A post-Ratzinger question about this group...

[regnaD kciN]

...and, in particular, how it stands vis-a-vis the Catholic and Orthodox group here.

I suspect, in the coming weeks or months, that the newly-elected Bishop Ratzinger of Rome will do a number of things with which we non-Roman-Catholics will strongly disagree. In particular, some of them may consititue condemnations of our own Christian faith traditions.

Are we allowed to react to these as we think right? Or are we going to have to keep our silence, for fear of offending our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters?

I don't necessarily want to see this turn into the "Protestant, Anglican, and Other" counterpart to the Catholic and Orthodox group, but I likewise think it would be a shame if we were not allowed to let this forum be a safe-haven, not only from the G.O.P. and the "religious right," but also from what may be coming down the pike from Ratzinger's Vatican.

[Princess Turandot]

1. Lovely..

do you actually think that most Catholics on DU are under mind-control by the Vatican?

Why are you even posting this? The American response to Ratzinger's Vatican is unlikely to be any different than its response to JP II's Vatican. When have Catholics been coming here to start theological fights or criticize Protestant teachings? Why should the change in the Pope affect that in any way?

[regnaD kciN]

5. Wow...

...talk about an overreaction!

Are "most Catholics on DU under mind-control by the Vatican?" Actually, I won't even dignify that one with an answer. I will note, however, that a number of the Roman Catholic members of DU, even those opposed to Ratzinger before the conclave, have been quick to assert that "the Holy Spirit has spoken." As far as I'm concerned, the Holy Spirit hasn't spoken in this conclave -- that what was at work was a completely different spirit, that of power and fear. By saying that, I suspect that I have deeply offended some of the Roman Catholic members here who firmly believe that the Holy Spirit directly guides the Roman church. How far can criticism of Ratzinger go (and I don't mean in the Sinnead O'Connor direction!) before it is considered to be an attack on one's spiritual leader, and even on one's own faith?

Or, to take another example: I have decided to refer to the new pontiff in the future simply as "Joseph Ratzinger, Bishop of Rome" or some variant thereof. I say this because I don't see him as in any way, shape, or form as having jurisdiction over all of Christ's church. (In fact, according to my own Episcopal ecclesiology, the pontiff remains the duly-chosen Bishop of Rome, with no more nor less respect owed to him by virtue of his office than my own Anglican diocesan.) Is referring to him as "Bishop Ratzinger" instead of "Pope Benedict XVI" or even "Pappa Benedetto" so disrespectful to Roman Catholics that it qualifies as offensive language? For that matter, is it considered offensive here to refer to "Roman Catholics" instead of just "Catholics?" (Since, as far as I'm concerned, I and all my fellow Anglicans are every bit as "Catholic" as members of the Roman church.)

And here's a hypothetical question: say that Ratzinger, in the coming months, were to issue an "infallible" proclamation that women are incapable of ever being ordained. Would declaring that a Roman "infallible" statement is sheer nonsense be considered too disrespectful? What about suggesting, in the light of such a proclamation, that the notion of Papal Infallibility itself is wrong, or even "crazy." Would that constitute "anti-Catholic hate speech?"

Seriously -- there are a few criticisms of Ratzinger that I would not dream of posting in the Catholic and Orthodox group, because I would come across as an outsider barging in to attack their faith in their own "safe haven." But would the same rules apply here?

[Princess Turandot]

7. An overreaction indeed!

"I don't necessarily want to see this turn into the "Protestant, Anglican, and Other" counterpart to the Catholic and Orthodox group, but I likewise think it would be a shame if we were not allowed to let this forum be a safe-haven, not only from the G.O.P. and the "religious right," but also from what may be coming down the pike from Ratzinger's Vatican."


I have to assume by 'Ratzinger's Vatican' you were referring to Catholic posters on DU since I doubt that the Vatican knows DU exists. Why would you need a safe-haven from Catholics on DU?
There does not appear to have ever been any inter-religious squabbles on this board on whatever differences already exist across the many Christian sects. Sometimes there are interesting questions.
That's been the extent of it.

[regnaD kciN]

8. Please, try not reading so much into it...

I have to assume by 'Ratzinger's Vatican' you were referring to Catholic posters on DU since I doubt that the Vatican knows DU exists.

No, by "Ratzinger's Vatican" I mean "Ratzinger's Vatican."

My concern, as I stated above, is the possibility that criticism, even rather harsh criticism, that may arise in the future from decisions emanating from Rome during the tenure of Bishop Ratzinger may be read by at least some Roman Catholic posters on DU as being, not criticism of Ratzinger himself, or his decisions, or even the Vatican or its Curia, but as an attack on the Roman Catholic faith altogether being spread on a fellow Christian group here at DU.

I thought my example above made it clear. Say Ratzinger pronounces ex cathedra that the priesthood must remain forever male. If someone posts here that "the Pope is an idiot, and the decision is idiotic," isn't it possible that it wil be taken by at least a few Roman Catholics here as an attack on a dogma that would now be binding on all Roman Catholic believers (and, indirectly, on the dogma of Papal Infallibility as well) and, thus, an attack on the Church and their own faith? Would it therefore be an issue on which we on this group must hold our silence?

I'm asking this because it could be tricky. On the one hand, we don't want to be offensive to our fellow Christians, on the other, we don't want to so sanitize this group that we have to be hold back and never discuss issues of concern, even if they fall under the category of relationships between Christian denominations.

[mrgorth]

2. I'm unclear

as to what you're suggesting.

[supernova]

3. What's you're point?

Regardless of what Ratzinger might say in the coming weeks and years, some of which we are bound to disagree with, really doesn't make any difference to this protestant.

I disagreed with JPII too, and somehow we managed to share the same planet. Go figure. Well, to be honest, since it was Ratzinger who was in charge of JP's hardline theology, it was Ratzinger I was disagreeing with anyway. And too, since I'm not Catholic, I don't have a dog in that hunt. My opinions don't matter to Rome one whit. In fact, they don't even know that I exist.

Btw, I'm not a hierarchically-minded person, anyway. High offices, rings and robes don't impress me. What impresses me is intellect and heart.

My heart does go out to all catholics who try to make their church more responsive to the needs of today. I think that pretty much covers any Catholic interested in posting on DU.

The only thing you really can't say in here, nor any any other part of DU, is to say how awful someone else on another part of DU is behaving. It's not a place for gossip, IOW.

[RevCheesehead]

4. Just a few basic rules should help:

1. Play nice. This is not the place for posting anti-Catholic stuff. There are plenty of threads in GD and R&T where you can go to vent, say whatever you want. This is a "pee-free" zone.

2. Don't take things personally. No matter what side of the issue you may be on, if you find yourself getting "emotionally-invested" in the discussion (like getting angry), take a break and step back. My basic "rule of anger" is "wait before responding." When someone attacks me personally (IRL), I wait 24 hours before I respond.

3. Think before you post. Too many people simply post whatever's in their head at the moment. Our discourse should follow the rules of polite society: "Not every thought needs to be shared." Just because we are an anonymous board, it doesn't give us the right to spout off, leaving a mess behind (if your dog poops, you need to clean up after it).

4. Don't call others out. If you think someone is disrupting, do not say so. Hit the alert, and let the mods deal with it. We don't need any more flame wars here - and if one is starting, CALL 911!

5. When in doubt, ask HWJR (how would Jesus respond)? Remember, the name of the game is LOVE and FORGIVENESS.

I think if we follow these basic suggestions, we should get along fine.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

6. I think it should be OK

Keep in mind that Catholics don't believe the pope, as an individual, is infallible in our Church. Only when he issues an ex cathedra, which has only happened twice in the past two centuries, is the pope considered infallible. Like when Pope JPII said that the Iraq war was unjust, Catholics were free to disagree with him because he was merely giving his own opinion.

A think as long as both groups stay respectful, everything should be alright.

[GOPBasher]

9. Well I'm no longer Catholic, but

I don't see why anyone would get offended if you just criticize Ratzinger. Just don't be disrespectful. Attack his message all you want, but don't get personal. I don't think anyone can be offended if you do that. And remember, most Catholics on DU, I suspect, are not fans of Ratzinger.

Another thing, remember that while Ratzinger is incredibly conservative on social issues, he is economically a leftist, and I'm hoping (praying) that he's as committed to peace as his predecessor.