from the Gospel and have led them to Worship the True God in their own languages. The
Core of the Faith is clearly stated in the CREED, and the Core of the Liturgy is the consecration of the Species into the Body and Blood of The Lord. this Consecration can be made in any language.

I am going to quit for the night because I am getting frustrated. I am not talking about the Tridentine Mass. My replies to you have been concerned with the competence of the pope, the Church and the faith it claims to maintain. Yet you keep missing the point entirely. You and I are having two completely different discussions. Either I am bad at communicating or you are not reading what I have actually posted.

 

[Left Coast]

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,

Married priests already exist in the Church. Peter had a wife, for goodness' sake. It's a question of whether to continue that particular discipline as a norm or requirement in the Latin Rite. It's not doctrinal.

deaconesses/priestesses,

The female priesthood is not going to happen. A female diaconate is a different question. There were female deacons in the early Church. I can't see how it would be a change of doctrine to allow some type female diaconate again. But we'll see.

gay marriage,

This won't happen.

open communion with Protestants

This won't happen.

and a complete 180 on Catholic sexual teaching.

This won't happen.

 

[JACC2312]

I am going to quit for the night because I am getting frustrated. I am not talking about the Tridentine Mass. My replies to you have been concerned with the competence of the pope, the Church and the faith it claims to maintain. Yet you keep missing the point entirely. You and I are having two completely different discussions. Either I am bad at communicating or you are not reading what I have actually posted.

Pope Francis has not Stated Heresies Excatedra, has expressed polemical opinions regarding the Fariseic interpretation of Law. He has not changed the Creed the cannon Law or the Teachings of the Councils, He wants to approach more on the sinners who are getting disafected to the Church. but is challenging the insensible approach of the so called "Conservatives". Again we cannot question the Fact that the Holy Spirit guided the Council to elect him.

 

[paarsurrey]

Pope Francis has not Stated Heresies Excatedra, has expressed polemical opinions regarding the Fariseic interpretation of Law. He has not changed the Creed the cannon Law or the Teachings of the Councils, He wants to approach more on the sinners who are getting disafected to the Church. but is challenging the insensible approach of the so called "Conservatives". Again we cannot question the Fact that the Holy Spirit guided the Council to elect him.

we cannot question the Fact that the Holy Spirit guided the Council to elect him.

Did (Jesus)Yeshua-the truthful Israelite Messiah tell the members of the council, each one of them, to vote for him to authenticate his successorship, please?

Regards

 

[JACC2312]

Did (Jesus)Yeshua-the truthful Israelite Messiah tell the members of the council, each one of them, to vote for him to authenticate his successorship, please?

Regards

God who is Eternal Eternally wants what happens in time.

 

[Glaurung]

This won't happen.

You're right, if the Church is what it claims to be.

Pope Francis has not Stated Heresies Excatedra, has expressed polemical opinions regarding the Fariseic interpretation of Law. He has not changed the Creed the cannon Law or the Teachings of the Councils, He wants to approach more on the sinners who are getting disafected to the Church. but is challenging the insensible approach of the so called "Conservatives". Again we cannot question the Fact that the Holy Spirit guided the Council to elect him.

It is not conservatives keeping sinners from entering the Church. Conservatives are not preventing people from going to confession. What is keeping sinners from the Church is their rejection of the moral law as taught by Christianity. Those sinners you claim Pope Francis wants to approach will always be disaffected so long as the Church teaches its doctrines on sexual ethics.

The culture wants to fornicate and have the Church soothe its conscience with a rubber stamp of approval. Those "Pharisees" Francis rails about are those who point out that the Church cannot negotiate when it comes to right and wrong.

 

[JACC2312]

You're right, if the Church is what it claims to be.


It is not conservatives keeping sinners from entering the Church. Conservatives are not preventing people from going to confession. What is keeping sinners from the Church is their rejection of the moral law as taught by Christianity. Those sinners you claim Pope Francis wants to approach will always be disaffected so long as the Church teaches its doctrines on sexual ethics.

The culture wants to fornicate and have the Church soothe its conscience with a rubber stamp of approval. Those "Pharisees" Francis rails about are those who point out that the Church cannot negotiate when it comes to right and wrong.

Matthew 9, 12- 13

{9:12} But Jesus, hearing this, said:
“It is not those who are healthy who are in need of a
physician, but those who have maladies. {9:13} So then, go
out and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not
sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the just, but sinners.”

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Those sinners you claim Pope Francis wants to approach will always be disaffected so long as the Church teaches its doctrines on sexual ethics.

How does this mesh with Jesus socializing with prostitutes and corrupt tax collectors? How does it mesh with his statement 'It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.' ???

it is clear to me that the Pope simply wants to embrace those who sin, without saying their behavior is not sin.

 

[Glaurung]

Matthew 9, 12- 13

{9:12} But Jesus, hearing this, said:
“It is not those who are healthy who are in need of a
physician, but those who have maladies. {9:13} So then, go
out and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not
sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the just, but sinners.”

You have habit of missing the point. No conservative or traditionalist is denying anyone the opportunity to avail themselves of either baptism or confession. The issue is that the progressives the Francis pontificate has empowered deny the existence of sin. They deny the fashionable vices are in any need of healing whatsoever.

it is clear to me that the Pope simply wants to embrace those who sin, without saying their behavior is not sin.

That's where I disagree. The pope and the people he empowers want a Church that embraces the fashionable sins of our culture or at the very least significantly downplays their seriousness.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That's where I disagree. The pope and the people he empowers want a Church that embraces the fashionable sins of our culture or at the very least significantly downplays their seriousness.

How does this reconcile with Pope Francis not allowing gays into seminary?

How does this reconcile with Pope Francis not blessing same sex unions?

 

[Glaurung]

How does this reconcile with Pope Francis not allowing gays into seminary?

How does this reconcile with Pope Francis not blessing same sex unions?

You have just touched upon the big incoherence of this pontificate. On the one hand, Francis has systematically replaced conservative bishops with liberal/progressive ones. He has spent his entire pontificate signaling a desire to reform Catholic teaching and practice along liberal/progressive lines. Yet on the other hand, not one of his synods or encyclicals has amounted to any decisive change in formal teaching. When push comes to shove the pope becomes conservative or at the very least non-liberal.

Either Francis is utterly incoherent in his thinking, or he is deeply conflicted about what he actually wants for the Church. My suspicion is that Francis' liberalism is motivated by a desire for worldly approbation. He wants to be liked by the secular world. Thus he makes endless overtures in that direction: telegraphing change that never substantially eventuates. But deep down, he still possesses enough Catholic conviction that he fears going to Hell should he implement the liberal/progressive wish list. He doesn't want to face God as the heretic pope with a schism on his conscience.