If you could be the next Pope what changes if any would..?

[Tommy J]

I was thinking watching all of the Pope coverage over the weekend and the general discussion regarding the Catholic Church, what changes would you make if you were Pope? The Church has some-what moral control of over 1 Billion people world-wide and to a greater or lesser degree dependent on the person a lot of say on how these people live their lives. That's a lot of power. In any case, I'm an atheist but it's interesting to postulate the 'what-if' I had that much power.

Here's some of the changes I'd make:

*Change the Church's stance on Gay people and Gay Marriage to a live and let live policy.

*Tell the faithful to virtually completely ignore the Old Testament as nothing more than the misguided best wisdom from 200 years ago.

*Order a re-write/re-interpretation of the New Testament more consistent with 21 Century values.

*Sell/Give away much of the Church's unnecessary opulence to the poor and museums [art work].

*End the discrimination against women, and allow them to serve in the Priesthood.

*End much of the silly rituals involved in a Catholic Mass and focus on Jesus values of loving everyone. (incense etc.)

*End the ban on Priests being able to marry.

*Reverse the Church's position on contraception [condoms, birth control pills etc.]

*Refocus the Church's priorities to helping the poor without the expectation of religious conversion.

*End the practice of actively trying to convert the non-believers.

*Change individual Church's priorities more to helping member families deal with re-life challenges.

*Denounce Creationism as pseudo-science. [they've already done this to some degree]

*Apologize, Apologize, Apologize for the history of the Church and some of it's appalling mistakes both recent and ancient history. [e.g. lack of fighting the Nazi's more vociferously despite the personal risks to the pope and the church itself]

That a few off the top of my head, I'm sure others will occur to me. Thoughts?

[xcr]

Keeping in mind that I am not Catholic (or Christian for that matter)

Re-writing the New Testament seems inappropriate- it is supposed to serve as a guide, not a "you values are right, we exist to reaffirm them" deal.
I don’t think that the Pope has the ability to give away the churches art, the buildings should be left as they are. The art should, at least, be on public display as much as possible. The current opposition in the church to building excessively opulent buildings seems appropriate. Allowing contraception, married priests, and female priests all seems reasonable to me. Tolerating gay marriage (though not necessarily actually conducting the marriages) does to.

[mr friendly guy]

Before I get flamed, I might suggest that as uncomfortable as I am with a even more conservative view than the old Pope, if the new one was to take that route, it might actually turn the general people away from Catholicism, which isn't a bad thing really?

[Tommy J]

Oh, one biggie I forgot to mention. With regard to abortion, I'd tell the faithful that third trimester abortions are a sin but before then it is not.

[Tommy J]

Before I get flamed, I might suggest that as uncomfortable as I am with a even more conservative view than the old Pope, if the new one was to take that route, it might actually turn the general people away from Catholicism, which isn't a bad thing really?

Obviously unless you didn't want to completely disenfranchise a large percentage of the current flock, such changes would have to be taken one by one and over a period of perhaps decades. [unfortunately]

But you're right, probably half of the current faithful would leave the religion and join one of the protestant religions or the Church of England which is very similar to Catholicism in its practices and beliefs.

[mr friendly guy]

Before I get flamed, I might suggest that as uncomfortable as I am with a even more conservative view than the old Pope, if the new one was to take that route, it might actually turn the general people away from Catholicism, which isn't a bad thing really?

Obviously unless you didn't want to completely disenfranchise a large percentage of the current flock, such changes would have to be taken one by one and over a period of perhaps decades. [unfortunately]

.

I was actually thinking in terms of new people not joining because the Church has values which are inconsistent with what we would consider "modern morality". If this was the case, numbers (at least in developed countries) would dwindle.

[Tommy J]

I was actually thinking in terms of new people not joining because the Church has values which are inconsistent with what we would consider "modern morality". If this was the case, numbers (at least in developed countries) would dwindle.

You think so? Reason I ask is because in watching the ad nausea coverage over the weekend, one of the things they kept touching on with regard to John Paul II was his ability to communicate to the young and old even when they disagreed with certain parts of his beliefs. [gay rights, abortion etc.] That his other message of love some how overshadowed much of the negative things.

[albeit you'd think any intelligent person couldn't disconnect the two, but nonetheless that's what many believed]

[Jew]

Tommy J, not even the Pope could do those things. The Catholic Church is based on the Bible and on church tradition, but not even church tradition trumps the Bible. The Pope may be regarded as infallible in matters of doctrine, but if he rejected the Bible the Church would in turn reject him as Pope.

Realistically the Pope can reintrepret the Bible but cannot outright contradict it. The Pope can also change Church traditions. If I am elected Pope I will

• Lift the ban on some forms of contraception
• Allow priests to marry
• Focus more on Jesus and less on Mary
• Get the Church actively involved in Bible translation.

[Enforcer Talen]

call up the unitarians. do new christianity, buddhist style.

[Chmee]

The Pope is the figurehead of an enormous religious bureaucracy, I question his ability to realistically make any change that's particularly dramatic when it comes to dogma and doctrine. They don't *elect* guys who want to make changes like that.

If it were me ... let's have a dozen women Cardinals pronto.

[Tommy J]

Realistically the Pope can reinterpreted the Bible but cannot outright contradict it. The Pope can also change Church traditions. If I am elected Pope I will

The bible has been reinterpreted several times. You don't think the King James version made some changes/omissions in content? Of course they did most likely to King James' liking.

One small example:

Removal: Matthew 21:22
Removed:

In Matthew 21:22, Jesus is reported as saying "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." It is not explained how conflicting requests of believers are resolved. [Whoever wrote this, please replace this bracketed comment with four consecutive ~. Thanks.]
All this says is that the editor doesn't understand a particular isolated verse about prayer. There are dozens of other passages about prayer, in the scriptures of all religions, that could easily appear to be inexplicable on the surface. Do we really want to list and categorize such passages, and then add commentaries to document how authorities from each religion explain each confusing passage from their scriptures? I'm not sure this sort of project would benefit the article. Wesley 13:18 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Well, the passage was added to the section containing the Christian understanding of prayer, so Jesus's opinion, supporting "request-style prayer", seems to be relevant. The criticising sentence is probably too much (and evident), so I'm happy with leaving it out. (However, it would certainly be interesting and relevant to learn how Christian authorities resolve the problem). The claim that this quote is isolated does not seem well grounded: it appears in a paragraph which describes how Jesus punished a bush for not carrying fruit by praying for its destruction. AxelBoldt 18:19 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[Queeb Salaron]

*Apologize, Apologize, Apologize for the history of the Church and some of it's appalling mistakes both recent and ancient history. [e.g. lack of fighting the Nazi's more vociferously despite the personal risks to the pope and the church itself]

John Paul II did that already.

[RedImperator]

If you, as Pope, are so radical that 70 or 80% of the faithful break away in a schism, you've defeated your own purpose as a reformer. Keep in mind, the majority of Catholics are now living in the developing/undeveloped world, and they're conservative on docterine and sexual morality. Economically, they're quite radical (liberation theology borders on Marxist Catholicism), but that doesn't mean they're like Western liberals.

There's a little known Catholic docterine that says that if the mass of the laiety (regular Catholics) rejects one of the Vatican's teachings, then the Vatican itself is in error. Re-writing the New Testament would almost certainly trigger this, and rightly so. It's just silly to sit in this thread and say, "I'd turn the Church into secular humanism with Jesus," because that's practically impossible and would trigger a conservative backlash that would undo everything you're trying anyway.

[Tommy J]

I know any of this is as possible as going at Warp speed. However, Vatican II did reform the religion in some major ways. One big change was the way in which Catholics were instructed to treat non-Catholics and specifically the Jews, which in a way was a secular humanist way of re-engineering the teachings of some parts of the bible.

[Tommy J]

There's a little known Catholic docterine that says that if the mass of the laiety (regular Catholics) rejects one of the Vatican's teachings, then the Vatican itself is in error. Re-writing the New Testament would almost certainly trigger this, and rightly so. It's just silly to sit in this thread and say, "I'd turn the Church into secular humanism with Jesus," because that's practically impossible and would trigger a conservative backlash that would undo everything you're trying anyway.

Through all the news coverage over the weekend about the Church, I caught an interesting tid-bit. Apparently in the late 70's there was serious discussion about letting older married men become Priests because of the shortage of Priests. The Cardinal who was speaking to CNN was speculating that dependent on the new Pope, this concept may re-surface.

[RedImperator]

I know any of this is as possible as going at Warp speed. However, Vatican II did reform the religion in some major ways. One big change was the way in which Catholics were instructed to treat non-Catholics and specifically the Jews, which in a way was a secular humanist way of re-engineering the teachings of some parts of the bible.

Which came on the heels of the Holocaust, and anti-Semitism has much stronger roots in European history than it does in Scripture anyway. And a lot of Vatican II's relatively mild reforms were resisted, including by John Paul II.

I think some of your changes are possible, and in some cases necessary. The Orthodox churches have allowed married priests for years (if not married bishops), and that's the best way I can think of to deal with a worldwide priest shortage. The current contraception policy is just pig-headed reactionism, ignored in the West and causing genuine harm in the South. Denouncing Creationism would be exactly in line with current Catholic teaching.

The rest? Impossible, and unnecessary. Why throw out the rituals, for instance? If Catholics didn't want ritual in the Mass, they'd be Lutherans.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Well many of the changes Tommy mentioned are simply not in the power of the pope to change immediatly.

*Change the Church's stance on Gay people and Gay Marriage to a live and let live policy.

The doctrinal issue cannot be changed, however making a distinction between legal and religious marriage would be possible. Changing the doctrine would require a concensus umong the faithful, which the pope would not have

Tell the faithful to virtually completely ignore the Old Testament as nothing more than the misguided best wisdom from 200 years ago.

They already pretty much do, they take it as allegoricalmhistory... not literal. The best catholics consider it historical quasi-fiction.

*Order a re-write/re-interpretation of the New Testament more consistent with 21 Century values.

That will never ever ever fly.

*Sell/Give away much of the Church's unnecessary opulence to the poor and museums [art work].

The opulence is the baby, dont throw it out with the bath water. The ritual and the physical beauty are what draw a lot of people to the church. The frescos and releif sculptures are what bring the awe of god into the congregation, and without it the church would loose much of its... draw.

*End the discrimination against women, and allow them to serve in the Priesthood.

Never going to fly. That isnt so much mysogynism as pure tradition, and it will die very very hard.

*End much of the silly rituals involved in a Catholic Mass and focus on Jesus values of loving everyone. (incense etc.)

Again, I wouldnt throw the baby out with the bath water. The rituals of the church have beauty in their own right, and beleive it or not catholics actually like them. The structure brings them comfort.

*End the ban on Priests being able to marry.

Not gonna happen. It isnt within the pope's power to change... and honestly it wont help the pedophilia problem like some stupid uneducated people seem to think it will.

*Reverse the Church's position on contraception [condoms, birth control pills etc.]

I wouldnt change it slowly, but that could probably be done.

*Refocus the Church's priorities to helping the poor without the expectation of religious conversion.

Already the case in western countries, shouldnt be too difficult.

*End the practice of actively trying to convert the non-believers.

Bah, not going to happen. But they dont go door to door like some religions. The way the catholics tend to operate is they create hospitals and send missionaries to help the poor. They dont even preach so much as lead by example saying subconciously "look what nice people we are"

*Change individual Church's priorities more to helping member families deal with re-life challenges.

In the church I visit, that is the case

*Denounce Creationism as pseudo-science. [they've already done this to some degree]

Already done... the only caveat is that they believe humans were divenely ensouled.

*Apologize, Apologize, Apologize for the history of the Church and some of it's appalling mistakes both recent and ancient history. [e.g. lack of fighting the Nazi's more vociferously despite the personal risks to the pope and the church itself]

Already done to some degree. But it is like slave reparations... kinda pointless.

[Jew]

The bible has been reinterpreted several times. You don't think the King James version made some changes/omissions in content?

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. The King James Bible is a Protestant translation produced for the Church of England. It is not a Catholic translation.

The Catholic Church considers the Vulgate to be an error-free translation of the Bible. Any translation that conflicts doctrinally with the Vulgate is wrong. So contrary to your statements the Catholic Church cannot simply reinterpret the Bible. It can only be reinterpreted in ways that do not contradict the Vulgate.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I wouldnt change it slowly, but that could probably be done.

CHange wouldnt to would

[Falkenhayn]

I'd allow priests to marry.

Then I would muck out every Cardinal over the age of 75. Then I would replaced all the Vatican II trained priests with John Paul II trained priests. Then I would damn pedophiles and those who hid them as the sinners they are and make them wear the yellow caps and sack cloths of penitents unitl they die.

Then I would promot about three dozen Opus Dei folks into the College and my inner circle. Then I would get hitched.

[Tommy J]

The bible has been reinterpreted several times. You don't think the King James version made some changes/omissions in content?

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. The King James Bible is a Protestant translation produced for the Church of England. It is not a Catholic translation.

The Catholic Church considers the Vulgate to be an error-free translation of the Bible. Any translation that conflicts doctrinally with the Vulgate is wrong. So contrary to your statements the Catholic Church cannot simply reinterpret the Bible. It can only be reinterpreted in ways that do not contradict the Vulgate.

I think regardless you're missing the whole spirit of this conversation. It's kind of like Star Trek or Star Wars, thus fictional dumb-dumb if you were Pope. I was just curious as to what changes others might make.

[RedImperator]

The bible has been reinterpreted several times. You don't think the King James version made some changes/omissions in content?

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. The King James Bible is a Protestant translation produced for the Church of England. It is not a Catholic translation.

The Catholic Church considers the Vulgate to be an error-free translation of the Bible. Any translation that conflicts doctrinally with the Vulgate is wrong. So contrary to your statements the Catholic Church cannot simply reinterpret the Bible. It can only be reinterpreted in ways that do not contradict the Vulgate.

I think regardless you're missing the whole spirit of this conversation. It's kind of like Star Trek or Star Wars, thus fictional dumb-dumb if you were Pope. I was just curious as to what changes others might make.

And if in a STvSW scenario, I suggested something impossible or totally out of character like the Federation BDZing its own planets to keep them out of Imperial hands, I'd get called on it, just like you have for suggesting something impossible for a Pope of the Catholic Church.

[Tommy J]

The opulence is the baby, dont throw it out with the bath water. The ritual and the physical beauty are what draw a lot of people to the church. The frescos and releif sculptures are what bring the awe of god into the congregation, and without it the church would loose much of its... draw.

True, however some of it is over-the-top in my opinion. I wouldn't advocate tearing down the Sistine Chapel. I'm just saying that when building new Church's some thought into humility and what they're trying to accomplish could be taken into consideration.

An aside Aly, anyone who is joining the Catholic Church because they can worship in a beautiful building weekly is seriously mis-guided on the meaning of religion in my opinion and is going for absolutely the wrong reasons.

Again, I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. The rituals of the church have beauty in their own right, and believe it or not catholics actually like them. The structure brings them comfort.

You're probably right. This comes more from being an 'ex-Catholic' myself and the sit-kneel-stand over and over became annoying.

Already done to some degree. But it is like slave reparations... kinda pointless.

People of the Jewish and Islamic faiths need to hear, 'I'm sorry' some more. Besides it cannot hurt regardless.

[Rogue 9]

Before I get flamed, I might suggest that as uncomfortable as I am with a even more conservative view than the old Pope, if the new one was to take that route, it might actually turn the general people away from Catholicism, which isn't a bad thing really?

Actually, yes, it is a bad thing. If they leave because they think the Church is falling away and becoming too liberal, where do you think they'll run? Fundamentalist denominations, perhaps? Make like Mel Gibson and form Catholic splinter groups? All it'll do is remove the control the heirarchy has on the worst fundies.

[Tommy J]

[quote="RedImperator]
And if in a STvSW scenario, I suggested something impossible or totally out of character like the Federation BDZing its own planets to keep them out of Imperial hands, I'd get called on it, just like you have for suggesting something impossible for a Pope of the Catholic Church.[/quote]

You're right, mia culpa. I guess it's just frustrating because the bible's morals are so out of sync with the 21st Century. I guess, the Catholics are going to have to rely on Priests to help parishioners re-interpret existing passages in accordance with our values. Otherwise me-thinks that they are increasingly going to be viewed as absurd for modern men/women.