What will this Pope's legacy be? The future?

osso, I find Vatican politickering fascinating. A good exercise every few years (or decades!) from an institution that has 20 centuries experience in politics.
Yes, most of Woytila's appointees are conservative in doctrine, interested on social issues and come from non-Western European countries (today the US has the second biggest cardinal force, behind Italy).

Lemme just point out that there are several other cardinals who stand a chance.
The Austrian one, Schonborn, I like. He's charismatic, yet reformist. I'm afraid that, at 60, he's too young for the post.
The Argentinian, Borgoglio, is both a jesuit -which gives him leverage among the progressives- and a member of Communione e Liberazione. He also has Italian roots. Must be a plus.
The bishop of Venice, Scola is the head of CL, so he must have a chance too.
Policarpo, from Portugal, is considered an anti-fundamentalist. Also a dark horse.
Italian Scolata, Belgian Dannels, Mexican Rivera (touch wood he won't), tUcrainian Lubomyr, Dias (from India), Lachica, from the Philippines and Otunga, from Kenia complete the list of talked-abouts.
But we must remember that 26 years ago Woytila wasn't on the talked-abouts list until the conclave was on it's way.

Hmm, all interesting info. Now I'm going to pay attention.

(The last Pope I sort of liked was John Paul I; the poor man didn't last, and would have had - I read - a tough time of it if he had.)

Ahem, 20 centuries...

Made the correction.


Sure osso, Pope Luciani was quite different fro Pope Woytila.
First of all, he wanted Council Vatican III. To further the reforms John XXIII had promoted and Paul VI had institutionalized.
Then he also declared something about the Middle East, not sure what, but I remember the Palestinians were elated, and the Israelis were angry.
He wasn't bound to last. So the Divine Providence took him.

Grand gestures and charisma. What about a personal apology for those priests who abused children? What about an offer of compensation rather than drawing back knowing the church would be risking millions of dollars? What about speaking personally with an African woman with far too many children to feed. What about those children when their parents both die of AIDS?

Grand gestures and good intentions, in my experience, have been worthless--but very nice to watch.

Well Diane/Annie Oakey the eye-the bullet-the target), the Catholic church asked for pardon for the Inquisition, and for it's behaviour during WWII.
Maybe in a few decades it will ask for pardon for today's issues.

In the times of Paul VI, many Catholic priests told women it was OK to take birth-control pills, and even closed an eye on re-married couples. John Paul II put a stop to all that. The church's clock moved back several decades, with the result of a wave of "irreligiosity" in modern countries with a Catholic tradition.
The big question for the Vatican today is: Do you want to keep the conservative and participative faithful even if you lose even more moderate Catholics? Will that strategy pay off in countries that may fall into more fundamentalist religions?
Think of it as a long term campaign.

I must add that I am not a practising Catholic and answer "no religion" to the Census Bureau.
Yet, I think that the future of the Catholic church is of utmost importance to Western civilization. This future is being discussed at this very moment.
Perhaps for cultural reasons, I personally see the Catholic church as giving a better (or a lesser evil) enviroment for civilization than most new Evangelical religions, at least in this, the westernmost hemisphere.

Yes, I agree with all that.

Fbaezer - yes- I have been becoming more aware of politics of his that I find admirable in many ways. I had long admired him for his apologies and admission of the church's faults.

I hope there will soon come a day when it admits such on matters like birth control and the role of women and homosexuality, for example.

Can you talk more about the Catholic church's attractiveness in areas threatened (I do not put inverted commas around the word!) by fundamentalist Christianity and Islam? That is fascinating (and, frankly, I find catholicism far more humane - at least now - than either. It seems to me, for all its faults, to have a kind of wisdom and tolerance about humanity and to lack, generally, the terrible rigidity and - fanaticism of those phenomena. As long as there is separation of church and state, anyway!!!

Anyhoo - here is a post of Nimh's on another thread that I thought worth popping here, in terms of a Pope's heritage:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1259325#1259325




Oh - Fbaezer, did you see my thread about changes in abortion law in Brazil? Also gives a snapshop of attitudes to birth control in that country - which, it seems, has the biggest population of catholics in the world?)


The politicking doubtless going on makes me think of The Shoes of the Fisherman....

dlowan, I have read recently that the Catholic church loses to the Evangelical Christians 1 million worshippers a year, only in Brazil.
A similar thing, to a smaller level -perhaps 200 thousand a year- happens in Mexico, specially in the US border states and in Chiapas (the poorest state, bordering Guatemala).

I may be over simpliflying it, but I find three things that determine the shift (you got to realize these religions make strides mostly with very poor, uneducated people, who live under terrible societal conditions of explotation and violence, in a world in which, seemingly, everyone is for him/herself, and God is against all).

1. Alcohol. Several new Christian religions emphasize soberness. Much more than wine-loving Catholicism. Abused women of alcoholic (or heavy drinking) husbands embrace the new religion, and lure their husband into it, as a way of saving their family and themselves.
2. Communal solidarity. This is something the Catholic church often overlooks. Since most new religions act under the logic of the small sect, members help each other very much. They hire each other, work together for communal benefits, etc.
Pastors and missionaries do here an important job. I've helped Husker -who is an active Christian promoter on Northern Mexico, I don't know of what denomination- with some translations. The good social work of gringo missionaries pays off.
3. Stiff moral standards as a way to sort good from evil, right from wrong in all paths of life. Fundamentalist religions tend to give more definitive answers than older ones. They're easier. "Family values" are shoved through hierarchical repression. Order is kept. Kids don't go astray (some will do, and run from religion, but that is seen as an exception).

These people, when they were Catholics, didn't care about stem-cell research, homosexuality or woman priests. Women wanted a stable father for their children, men wanted a friend who can land them a job, they all dreamed a garden on their community and a helping hand when they have a health problem.

In exchange for their conversion, they see the world in a righteous "us against them" way, where God is a part of "us". They will not participate in non-religious or non-church-guided community activities. They will try not to discuss, but to impose their views. And will contribute heftily to the new church, in the hope it will bring the Truth to others.

That is interesting - I have been struggling to understand the attraction of fundamentalist christianity - (except for those who need ultra-rigid world-views, presumably for psychological reasons.)

Fundamentalist Islam made sense to me from a political analysis - and I knew that organisations, like Hamas for instance, did a lot of social support work.


I see your point indeed.