GERMANY’S RATZINGER IS 265TH POPE ** 
BREAKING NEWS
** Benedict XVI greets Vatican crowd
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany was elected the 265th pontiff today by the College of Cardinals. He was announced as tens of thousands of people cheered in St. Peter’s Square. Ratzinger has chosen the name Benedict XVI, the Vatican announced. The announcement came shortly after white smoke rose from the Vatican chimney and bells rang to announce that a new pope had been selected.
A new vicar of Christ has emerged as the leader of 1.1 billion Catholics.
May God Bless him as he takes on this new role and faces the challenges of doing the Lord’s work.
They passed on Cardinal Biggles?
damn
" he has been the driving force behind crackdowns on liberation theology, religious pluralism, challenges to traditional moral teachings on issues such as homosexuality, and dissent on such issues as women’s ordination. "
All this and only 78 yrs old.
I’m sure you’re not one of them Brian, but a lot of Catholics would have prefered the guy from Brazil. He’s a progressive not a super conservative like this dude.
Looks like they went for the “short term” ordination as predicted.
Could you explain and define a “conservative”, “progressive”, and “liberal” Pope?
This isn’t a political party…it’s a religion. Why is it that people attempt to mix the two?
“…it’s a religion.”
Which is also very much open to interpretation.
http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2005/04/17catholicshopefo.html
I’m certainly not opposed to the Church looking at the very issues that are mentioned in the article. In fact, JP II looked at those very issues and came to a conclusion on whether or not to change the Church policy on contraception, women priests and priests being allowed to marry. Popes before him did the same.
As long as the Church looks into these very issues is enough for me. They might not come to the same conclusion that I would like them to but at least it was entertained. Realize that the US Catholic and European Catholic population is a small percentage of the whole and those ideas represent a smaller sum of the whole. It would be interesting to see what the Catholic populations of the majority countries think of those very issues.
Could you explain and define a “conservative”, “progressive”, and “liberal” Pope?
This isn’t a political party…it’s a religion. Why is it that people attempt to mix the two?
I don’t think CG is suggesting that it is a political party, we are so conditioned to thinking of words like “conservative” and “liberal” that we forget their real meanings before they were hi-jacked for their modern political meanings. Re-visit CG’s post with this in mind and you will see what he was getting at, which I think was a valid question.
“This isn’t a political party…it’s a religion. Why is it that people attempt to mix the two?”
Because the two are inextricably mixed. you yourself talked at length about how influential Pope John Paul II was in ending communism and helping the Polish labor movement. Trying to separate the Catholic Church and world politics is impossible. On top of which, nobody refers to the Pope as conservative meaning he is aligned with Republicans. They mean he is conservative:
conservative: predisposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc, and to limit change.
you yourself talked at length about how influential Pope John Paul II was in ending communism and helping the Polish labor movement
Correct. His influence wasn’t part of any political agenda on behalf of NATO or the Communist Bloc. It was on the behalf of world peace and human dignity and oppression.
They mean he is conservative:
conservative: predisposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc, and to limit change.
The poster painted this as a bad thing…this being “conservative.”
“It was on the behalf of world peace and human dignity and oppression.”
It was on behalf of the Catholic Church. A church which, by the way, is centered in a city state, of which the Pope is Chief of State, and a city state which has an official mission to the U.S., an embassy in other words.
"The poster painted this as a bad thing…this being “conservative.” "
Well surprise surprise, some people don’t think being entrenched in the past and refusing to change over time is a good thing. Some people are conservative, and some aren’t. the ones who aren’t, are likely to think the ones who are are wrong. Welcome to the world.
Still no woman pope? Sigh…
It was on behalf of the Catholic Church. A church which, by the way, is centered in a city state, of which the Pope is Chief of State, and a city state which has an official mission to the U.S., an embassy in other words.
** **No, it was on behalf of peace and human dignity and the desire to rid the world of oppression. Of which communism did very well.
Well surprise surprise, some people don’t think being entrenched in the past and refusing to change over time is a good thing. Some people are conservative, and some aren’t. the ones who aren’t, are likely to think the ones who are are wrong.
What about the teachings of the Catholic Church needs changing as a religion? What has changed about religion that needs to be revisited?
What about the teachings of the Catholic Church needs changing as a religion? What has changed about religion that needs to be revisited?
I’m guessing, based on your past repeated statements that the war in Iraq is right, just and necessary, that you’d like to see the Catholic Church’s teachings with regards to war tweaked a little bit. JPII came out strongly against the war - do you think Bene can change that stance for the better?
“What about the teachings of the Catholic Church needs changing as a religion? What has changed about religion that needs to be revisited?”
I’m not an expert on Catholicism, but does it really surprise you that some people think the Church’s policies towards gays, ordaining women, and birth control are considered outdated and destructive to some people? How could it possibly be that you don’t see how some people might view a Pope that clings to traditional ways of thinking about those issues as a negative? You don’t have to agree, but surely it shouldn’t surprise you that some people think a conservative Pope is a bad thing.
“No, it was on behalf of peace and human dignity and the desire to rid the world of oppression.”
Well that could be said about why the U.S. wanted to get rid of communism too. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a political component of the effort.
I’m not an expert on Catholicism, but does it really surprise you that some people think the Church’s policies towards gays, ordaining women, and birth control are considered outdated and destructive to some people?
I don’t think these issues are limited to just Catholicism. Protestant, Jewish, Mormon, Hindu, Buddhist and many others struggle with those same issues. In fact, those issues are hot even in secular arenas.
I said in another post…as long as the Church continues to look at the issues and not be closed to changing policy then I’m fine with it. The Church has visited those very issues in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
“I don’t think these issues are limited to just Catholicism. Protestant, Jewish, Mormon, Hindu, Buddhist and many others struggle with those same issues. In fact, those issues are hot even in secular arenas”
I never said they were limited to the Church or that they were secular. And what does it matter if the issues are secular or not? You seemed surprised that anyone could consider a “conservative” Pope to be a bad thing. I simply listed some of the issues that a person might have problems with if the new pope proves to be a conservative one.
but does it really surprise you that some people think the Church’s policies towards gays, ordaining women, and birth control are considered outdated and destructive to some people?
It doesn’t suprise me, but it does frustrate me. Not even so much because of the individual issues, but because they just simply refuse to acknowledge the Church’s position on them, and the nature of that position.
It doesn’t suprise me, but it does frustrate me. Not even so much because of the individual issues, but because they just simply refuse to acknowledge the Church’s position on them, and the nature of that position.
Many people dont think the nature of those positions is that God has willed to be so, but rather that some other peope a long time ago decided that those would be the “rules”.
Of course you probably find that statement unsuprising but frustrating as well.
question vitus: if i understand your view, it’s basically that catholic dogma–the religion itself–is constant and an objective truth. the job of the pope and church leadership is to ‘adjust’ policy such that it approaches the objective truth of the religion. the source of said “truth” is the bible. therefore, there is no need to ‘change with the times’ and in fact, doing so would be damaging to the religion. is that pretty close?
now, as i understand, the bible in its present form has been seen through the lens of man already and wasn’t even written at the same time jesus was alive(vs. something like the koran which is allegedly god’s word through the vessel of muhammad if i remember rightly). is that right?
if my second premise is correct, is there no concern that the bible itself may not represent the foundational Truth of the catholic teaching? but rather, it is man’s version of that truth as seen at a specific point in time. and thus, some of the teachings in the bible don’t represent the objective truth but the truth during a certain period of history and it would be, then, permissible for the pope to change policy to “keep up with the times”, because in fact it isn’t damaging to the religion? does this argument make sense?