Can you all help me understand the choice of Ratzinger?

[imenja]

I'm asking here rather than in GD because I'm not interested in hearing the typical anti-Catholic remarks that proliferate on DU. Ratzinger's conservative positions on cultural issues have been discussed in the American press. What are his positive characteristics that would have led the cardinals to choose him? Does he advance a social justice agenda at all? Has he been critical of the Iraq war and savage capitalism? Is there anything that progressive Catholics can feel good about in this appointment?

Personally I'm very disappointed that a Latin American was not chosen as Pope. I had very much hoped that would be the case.

[DemBones DemBones]

1. I think that the trust John Paul II placed in Cardinal Ratzinger was a

major factor. And the cardinals know the man, too, not just the media image. Priests interviewed on tv say Ratzinger is a warm person and a good listener besides being a good administrator. He was active in ecumenism after Vatican II and seems to still have great interest in that. Like John Paul II, he won't be eager to change the Church's teachings to reflect secular trends, which will make him unpopular with some progressives. But I don't think any cardinal would have given progressives all the changes some of them want. (Approve abortion, divorce, and same sex marriage, ordain women and married men? Not likely!) The Church will always be progressive in the help it gives to the poor, the sick, all those in need, and there will always be a way for progressive Catholics to work within the Church.

I'm going to pray for Pope Benedict XVI to have a successful papacy.

Viva Papa Benedetto!

[RevCheesehead]

2. That was a nice, thoughtful response.

It certainly couldn't be as earth-shattering as many in GD are making it out to be. I also have a lot of respect for theologians - they engage their minds as well as their hearts.

I will pray that his heart will be with the poor, the oppressed, and all those in need. If he can do that, he will have my respect and support.

[IronLionZion]

3. Those folks are getting worked up over nothing

Ratzinger may be very conservative, but he won't be evil like American Republicans are.

I'm willing to give him a chance. He seems like the administrative type who will probably tend to Vatican business rather than go globe-trotting. The Pope has very little affect on our daily lives and the progessive programs in place to help the poor and sick are not going to change. Either way, he was chosen by 2/3 of the cardinals very quickly so he must have some good qualities that we "outsiders" might not know about. And this is just an interim papacy that will not last very long. He is 78 years old.

We have a new Pope and I pray that Holy Spirit will guide our new Holy Father to make wise compassionate decisions.

:grouphug:

Viva Il Papa! Long live Pope Benedict XVI!

[DemBones DemBones]

4. Right on. There was an article in the National Catholic Reporter about

what we might expect from a Ratzinger papacy.

Here's some of what John Allen wrote:

In the main, it would likely take shape along predictable lines. Ratzinger would mount a strenuous defense of Catholic identity, resisting enticements from secular culture to water down church teaching and practice; he would stress “Culture of Life” issues, doing battle against gay marriage, euthanasia and stem cell research; he would ensure that theological speculation is contained within narrow limits. He would likely travel less, and project a more ethereal style reminiscent of Pius XII. Ratzinger’s governing metaphor for the church of the future is the mustard seed – it may have to be smaller to be faithful, what he calls a “creative minority.”



One can also, however, anticipate elements of a Ratzinger pontificate that would come as a surprise, and that would mark a departure from the policies of John Paul II.

<snip>

Many Vatican watchers believe that one weakness of John Paul’s pontificate was his episcopal appointments. Some have been spectacularly bad, such as Wolfgang Haas in Switzerland, Hans Hermann Gröer and Kurt Krenn in Austria, and Jan Gijsen in Holland. Bellicose and divisive, these bishops destabilized their respective dioceses, countries and bishops’ conferences. Krenn, for example, recently resigned in disgrace following sexual scandals in his seminary in Sankt Pölten.



In 1985, the pope’s personal secretary Stanislaw Dziwisz, a friend of Krenn, told the Congregation for Bishops that the pope had Krenn in mind as the new archbishop of Vienna. Ratzinger actually blocked Krenn’s appointment. Ratzinger knew that Krenn would be a disaster in a high-profile forum such as Vienna.


http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/conclave/pt041605b.htm

Viva Papa Benedetto XVI! Viva la Chiesa Cattolica!

[DemBones DemBones]

5. Thank you. I'm sure rhetoric in GD is over the top but

that's par for the course thes days. Popes are influential in the world and they make big decisions, but even for Catholics, there is little papal influence on everyday life. About the only time you hear the pope mentioned in church is during the Eucharistic liturgy, when we will hencefoth pray "for Benedict our pope, Wilton our archbishop and for all the clergy." Oh, this Sunday's homily will probably discuss the new pope/ new era in Church history but aside from that -- and the weekly prayer mention -- we might not hear Benedict XVI mentioned again until he dies.

[Matilda]

7. DemBones, I think you have a very charitable spirit,

and I admire you for it. And you're much better than I am at
acceptance of things that may be unpalatable.

But I come from a generation that was shaped by Vatican II, with
its promise of openness and equality, the accessibility of the Mass
and a more active participation of the laity. That was being rolled
back during the last papacy, and more markedly so in the last four
or five years. It was during that time, with a pope who was far
more ill and feeble than the Vatican was prepared to admit, that
others began more and more to speak for him, and one of those was
Cardinal Ratzinger. We saw, as just one example, a pulling back
from girls serving at the altar - that wasn't John Paul changing
his mind, it was people like Ratzinger and Sordano who were changing
things in his name. Altar servers may seem like a minor matter,
but it reflects an attitude towards women in general that is very
disturbing. Ratzinger is also opposed to the trend towards the
laity playing a greater part in the Mass, such as giving Communion,
and even reading.

Apart from the purely personal, revising the prohibition on birth
control is now urgent in terms of population control, and resisting
the spread of AIDS, but Ratzinger is firmly opposed. Abortion will
never be on the agenda, but it doesn't seem to occur to people like
him that good acccessible birth control will go a long way towards
making abortions less likely, particularly in poorer communities.

And don't forget, it was Ratzinger who called homosexuality "an
intrinsic moral evil." That was a cruel and wicked thing to say
in my view, and since gays can't be anything other than what they
were born as, it condemns them too. Where is the Christian
understanding and compassion in that statement? Funny thing,
though - somehow the evil never seemed to transfer to abusive
priests - Ratzinger thinks far too much fuss has been made over the
doings of just a small number of priests.

No, I don't welcome Ratzinger's election - I want to be part of a
Church that is not regarded as a creaky anachronism, however popular
an individual pope might become. I don't want to be dragged back
into the pre-Vatican II days, and as a woman, I do not want to be
a second-class citizen in my own Church. These are not vague fears,
it started under John Paul when he was too old and frail to do
anything about it. And Ratzinger has been one of the primary
instigators.

[DemBones DemBones]

9. Thanks, Matilda, that's kind of you, but

you shouldn't think I have that much patience for bad situations; after all, I've been wanting to emigrate for five years, just can't figure out how and where!

I am hopeful, though, that the Catholic Church is not going to change in a way that will make me want to leave. I don't think the Bark of Peter will tack much to the left or the right.


These paragraphs from the new Pope Benedict's address to the College of Cardinals today should give you some encouragement:

"With the Great Jubilee the Church was introduced into the new millennium carrying in her hands the Gospel, applied to the world through the authoritative re-reading of Vatican Council II. Pope John Paul II justly indicated the Council as a 'compass' with which to orient ourselves in the vast ocean of the third millennium. Also in his spiritual testament he noted: ' I am convinced that for a very long time the new generations will draw upon the riches that this council of the 20th century gave us'. "

"I too, as I start in the service that is proper to the Successor of Peter, wish to affirm with force my decided will to pursue the commitment to enact Vatican Council II, in the wake of my predecessors and in faithful continuity with the millennia-old tradition of the Church. Precisely this year is the 40th anniversary of the conclusion of this conciliar assembly (December 8, 1965). With the passing of time, the conciliar documents have not lost their timeliness; their teachings have shown themselves to be especially pertinent to the new exigencies of the Church and the present globalized society."

Not bad, huh? O8)

[Matilda]

11. You were right to counsel caution in assessing him ...

I've been doing a lot of googling, and have learned that when he
was young, he was very liberal in his thinking. In fact during
the early days of Vatican II he wrote a speech for Cardinal Frings
of Cologne in which he attacked the Holy Office and the then
Inquisitor, Cardinal Ottaviani, as being out of step with the modern
world and too heavy-handed. It caused Ottaviani to go into a fury,
attacking the wayward liberals making their presence felt in the
Council. So what happened to change him?

It seems that during the revolutionary days of 1968, he was teaching
at Tubingen University, and was attacked by Marxist students, who
refused to listen to his lectures, even though he was then quite
moderate. Apparently he was so unnerved by this experience, he sort
of retreated behind orthodoxy and never came out again. How sad
is that?

I'm certainly heartened by the promises he's made about committing
to the spirit of Vatican II - there's no doubt he has an excellent
mind, and he would be well aware of the misgivings that progressive
Catholics have about him, so it seems he's trying to allay those
fears. Also his remarks about uniting with other Christians are
more positive than previous statements he's made about the Catholic
Church being the only valid religion.

He's clearly been elected as a stop-gap pope - it would be amazing
if he lasts ten years, given the strain of the office - but so was
John XXIII, and in just five years he managed to turn the Church
on its head, although he had been considered to be a safe, non-
threatening conservative. Will it happen again?

[TygrBright]

15. That quote from the speech puts a finger clearly on the problem...

>>"With the Great Jubilee the Church was introduced into the new millennium carrying in her hands the Gospel, applied to the world through the authoritative re-reading (emphasis mine) of Vatican Council II.<<

That "authoritative re-reading" referred to is, in fact, a systematic effort to eliminate the real substance of Vatican II, and to re-interpret all of its Decrees and Declarations through the filter of the neo-Medievalists.

And the line about "and in faithful continuity with the millenia-old tradition of the Church" is more code-speak and humbugging, repudiating the very real reforms the Council recommended in those same 'millenia-old traditions.'

The entire agenda of the neo-Medievalists since the death of Paul VI has been to find ways to "interpret" the substance right out of the V2 Conciliar documents. It goes way beyond the normal, steadying reaction that Paul VI tried to moderate and integrate into the Church. It is the Dicasterial version of Orwellian doublespeak, in which "up" actual means "down," and "modernize" actually means "restore to pre-Council status," etc.

Very bad. Very, very bad indeed.

Anyone hoping, not for "radical" reforms like a married clergy or ordination for women, but merely to retain and advance the role of lay leadership on the parochial level, to allow girls to feel that there is some hope for them of some significant role in the Church, to enjoy a free and open dialogue among theologians and teachers, can kiss that hope goodbye. The Church has already regressed to a level of rigid, suppressive orthodoxy that has rolled back many of the gains of V2, and is poised to go further still, all under covering rhetoric about how such retrogression is "in the 'true' spirit of Vatican II."

Does anyone else here remember what the Church was like in 1975? In 1980, even? Compare that to the Church of today. In 1975 there was fresh air blowing through the Church, the hope of change, vigorous debate and spiritually adventurous experiments.

The systematic efforts of JPII and his supporters, most particularly and vigorously Ratzinger, to marginalize and suppress the post-Vatican II generation of emerging leaders and theologians has resulted in a weak, rubber-stamp Synod of Bishops, a College of Cardinals thoroughly ossified in the neo-Medievalist ideology, and a complete strangulation of theological and doctrinal exploration and exegesis.

Even if one postulates the most benign motivations behind this totalitarian rebirth of the Church-- a 'sensitivity' to the conservative sentiments of vast numbers of Catholics in the developing world-- it must rank as a disastrous miscalculation. By effectively abandoning the Catholic congregation in the developed world, the Church not only abrogates her spiritual responsibilities to those Catholics, she deprives herself of the resources needed to meet the spiritual and temporal needs of Catholics in the developing world.

This shift also positions the Church in defense of a politico-social agenda. While that politico-social agenda appears (now) congruent with the neo-Medievalist theology, it WILL evolve in response to political, social, and ecological challenges. Such evolution could, very easily, put the Church in the position of either defending the indefensible (religiously-motivated war and destruction, the willful ecological destruction of the Creation over which God gave humanity stewardship, the callous disregard of one variety of human life in 'defense' of another variation of human life, etc.) or of again abandoning large segments of its congregation.

Indeed, what we have seen in the last twenty years could accurately be called "radical reform" of the Church-- but in a deeply destructive, short-sighted direction. Not for nothing is the Church wise to be wary of such radicalism and speedy change of direction. Yet those seeking to "counteract" the effects of changes precipitated by Vatican II have now perpetrated their own extreme and (ultimately, I believe) unsustainable change. Ratzinger is, as much if not more than any other single leader within the Church, responsible for this ill-considered, radical re-direction.

I don't fear Pope Ratzo because I think he won't change the Church, I fear him because I believe he will continue this aggressive, precipitate change that has already distorted the Church from the course set by an unprecedented consensus of a broad-based leadership forty years ago.

pessimistically,
Bright

[happynewyear]

18. the only thing he has going for him in my book is

that he loves cats apparently. So he cannot be all bad. But still ... freaky dude no doubt. :scared:

[AFSCME girl]

8. Thank you for this..

response DB. I feel very conflicted right now, but I don't want to leave the Church. I feel that the best course of action is for me to continue attending Mass and not let one person drive me away. I truly do love my religion, but I wonder sometimes about her administrators...

AFSCME girl :hi:

[DemBones DemBones]

10. Chances are that things will go along much

as before. If I'm wrong, we can worry about that when it happens!

You should read our new pope's address to the College of Cardinals made this morning. I posted a thread with part of it here, with a link to the whole thing. It all seems positive to me; nothing to set off my sixties' rebel alarm bells. :hippie:

[4_Legs_Good]

6. They did it because they liked the Rock Star image that JPII had

and they figured this was the best way to continue it. It was a cowardly choice, backward looking and pathetic.

Gah! I can't stop myself.

I'm sorry, I'll try to stop now. I swear I will. I'm just soooo depressed!

david
The soon to be Liberal-Quaker

[Princess Turandot]

12. I had the impression that the Latin American cardinals who had

many favorable qualities, were just too young for this go-around.

[Spider Jerusalem]

13. Possibly.

Hummes and Maradiaga are both 62, and of the favourable European candidates, Schönborn is 60, which probably removed them from serious consideration.

But I think that the REAL deciding factor was that what we might call the "Ratzinger faction" in the College of Cardinals had the numbers to cause a deadlock until they could elect him by simple majority. I'd say that in itself highlights a flaw in the changes made by John Paul II to the conclave, in that a bloc of determined supporters of one candidate may stymie the process and ensure their man's election. I suspect that had the rules not been changed, Ratzinger would have been forced to suggest a compromise candidate who would be acceptable to two-thirds of the cardinals.

[imenja]

14. I agree that those changes were unfortunate

I hope Pope Benedict XVI changes them back.

[Matilda]

16. I think that's the answer too.

But I doubt he'll be the one to change it, since it worked so well
for him. (sigh).

I'd also very much like to see plans put in place to facilitate
(I'm putting it as nicely as I can) the resignation of a pope who
becomes incapacitated with no hope of recovery. I think those
years when JP was so ill, from 2000 on, were extremely bad for the
Church, as it gave the hardliners, such as Ratzinger, a free hand.
But again, I guess Ratzinger/Benedict isn't going to change that
one in a hurry either.

[Spider Jerusalem]

17. I wouldn't be so sure.

As a cardinal, Benedict XVI actually thought that John Paul II ought to resign because of his ill health, and said as much (more than once, I believe). Given that, he may actually resign after a relatively brief tenure (perhaps when he reaches 80), or in the case of any incapacity; if he does so, it would establish a precedent for subsequent pontiffs to follow.

[Lefty48197]

19. The Ratzinger Papacy is to be a transitional Papacy

He wasn't the youngest or healthiest of the Cardinals. I believe the church is anticipating change in the next couple of decades, and they want to do it very slowly and deliberately. The church leaders want to come to a conclusion as to how far the changes will go, and then work to implement them, but now in any haphazard manner. I think sort of a "Vatican III" would be in order within the next decade.