In dying we are born to eternal life. Therefore black is a silly colour for funerals. White, as is currently used, is a much better idea.
I understand the symbolism of the change to white. However, my issue with it is that we live in a time where everyone just assumes everyone is going to heaven and, unfortunately, having white at a funeral and a priest talk about how whomever is doing better now in heaven kind of play into that. Don't get me wrong -- actually one of the reasons I am not a practicing Catholic is that I have issues with people being sent to hell.
However, the theology of the Church is that the gate is narrow that leads to life. I really feel strongly that liturgy needs to reflect theology, and, ideally, teach it as well by implication. And the neo-universalism that many folks believe, indicates there is some deficit in understanding, which I think the wearing of black instead of white at funerals might subtlety help combat, in combination with a catechisical process. Were I Pope, I'd view my role in large part as reinforcing what the church teaches and upholding tradition. I couldn't be teaching what I might want theology to be, I'd have to be teaching what the Church teaches. I'd feel negligent in my duty if I didn't take steps to reinforce a Catholic perspective of the afterlife in the popular mind in such a role.
I understand that the US has a lot of annulments, and I think that's really sad, but if people really aren't validly married, making them put their lives on hold because you've reached your quota for the year is ridiculous. A better idea might be making sure marriage preparation is more thorough.
We already arguably have too much marriage preparation in the US in the form of these pre-CANA classes. It's more marriage preparation than at any time in the history of the Church. The problem isn't lack of preparation, it's the attitude of the folks getting married, and possibly in some dioceses what is actually taught in the classes (But having never really seen a course outline, I don't want to make any real comments upon what is taught, because I just don't know in anything more than general terms). Again, I think this is another area where cultural reinforcement would be helpful. Right now, in the US, annulments are so prevalent, some people actually think "If it doesn't work out, I can always get an annulment, which is just like a civil divorce" (in their minds), which, ironically, might in and of itself be grounds for annulment.
By capping the number of annulments, the Church would be forcing these diocesan boards in the US to be stricter about when they grant an annulment. In doing so, the laity would eventually have the idea of marriage as a life-long bond more strongly enforced and, thus, there'd be fewer grounds for annulments. Obviously, the cap would also have to come with new stricter guidelines.
I do want to stress that that doesn't mean there aren't legitimate grounds for seeking annulments. There are. And I think people who are separated and plan to be separated the rest of their lives should indeed apply on any conceivable grounds they can come up with -- since if they are not validly married, it would be tragic for them not to get a second chance at love. It's always worth applying.
I just think sometimes it gets a little ridiculous in the US at times. "Why do you want an annulment?" "Uhhh, I was immature when I got married because I was a typical 19 year old." "Granted!". Yes, fairly normal levels of youthful immaturity are actually grounds for annulment nowadays in the US. These guidelines seriously need to be revised if the Church is serious about marriage as a lifelong institution. But, again, the problem is not at all on the end of the people applying, it's on the end of the diocesan boards that approve 99% of applications. People should apply if their marriage fails -- but it's up to the Church to figure out which marriages were legitimately invalid and which were legitimately valid, not just to rubber stamp "annulment" on nearly everything that comes their way. This isn't really a problem outside the US, but something about the US process doesn't seem to be working right, unless we want to say there is something really particular about the US culture or church relative to even other English-speaking cultures and churches, that means a much larger percentage of our marriages are invalid.
I'd actually be a very traditional Pope in most respects. People probably assume I'd come in there and start liberalizing everything, because I'm a fairly liberal guy, but I have respect for the institution and really would want to uphold and defend it as Pope.
What's wrong with Confirmation as performed by Eastern Rite bishops?
It was late at night over here and I really phrased that point badly. What I meant is that I would no longer allow Latin-Rite priests to do confirmations (Which some folks aren't aware happens, but it does -- I've actually witnessed it.). In the Latin Rite, only bishops would be allowed to confirmation as is traditional, as it would both uphold tradition and also teach something important about the role of bishop as pastor of the diocese (I don't think modern Catholics generally have enough understanding that their real pastor is their bishop, and bringing him in each year for confirmations, or sending people to him, would help reinforce that). The reason I did not say that would be true universally, is because I understand the Eastern rite traditions about confirmation less well, and would leave that decision to the Eastern patriarchs and metropolitans.
I went back and edited my initial post just now to try to make my point more clear.
I agree with the no access to children part, but shouldn't priests be given the same opportunities for repentance as the rest of us? Why defrock someone over this? We don't stop, um, other sinners from receiving the sacraments after they have confessed and repented - why make priests stop being priests? As long as they are unable to hurt anyone any more, they have just as much right to exercise their vocation as the next repentant person.
The problem is that I, as you said, wouldn't want to give child molester priests access to children in a capacity of priests, because it gives them a position of authority, respect, and power, and in such cases they would have previously proven prone to temptation to great abuse of it that they couldn't resist. Really, almost any role a priest could have would theoretically involve some on the job access to children while he is wearing his collar, and certainly would involve him potentially running across children off the job while wearing clericals. They can use relationships forged in monitored settings to arrange meetings in unmonitored settings. So, I think the real choice facing the bishop ought to be either to defrock the priest (Thereby ensuring that he would never be able to use his position as priest in an abusive way again), or to allow the priest to continue serving as a priest, but in a cloistered monastery where he would be serving all adults and would never run across children again.
One of the things that I think is important to realize is that when folks advocate preventing child molesting priests from serving as priest, they're not saying they can't repent or are going to hell or are kicked out of the Church. It is speaking of taking a common sense step to protect children. If I knew someone who was a chronic embezzler of money, and stole some from me, I might forgive the person and still be his friend, but I wouldn't hire him to handle money or leave my wallet on the table and leave the room. One can forgive and still be cautious and prudent.
FishandBread - I wish you would put some thought and effort into it.
Actually - WOW!!! too bad you weren't in the running for Pope after JPII. Lot of interesting ideas.
Thanks.
Honestly...I'd probably just wander around the Vatical and enjoy my access all areas pass. I'd imagine there's some pretty cool stuff there behind closed doors.
Yeah, the "secret library" and the "secret archives" both have intriguing sounds names. I might get someone who knows Latin and dig around with him or her.