Okay, to those who are saying give Ratzinger a chance

[4_Legs_Good]

while I guess, I can kinda agree, that's not really the point.

The point is that by choosing Ratzinger, the Church leadership has officially proclaimed that they want the Church to move in a more conservative direction. That's the real danger, that's the real problem.

I can't see any other way to think about this. What a black mark on JPII's legacy, to know that he appointed cardinals who made this happen.

How long before I'll actually refer to him as the pope or Benedict XVI, I don't know. I still don't call George Jr. "president".

david

[AlCzervik]

1. he is 78 so maybe part of why they picked him was his age?

maybe they don't want another term right now. I'm not trying to be disrespectful but i think his age was a factor.

[4_Legs_Good]

2. It certainly was, but there are many of cardinals who are

70 and older. Why choose this divisive, regressive figure?

david

[Matilda]

13. The new election rules?

If Ratzinger had just 59 votes sewn up, and his supporters made it
clear that there would be no compromise, no deals made, everyone
in the Conclave would know that all they had to was sit tight for
two weeks, and then get over the line with 51% of the vote. If that
happened, they'd just give in rather than drag it out for the two
weeks of useless ballotting.

We don't know, we probably will never know, but it's a bad rule and
should be changed. Ratzinger won't change it, of course if that's
how he got in, but it should be changed next time.

[happynewyear]

3. that is what my husband said too

He said he figured they'd pick someone old. I am shocked but he was not.

?

:wtf:

[DemBones DemBones]

4. How do you figure it's a black mark on John Paul's legacy when JP II

hand-picked Ratzinger for his important positions and would not allow him to retire?

Ratzinger asked to retire several times, at least as far back as 1991, but John Paul II wouldn't hear of it.

Ratzinger was not entirely comfortable having to deal with Church problems like heresies and pedophilia BUT the upside is he KNOWS all that stuff and he won't be naive about any of it.

I don't think he'll tack left or right at the helm of the Church, just head straight on in John Paul's wake. (But he might surprise us here and there. He's been very involved in ecumenical efforts since Vatican II and he's written something to the effect that annulments could/should be easier to get.)

John Paul II is smiling today, believe me.

I did not want Ratzinger to be elected but I'll pray for him and give him a chance.

[4_Legs_Good]

6. I'm not saying JPII wouldn't be happy

but I am saying that judging between the good and bad that he did for the Church and the world, this will rank in the bad column.

For me JPII was a Clinton of a pope - slightly more good than bad, but certainly nowhere near ideal, not even on the same planet as ideal (for my tastes).

We'll see what Ratzinger does, but everyone knew that Ratzinger was the darling of the conservatives as far back as both conclaves in 1978. This *is* a clear indication of a desire for more conservatism, at least as far as I can see it.

david

[XanaDUer]

5. Because liberals and progessives believe in giving chances

nonlibs don't.

I'm not thrilled, but I will see what he does.

[regnaD kciN]

7. Living in denial...

I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that we can't say what Ratzinger will do is merely fooling themselves.

He has been one of the powers at the Vatican. He has written and spoken on controversial matters probably more than anyone other than JPII. It is far from a secret that he was to the right of the late Pontiff, and the most prominent hard-liner at the Vatican.

Why, if there be any doubt, look at his words just before the conclave. To quote from Yahoo news:

On Monday, Ratzinger, who was the powerful dean of the College of Cardinals, used his homily at the Mass dedicated to electing the next pope to warn the faithful about tendencies that he considered dangers to the faith: sects, ideologies like Marxism, liberalism, atheism, agnosticism and relativism — the ideology that there are no absolute truths.

It's one thing to "give the benefit of the doubt" to a newly-elected Pontiff who no one's heard of before -- when you don't know what he's going to do. But, with Ratzinger, "what you see is what you get."

I seriously think that, for members here, it's going to wind up coming down to a choice between your belief in the Church and your belief in the spirit of liberalism. And I think we're soon going to see people coming down on one side or the other.

:-(

[DemBones DemBones]

12. Look at what Cardinal Ratzinger actually said and compare it to what

Yahoo news SAID he said.

from Yahoo: "On Monday, Ratzinger, who was the powerful dean of the College of Cardinals, used his homily at the Mass dedicated to electing the next pope to warn the faithful about tendencies that he considered dangers to the faith: sects, ideologies like Marxism, liberalism, atheism, agnosticism and relativism — the ideology that there are no absolute truths. "

What Cardinal Ratzinger actually said:


"How many winds of doctrine we have known in these last decades, how many ideological currents, how many modes of thought... The little ship of thought of many Christians has been not seldom agitated by this wind ? tossed by an extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism and ways like that. Each day seven new are born arising as St. Paul said from the trickery of men, from cunning in the service of error (cf. Ephesians 4: 14). To have a clear faith, according to the Creed of the Church, comes frequently to be labeled as fundamentalism. While relativism, that which allows itself to bear "what is of every wind of doctrine", appears as a unique position at the height of contemporary times. It is constituting itself a dictatorship of relativism that recognizes nothing as definitive and that allows as the ultimate measure only one's own ego and one's own desires."


"We, instead, have another measure: the Son of God, the true man. He is the measure of human truth. "Adult" is not a faith that follows the waves of fashion in the latest novelty; adult and mature is a faith profoundly rooted in friendship with Christ, and in this friendship which opens us to all that is good and gives us the criteria to discern between true and false, between trickery and truth. This adult faith we must increase, to this adult faith we must lead the flock of Christ. And it is this faith ? only the faith ? that creates unity and realizes itself in charity. St. Paul offers us this proposition ? in contrast with a continuous vicissitudes of those that are like infants tossed about by the waves ? a beautiful word: to do the truth in charity, as the fundamental formula of Christian existence. In Christ, there coincides truth and charity. In the measure in which we are bound to Christ, also in our life, truth and charity are found. Charity without truth will be empty, truth without charity will be like "a clashing cymbal" (1 Corinthians 13: 1)."



There is much more to the homily, of course, and you may still dislike what he said, but he said it quite differently than the way Yahoo paraphrased it.

I'm quite sure Pope Benedict XVI isn't going to give Church approval to abortion or euthanasia, or divorce or same sex marriage. I can't see him ordaining women, either, though I think there's a slight possibility of his deciding to allow priests the marriage option. But can that really be a surprise to anyone who knows the facts of Catholic doctrine and the generally conservative nature of the cardinals of the Church? "Conservative" doesn't just mean "right-wing," it also means "preserving resources, heritage, etc." and in that sense, it's a good thing. Our Church has remained true to its ancient doctrines in a time when many others have not. I believe that's the strength of Catholicism, that and the ability to change just enough when the time is right.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. And also remember the European definition of liberalism

which the full quote definitely looks like he means - the opposite of Marxism, ie free market economic liberalism.

It's weird that I, as an atheist who quite likes free markets, as long as they're fair, should be defending the new Pope on this, but I think American liberals shouldn't be too quick to leap on that quote as an attack on them.

On the subject of women priests - the BBC dug up an interview with him from a few years ago, in which he did make clear there was no way he'd contemplate them, because the apostles were all men. For married priests he said celibacy was 'discipline', not doctrine (and after all, married priests have been allowed when converting from other sects) - so there's a small possibility on movement there. Discussion would be allowed, at least.

[IronLionZion]

8. Actually he doesn't want to move in any direction

he wants to keep to tradition during this interim papacy and the next Pope will be elected within a few years.

And how much influence do you think the Pope has on us? You know the heavily Republican American clergy openly disagreed with John Paul II on a lot of things right? John Paul II was against the war and death penalty and corporate greed and so on but it didn't make a lick of difference in this country. He was against the things our president stands for but our clergy supported Bush all the way. :shrug:

[4_Legs_Good]

9. I don't buy this interm papacy bologna

I'm hearing it all the time every day. The dude is only 78. What's the life expectancy of priests in the US? This guy will have a 24-7 physician around.

He could well live into his 90s.

In fact the very NOTION of interm pope I find offensive. It's a very regressive/conservative notion. Why should we kick back on our laurels when we can be moving forward or in some other direction as needs be. Why elect someone who is so close to the last guy.

And screw how much influence he has on us in the US. I'm concerned about how much affect he has on the 3rd world where we have arch-bishops running around saying condoms don't help against AIDS. Where the sexually conservative voice of the pope gives George Jr. more fodder and "legitimacy" for not giving family planning aid to the 3rd world.

Plus I'd like to be able to get a vasectomy without feeling like I'm going to hell.

Gah! I don't mean to fly off the handle, but I'm getting more and more depressed and angry every minute.

david
Soon to be ex-Catholic

[IronLionZion]

10. get a grip

before you burst a blood vessel.

you know, Dembones had a good post on the condoms view. Condoms make perfect sense to educated middle class Americans like us, but what about the poor Africans? They make them from cheap materials, store them in hot places, don't know how to use them, and reuse them! :wtf: It's really not a viable solution for them and will give them a false sense of safety. That's why Church leaders, especially in poor countries, promote abstinence and marriage fidelity instead. Surely they might understand it better than you or me?

It's much better to get mad about something we actually have some control and understanding of - our asinine politicians who are ignoring the crisis in poor countries. Because I assure you the Catholic church will ALWAYS help the poor, the sick, the elderly, and the less fortunate. The Holy Father's traditional views on sexual issues have fuck all to do with that.

[4_Legs_Good]

11. OMG, I can't imagine ever refering to Ratzinger as "The Holy Father"

What an absurd time we live in!

Look, I'm of course mad as hell about our lame-ass politicians. But I don't know, I feel like I have some control over that, and I can work to make changes there. I feel powerless when it comes to the Church. Plus I care a whole helluva lot more about the Church, to be honest, than I do about America. I would find it much easier to sever ties with my country than with my faith.

Anyway, for your sake and the sake of my blood vessels I'll "get a grip".

I think your comments on condoms and AIDS, however are lacking. The Bishop who made the comments said that the HIV virus is smaller than the matrix in the latex or something. Utterly rediculous. And look at what a great job teaching abstenance and marital fidelity has done to stop the epidemic in Africa.

And I'm even more terrified about the Vatican's continued refusal to address the population bomb issue.

Blah! I'm at it again!

david

[Princess Turandot]

15. I'm not defending the Church's position on birth control..

which I believe is its most violated and inane 'teaching', but let's be sensible here. The countries/continents where HIV infections in heterosexuals are growing are ones where Catholicism is a minor faith, if present at all. The prevention of HIV transmission is the duty of governments not religion. The raiders in Darfar raping young girls don't wear or care about condoms. A lot of educated Americans don't bother with condoms because they simply do not want to, even when they know better. I've even seen posts on DU by men asserting that the HIV virus isn't spread by sex.

Of course the Vatican should not oppose the use of condoms, since right now, they are the best way of preventing HIV transmissions. It makes the Church look heartless rather than foolish or uneducated. However, it's the responsibility first & foremost, of governments and public health officials to deal with the spread of HIV. The announcement by a President of South Africa that HIV does not cause AIDS, assuming it received publicity in Africa, is far more dangerous than the Vatican condemning condom use.


The US executive order first implemented by Reagan, denying US aid to health clinics which mentioned family planning, has had far more impact on condom use and availability than anything related to the Church, since many of the health programs refused to accept the conditions. Bush I continued the order, Bill revoked it and Bush II re-instated it. Less $$, less condom purchases. CARE has said that the shipments of condoms to Africa dropped dramatically over the last few years. (I believe many of them are purchased from the US; the position that Africans have access to primarily porous condoms is kind of silly.)

Population growth is also the province of government much more than religion IMO and is extraordinarily complicated. Continents with large Catholic populations, whether observant or nominal, according to the UN, report that the majority of residents use birth control methods.Even in South America, 70% of the women are reported to use birth control. IMHO, discussion of population growth by any religion is dangerous business. For every person that applauds it, there will be at least another person who thinks that population control is the equivalent of the genocide of 3rd world peoples.

[Matilda]

14. John XXIII managed to do a lot in just five years.

In his case, it was all good, but Ratzinger could do a lot of harm.

I think he's very manipulative, and I have little doubt that he is
one of those who was speaking through John Paul over the last five
years or so of his pontificate.

He really scares me.