If you keep up much with religion news, you probably heard about Pope Francis's recent interview where he suggested a change in emphasis for the Catholic Church under his leadership. Here are a few notable excerpts:

Anyway, as many experts have pointed out, none of this is in disagreement with Catholic theology. However, it does seem like a signal that he wants to move the church in a more liberal direction, back towards Vatican II rather than away as under the previous two popes. Anyway, as I know that there are a couple Catholics here, I would like to hear their reaction to this interview and that of their fellow Catholics.

I'm not Catholic but my wife is and I consider myself sort of almost-but-not-quite. I really appreciated his remarks. I don't know how much he can really effect change within the hierarchy of the Church by himself, but it's somewhat encouraging.

It's obviously a step in the right direction. As you rightly point out, there's nothing in there, technically, that is new or revolutionizing, but it not what you say but how you say it. In a sense it's somewhat tragic that - as you rightly say - we're going back towards Vat II stances. We're clawing our way back to a level we had already reached 50 years ago.

What's mostly underappreciated is actually the decision of the last pope to step down voluntarily. Theologically/dogmatically, that's much more of a novum than anything Pope Francis said or did so far.

Different regions of the world have vastly differing theological issues. In Europe/N. America, sexual morals in a wide sense (thus including gay rights, abortion, contraception, pre-marital sex etc.) are a huge issue - and rightly so as the entire theological foundation of these issues is severely flawed - something theology is quite well aware of for decades. Besides that, it's women's participation in the church and women ordination - also somewhat of a home-made problem in the first place. In S. America, it's poverty, societal participation of the underpriviliged etc. Francis is liberation theologian, and it shows. It's VERY healthy for the church to finally have someone who's cutting back on the occasionally obscene way the church presents itself in monetary matters. And I think this is the issue that's causing the most buyers remorse within the hierarchy. Africa - sexual morals (contraception) and poverty.

It would be somewhat difficult to get all of these problems moved forward simultaneously. Mostly, I think he's "just being a liberation theologian". It's common theme of liberation theology to interpret societal problems in terms of equality and participation. If you view abortion, contraception etc. not so much as a sterile theological problem but more of a result of societal inequalities, you more or less naturally reach a position where you kind of "side with the sinner", as most of these "sins" are interpreted to be (at least to to a significant degree) results of societal realities that the individual is powerless against. Depending on how far you want to stretch this, you can get to accepting contraception, perhaps even some forms of abortion, while not having to change much of anything in your theological fundamentals.

So his stance of "our display of wealth is obscene and let's quit the abortion talk" seems more of a result of his theological heritage than anything else, imo. IF he really wanted to shake things up, he'll use the next five years or so to appoint new bishops and then convene a council.

Is it the general feeling (I guess, among interested lay Catholics) that he does want to shake things up?

Depends on what you mean with "shake up". In a sense, he's already doing that, by eschewing most of the usual pomp, many procedural practices, the unguarded and open way he's talking about issues of faith etc. and the new and forceful focus on issues of poverty and equality.

I doubt many expect significant changes in doctrine, at least not quickly. However, what many (at least in the west) criticize besides the theological issues is (among other things) the suffocating hierarchical structure of the institutional church. I can definitely see how his example (if it persists and yields some tangible structural changes in church hierarchy and procedures) would have substantial influence in local dioceses and parishes in this regard and could lead, overall to a episcopal structure with more participation of laypersons in the decision making process and the overall management/leadership of parishes and dioceses.

Again - the theological foundations for that are there since the Vat II, yet not a lot has happened in the last 50 years. So hopefully, the church overall will move to a more communal, less hierarchical, model. And if it did, it'd be in large part thanks to him. In that sense, he's shaking up plenty already. There's a lot of rust, though.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...or-change?lite

He keeps going.

Andrew Sullivan's take on Pope Francis

Call me a cynic, a hater, even a conspiritard, but I don't necessarily believe Francis or the Church are interested in moving in a liberal direction. I posted this in the Politard thread:

Is this like a litmus test liberalism? What does "liberal" mean to you?

I think there's a useful distinction between agreement and acceptance. With regards to abortion, I don't agree that it's a moral practice. However, I accept that the law of the land is that it is legal, and that this is extremely unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. So I accept that it is, and I accept that people will choose to have the procedure. The question at this juncture becomes "How do I respond?" My answer to this question is that it's mostly a moot and it's not going to be the hill that I die on. It's not worth the energy to try to keep fighting the legal battle. There are many other important things going on where positive influence *CAN* be had, so that's where the energy should go.

With regards to the new direction, I think the acceptance/agreement distinction is useful. He's simply NOT going to agree with homosexuality, but it seems like he accepts it.

I think it's an misstep of liberalism to push for agreement rather than to embrace acceptance as the goal.