Announcement

**Dis** · April 5, 2005, 15:48

I want a pope that supports condoms. That's all I want.

**Brent** · April 5, 2005, 15:59

Well I suppose there are more black Americans than black Catholics. And being direct from Africa rather than being from slave stock (??) may help in some peoples eyes for some reason.

How does the worldwide distribution and ethnic makeup of Catholicism compare to 50 to 100 years ago? Is there enough of a difference there to logically mean a nonitalian is much more likely now? Or is it that the RCC was Italocentric in choosing its leadership for centuries but is not now?

I think the Catholic Church as a whole is probably less racist than the United States as a whole. I don't personally see much racism here in California. I've heard it said that Sacramento is the most integrated city in the country, due to its being a military town or something.

**Ben Kenobi** · April 5, 2005, 16:06

There is a saying in the church Ben that there is nothing worse than a convert

Yeah, but I'm the only convert in my group. All the others were raised in catholic families.

**DanS** · April 5, 2005, 16:14

Well I suppose there are more black Americans than black Catholics. And being direct from Africa rather than being from slave stock (??) may help in some peoples eyes for some reason.

More black Americans than black catholics? Dude, you're smokin' dope.

There are about 200 million black catholics worldwide.

**Ben Kenobi** · April 5, 2005, 16:14

I beleive that it is mentioned in Paul that church leaders should be married

1 Timothy 3:2

"Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife,"

Overseer is the same as elder.

Paul also says,

1 Cor 7:32-4

"I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs–how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world–how he can please his wife– and his interests are divided."

**Ben Kenobi** · April 5, 2005, 16:19

BUT THERE ALREADY ARE MARRIED PRIESTS. If an Episcopalian priest converts to Catholicism he can be Catholic priest and keep his wife.

If you read just a bit up from the last citation of my previous post...

1 Cor 7:12-4

"If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. "

**Brent** · April 5, 2005, 16:38

Yeah, I was wrong, but then of course I'm no expert on the subject. So are most of those 200 million in Africa? Anyway I guess it makes more logical sense than I thought to have a black Pope first. Actually I meant percentage, but it sounds like we're close enough to being even in that regard. About a billion catholics total, right? I don't think much more than a fifth of Americans are black. But then of course why dwell so much on the color of the skin if we believe in equality?

Oh, and Levi, Aaron, and other old testament priests were obviously married with children, so considering that how is celibacy in Christianity explained? I don't see why church leadership should exclude one from multiplying and filling the earth and cleaving unto one's wife.

Maybe this is one of the changes that have been made, but do you not have to be a priest in order to be a cardinal and thus to be the pope? I imagine there wasn't always such a position as a cardinal, or is it just a change in the name of the position?

I guess the relevance of some of this has already been nullified in this thread, though.

**DanS** · April 5, 2005, 16:45

So are most of those 200 million in Africa?

About 2/3rd.

About a billion catholics total, right?

About 1.2 billion.

**Ben Kenobi** · April 5, 2005, 17:17

so considering that how is celibacy in Christianity explained?

Look above.

Maybe this is one of the changes that have been made, but do you not have to be a priest in order to be a cardinal and thus to be the pope? I imagine there wasn't always such a position as a cardinal, or is it just a change in the name of the position?

That's what I thought, and in almost all the cases, it has worked out this way. The case that wasn't happened to break a deadlock in the conclave between two selections for pope.

Your question about the cardinal is a very good question, and not one that I know much about. I'll refer you to a good essay on this, that the earlier question prompted me to look over.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Cardinal

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03333b.htm

A dignitary of the Roman Church and counsellor of the pope

**Alexander's Horse** · April 5, 2005, 17:32

Originally posted by DanS
By the way, I don't really agree with AH's analysis of the church as a whole being in crisis.

Gee, what a surprise

And I did not say the whole church is in crisis.

You miss the point - this isn't about any particular issues - its not about left versus right or conservative versus liberal.

Its about the role of the Pope and the power of the Vatican, and the way that power is exercised.

I believe JPII was the man for his times. What do the times call for now? That is what the Cardinals seem to be debating.

**DanS** · April 5, 2005, 17:42

You miss the point - this isn't about any particular issues - its not about left versus right or conservative versus liberal.

Apparently, you didn't read my post. I never mentioned left versus right.

I think I get the point just fine. I just don't agree with it. From the US perspective, the situation recently turned for the better once the pope started cleaning house and asserting the power of the papacy. He left the situation to the handling of the American bishops for far too long. Admittedly, the situation in other parts of the world may be different.

I don't know how it is in Australia, but in the US, letters of apology from each bishop were being read aloud during mass after the pope became involved. Certainly, it's nothing that I had ever experienced before.

**Alexander's Horse** · April 5, 2005, 17:59

If you got the point why did you raise a whole lot of issues that have nothing to do with what I am saying?

But never mind - if 100,000 priests left and hundreds of million stopped going the church during his pontificate he must have been doing something right eh Dan? What a fine and inspiring pastoral leader he was.

**DanS** · April 5, 2005, 18:03

All of my points go to an appraisal of the number of asses in seats and how the pope relates to that. In this respect, you're focusing far too much on Western Europe.

**Hueij** · April 5, 2005, 18:11

From the US perspective, the situation recently turned for the better once the pope started cleaning house and asserting the power of the papacy. Admittedly, the situation in other parts of the world may be different.

I'm from another part of the world and yes, for us it is different. JP2 managed to alienate the Dutch Catholic community. He got all our bisshops together in Rome and told them (no, ordered them) to get their act together. No more of this silly progressive stuff that we Dutch seem so fond of. Needless to say that the churches became even more empty than before. In my hometown there are three RC churches for sale right now

When JP2 visited Holland in 1985 the streets stayed empty. A lot of people (myself included) took the opportunity to officially renounce their membership of the Church.

I'm afraid the successor of JP2 will be as conservative as he was, and the RC church will die a slowly death in Western Europe.

**DanS** · April 5, 2005, 18:13

Needless to say that the churches became even more empty than before.

I'm guessing that they weren't very full before that time.

Announcement

Conclave

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment