Ick. What a backhanded complement. It's like the 700 club view. "Of course we support Zionism, because once the Holy Temple is rebuilt, rapture will come. See, those Jews are good for something, they must be if God's letting the bastards stick around." Ick.

He can show up to all the Museusms of Jewish Heritage he wants, doesn't change the fact that he ordered Cahtolics to not take communion with Lutherans. And ordered clergy to turn their backs on pregnant teens. Hardly the bastion of tolerance and compassion, and his support of Jewish Orthodoxy, which has the same flaws as strict Catholicism, doesn't change that.

Yesterday I read that he ordered a nun to stop ministering to gays and lesbians. I can't find that info today. Oy, I should have been keeping close track.

Couldn't disagree more.

He is a man who believes (obviously) that Christ is the only way to salvation. So you would rather he say "Jews are free to worship as they believe and we embrace them, even though this means they will burn in hell."? He is saying that he respects them, what they have been through, their place in history, and that he hopes someday they come to Christ to share in the salvation which his faith says is based on such acceptance. Why is hope that someone will share your faith a horrid thing?

Turn their backs on pregnant teens? No, they were instructed not to counsel then that abortion was a viable option, if I am not mistaken (could be).

As far as not sharing communion with Lutherans, I have a theory, though I cannt be sure - Catholics have a doctrine which says they the communion wafer and wine actually turn to the body and blood of Christ. Not my thing, but that's their doctrine. As far as I know, Lutheran's do not share that belief. Would not that therefore result in the sacrament not being compatable between the two religions, meaning something different to the two?

I would offer that though these things were certainly from the pen of Ratzinger, he was tight with JP II, and JP II had the final say on such things and I am certain that JP II either reviewed, was notified, or would have quashed such things had he not been.

It is with this I decide that I should not post on subjects like these when I know so little about what's going on. What I was trying to say was that in the morning, somewhere undefinably on my TV as I was waking up, I thought I heard someone say he had deserted, which in my mind is something quite akin to "taking off" "going AWOL" and otherwise giving the figurative middle finger to whatever you're deserting. The information wasn't necessarily to the contrary - not information saying he liked Hitler - but that he didn't quite desert in the manner I had imagined.

Most of the links I followed were from here. Nothing glowing, not the way they were making it sound on the television I was looking at sporadically. Contrary was a strong, misused word. But just typing Ratzinger's name into Google brought up lots of dismaying information that I didn't bother to try and find on him earlier. I guess the point I was trying to illustrate (and perhaps poorly so) was how easy, for someone like me who knows little and hasn't been trying to educate herself on the topic, can be swayed by what she sees on the television, or reads anywhere. I'm probably not likely to look anything up on it outside of what I'm reading here, so don't wait for any interesting information to come from me. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry that your mom seems so dismissive of what you were trying to share with her on Ratzinger... :(

One last clarification on the WW2 info. My understanding is that Ratzinger "deserted" after the war into the hands of the Americans. To me, this behavior does not have anything to do with morality. It's simply pragmatism.

I know that there are a lot of Catholics here, and I know that your struggle with your new leader is very different from mine. As an "outsider", I view him as any other newly elected world leader. How he cleaves the Catholic church is not really my concern. I take issue with his worldview - the same way I took issue with Meir Kahane, Louis Farrakhan, and Jimmy Swaggart. **** them all.

Ok..being Lutheran...yes, we do not believe it actually turns into the blood and body of Jesus, we are more of thinking it is symbolic, the meaning probably isn't much different though in the long run.

However, it goes deeper. We do not believe in all the sacraments that Catholics do, you know...no saints...that we are saved through faith, not with good works or money....yada..yada..yada...(I could go on here, but I'll stop myself for the good of others) And since we are essentially a rebel bunch of believers that opposed the Catholic beliefs to become a seperate religion that started from being Catholic in the first place (Martin Luther), I'm sure there are orthodox Catholics that would like to have nothing more to do with us traitors. IMHO......

So you are suggesting Ratzinger carries a centuries old grudge from the reformation?

You know, this whole "fiasco" makes me grateful I am not, nor never was a Catholic. My personal beliefs allow me a direct relationship with "God" without the need for some political leader of questionable ethics and a past that is horrorfying. However, I am still concerned for the influence he has over his followers.

Just to set the record straight, as a Catholic, I don't believe that good works and money are the source of my salvation.

My family, including in-laws through my husband and my brother, is made up of many denominations. My SIL (husband's sister) converted to Judaism. We also have Lutherans, born-again Christians, atheists and Catholics. Everyone gets along fine and respects the beliefs of the other family members.

I am dissapointed in the choice of Pope. But I see every Pope as a human being. He has his many flaws, just like the rest of us.

I mentioned her yesterday in a post. Her name is Sister Jeannine Gramick



The Grace alone vs. Grace & good works (I won't even touch the money comment) has always been a sticking point in Catholic/Lutheran dialogue. That is why the fact that there was a group of Catholics and a group of Lutheran wishing to receive communion together was pretty damn cool, and the fact that Ratzinger stifled that is pretty damn sad.

The thing that bugs me is this. He's going to be appointing Cardinals, and the Cardinals are going to be electing the next pope....how much more conservative is that guy going to be? Other than that, no biggie....as my pastor pointed out yesterday, who listens to the Pope anyway. ;)