The news this week that the Catholic Church has a new pontiff, Francis I, has inspired me to write on a subject I rarely (if ever) tackle: religion. Because this is such a personal subject, I will also preface this by stating that I am not a member of the Catholic Church. I am in no way "telling the Church what to do" or trying to state unequivocally "what's best for Catholicism," because I would not presume to do such a thing, being an outsider. I don't presume in any way to know which reforms would better the institution and which would not. That is for Catholics to figure out, which is as it should be.
But while the Catholic world rejoices with the news of a new Pope, many voices are also being raised over the subject of modernization of Church dogma on various subjects. While, obviously, the child abuse sexual scandals are still a problem that has not entirely been dealt with (and which the new Pope will have to address in one way or another), these suggestions go beyond damage control or dealing with past sins within the Church. Innovative proposals are being spoken of on such issues as allowing priests to marry, allowing women into the priesthood, revising Church doctrine on birth control and/or abortion, and even addressing the status of gay people in a more modern light.
Again, I'm not advocating for any of these proposals, but I do find them interesting. Allowing priests to marry would certainly change the Church and perhaps revitalize the priesthood. Women priests and bishops might bring women into a more-equal role in the Church. There are good and valid arguments for each of these modernizing proposals, and while I'm not advocating any of them I certainly can understand the logic behind many of them.
But anyone who is expecting Pope Francis I to wake up one morning and announce to the world that celibacy will no longer be a requirement for the priesthood (or any other such sweeping reform) is going to be sorely disappointed. The Catholic Church doesn't really lend itself to such overnight changes. Big, fundamental dogmatic changes are simply not going to come from one man, even the new leader of the Church.
I have no information about the new Pope or where he stands on any of these issues -- even where he stands on the need for any changes in the Church whatsoever. But even if he turns out to be a radical reformer of the Church, what will have to happen for any fundamental changes in Catholicism is for a large group of Catholic leaders to come together and debate the issues fully and over a long period of time.
In short, what would be necessary for the Catholic Church to modernize would be a "Vatican III" assembly. Or, in full, a "Third Vatican Council."
The last time such a momentous meeting took place was just over a half-century ago. This sounds like a long time, but when held up against the Catholic Church's two-millennial history, it really isn't that long a time. But, unlike the Church's timeline, the world has dramatically changed since Vatican II. Think of what life was like in the mid-1960s, and then compare it to today.
Vatican II ushered in monumental changes in the Church. I'm not going to attempt to list all the changes, because I'd probably make a few theological errors if I even tried, but just ask any Catholic old enough to remember "pre-Vatican II" times, and they'll tell you what a big deal this was for the Church and its relation to modern life. Because that's exactly why Vatican II was convened: to cope with the fact that modern life had changed and the Church needed to change with the times in order to still have relevance in people's lives.
Which is exactly what would be needed today to further modernize the Church. People advocating basic, foundational changes in the Church are never going to see such things happen without the support of a significant portion of the Church's hierarchy. Such changes are political in nature, really, and would require gaining majorities in favor of them before they could conceivably happen.
Vatican II took over three years to complete, from beginning to end. It actually spanned two pontificates, as Pope John XXIII died just after the Council began. Many far-reaching changes took place as a result -- such as Mass being spoken in the local vernacular language, rather than in Latin. Everyday Catholics' lives were affected, and their interactions with the Church changed. But such changes were debated, both inside the Second Vatican Council and in the Catholic world at large, for a long time before they were agreed upon. Even three years' time, compared to the Church's history, is lightning speed. But three years is also long enough to have a full conversation on many different levels, both within the Council and among Catholics all over the world.
Vatican II had a very wide view of possible changes. They didn't accept all of the proposals, and there were factions and power struggles which determined the outcome, yea or nay. The Church is, after all, made up of human beings here on Earth. And it's part of the human condition to resist change -- doubly so on matters of religious beliefs and practices.
So for all those offering their own suggestions for big changes in the Catholic Church today after the election of Pope Francis I, no matter what the goal being advocated there will likely be only one realistic path to get there. If you would like to see priests being able to marry or women be allowed in the priesthood or any other modernization, the route to get there is going to be exactly the same.
For one reason or another, perhaps it is time for the Third Vatican Council. Because Vatican III is going to be the only way sweeping change will ever take place within the Catholic Church. Pope John XXIII announced the Second Vatican Council only three months after he was elected Pope -- which came as a great surprise to many. It would indeed be interesting to see Pope Francis I make just such a stunning announcement to begin his papacy.
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
Daniel Tutt: Pope Francis and the Future of Catholic-Muslim Relations
Rev. Dr. Cindi Love: Does Pope Francis Have the Will of Christ as Well as the Way?
Christ did not set his Church up to change with every whim and fancy - it is for all time. Eternal. Growing. Strong. Good.
You may not like this, but shame. You'll have to live with it.
It contains one 'error', however.
Quote: "But anyone who is expecting Pope Francis I to wake up one morning and announce to the world that celibacy will no longer be a requirement for the priesthood (or any other such sweeping reform) is going to be sorely disappointed. The Catholic Church doesn't really lend itself to such overnight changes. Big, fundamental dogmatic changes are simply not going to come from one man, even the new leader of the Church."
Celibacy is not a requirement for the priesthood in the Eastern Catholic Church within the Roman Catholic Church. In other words, married men are ordained to the priesthood.
In brief, it is Roman Church practice rather than Roman Church dogma that underlies the perception that celibacy IS a requirement. It clearly isn't within the whole 'Roman' Church.
As usual, the Curia is living in the past and it is prepared to live in the past. Unless Pope Francesco makes big changes. Something which may be too little and too late now. I'd like to be optimistic, but I find it very hard.
How about leave it to catholics to determine what they want in their church. There are plenty of places to go if you demand a married clergy and birth control.
For some outsider to demand that changes MUST be made seems to me quite arrogant. I can't imagine telling someone of another religion that they MUST change their beliefs.
(Oh, and celibacy in priests is NOT what caused the abuses. You are no doubt aware that the same abuses are rife in the general population, and in public schools, where the perpetrators are certainly not celibate).
Married clergy poses a problem for wives, as great demands of time and moving around are put on catholic priests, and they don't make enough money to support a family. Wouldn't be fair to their wives and families.
As for birth control, people are free to manage their family sizes as a matter of individual conscience. The church, however, stands upon its belief that procreation and children are gifts of God. Most people who find that troublesome just want a sanction for abortion and are po'ed that an institution still opposes it.
Your initial focus is on what you perceive is presumably the main continuing issue. It is not the main issue. It will always be present, hopefully to a lesser degree, as guess what? The church is composed of human beings. Pedophilia exist throughout society because guess what? Society is also composed of humans.
You go on to examine celibacy of priest and the option of women priests and state " Big, fundamental dogmatic changes are simply not going to come..." You are right that dogmatic changes are slow to come. But the facts are that these two conditions are not dogma but tradition.
Your call for Vatican 3 might be a tad premature. Study of the Church will show that indeed these councils are called to address dogma and traditional issues, but not with the frequency you advocate. The Church will continue to adjust to a changing world as it has for over 2,000 years. We Catholics pray that it will continue to guide the world in the practice of a morality which seeks the common good and not the interest of individuals.
The author seems to think he's talking about a government in which he has a vote or a stake.
Wish they'd be half as critical of the government in which they DO have a stake!
Personally, I just wish that they would stop interpreting "love your neighbor" as "my values are more right than your values, so I'm going to ignore my neighbors values and try to impose my own interpretation of God's values". The Church is moving many people further away from God.
So your remedy is to say that we should drop some of the commands that God gave Moses? Make it easier for Christians to follow Christ. Evolve? Live and let live. I will decide what of God's laws are right? Choose the easy path.
Jesus did not. He gave up His life for us. So perhaps when he said "love thy neighbor" he did not release us from His Father's commands?
But this fact is unpleasant to people who only recognize 'love' when others give them what they want. These people just cannot stand the fact that that is NOT what Christ means by 'love'.
"Love your neighbor" is the greatest commandment. Often, for those who have studied God's values, the sacrifice that we must make is to allow our neighbors to hold values different from God's values, just as God allows us to use our free will to hold values that are "milk" in comparison to God's values. That is an expression of "loving our neighbor", just as God loves us.
On the other hand, practices can change. To separate these appropriately, the ordination of only men is dogmatically defined. Christ only ordained men to serve as priests. This will never change.
Contraception by definition means to be against conception. ALL Christians agreed on this point up until 1930. While the Pope could better define what actions are contrary, this will never change. See here: http://www.businessinsider.com/time-to-admit-it-the-church-has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2
Allowing priests to marry is a practice. Some priests are already married. The pope could change this if the conditions warrant but will likely not. Likewise, he could also change the "pastoral approach" to homosexuality, but endorsing it as an accepted way of life will never happen.
People think we live in a time where the Church must change but forget that early Greek/Roman culture had sex, homosexuals and even abortion. The first 30 popes were put to death for refusing to renounce their beliefs. To think that social pressure is going to make the Church renounce 2,000 years of belief is naive.
The more people that want change at one point or another, the more Protestants there will be. If an overwhelming majority wanted change, the numbers would show it.
The fact is that today there still are about 1.2 billion Catholics, compared to 800 million Protestants.
If you change the fundamentals of one religion, you are actually destroying it and a lot of believers would find themselves without their religion.