Pink Smoke

[dampha]

Amen, sistahs.

This is the sort of protest that doesn't have, excuse me, a prayer of making an impact, but it just feels good to know that it happened.

It reminds me of the priest who reminded me that it's perfectly possible to be a good Catholic and a troublemaker at the same time. Would that any serious candidate for the Papacy had that same

Comments

[fountainal]

I'd be all for a Popette (Popina? Poperella?) this time around. Of course, not being Catholic, I suppose my vote doesn't count.

[joakleaf]

Actually, since you're not a Cardinal, your vote doesn't count.

[popebuck1]

Fat chance that the next Pope will be any more liberal than ol' JP. Not only did he appoint most of the leading candidates, he ALSO appointed most of the cardinals who are currently in the Conclave picking between them.

Talk about a stacked deck.

[dampha]

Ratzinger (who keeps getting mentioned as the front runner) actually sounds a bit more conservative than JPII; our last Pope clung to the party line for Catholics but made a lot of inroads in reaching out to people of other faiths. Look for the next Pope, whoever he is, to focus more on cracking the whip.

Of course, if the Cardinals can't agree on one of the current candidates, I am still willing to take on the job. I'm a uniter, not a divider.

[joakleaf]

I'm a uniter, not a divider.

Now watch this drive.

[bellanotsoblu]

Not that I probably get much of a say, but I don't want you being Pope. It's bad enough that you've played God once before. Just vote no!!!

[sueg]

Part of me thinks the pink smoke protest was cool. But most of me thinks it was a waste of time, and that if they really want a voice, they ought to go find a church that is interested in hearing them. By remaining Catholic, they give funds and legitimacy to the Church, which is and will continue to be run by men. Anyone who wants an all-male celibate clergy is welcome to it, but I don't understand what keeps these people coming to an institution that doesn't speak for what they purport to believe. It is a great mystery to me.

[dampha]

Well, what would happen if you substituted "America" for "Catholic Church" and you were living in 1870? Not the same thing, of course, but also not as different as you think--religious identity can be a pretty basic thing. I suspect that these women, by and large, identify as Catholics; and for them, "remaining Catholic" is not a deliberate choice.

Also, the Church does change; it has and it will continue to do so. Its gender problems are going to take a long time to fix, but they will NEVER fixed if there aren't dissenting voices within the Church.

Now, Log Cabin Republicans...

[sueg]

I don't see the equation with America. The Catholic Church is still politically powerful, but doesn't have direct control over people's lives anymore unless people choose to give the Church that control. You can leave your home country, of course, but leaving a church is much simpler.

I am speaking most specifically of American Catholics here, as well. While everything I say still applies to those living in other countries, American Catholics probably have the most opportunities to express their faith elsewhere, and the least social and political pressure to remain in the Catholic Church.

I don't care if the Catholic Church's problems are fixed. If they are, fine. If people choose to go elsewhere and the Church withers and dies, that's fine with me too.

[dampha]

How is it possible to express your faith as a Catholic outside the Catholic Church? There may be times and places where people have remained Catholic because of the direct control that the Church had over their lives, but as you say, 21st century America is not one of those places. Many Catholics remain Catholic because it is an essential part of their identity. A conditioned part, yes, but still essential. A suggestion that they could just as easily be Lutheran or Presbyterian is only a notch or two less ridiculous than suggesting that somebody change their sexual identity.