Pope Francis Advisory Council To Reform Church With Permanent Panel Of 8 Cardinals
Source: The Huffington Post
By NICOLE WINFIELD 04/13/13
VATICAN CITY -- Pope Francis marked his first month as pontiff on Saturday by naming eight cardinals from around the globe to a permanent advisory group to counsel him on running the Catholic Church and reforming the Vatican bureaucracy a bombshell announcement that indicates he intends a shift in how the papacy should function.
The panel includes only one current Vatican official; the rest are cardinals from North, Central and South America, Africa, Asia, Europe and Australia a clear indication that Francis wants to reflect the universal nature of the church as he goes about governing.
The church is growing and counts most of the world's Catholics in the southern hemisphere while it's shrinking in Europe, yet the Vatican and the 200-strong College of Cardinals, traditionally the pope's primary advisers, remain heavily European.
In the run-up to the conclave that elected Francis the first Latin American pope one month ago, cardinals demanded the Vatican be more responsive to their needs on the ground, and said the bureaucracy itself must be overhauled. Including representatives from each continent in a permanent advisory panel to the pope would seem to go a long way toward answering those calls.
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/13/pope-francis-reform-church_n_3075838.html
I think that the Cardinals may just have made the right choice when choosing Cardinal Bergoglio as the new Pope. I wish them luck in trying to reform the Curia, it won't be easy.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Beacool
(30,244 posts)I think that's precisely why the Cardinals chose Francis. He was an outsider, they didn't want another European. I wish him well. The bureaucrats at the Vatican are just as bad as the ones in DC. They will push back any measure that changes their cushy lives. I think that term limits for the Curia would be a great idea.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)looks as though Francis I will make a good pope -- perhaps a great one.
Remember John XXIII? I think of him as a great pope, the best one of
the 20th Century. It's unfortunate that he had only 4-1/2 years. Just
imagine how much he would have accomplished if he had had 20 years!
Hekate
(90,189 posts)I am sure I read that in the early days of his papacy (and my goodness, we are still in the early days aren't we?) -- that turn of phrase really raised my eyebrows.
LiberalFighter
(50,491 posts)If he was they wouldn't need advisers or investigations.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)caseymoz
(5,763 posts)Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Look it up. It's not difficult.
It's not my problem if people insist on embarrassing themselves by expounding on their own ignorance every single time they want to sound edgy and snarky about the papacy.
timdog44
(1,388 posts)When a person is called 'infallible', this can mean any of the following:
Some (or all) statements or teachings made by this person can be relied on to be certainly true.
This person always makes good and moral choices, and his actions may never be considered immoral or evil.
This person is always right, and never wrong or incorrect.
Not sure what the big deal is?
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)That should be enough time not to pull up dictionary definitions, which are usually meaningless when matters of specialized vocabulary like science, law, or, yes, theology come up.
The term's extremely precisely defined, and that definition's been out there for a couple of centuries. If people want to talk about something, they don't get a free pass on being clueless about it.
timdog44
(1,388 posts)decide if I am right or wrong on the definition.
Please educate me. Are we talking about the pope or the bible or what?
Maybe easier if you put the definition there that you want.
And thus the problem I have here on DU, the not wanting to educate as to what people are talking about.
okasha
(11,573 posts)you're wrong.
Look it up.
And this is off thread, but if the definition of Papal infallibility had been what was meant, it would have been easier to get to this point and educated people at the same time. Seemed to be a lot of nasty to get to here.
rug
(82,333 posts)I find the entire subject fascinating.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts). . . inventions of Vatican bureaucracy? Or the figments the Church chooses to call truths?
What you don't realize is the dogma's only important or impressive if you believe in the Church, believe in Christ and believe in God, not necessarily in that order. If you don't believe in those, it's still not going to look important, helpful or even convincing. I no more need to understand infallibility than I need understand the Thetan mysteries of auditing in Scientology. They're both equally cults to me.
Please tell me how the definition makes the claim of infallibility either convincing or awesome. As much as I hate to lower standards this much, please tell me how it even makes it sane? It's only through the lens of faith that it looks like gold.
If I take the "real" definition and call it bullshit and enumerate why, would you feel I was being any less unfair? Somehow, I don't think so, because I've taken the definition before and done just that, and the Catholics I talked to apparently still felt I was being unfair.
In fact, I went to Catholic school for 12 years, and then went to a Catholic University. The religion wasn't enlightening; it was a nightmare. And I'm determined to forget as much of its doctrine and dogma as I can. That's how edifying and uplifting I found it. I've been there before. You don't want me to tell you what I think of the definition of infallibility.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)as a kid in school:
The pope is infallible only when he officially announces as Head of the Church
some doctrine concerning faith or morals for all Catholics to believe in. Those
who don't accept it are no longer Catholics (automatically excommunicated,
even when no official excommunication has ever been issued by church
authorities). The doctrines are mostly something that the Church has been
following for centuries anyway. The pronouncement, usually already accepted
by Catholics in general, and recommended by the pope's advisers in particular,
makes it formal. Needless to say, new pronouncements are something very
rare.
Examples to allay some common misconceptions:
1. Let's suppose the pope is teaching religion to a group of adults, or of
children. He could make mistakes. He isn't making any official pronouncements
for the whole Church to follow.
2. A doctrine concerning faith: There are three Persons in one God - the Father
the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Those who don't believe it are no longer Catholics.
It is an article of faith.
Jesus ascended body and soul into heaven. This, too, is an article of faith.
3. About morality: The Inquisition was practiced by the Church for six centuries.
It certainly was immoral. But the popes never made any official pronouncements
about all Catholics having to believe in it as a doctrine. The Catholic Church
simply practiced the Inquisition for six hundred years. This has nothing to do with
the popes' infallibility whatsoever.
Some popes did keep mistresses and have fathered children. This, too, was immoral,
but it, too, has nothing to do with the popes' infallibility whatsoever. It was the
personal immorality of the popes concerned.
I personally think that many of the doctrines are about matters that are
important in the eyes of the Church, but are of not much value to people, or
perhaps not important to God Himself. Does He really care much one way or
another if you believed He is made up of three persons (Father, Son and Holy
Spirit), and would He condemn you to hell for all eternity if you did not believe
this?
I think it's much more important to Him that human beings treated one another
with kindness and respect. Jesus Himself said of the Commandments: The
greatest of these is: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, thy
strength ...... and the second is equal to this, thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself.
The Inquisition certainly was not an example of acts of kindness and love! Jesus
would have condemned it, if He had been on earth at that time. These Church
clerics had become mad with power, and their sadism showed through.
As with politics, it was often the ambitious and sick ones lusting after power, who
got into the top positions within the Church. Things became better when the
people rebelled, and Church clerics have far less worldly power today than they
used to have in the past. Their behavior improved correspondingly. "Power
corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely." This adage applies to all
humans, whether in politics or in religion.
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)Here we go again...the pope is **only** infallible when he is speaking ex cathedra...which has only happened a handful of times since 1870, the last being 1950, with the annunciation of Mary.
I'm an ex-Catholic and even I get tired of reading this meme over and over and over and over...
Heywood J
(2,515 posts)Infallibility is off one moment, on the next, and then off again.
I would personally prefer it if he appointed some new cardinals to this panel, ones that weren't brought in by JPII and Benedict - the creators of this mess in the first place. Right now, you have cardinals who created the mess trying to fix the mess and that doesn't sit right with me.
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)Infallibility only applies when a question concerning faith and morals comes into play, and the last time that happened, it was 70 years ago. I think the misconception comes in because Catholics are seen as accepting whatever the Pope says as being infallible. While some may believe that everything that comes out of the man's mouth is infallible, that's not what the doctrine of papal infallibility means. (Rug can probably give a better explanation.)
The bottom line is, change -- FINALLY -- is coming to the Church. It most likely won't bear fruit in our lifetime. I'm looking at this as the resumption of the reform that stalled with the death of Pope John XXIII, and while I will never return to Catholicism, I'm hoping that this begins a positive chapter in its overall sorry history.
Heywood J
(2,515 posts)I just never really accepted the idea of turning infallibility on and off like a light switch, depending on the context.
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)"Papal Sins," by Garry Wills.
This was not a popular move among many in the Church when it was proposed over a century ago.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)only on certain topics(faith and morals)and even THEN only when he's speaking "ex cathedra" (that is, while sitting on a special papal throne.)
Therefore, for example, non of the harsh dictums John Paul II and Benedict issued on matters like contraception, LGBT issues, divorce and women in the priesthood, for example, are considered infallible and all could, in theory be reversed by a future pontiff.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)Please look up ex-cathedra before you post more on this topic.
efhmc
(14,709 posts)to represent the views and ideas of all Catholics. Oh, I forgot the penis is the ruling body of law in the CC.
How unfortunate that what should be an obvious omission is simply skipped over by the slavish minions.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Just bureaucratic show and shuffling, that will not change ANY fundamental doctrine or policy of the RCC.
When the pope announces that:
Every priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal or pope involved in the sexual abuse of children or the covering up and abetting of such crimes will be reported to the civil authorities of the countries in which those crimes were committed, and that all heretofore secret Vatican documents regarding said activities will be provided to aid in prosecution.
Women will be allowed to become priests.
The Catholic Church will cease attempts to block laws recognizing same sex marriages as legal.
The Catholic Church will cease trying to dictate public policy on contraception.
Then come and talk to us. Until then, this is just fluff.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)and see approach.
TrogL
(32,818 posts)I don't think you understand how this and a few other things in the past few weeks (like the feet washing thing) have shaken the Roman Catholic world.
I wouldn't be surprised if the new inner council recommends exactly that.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)If any of the things I posted were to happen, then you'd see some world-shaking. But all the foot-washing has done is honked off some conservative Catholics (who it doesn't take much to honk off in any case). Nothing that really matters has changed in the RCC as a result.
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)If you're looking for changes to happen in the next five minutes, then you WILL be disappointed. The fact that he is opening up the Church for reevaluation and new dialogue is notable.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)for anything the Catholic Church does to "disappoint" me. The most that can be said so far for the new pope is that he is more conscious of the church's image problem than his predecessor, and recognizes the need for better PR and good photo ops. But he has accomplished exactly nothing of substance.
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)Already what he has said and done (with this latest announcement) has been more than Benedict did in all his time in the chair.
Of course Francis realizes the damage that has been done. That was something else that Benedict hardly ever did, except when he was pressed to do so, and then only grudgingly. I think he is committed to making changes and cleaning out the curia (which this sounds like to me) is an excellent place to start.
I'm keeping an open mind; yours, apparently, will not be changed no matter what, which is okay. But to slam the man for not coming in and changing the whole culture overnight is a bit unfair, IMO.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I've not said one thing about him in this thread that wasn't true. If you'd care to dispute that, go ahead. I've said that he deserves no real praise so far, because he's done nothing of any real substance so far. If the best you can say about him is that he's better than Ratzi, you're reaching.
And I listed the specific things he could do that WOULD change my mind about him in post 6. Did you bother to read that, or do you just prefer to make shit up, so that you can smear me as closed-minded?
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)Got news for you...the Church isn't like other institutions. Change will not come quickly, but ask any Catholic -- especially those here -- and the signs are encouraging.
Have a good day. I'm done with the aggressive bullshit.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Is he going to do it in defiance of unalterable Catholic doctrine?
Call us when that happens, won't you?
And if you don't like aggressive, don't smear people as closed-minded.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)work around the world be in charge of auditing the books?
Beacool
(30,244 posts)I went to boarding school in high school. Nuns don't mess around. Although my nuns (Sisters of Mercy) were progressive and great people. This reminds me of Tina Fey's comments about nuns during the 2008 primaries: "Bitches get stuff done".
http://www.ucbcomedy.com/videos/play/1017/bitches-get-stuff-done
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)They are more in touch than most priests, most notably those in the curia.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,080 posts)Javaman
(62,439 posts)Beacool
(30,244 posts)Paulie
(8,462 posts)WinstonSmith4740
(3,048 posts)I left the Catholic Church over 40 years ago, but I LIKE this guy. He can only take one step at a time, but his approach of humility instead of pomp is a big one. I love the way he's giving the people like Santorum fits!!
Hekate
(90,189 posts)Some 50 years ago I was on the verge of taking instruction in the Church of my beloved Granny (I was 15 y.o.) but I just could not make the jump into a place that didn't think that married women should use birth control. Call me a pre-feminist of 1962, but there you have it. Also, I thought the Transubstantiation of the Host was a profound metaphor, but not actual...
So I didn't. And ultimately I became extremely glad I did not. But I still care and I still hope that the Church will clean itself up and enter the 21st century in meaningful ways.
One of the most logical early things Pope Francis could do, in my opinion, is let priests marry. It would be a relatively easy lift, because they already allow Episcopalian priests to convert and bring their wives and kids along.
And from there....
WinstonSmith4740
(3,048 posts)Church of my beloved Granny
But that's the way it was! I did go through with the whole thing, but it wasn't easy. I got chicken pox twice (!) each time about a week before confirmation. The time I did go through with it I was about 14 and already beginning to question. Like so many of the kids I was confirmed with (we were all in our teens), we went through it because it was important to our parents, but we all thought it was more than a little crazy. Again, about a week before confirmation, my class had played a great game of "what if" with our teacher, and she just couldn't handle it. As I told my mom years later, God was trying to tell her that I'd find my own way some day, it just wasn't going to be Catholicism.
Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
Hekate
(90,189 posts)According to him, college was full of irreligious ideas and some of the professors were (blanch) commies, and on and on. There was a local Catholic college, which I suppose he was trying to steer us toward, but there was also a local state University, which is where I was headed if my mother had anything to say about it.
For my mother, a college degree was like the Holy Grail. She used to practically swoon over the great play of ideas, not be afraid of them. She taught me to think. So I have to say that one lecture was a real turn-off.
Blessed be.
shenmue
(38,501 posts)He may never be as liberal as some of us may want, but he's made some steps in the right direction. Hope we see more. Good for him.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)What do you see him "reforming" that really matters and isn't just superficial fluff? Be specific.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I do think there will be some reform to the curia, and the banks. But in terms of women, gays and celibacy I see no changes from this pope. We can always pray the Holy Spirit moves him in to the progressive side.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)And how long have you been praying to the "holy spirit" to move popes to the "progressive" side? Doesn't seem to be anyone listening.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)But yes my heart tells me that nothing really will get done but you never know. He just got in there so give the man a chance. It takes time.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)But he has been a willing and enthusiastic supporter of a sexist and homophobic organization for most of his life. He gets no credit and no slack for shuffling around a few deck chairs for PR purposes. Until he actually accomplishes something significant in terms of "reform" he's as guilty as all the rest.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)this *is* big news.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)are done in the Church. To come to any educated guess as to how
progressive this new pope will be, it might help to know something
about each of the 8 cardinals he has appointed to be members of
this committee.
In the same vein, to have an idea how Obama will handle the economy,
just know something about the economists he appoints to advise him.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)to overvalue his idea of bipartisanship. In fact, he seems to be
obsessed with it. Having bipartisanship with an extreme rightist is
like having Al Capone as your business partner.
In general I'd agree bipartisanship is an excellent idea. But one has
to choose one's partner carefully. Of all people, Obama has chosen
a sociopath -- and sociopaths are known to be incapable of change!
But Obama is so obsessed with bipartisanship, that he doesn't see this.
I anticipate that the coming 4 years will be like the past 4 years. The
good news is that, a possible change of our country to becoming a
dictatorship has been delayed for the moment. It remains to be seen
what the elections of November, 2016, will bring.
Returning to Pope Francis, I like to remain optimistic. I hope that
he may turn out to be like another John XXIII, and with more than a
mere 4-1/2 years.
By the way, this present pope is the last one mentioned by both
Nostradamus and a 12th Century Irish mystic and saint (whose name
I can't recall). Both of them ended their lists of future popes with him
as the last item on their lists.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)LBN has now become the place for your daily Vatican fix. Silly me -- I thought DU already had a religion/theology forum.
bucolic_frolic
(42,663 posts)Has any institution ever significantly changed itself?
Is this like changing Big Five accounting firms?
Or swapping index funds?
If he is planning something big, the mutiny is already being planned.
"Bureaucracy is the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom, of the power to act; for the rule by Nobody is not no-rule, and where all are equally powerless we have a tyranny without a tyrant.
Hannah Arendt (On Violence) "
http://www.cereoso.com/hannah-arendt/quotes/2
olddad56
(5,732 posts)Red State Rebel
(2,903 posts)Hekate
(90,189 posts)So far so good, with Pope Francis. Each step of the way he is announcing change by his actions.
Keeping my fingers crossed, so to speak.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)may actually do some good during his tenure. Time will tell. It would be nice to see a leader from Christendom put an emphasis on things like helping the disadvantaged and such. Walking the walk, as it were...
We'll have to wait and see.
Julie
Beacool
(30,244 posts)I don't expect much change in dogma, it IS the Catholic church after all. But, I think that this Pope does care for the needy and I'm curious where he'll take the Church in the future.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)But having been raised and educated Catholic, I do have a cultural connection to the Church, whether I like it or not. And while any "reforms" may be too little too late in countries like the U.S., the influence of Catholicism on the developing world - Latin America in particular - is far from negligible. Whatever you or I or anyone else might prefer, the world as a whole won't be secularized anytime soon, and the non-religious are still distinctly a minority. Which is why - like it or not - this stuff is important.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,149 posts)The Vatican last year imposed an overhaul of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious after determining the sisters took positions that undermined Catholic teaching on the priesthood and homosexuality while promoting "radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith." Investigators praised the nuns' humanitarian work, but accused them of ignoring critical issues, including fighting abortion.
On Monday, the heads of the conference met with the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Gerhard Mueller, who is in charge of the crackdown. It was their first meeting since Mueller was appointed in July.
In a statement, Mueller's office said he told the sisters that he had discussed the matter recently with Francis and that the pope had "reaffirmed the findings of the assessment and the program of reform."
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/pope-francis-supports-crackdown-us-nuns-18957861#.UWwyK8Vh6Bo
A lesson for those who thought the new pope was somehow concerned more about humanitarian work, rather than fighting abortion.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)crack down on abortion?
Try to understand the Catholic Church's belief that each time conception takes place, God creates
a new soul. And also: (1) Abortion = murder. (2) The aborted fetus is already dead, the soul has
departed, AND NO BAPTISM CAN TAKE PLACE.
So, this soul cannot enter heaven because it hasn't been baptized, nor does it deserve to go
to hell because it hasn't committed any evil. So, this soul will be in limbo for all eternity. Each
abortion is an act that condemns a soul to limbo for all eternity!
What would you do, if you were a fervent believer in the above principles? That's what the
Catholic clergy believe.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,149 posts)who were criticised by the report for not spending time condemning abortion. It's not that the nuns were doing something wrong; it's that they were spending too much time doing something right (ie the humanitarian work), and not enough time "casting the first stone at the adulteress", so to speak.
LCWRs Mentoring Leadership Manual and also on the organizations associated with the
LCWR, namely Network and The Resource Center for Religious Institutes. The
documentation reveals that, while there has been a great deal of work on the part of LCWR
promoting issues of social justice in harmony with the Churchs social doctrine, it is silent on
the right to life from conception to natural death, a question that is part of the lively public
debate about abortion and euthanasia in the United States. Further, issues of crucial
importance to the life of Church and society, such as the Churchs Biblical view of family life
and human sexuality, are not part of the LCWR agenda in a way that promotes Church
teaching. Moreover, occasional public statements by the LCWR that disagree with or
challenge positions taken by the Bishops, who are the Churchs authentic teachers of faith and
morals, are not compatible with its purpose.
http://www.usccb.org/upload/Doctrinal_Assessment_Leadership_Conference_Women_Religious.pdf
They are spending too much time doing good works, and not enough time dabbling in American politics, as far as the US Catholic bishops and the Vatican are concerned.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)want them to do less of it, and spend more time on what the higher-ups
choose for them to do. The question comes to mind, what if birth control,
abortion ... etc ... are outside of these nuns' expertise? And an area in which
they are not interested?
The Catholic Church is authoritarian. Clergy in the lower echelons have to
obey. Somehow, I hope these nuns will stick to their guns and go their own
chosen way. Their humanitarian work is sorely needed. Thanks to our corrupt
corporate executives, the ranks of the poor in our nation have increased by
the millions in recent years. These poor do need help.