^^^^They don't want another long-reigning pope like JPII? IDK. They'll go young again when you least expect it.

i dont get the age thing either. i get that he should be wise an experienced in the church doctrine... but JPII was awesome.... he's the only pope that many remembered during their lives. i have wondered if they went older because of those conspiracy theories that one of them John? that was supposedly poisoned.... maybe if they get them old,then they can brush off an assassination as natural causes.

they may also think that the younger the man, the more progressive the pope may be. JPII unveiled the Fatima prophecies... and supposedly a pope is supposed to be murdered--- JPII thought it was him and when he was shot, he thought the blessed mother saved him. for decades those prophesies were hidden.

idk

^^^^I don't think it's necessarily true that a younger pope may be more progressive. (And if so, it's only because his generation was a tad more liberal. The younger priests I've met seem to actually be a LOT more conservative and outspoken than the priests in their 50's/60's.) In fact, one of the cardinals that all of the very traditional Catholics I know of were cheering for was in his 60's.

I don't think age really matters, nor does the duration of the papacy (although hopefully at least a few years?). I think each pope's virtues can contribute something to Catholics, while still holding firm to the Church's teachings. Really, personality and approach will be the only real differences between popes. No teachings will ever change. Disciplines may be loosened or tightened. Some popes may favor more Latin in the liturgy than other. Some might go after the phony politicians more aggressively. But none will ever change any teaching. Folks'd better get used to that.

Ultimately, I am psyched with this choice. Eager to see what contributions he will make.

well.. i remember when i was a kid, there was an uprising from the catholics in the 80s over birth contol. In the 60s a Pontiff commission was formed to investigate birth control. Of course Paul condemned it, but the fact that a commission was formed showed that the church would at least entertain it. In the 80s, crack was at epidemic proportions and AIDS was killing millions.. many catholics felt that the world was not good enough to bring new babies into it. They felt that after 20 yrs of the pill being available, the church should change it views.

Most catholics i know use some form of birth control, whether the pill or sterilization. the church promotes teh rythmn method... and then also condemns withdrawl--- so even those who do not use bc are wrong if they pull out.

the gears of progress are indeed slow, but eventually, the pope will have to change the policy.

i do think that younger priests are not as rigid as in the past tho. the ones i know go outside and play basketball with the kids... back during the middle ages when i went to school, we were not permitted to look them in the eyes, had to stand when they walked into a room... heads bowed down. and there was NO way we could touch them. Now... you can elbow them while they are playing point guard. of course this is all ceremonious.. rather than doctrine... but i do believe that a younger pope would be more liberal on the birth control issue.

It shows that they would investigate it to see if it fits with Church teaching, and it didn't, the case is closed now and it will always be. Not only won't the poor ever change it, but he can't. It's just not gonna happen.

The rhythm method isnt the only thing, but at the same time, most birth control isn't as necessary as many make it out to be. Regardless, people have been asking if the Church would change for years. It hasn't yet and mark my words, it never will. People seem to think investigating the matter means it could go either way, like a court case. Just the opposite. It's like taking a random puzzle piece and seeing if it fits anywhere in your puzzle. If it doesn't, then the piece does not belong. The Church was fair and face BC a look. It found that its not compatible with Church teaching, and thus this was always the only outcome possible. It's not that the Church just has something against BC or is slow to "progress." The church finds contraception immoral, and it always will. It finds it to be an intrinsic evil. Every new pope now, we hear chants of them changing. And every time, the world is shocked when another Catholic is elected. It seems that said cycle will always repeat itself. Ever ancient, ever new. The Church is beyond the times and popular beliefs of the day. She won't bend to the world. We can just wait and see.

Another example of the Church "investigating" things is when there is a new alleged apparition. The Church investigates it. But it's less that the Church is "considering" it and more that they are seeing if it's messages are congruent with Church teaching. If it teaches heresy, it's determined that the apparition isn't divine and is rejected. (ie Bayside, which is actually an apparition clung to by those who think the Church is too liberal.) That ruling won't change. Likewise, the ruling on bc is set. It was found to be contrary to Church teaching. It won't change. The only things about the Church that can change are disciplines. (ie whether you can eat meat on Fridays or not. The Church never felt that eating meat on Fridays was itself immoral. The Church merely imposed it as a discipline. And disciplines, the Church can change as needed. Birth control is not a discipline. It's been taught to be immoral and therefore, the ruling is made.) I realize that this doesn't make the Church popular, but the Church doesn't set out to be popular. (Yes, I stole this from a homily from one of our priests and adapted it a little bit. More on him below. )

As for younger priests being less rigid, only in some ways. They might take new steps to reach youth. But in terms of doctrine, they seem to be even more conservative than their elder priests. We have 3 priests stationed at our parish, and only 1 regularly addresses the mortal sin of contraception. He's in his 20's. I could definitely see him playing ball with the kids. But more liberal? Nope. The 60's kids might've been because of the times. Right now, our world is so secularized, that it you become a Priest today? Heheh. Young priests are gonna steer the church away from the works even more. Again, you just have to watch. Nothing the libs want will come true from the Church. If anything, it will go the opposite way and the teaching will be reinforced more.

And as I said, one of the favorites of trads was a "younger" pope who'd have probably excommunicated politicians left and right. lol Even a more "liberal" pope like Dolan wouldn't be doing half the things the libs expect. The Church has found something to be immoral. (And I frankly agree when I look at the effect it's all had on our culture.) They won't change it. And I think Catholics who have an issue with that really will need to ask themselves whether the Church is just some kind of cultural thing to them, or something they really believe in. Whenever somebody who's left the Church says that they'd return if the Church did this, then I know that they aren't true believers. The Church isn't a political party. (God isn't either. haha) They don't change for you. You change for them. I know people like to try not to learn the difference between priests going rogue and actual Church teaching, but in our tech-savvy age, I think we all have decent access to the truth on the matter. But I guess when the next pope is elected, we'll hear the same script, and the next, and the next, and the next. Christ promised us the world would hate us. Sometimes I think we forget that.

the church DOES change and evolve as time goes by. When my mom got married in the 60s it was immoral to get married by a JOP, and the marriage was not recognized. Therefore, she had to marry in the church when she got pregnant so that my sister could be baptized, otherwise the child would be a "bastard to burn in hell" as the priest stated. My sister got married by JOP and in order to baptize the child, she had to have a "marriage blessing" ceremony. And BOTH parents had to be catholic... now only one must be. and to get married in the church, it used to be that both needed to be catholic, but that does not seem to be true anymore either. Perhaps it is just different priests taking on different views, or bending rules as you say. but if it was "immoral" to the point where a baby would burn in hell 50 yrs ago, then is should also be that way today--- as per your argument. but that just isnt true anymore