Change the world, not the church: Canadian cardinals

VATICAN CITY - The world needs to change, not the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, a Canadian cardinal said Wednesday in a spirited defence of the new Pope.

In his first public comments since taking part in the conclave that elected Joseph Ratzinger as Pope, Montreal's Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte said the new pontiff is misunderstood.

"If there needs to be change, it needs to be in the world, not in the doctrine," said Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Archbishop of Quebec.

Turcotte also said choosing Benedict to replace John Paul was a deliberate signal the cardinals wanted to "continue the successful pontificate of pope John Paul."

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/04/20/cardinals-cda050420.html

Altogether now.

And again at an impasse.

The world needs to treat Africa better...so does the Church

The world needs to quit sexually abusing kids..so does the church

the world needs to stop being so threatening to the freedoms of others...so does the church

;-)

NT!

through its relationship with royalty, government. Want to change the world, help fight pedophilia

I think they should consider their relevance. I mean that in terms of their relevance to Catholics and non-Catholics. None of the Catholics I have known really follow what "the Church" says, in fact I knew a woman who converted to Episcapalian (I think) it was because she so disagreed with the church on birth control.

More Catholics (U.S.) disagree with the church than agree with it.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-04-05-us-catholics-cover_x.htm

Catholics, however, mirror American values and opinions----go figure

"Truth has nothing to do with the number of people it convinces." Paul Claudel

If you tell me there are 3 steaks on the table and I tell you that meat is bad for you---let's say I am able to convince you meat is so bad, that you become a vegetarian----it does not change the fact that there are 3 steaks on the table.

I miss the pertinence of your response --- it does not change the statistics in the link, American Catholics mirror the values of other Americans (for better or worse)

My point: Catholics vote and act as Americans; in the case of the last elections, our attack on Iraq ... it's not a positive thing. My response was borne of many of the threads here from people alarmed by the effect a new even more conservative Pope will have on our political process---at the end of the day I don't think it will have much. Many Catholics and Christians and Muslims and Jews will vote in their own self interest.

* Don't take this to mean I don't believe the church could have / should have done better. Time will tell.

trouble. Just one issue of many where the Chruch's interests are not in the world's best interests.

No birth control? They're fucking insane!:crazy:
They may as well say "Keep popping them out!"
And they expect women to put up with this shit?
NOT!:argh:

the Bible: The Truth will set you free.

the Truth: treat others the way you want to be treated

(a.k.a. The Golden Rule)

Popes do not have the power or authority to change Roman Catholic doctrine anyhow. That is why it hasn't changed in over 2000 years. A pope simply provides spiritual guidance and leadership in applying Christ's teachings, when the faithful are confronted with new questions, ideas, and technologies.

May His peace be with you all...

What have you been reading ? I missed the part where Jesus said gay and lesbions would go to hell. Catholic clergy have been married for a greater part of those 2000 plus years.

And don't even mention eating meat on Friday.

I missed that part also...(about gays & lesbians automatically going to hell).

You are correct in that some Eastern sects of Catholicism have married priests, however, like abstaining from meat on the Fridays of Lent, I'm not sure these two issues affect the basic doctrines of Catholicism (they are more like traditions, which could be changed).

at one time, then they could be allowed to marry again? right? So whats the problem??

gay bashing, are all " traditions ". But when asked if there is to be any dialog on any of these issues, they, as you did, say that the Pope has to uphold doctrine. Well, which is it ? Is it tradition or doctrine ?

Hey, remember, the early Christians were first thought of as a kind of whacko offshoot of Judaism. Not until the Christian sect broke up into Orthodox (Constantinople HQ) and Roman (Rome HQ) teams did the "Roman Catholic" Church kick in, ca.375-400...or so I recall from church history... 50 years ago. :-(

Priests weren't always restricted from marrying nor have they always be celibate.

Not to mention when the Catholics went around taking money from people, saying they could "buy" their salvation.

Sorry, I just don't buy that.

Have you ever heard of the Council of Nicea?

Oh, and Vatican II introduced significant changes in Roman Catholic doctrine as recently as 1965 IIRC...

for Kerry....that is far from benign when the election was so close and the rest of us get stuck with bush.

Popes do not have the power or authority to change Roman Catholic doctrine anyhow.

Ever hear of the dogma of "Papal Infallibility?"

Of course...but I'll mention here as there may be others not familiar with this...it (the Holy Spirit) protects a pope from teaching with error regarding the basic truths of the Catholic faith. Further, we believe, as Catholics, that the pope is Christ's representative on earth (in an unbroken succession of popes)...and the Shepard of His church. There have been popes with questionable "personal" behavior, however, when teaching of matters of the faith...they are protected from error. There have been councils over the years...but they have never changed basic Catholic beliefs, only clarified.

I can not believe how angry people appear to be on this forum, full of venom...the thread subjects are amazing. Is there not a kind word to be found?

May His peace find you...

that being attending a mainstream church, etc. That being said, the Catholic cardinals position will have little effect on many, including 'lapsed' Catholics like me.

A bit of an aside, it is interesting, when asked on a sensus form or poll, I still identify myself as Catholic so would show up on stats showing the % of Catholics in Canada. I wonder how many other 'lapsed' Catholics do the same? I hope a poll would break down the Catholic #, into practicing versus lapsed, I bet it would be interesting.

At one time it was very much so (predominantly Catholic), but over the past five decades or so it has become the most secular region of Canada, which is a pretty secular country overall. So, his advice doesn't seem to be working out.

should actually try to change with the times and act like JESUS told us to?! :sarcasm:

How dare the WORLD actually try to tell Catholocism what to do? We've been around two thousand years and we'll be around forever, because we says so! Who cares what you modern people claim about the facts, we're the church, you either do what we say or get out of here. Who cares that we supported Hitler, we're still angry that the last Pope had the audacity to admit we make mistakes!

:sarcasm:

Seriously, the Catholic Church needs to grow up and figure out that maybe, just maybe Jesus was a hippy with his whole 'peace and love' kick.

"If you give me six lines written
by the most honest man, I will find
something in them to hang him."
—Cardinal Richelieu

Cardinal Richelieu rose from his provincial post in Luçon to become France's Secretary of State for foreign affairs in 1616, and then on to head the royal council as prime minister of France in 1624. His powerful, analytical intellect was characterized by a reliance on reason, strong will, the ability to govern others and use political power effectively.

Even before becoming Prime Minister, Richelieu's political views were well-defined. He had a clear idea of how society should function. Everyone played a specific role in the system, making their unique contributions: the clergy through prayer; the nobility with arms under the control of the king, and the common people through obedience. Richelieu believed in the divine right of the king, whose role it was to promote peace and order in society.

Richelieu adhered to the maxim that "the ends justify the means." Although he devoutly believed in the mission of the Roman Church, he sought to assign the church a more practical role. Richelieu argued that the state is above everything, and that religion is a mere instrument to promote the policies of the state.

http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/95sep/richelieu.html

Military expenses put a considerable strain on the King's revenues. In response, Cardinal Richelieu raised the gabelle (a tax on salt) and the taille (a tax on land). The clergy, nobility, and high bourgeoisie were either exempt or could easily avoid payment, so the burden fell on the poorest segment of the nation. To collect taxes more efficiently, and to keep corruption to a minimum, Richelieu bypassed local tax officials, replacing them with intendants—officials in the direct service of the Crown. Richelieu's financial scheme, however, caused unrest amongst the peasants; there were several uprisings between 1636 and 1639. Cardinal Richelieu crushed the revolts violently, and dealt with the rebels harshly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu

Yes, change the world, not the church.

Pope Neocon I just changed the world by helping keep Bush, the world's most dangerous fascist, in power.

Dumbasses. Going to make themselves extinct. That's how you sell a religion to the youth of today?

:eyes:

what the future holds, eh?

What a LAME response from the Cardinals. And in conflict with Catholic tradition as I understand it as a non-Catholic agnostic Jew.
My understanding is that, going back to the Gospels, the idea is that the world is what it is, and we strive to change it for the better as best we can, but do not assume that the world must change instead of ourselves individually or institutionally.

The Church needs to change PRECISELY in order to more effectively change what needs changing in the world, focusing on issues like the environment and social justice and peace FOR REAL and not having them take a back seat to abortion.

Here's something, including a repost FROM the DU plus my coments that I posted at OpenDemocracy.org -- where progressives should also go for impact:
----------------------------------------------
How much worse would progressives have done if spoken out openly and in great numbers?
*****
New pope intervened against Kerry in US 2004 election campaign

Tue Apr 19

WASHINGTON (AFP) - German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican theologian who was elected Pope Benedict XVI, intervened in the 2004 US election campaign ordering bishops to deny communion to abortion rights supporters including presidential candidate John Kerry.

In a June 2004 letter to US bishops enunciating principles of worthiness for communion recipients, Ratzinger specified that strong and open supporters of abortion should be denied the Catholic sacrament, for being guilty of a "grave sin."

He specifically mentioned "the case of a Catholic politician consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws," a reference widely understood to mean Democratic candidate Kerry, a Catholic who has defended abortion rights.

The letter said a priest confronted with such a person seeking communion "must refuse to distribute it."

A footnote to the letter also condemned any Catholic who votes specifically for a candidate because the candidate holds a pro-abortion position. Such a voter "would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy communion," the letter read.

The letter, which was revealed in the Italian magazine L'Espresso last year, was reportedly only sent to US Catholic bishops, who discussed it in their convocation in Denver, Colorado, in mid-June.

Sharply divided on the issue, the bishops decided to leave the decision on granting or denying communion to the individual priest. Kerry later received communion several times from sympathetic priests.

Nevertheless, in the November election, a majority of Catholic voters, who traditionally supported Democratic Party candidates, shifted their votes to Republican and eventual winner George W. Bush.

------------------------------------------------
My commentary:
In an issue of the Justice and Peace Commission newsletter of the (arch?)diocese of SF about 15 years ago, a writer on the role of Catholic faith for Catholic politicians wrote that "clearly" Catholic politicians take take any political stances that they want "except on the issue of abortion, where the Church's position is clear" . Although a pro-choice non-Catholic, I can understand that they have principled objections to abortion. But what is the doctrinal basis of the favored position of abortion over other concerns like absolute poverty politics, or the environment, or peace? They don't make threats like the one above towards Catholic politicians who support warmongering. And while a new order (now a distinct possibility) devoted to opposing abortion rights has been suggested, what about a Catholic order devoted to protecting the environment?

It seems to me that NOW is the time for progressive Catholics and others to organize at the global level, bringing together many of the umbrella groups in Europe with these kinds of concerns of importance to the Third World (the PRIORITIZATION of social justice and the environment etc). Global networking on the web, and organiizations with chapters of progressive Catholics and others seeking in good faith the reform of the Catholic Church all around the world could lay the groundwork for the global chorus of voices calling for a new direction in the Church when the time comes for the next papal selection.

Some suggest that such outspokenness would have a perverse effect. But how much worse could progressives, who remained very quiet, have done?

In the previous posting I noted that it seems to me that Catholic tradition is that the world is a given to which individuals and institutions seeking 'the good' must adapt, in that quest. It does not mean 'joining evil rather than licking it' but it means to be 'as sly as foxes and as harmless as doves' always attuned to the reality of the world in seeking to change it.

I would add that at least in my own view as an agnostic of Jewish background, this is all the more true of powerful, well-heeled organizations like the Church. It would be ludicrous to preach to an individual, say a prisoner at Auschwitz or even someone in dire but not quite as dire circumstances that they should "get real and adapt to what reality has to dish out" or to "get a life" or such. But the Church has enormous leeway to decide not only on its principles (eg their position on abortion, which as someone strongly pro-choice I reject) but on its priorities (Ratzinger apparently conniving to deny communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights but no similar efforts by the Church worldwide towards warmongers, etc. If they consider a Catholic order to oppose abortion, what about an order to protect the environment?

Consider also a kind of obverse or "backswing" version of this lame excuse. The Church could claim that, precisely BECAUSE they need to adapt, they must truckle under and pull their punches towards the powerful, focusing on non-threatening issues like abortion because they do NOT threaten those in power. This is an even LAMER excuse. I didn't notice the Christians of the first century doing that, or Christianity, as much, vis-a-vis Communism. There is a whiff of using the cloak of 'necessity' to cover for opportunism and self-aggrandizing moral abdication; all this is aside the question of whether it really is in the strategic interests of the Church to fail on these issues and fail to risk alienating the powerful at this point at all. But one can always cite the necessity to adapt to 'reality' to justify opportunism, the question is whether one can be savvy about the way the world is AND exercise moral courage precisely on those issues DISFAVORED by the powers that pee.

separation of church and state...no compromise!