Posted on 04/04/2005 8:00:34 AM PDT by SmithL
WASHINGTON - Most Americans want the next pope to work for changes in Roman Catholic Church policies to allow priests to marry and women to join the priesthood. And they want more done to combat sexual abuse by priests, an AP-Ipsos poll found.
A solid majority of Americans, and Catholics in the country, are calling for the changes even while saying they widely admire Pope John Paul II, who supported traditional policies against priest marriage and against allowing women into the priesthood.
"He crossed so many boundaries, opened doors to many governments," said Joseph Riess, a Catholic businessman from Vienna, Va. "But I think it's time for changes."
Just over half of Americans, 51 percent, and almost three-fourths of Catholics say John Paul, who died Saturday, will be remembered as one of the greatest popes, according to the poll conducted for The Associated Press by Ipsos-Public Affairs.
The U.S. Catholic church is struggling with a variety of problems, including a dramatically shrinking U.S. priesthood, disagreement over the proper role for lay leaders, and a conservative-liberal divide over sexuality, women's ordination and clergy celibacy.
About two-thirds of those polled said priests should be allowed to marry and almost that many said they want women in the priesthood. A majority of Catholics supported both steps.
More than four in five Americans - and about the same number of Catholics - said they want to see the next pope do more to address the problem of priests sexually abusing children.
The church has been trying to deal with an abuse crisis that bubbled to the surface in January 2002 in the Archdiocese of Boston, then spread throughout the country. Since then, the church has adopted a toughened discipline policy, enacted child protection and victim outreach plans in dioceses, and removed hundreds of accused priests from church work.
Americans were divided when asked from where the next pope should come. Just over a third said he should be from Europe, while a similar number said he should be from a part of the world where Catholicism is growing fastest, like Africa or Latin America. The rest weren't sure.
"I don't think it matters where they're from," said Heather Schramko, a clinical researcher and a Catholic from Perrysburg, Ohio. "But they need to modernize the church."
The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,001 adults was taken Friday to Sunday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Some of the interviews were conducted before news broke Saturday about the pope's death, but most people knew he was gravely ill.
It is quite clear to me that there is a difference, and has been for several decades. I have been both Catholic and Orthodox and am very well aware of the difference.
The first legislation requiring celibacy appeared as late as the fourth century (300s), but this is the first legislation that has _survived_. Until this time (ca. 314) the Church was persecuted, councils had difficulty meeting, and their legislation has been lost. Moreover the legislation of the early 300s describes clerical sexual abstinence, or continence, as a long-established practice, not something first being mandated at this point.
Even married priests were expected, according to this legislation, to abstain from marital relations with their wives once they were ordained. The woman thus exercised a veto power over her husband's ordination. The early legislation admonishes priests who promised continence but were not practicing it, to keep their pledge.
In other words, abstinence from sexual relations for both married and unmarried priests was well established practice long before the first surviving legislation in the early 300s. _It may well be of apostolic origins_ (see Charles Cochini S.J., Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990] as well as the more recent work by Stefan Heid [1997]).
The same rules about mandatory sexual abstinence for priests were shared by both East and West until the East modified it slightly in the 690s. Even that modification was restricted in scope: priests were still required, n the East to abstain from marital relations on the days on which they “handled sacred things.”
The claim that one of the fathers of the Council of Nicea, a monk-bishop named Paphnutius, _favored_ married and sexually active priests is based on a pious legend, according to the detective work of Cochini and others. For centuries this has been taken as giving great antiquity to the Eastern position. In fact, the modified policy at the Synod of Trullo (not an ecumenical council) in the 690s was an innovation, which is why the bishop of Rome rejected it.
The assumption that bishops and priests should not be married in order to devote themselves sacrificially to the service of Christ rests on Mt. 19, 1 Cor 7 and the passage in the epistle to Timothy in which St. Paul says a bishop should be the husband of one wife (that is, should not remarry after being widowed, which was a counter-cultural requirement in Graeco-Roman culture but demonstrated self-control and a desire to devote oneself to God, as was also true of women who chose not to remarried after becoming widows and were thereafter supported by the Church on the official "rolls" because their prayers and service to the poor etc. was made possible by their choice not to remarry).
I suppose, but that's not what the "journalists" are arguing.
And this was a poll of Americans. Catholics aren't even a majority in the U.S.
Where are the polls of African Catholics? Or of Filipinos?
Christians should converse.
One quick note. Whenever any Lefty says something is "for the good of the American people", or "the American people want", they really mean what is good for them and what they want.
And, if you need that spelled out for you too, I am saying that I am very well aware of the difference - abundantly, thoroughly, and completely aware of the difference - between a 'catholic' and a Roman Catholic.
I am also very well aware of the difference between the Orthodox and the Catholics - in case I didn't sufficiently clarify that as well.
I grew up in the Vatican II time and we didn't learn it Latin
I wish we had
I would just be happy to see a Pope at least make it more of an available option to go to the Tridentine (Latin) Mass. It has been so squashed for years since Vatican II, the Bishops in the US for a long time had completely banned it, as had bishops in many other countries (only last year was the first time the Latin Mass was done since the early 70s in Rome, at St. Mary Major). Pope John Paul II did declare that it was still legitimate to practice, but failed to reign in the bishops in this regard who tried to eliminate it in their dioceses--as many of the current bishops came of age in the priesthood under John XXIII and Paul VI. I'll give you a perfect example of this. I live in Kentucky, under the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Owensboro. Up until four years ago, the monasteries and Friaries in the region (Fathers of Mercy, Gethsemane, etc) did the latin mass regularly open to the public. Well just four years ago, in matters relating to worship by the public, Bishop McRaith (who b/c he's a priest I'll limit my criticisms to saying that he's a dictator) he did not want the traditional Mass observed or available for public attendance--now the monasteries are supposed to be under direct control of the Governor General for their Order, who is headquartered at the Vatican, but I guess they have not moved on this one to protect the independence of the monastical orders. I felt the spirit more at the traditonal mass, felt like it was more sacred, than what is refered to by many traditonalists as the Novus Ordo Mass, what I refer to as the New Mess. But bishops need to be reigned in more in this regard.
I could almost understand optional celibacy for priests if it would eliminate the sex abuse/pedophile scandals and the vocations crisis, but let's just lay the problem where it really belongs--Vatican II.
Like anything else, it would depend on the attitude of the person, and whether they cause scandal. And, as I said, it has resulted in some latae sententiae excommunications, when some misguided people tried to put their theories into action. To the degree that advocates of disregarding this teaching cause this to result, it is gravely scandalous.
It was a practice, but it was obviously not well-established. For the next 800 years, Popes were emphasizing continence and celibacy for priests precisely because these were not being observed. It was not until Gregory (I forget which number) invalidated the attempted marriages of clerics that mandatory celibacy was universally observed in the Latin Rite.
Half my family is Orthodox, the other half is Catholic. Normal people will have no problem interpreting that sentence. Goodbye. ;^)
The TRUE church will. Pope John Paul II was a Pope that kept the Catholic Church lined up with the Holy Scripture. Anything less, will be a watered down version. I am not Catholic, but this is what we have experienced in the Evangelical Protestant movement. Watering down the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, be it in the Catholic or Protestant denominations, is NOT the Gospel as Jesus taught it. It becomes man made, and loses its power.
LOLOLOLOL! What the heck do we care what kind of pope Americans want the next one to be? ROFL!
I just want him to faithfully teach the teachings of the Church and to be loudly and unrelentingly pro-life.
Somebody should point out to the AP morons that the Pope doesn't need to be reelected and he doesn't really care about having the approval of anyone other than God.
Arinze maybe, he seems to have a nice sense of humor. Ratzinger, well...
OTOH, if they pick Ratzinger it would be safe for me to join the Church - by the time I get out of RCIA class, all the liberals will have long since drunk the purple koolaid. ;)
I wouldn't mind that idea, or the Cardinal from Havana, but are they really papable (would the college of cardinals consider any one of them). It wouldn't be bad advice for them to follow though. They wouldn't even have to choose a Cardinal. Angelo Roncalli (who became John XXIII), was just a monsignor (granted had a Vatican posting and was very influential but was just over a regular priest in terms of position) when the conclave began following the death of Pius XXII.
My solution to the option for the Tridentine Mass is to establish a Tridentine Rite, similar to an Eastern Rite, under a Patriarch who would report to the Pope. In such an arrangement, decisions about traditional worship would be out of the hands of the local bishop.
I don't think the critical mass is yet there to promote such an idea, but it would alleviate these battles between traditionalists and bishops who don't want the Tridentine Mass in their dioceses.
I could almost understand optional celibacy for priests if it would eliminate the sex abuse/pedophile scandals and the vocations crisis, but let's just lay the problem where it really belongs--Vatican II.
The single worst sexual abusers were men trained and ordained in the pre-Vatican II Church. The problem was more cultural than religious.
We would have had sexual abuse issues even without Vatican II.
BUMP to that sentiment. Non-Catholics should butt out -- including me :}.
Angelo Cardinal Roncalli was Archbishop of Venice when he was chosen by his fellow cardinals to be John XXIII.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.