A Thinking Reed

This Just In: Next Pope Unlikely to Fundamentally Alter Catholic Teaching

Written by

Lee M.

in

A lot of the commentary I’ve been reading on the papal conclave has had a peculiar tick: it seems to treat as newsworthy the fact that the next pope, whoever he is, will not likely deny or change the central teachings of the church. For instance, in today’s Inquirer story 11 of the 14 contenders for the papacy are referred to as “theological conservatives,” “doctrinally conservative,” or just plain “conservative.” (Some are partly redeemed by having “progressive social views.”)

Now I’m no expert on the inner workings of the Catholic Church, but could it be that you aren’t likely to get to be a cardinal, much less pope, if you dissent from the central teachings of the church? Wouldn’t that be like a corporation appointing a CEO and board of directors who didn’t buy in to its mission statement?

A lot of the press coverage seems to presuppose a rather strange view of the Catholic Church, one in which the pope, more or less on a whim, makes up the doctrine as he goes along. In the accompanying story on Cardinal Hummes of Brazil we learn that “He is pledged to John Paul’s stance against abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research,” as though these were just wacky, idiosyncratic positions that John Paul came up with and foisted on the church.

Not that there’s anything wrong per se with dissenting from Catholic teaching. I mean, I dissent from certain points of Catholic teaching, but I don’t think I’m in the running to be pope.

Comments

5 responses to “This Just In: Next Pope Unlikely to Fundamentally Alter Catholic Teaching”

  1. Eric Lee

    That’s a very good point.

    I don’t watch any TV (aside from the occasional episode of The Simpsons at my pastor’s house or the much-beloved The Daily Show), but I wonder if the 24-hour news networks have been running their mouths about all the politics involved in choosing the next pope. If this is true (and it sure makes a bunch of sense!), then it seems that this kind of endless pontificating would be rather pointless.

    Not sure if you’ve heard this, but there are some religious conspiracists who also think that the next pope is going to be the anti-Christ. They’re using a healthy dose of numerology in their “explanation,” and it’s not even amusing to read about… 😦

    Reply
  2. Joshie

    are you referring to the alleged prophecies of St. Malachy? I checked that out after getting an email forwqard about it and even assuming the prophecy is legit, their count is wrong. Even counting anti-popes, the next pope would not fit the number of the supposed papal anti-christ.

    Reply
  3. Joshie

    but on topic now…I don’t necessarily think some change is not in the cards. John the XXIII was supposed to be a caretaker pope but initiated Vatican II and the “conservative” Paul VI, John’s sucessor, actually set up a committee to look into changing the RCC’s views on birth control. The committee recomended that the church change its official teaching but the possibility was quashed by Paul later. Papal elections and reigns are notoriously unpredictable. But of course all the pundits need to talk about something, eh? They do have boat payments you know.

    Reply
  4. Lee

    Another pet peeve of mine is when the press refers to married priests, women priests, birth control, and/or gay marriage as issues that the next pope might (or should) revisit. As sympathetic as I am to the items on this list, my understanding is that they don’t all have equal weight in RC teaching. For instance, married priests would, in theory, be no big deal (there are some Prot converts who are priests and married (and perhaps some in the middle eastern churches that are in communion with Rome?)), whereas having women ordained to the priesthood would involve a pretty substantial re-thinking of certain points of RC theology.

    Reply
  5. Joshie

    You’re absolutely right there. There is no good reason why Roman priests can’t be married since Eastern Orthodox AND Eastern Catholic churches have married clergy. The “white” (married) clergy in the Eastern churches cannot be bishops, since they are required to be celebate. Neither can they marry after they have already taken major orders. But most priests will never rise to the level of bishop whether they want to or not, so I doubt the impact on the college of bishops would be that dire.

    I think we are more likely to see female deacons than priests if we are to see anything. There is much evidence in the ancient East and West for female deacons, and technically women can still be ordained into the diaconate in the East. Again, there is no good reason for not having female deacons.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Eric Lee Cancel reply

More posts