Right, how much of a chance is there that Ratzinger gets so tainted by the child abuse scandals that he isn't considered viable anymore?Benedicts health proved rather robust, he was a hardliner and he was contaminated by the child abuse scandals.
Right, how much of a chance is there that Ratzinger gets so tainted by the child abuse scandals that he isn't considered viable anymore?
I think anything short of him crucifying all real and suspected offenders would be considered "tainted" by the press.Where the idea comes from, that Benedikt in any form was tainted by the child abuse scandals?
The recent thread about a Conclave in 2003 made wonder - what would need to change to get a successor to John Paul II that is more progressive than him?
Where the idea comes from, that Benedikt in any form was tainted by the child abuse scandals?
The recent thread about a Conclave in 2003 made wonder - what would need to change to get a successor to John Paul II that is more progressive than him?
Irony of it all is a full scale papal investigation ten years ago could have cleaned up alot of the mess. I highly doubt the Pope himself (either of them) was involved in the actual cover up, but by not doing anything about it and finding, defrocking and jailed those who were behind it the upper hierarchy of the church ended up tarred with the same brush. It's almost Nixon/Watergate, the president had nothing to do with the break in, but by trying to cover it up he destroyed himself.
I think anything short of him crucifying all real and suspected offenders would be considered "tainted" by the press.
I also simply don't get all these fantasy threads about a "progressive" or "liberal" Pope - have you guys never heard the question "is the Pope a Catholic"? Shift a Pope's teaching and beliefs far enough across for the media to consider them a "progressive" and there is no way they would be a Catholic - indeed, in most cases it would be pretty hard to regard them even as Christian. It's almost a miracle that Francis is regarded like this by the media - in his teaching and actions he is really no different from his predecessors, he just has a very much more effective way of dealing with the press and getting them to print what has always been Catholic teaching.
The recent thread about a Conclave in 2003 made wonder - what would need to change to get a successor to John Paul II that is more progressive than him?
Nope. I respect him, and I find him an improvement as a Pope and a leader compared to Ratzinger, but not what I'd consider progressive.Wasn't Pope Francis considered papabile during the 2005 conclave? Would he be considered "progressive" enough for you?
Nope. I respect him, and I find him an improvement as a Pope and a leader compared to Ratzinger, but not what I'd consider progressive.
Not sure who I'd pick, as I'm not an expert on the Catholic hierarchy; I was speculating whether there'd be a way to have someone willing to push hard for significant changes. Something similar to the Anglican church today. Take your pick of, let's say, women in the priesthood, priests being able to marry, some acceptance of homosexuality, accepting divorced people, acquiring a more realistic attitude towards human sexuality and birth control. And I put in "take your pick" because I'm well aware you aren't going to get them all.
What about that "balloon cardinal" from Austria?
By those standards, I don't think there's anyone who was being seriously considered by the conclave who could be elected Pope.
By those standards, I don't think there's anyone who was being seriously considered by the conclave who could be elected Pope.
Nope. I respect him, and I find him an improvement as a Pope and a leader compared to Ratzinger, but not what I'd consider progressive.
Not sure who I'd pick, as I'm not an expert on the Catholic hierarchy; I was speculating whether there'd be a way to have someone willing to push hard for significant changes. Something similar to the Anglican church today. Take your pick of, let's say, women in the priesthood, priests being able to marry, some acceptance of homosexuality, accepting divorced people, acquiring a more realistic attitude towards human sexuality and birth control. And I put in "take your pick" because I'm well aware you aren't going to get them all.
Then basically, you want Pope Francis, or the equivalent, ten years early. He has articulated tolerance, at least to a point, for gays/lesbians with his "Who am I to judge" comments. He has said that the door is closed to women priests but he has explicitly called for a far greater role for women in the Church in accordance with the views and expectations of modern society and he has chastized priests for withholding the Eucharist without just cause, saying the Eucharist is the means to salvation, not the end goal in and of itself. That could be construed acceptance of divorced people. I don't know what his views on the possibility of a married priesthood is, or his thoughts on contraception/birth control, but he is known to asked for a full survey of the laity on a wide variety of issues and questions, including gay rights, same sex marriage, married priests, abortion and birth control. That suggests that he is a realist and he's trying to figure out what people actually expect of the Church and how to deliver it.