OT: Pick the Pope Poll

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 5:14 pm

Give me Sodano and the Over.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 5:18 pm

I'll take Lustiger and the points. I can't recall the last time that a German covered on the road.

rubba19 · Post by **rubba19** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 5:21 pm

I like the darkhorse Fr. Guido Sarducci

An American as Pope? Believe it when I see it.....

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:10 pm

I would have no problem with Cardinal Ratzinger. I'm not a liberal or a conservative when it comes to politics, but I am a conservative when it comes to religion.

Religious dogma is not something that should shift with the winds of prevailing pop culture. I don't want non-celibate priests, and I don't want female priests. I also don't want the Church to change its position on birth control, euthanasia or abortion one bit.

I'm pro-life, all the way. The only place it gets sticky is the use of condoms to stop the spread heterosexual AIDS in Africa and other developing countries. I firmly support that, even if it flies in the face of Church teaching.

But how do you tell African Catholic males they can wear rubbers, but people from other places can't wear them? Tricky, to say the least.

This isn't music, politics or fashion, something that changes to adjust to what's popular. Frankly, and with no disrespect to Z, the liberal American Catholics really piss me off sometimes. It's almost as if: "Well, the rest of the world needs to get with our way of thinking, where religion should bend to the whims of pop culture. That's how you'll get more members, by being more secular."

Screw that. I'd rather see the opposite happen, with lay Americans gravitating more toward the Church's teachings than having the Church gravitate toward decaying American cultural norms and whims. I don't and haven't obeyed every syllable of Church teachings, so call me a hypocrite, but I don't want the Church dogma watered down to appeal to this generation. Vatican II mainly changed the Church's presentation to the world and allowed for more lay people's inclusion in the liturgy, which is great. But it didn't change the foundations upon which the Church were built, in my eyes. And allowing non-celibate and female priests would, as would changing the stance on life issues.

I'd also rather see priests from other cultures brought to the U.S. to answer the shortage of priests here than let women or non-celibate men become priests.

Back to the original poll topic, I think the big question regarding this Conclave is one of location, not philosophy. A moderately conservative or conservative Pope will be elected. The cardinals aren't going to change the conservative course that John Paul II set the last 26 years.

But where will the next Pope be from? Cardinal Arinze from Nigeria or one of the Latin American cardinals, nodding toward the big Catholic populations in both continents?

I would love to see Cardinal Arinze elected as Pope. That would send a clear message from the Church that African issues should be addressed on a global scale, and it would send a clear message from the Church against racism. It saddened me to read in the Syracuse Sunday paper that a Nigerian priest at one of the local parishes said Arinze had little chance of being elected Pope because American Catholics weren't ready to accept a black man as Pope for the first time in centuries.

Count this American Catholic as one who would welcome a black or Hispanic Pope with open arms. That would be a strong sign to the world that the Catholic Church is a universal church.

Take care,
PK

skidmark · Post by **skidmark** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:01 pm

pk500 wrote:...but it didn't change the foundations upon which the Church were built, in my eyes. And allowing non-celibate and female priests would, as would changing the stance on life issues.

Just an inquiry and not an attempt to fire into a big debate here pk, but where exactly does celibacy work in to the church's foundation according to your beliefs? The Bible makes no mention of any celibacy requirement for preachers, and, in fact, reveals that Peter (considered to be the first Pope by Catholics) was married.

F308GTB · Post by **F308GTB** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:06 pm

What are the odds for the field?

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:09 pm

skidmark wrote:
pk500 wrote:...but it didn't change the foundations upon which the Church were built, in my eyes. And allowing non-celibate and female priests would, as would changing the stance on life issues.
Just an inquiry and not an attempt to fire into a big debate here pk, but where exactly does celibacy work in to the church's foundation according to your beliefs? The Bible makes no mention of any celibacy requirement for preachers, and, in fact, reveals that Peter (considered to be the first Pope by Catholics) was married.

The church was not built on celibacy...that was added much later when the Vatican grew tired of having priests die and leaving money to heirs instead of the church...

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:22 pm

Does anyone know what the Air Drag Coefficients are on those hats they wear?

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=680411

Boltman · Post by **Boltman** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:57 pm

bdoughty wrote:Does anyone know what the Air Drag Coefficients are on those hats they wear?

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=680411

LMFAO!!

I gotta go with Martini, anyone with the surname of an alchohol drink rules.

Sport73 · Post by **Sport73** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:58 pm

I'll take Fr. Guido Sarducci and the grain of salt with religious dogma.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:59 pm

Interesting history about celibacy and the Catholic Church:

http://www.tfp.org/TFPForum/catholic_pe ... libacy.htm

I admire celibacy and want it to remain a cornerstone of the Catholic priesthood. Let's face it: Anyone who vows to give up sex for the love of God has to be a pretty spiritual person and be very committed to the faith. I admire that.

I also like how celibacy makes priests different than lay men or ministers in other faiths. The vows of chastity, celibacy and poverty make Catholic priests different than other men. Of course, celibacy can lead to scandal, as it did with American Catholic priests.

But I admire the vow of celibacy -- it's something I couldn't do -- and want it to remain part of the Catholic Church.

Take care,
PK

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:45 pm

After reading that link I am more confused than I was before.
I dont know who to believe...Good thing Im not Catholic and really dont have to worry about it.
It does contradict the Modern World History class I took in college.

Ever watch the History channels documentary on Popes?

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:29 pm

sf_z wrote:Again, I don't have a problem with celibacy, as long as I don't have to do it myself. But I think the role of women in the church is more critical. If educated women in the West see the church as out of touch with their lives, they'll stop taking their children to mass and sending them through Catholic education. This will have farther reaching consequences than a shortage of celibate priests.

If "out of touch" means prohibiting abortion, then tough sh*t for American female Catholics. The day the Catholic Church sanctions murder of an unborn, living child is the day I seriously consider leaving that Church.

But if "out of touch" means there should be more of a woman's voice at the Vatican, I approve wholeheartedly. I think it would be cool if the Church allowed a female vicar or deacon to be a permanent sounding board at the Vatican to the College of Cardinals on women's issues. That would be excellent.

sf_z wrote:I'll continue to practice the mortal sin of contraception until the day I can't get it up anymore. There are over 6 billion people on the planet and exactly 4 in my household. That's about all both can handle. For all of Pope JPII's real and symbolic kindness to people with AIDS, the church does a disservice to humanity by continuing to ignore the dual realities of overpopulation and HIV, and the role of contraception in preventing both.

I wrestle with the dual role of condoms. No question. I've used them and know the realities of birth control. But our recent son was conceived through playing "Catholic roulette," as we haven't used contraception for a while, and he has been such a blessing.

But either way, it is tough to grapple with the pro-life aspects of opposing birth control and the pro-life aspects of condom use among heterosexual, married couples in sub-Saharan Africa.

Birth control is one area where I splinter from the Church's teachings the most, no question.

Take care,
PK

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:10 pm

sf_z wrote:Well, it looks like it's going to be Alex Smith now

Does he have the experience?

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 11:31 pm

no offense but do people still think the pope has this hotline to God? It's not like we're living in the 2nd century where 95 percent of the populace couldn't read so it was easy for the clergy to tell them how to live.

Do people still need to look to a Pope to tell them how to run their lives instead of making decisions by themselves? Not trying to slam anyone's beliefs, just claiming ignorance on my own part since I find this hard to understand in these days.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:30 am

Weaver2005 wrote:no offense but do people still think the pope has this hotline to God? It's not like we're living in the 2nd century where 95 percent of the populace couldn't read so it was easy for the clergy to tell them how to live.

I do, and I'm a college graduate.

Weaver2005 wrote:Do people still need to look to a Pope to tell them how to run their lives instead of making decisions by themselves? Not trying to slam anyone's beliefs, just claiming ignorance on my own part since I find this hard to understand in these days.

I look to the Pope and the Church to provide spiritual guidance and somewhat of a road map for the way to live a good life. Religion doesn't make all of my decisions for me, but it does play a role in some daily decisions.

Faith is a mysterious thing. If you have it, you believe and understand it. If you don't or aren't sure if you do, then you may not believe or understand it.

Take care,
PK

DChaps · Post by **DChaps** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:58 am

pk500 wrote:I don't want non-celibate priests, and I don't want female priests.

Paul, you do know there are already married priests in the Catholic church, right? One performed the Baptism of my Godson.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:59 am

XXXIV wrote:
sf_z wrote:Well, it looks like it's going to be Alex Smith now

Does he have the experience?

I heard Germany is willing to trade down for future Cardinal considerations and a box of communion wafers.

In all seriousness, it's almost impossible to predict the selection of the next pope. There are certainly favorites, but once the Cardinals begin the process, anything can happen.

I think the celibacy rule needs to be abandonned or at least relaxed. I would ask this question: what is more important, having enough priests or hanging onto celibacy? I don't think it's some trendy change. I think there are many pious people out there who would love to be a priest if they could also have a family or keep their existing one. I have a much more cynical view of this practice, because frankly, I think surpressing the natural instinct to mate is abnormal (and once got in trouble for saying so in my 12th grade religion class). It is a nobel sacrifice, but I think (like PK and birth control) this is one area where I strongly disagree with the Church.

I also think they need to let women be ordained. In fact, I feel much more strongly about this than the celibacy issue. There is no reason why women should not be able to lead the Mass.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:09 am

DChaps wrote:
pk500 wrote:I don't want non-celibate priests, and I don't want female priests.
Paul, you do know there are already married priests in the Catholic church, right? One performed the Baptism of my Godson.

Splinter group? Does Rome recognize the legitimacy of that priest?

Either way, I'm not keen on married or non-celibate priests at all. I don't want my priest to be like the "guy next door," with the same worries about raising a family, having a wife, etc., etc., that can distract from their pastoral duties. When I was an altar boy as a kid, I always looked up to Monsignor Dwyer because he was different than every other adult male I knew. He wasn't married, had no kids and was totally devoted to God and his pastoral duties.

Call me anachronistic, but I just don't want the priesthood dumbed down to meet the needs of the secular world. I'd rather have the secular world become more spiritual.

John Paul II spent three hours every morning in prayer. How many married guys trying to raise kids and maintain a marriage have time to do that?

Women as priests? I guess I could accept that if they took the same vows of celibacy as male priests. Basically, nuns with the ability to say Mass and distribute the sacraments. I'm cool with that.

Take care,
PK

GROGtheNailer · Post by **GROGtheNailer** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:19 am

Well, I think they should be allowed to marry. You get some who go in to the priesthood to deny their sexual preference, an oath of celibacy requires them to not have to deal with it. It happens but how frequently.

It's not natural for a man to deny basic human needs. The need for human contact is basic.

Most religions treat women as second class citizens which is bullsh1t. I have no room to accept that kind of behavior.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:25 am

GROGtheNailer wrote:Well, I think they should be allowed to marry. You get some who go in to the priesthood to deny their sexual preference, an oath of celibacy requires them to not have to deal with it. It happens but how frequently.

You honestly believe that someone enters the priesthood, spending six years in the seminary and then a life of sacrifice and devotion to others, only to deny their sexual preference?

To each their own, but that's the kind of secular thinking that only reinforces my belief that the Vatican shouldn't soften its position on celibacy one bit.

Sexual contact is a basic human need for most. But is it possible that someone can find just as much fulfillment through a close personal relationship with God and a life of sacrifice and giving to others as they can from getting a blowjob or having sex doggy-style in a closet with a woman?

Apparently some of you guys don't think so. I do.

Take care,
PK

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:33 am

pk500 wrote: Either way, I'm not keen on married or non-celibate priests at all. I don't want my priest to be like the "guy next door," with the same worries about raising a family, having a wife, etc., etc., that can distract from their pastoral duties.

I agree that they shoould be different and special, but not in the superficial manner evidenced by their lack of spouse and family. Their calling in and of itself makes them special. Their ability to teach, comfort and advise, given to them by the grace of God sets them apart. The priests I've known (and I've known more than most) truly have been called to serve. They are not the type of people who would let their marital status interfere with their relationship with God and His Church. The frustrating thing is that I've known many lay people who are similarly committed but denied the opportunity to serve.