Joseph Ratzinger named new pope-- Benedict XVI
 

Yahoo story here.

Wikipedia on Ratzinger.

His fan club.
"As Grand Inquisitor for Mother Rome, Ratzinger keeps himself busy in service to the Truth: correcting theological error, silencing dissenting theologians, and stomping down heresy wherever it may rear its ugly head."

This did not go the way I wanted; it did go the way I expected. Going to stomp down heresy, Bennie? Start with me. The transfiguration of wine to blood that you take so literally? I believe that JC was speaking figuratively.

Does this mean we're in for a new "Spanish Inquisition"?

They made Cliff Claven from Cheers the Pope?!?

from The Australian:

Heh. Nobody expects it.

Seriously, though, John Paul II named him to the position of the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, which used to be called the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Basically, he lays smackdown on dissenting Catholics. Or he did. Before he was named Pope. Though he'll probably still do that, just from a position of more power. Swell!

I am not a Catholic, so perhaps I am not understanding.

If you are a member of the Catholic church, does not the Pope have pretty much the final say on church doctrine? Church doctrine has not changed much recently, if I recall correctly. So a Pope who wishes to keep the church teaching constant is a bad thing? I have never understood (again, not being a Catholic) the calls for liberalizing or modernizing church teachings to "keep up with society" or some such thing. It would seem that church teachings should remain constant regardless of the direction society moves.

Am I missing something?

I was disappointed in the choice, but not surprised. The Church thinks this Pope will be strong enough to silence the growing dissent, but I think he may end up being incredibly devisive. Wouldn't it be ironic if a german Pope led to a break between the Roman and American Church?

I think the main fears that many American Catholics have is that Ratzinger will reject all the Vatican II reforms and go back to a much more conservative Catholic church -- the one where women have a much more subservient role, the masses held in Latin only, etc.

Not directly. Though Christ said "what's loosed on earth will be loosed on heaven," updating doctrine probably undermines the doctrine in the first place. Despite many growing to reject the doctrine and falling away.

Nevertheless, opposing the ordination of women is backwards, in my estimation. He has the power to allow it, but he won't.

Didn't the Catholic church have huge growth under a pretty strict and unmoving John Paul II, though?

Depending on what you read, they either had a huge growth or a huge departure and/or dissention.

Depends on where you're looking. The US and other first-world nations have seen incredible drifting.

It's not really about moderinizing to "keep up with society", it's about making the changes that need to occur....that are the right thing to do, regardless of where society is. Does that make sense? Not to mention, the teachings have not always remained constant, they've evolved over time, and IMO, should continue to do so.


I've very, very disappointed with the Cardinals' choice. Not at all surprised, but disappointed none the less. I've been ignoring the things Ratzinger has been saying for a long time. I suppose I will continue to ignore "Benedict XVI".

I read an interesting bit from the AP yesterday on papal names and of course now I can't find it. By they argued that the name Pius would be the clear anti-Vatican II signal, while John would be a pro-VII signal. Another AP article describes the most recent Benedict thusly:

"He was chosen as a contrast with his predecessor Pius X, whose theological crackdown against "modernism" had roiled the church. His accession coincided with the start of World War I."

I wouldn't automatically assume that he intends the end of VII. Nor would I necessarily hold his Nazi-era dealings against him. If he was already in seminary then, my expectations would have been higher. If he was older my expectations would have been higher. But this is framed partly by my frustration that we seem to now require all our leaders to have lead exemplary lives from infancy -- no room for growth, experience, and character development. End derailment.

As for ordaining women -- Speaking as your future President, I'm all for female leaders. But I think that's too drastic a step for the Catholic Church to take and survive. Do I think it will get there eventually? I hope so. But rapid chance and Catholic Church are not phrases you commonly see used together.

My opinion is that first we'll see men who are already married allowed to become priests and stay married (as I believe already happens in Eastern Orthodox, but I'm not certain. I should probably look that up.) The next step would be to allow priests to become married and stay priests. And so forth.

I had more thoughts but I had to interrupt to do some actual work and now they're gone.

That is the opinion of many theologians, too. Whatever happens next, it should be interesting to see.

Ratzinger.

Unfortunate name he has. Blech.

Do new popes just choose whatever name they want? Is there any rhyme or reason to it or just preference? Some sort of tradition? Could he have been Pope Eminem I if he wished?

As far as I can tell, he left the Hitler Youth because he was in seminary. Then two years later he got his job guarding Dachau slave labor at the BMW plant.

Having said that, I eagerly await his statement on this part of his past - the minimization of it by his "fan club" is laughable.

Tom's watching CNN, and says that they offered an interview with someone close to Ratzinger who says that Benedict was actually selected because Benedict was known as "the evangelizer of Europe," and Ratzinger hopes to evangelize Europe and the world.

CNN also has him quoted as saying that muslim Turkey 'does not belong in Europe.'

I'd never heard of the guy before this whole conclave excitement, so I have no idea what specifically he did or what his motivations were. It's a very emotionally charged episode in history and I don't like to make judgments on people's actions during that time (or, really, ever) without knowing more. As much as we might want people to rise up and fight evil, we're all human with human frailties and frankly I can imagine myself just wishing the madness would end and that I'd live through it. I'd like to think that I'd stand up and but others before myself, but I don't know that I would. And I can't hold others to a higher standard than I'd hold myself.

I sound like such an equivocator. And I hate it, but I can't help it. My husband and I go over this all the time. He sees black and white, and all I see are infinite shades of grey. For me, there would be distinct differences between a person who didn't resist because they were truly apathetic, and a person who didn't resist because they feared for their own safety. Or between a person who took a guard job because it paid well and they didn't risk being fired upon and a person who took a guard job because maybe they could do some small good or protect the prisoners in some way. Or even between someone who was raised to think Jews were subhuman and who continues to believe that, and someone who was similarly raised but as time progressed realized the lies of his upbringing.

Again, I have absolutely no idea what the new pope did or why, but despite my omnipresent tinfoil hat I hold out hope that his motivations were, if not supremely good, at least not evil. I assume that none of us is born perfect and I hope that we all improve with age. Like cheese.

("Blessed are the cheesemakers!")

But you're right -- it will be interesting to hear what he has to say about his past. I do believe that someone in his position has an obligation to be forthcoming. And given the unrest and persecution going on right now (Darfur, anyone?) his experience could provide guidance, warning, or both.

A "teaching opportunity," as my dad would say.

A friend of mine had expressed hope that the new pope would be Pope George Ringo, so that all four Beatles would be properly honored.

To answer your question....I *think* the name just has to be that of a saint, but most of them chose to honor previous pope.

Ok, I just looked it up. From religionfacts.com:

Just. Keeps. Getting. Better. And. BETTER!

All hail Pope George Ringo!!! I've given out too much mojo to mojo you, Deather! :D

It's things like this that have people worried:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7560325/

It's one thing to not change underlying principals of the church with the times. It's another to ignore the humanity of your followers and to exclude your followers from amecable relations with people of different faiths. It's that kind of restrictive doctrine that people are afraid of.

This had us laughing. An ongoing discussion in my office is about the name changes rappers do.

All hail Pope Eminem!!!!!!!

More seriously this has me concerned ".... silencing dissenting theologians, and stomping down heresy wherever it may rear its ugly head."

Silencing dissenting theologians, stomping down heresy. Because different opnions are a bad thing? Didn't Saddam silence dissenting opnions?

Yep, that's exactly it. I don't remember everything he's done that's made me roll my eyes and say, WTF? But some things do stick out in my mind. I remember that there was a nun somewhere in the Northeast US who was ministering to gay and lesbian Catholic and he ordered her to stop. Also, I remember a letter during the last presidential election that said something along the lines of American Catholics who do not vote pro life should not receive communion. It was amusing to me, because, according to the Catholic teaching on the consistent ethic of life, voting for GWB is also voting against life. So basically any Catholic who voted in the last election should not receive communion.

:(

I'm just curious why all over the world the move seems to be towards the more dogmatic. As if the matters of God are ever revealed with that much clarity. Is this a response to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism?

I'd like to say that being an athiest, this does not impact me - but in some ways, I feel I may soon be under attack (if not already - "godless modern trends must be rejected").

Exactly. So much of what people vehently demand to be adhered to is not the word of God (even assuming you believe the Bible is the word of God) but rather man's interpretation and tradition. I don't know much about Catholicism and papal doctrine, but I gather it's a lot like orthodox Judaism where many people look to the Talmud (an immense interpretation written by a conclave of Rabiis centuries ago) first and Torah second. I understand the aim of the Talmud, essentially following Talmudic law guarantees compliance with Torah as the Talmud erects a giant safety buffer to ensure that there's no way you're breaking God's word, however that quickly gets muddled into being the definitive word when it is anything but.

I'm much more familiar with 300-1700 Catholic theology than I am with the contemporary theology. A major difference between Catholic and Protestant systems is that Catholicism requires intermediaries between believer and God. It's throughout the belief system. You might pray to God, but you also pray to saints in the hopes that they will interceed with God on your behalf.

I actually don't know what the modern take is on bible study, but part of the resistance to translations of mass and documents into the vernacular is that people might make their own interpretations of the holy writings. This comes up time and again in medieval writings against various reform-minded heresies. At least then, it was believed that only those who had taken vows and studied under supervision of the Church were qualified to interpret scripture.

Something I teach my heresy classes is that it truly was a matter of (eternal) life and death. Oh sure, there were times and places where folks said "hey! my neighbor's really rich and I'm in a bind. If I rat him out as being Jewish, I'll get a portion of his estate!" But there were also Church officials who took their work very seriously. If they didn't convert you, you'd burn in the hellfires. If they screwed up their preaching and you believed the wrong thing, not only would they burn in the hellfires, but they would have condemned you to the same fate.

I'm sure I was going somewhere with this at one point.

I think the dogmatic voices have grown louder. I don't know if it's a response to increased uncertainty, or if we just notice the dogmatism more because there are more of us who aren't, or if it's both, or none of the above.

I read up more on Ratzinger today and alas, I'm not so hopeful any more. I hold out a small kernal of hope that he was previously playing the assigned role of bad church cop and will be a more open-minded and inclusive leader, but I'll admit the odds aren't good.

Again, I'm quoting a friend, who would have responded to this better than I'll be able to:

"Since I'm not Catholic, I hesitated before giving my opinion. I think it's accurate to say, though, that the Pope is perceived by many to be a political leader, in addition to his role as leader of the Catholic Church. In that role, what he does affects me at least to some degree, so I offer my opinion for what it's worth for that reason only."

I've been hesitant to post to this thread all day. I guess I'm still sorting out how I feel about all of this. In a way, I feel indifferent and yet, the events obviously have some significance. I think I'll just hit on a few points.

As far as the nazi past, I don't feel I know enough to condemn him, nor exonerate him. I'm hesitant to judge him for his decisions as I don't know what it was like to live under those circumstances. Besides, I think there are others things more worthy of focus, such as statements that he has made as a representative of the church. Some of those have been interesting

I have to say, I had no expectations of the next pope being more progressive. I didn't expect someone to be elected that was going to change the church's stance on homosexuality, birth control, abortion, etc, and I don't hold that against him necessarily. I don't like those stances but my dissatisfaction on those issues is with the church as a whole, not with the guy that was just elected today.

I think that where he has the potential to hurt the church the most is whether his views are divisive to the church as a whole. Many fear that there could be a split in the church or that a lot of people may become dissatisfied with the church and leave completely. I think that is a real possibility, although I am somewhat indifferent as to what the fallout is, if any.

There are a few things I would like to see happen with the new pope but I'm not optimistic. I would like to see him voice his strong disapproval of the war in Iraq, as the last pope did. I just like to see consistency in the pro-life message, something I would like to see our own leader consider.

I would like to see more attention paid to Africa and the death and suffering that is occurring there. The position of the church is hurting Africa more than it is helping.

I would like to see a forceful admonishment of those involved in the pedophilia that has run rampant in the church. The last pope was a disappointment in this regard. I would especially like to see a smackdown of Cardinal Bernard Law, who sickens me.

We'll just have to see how it goes, I suppose.

Sheesh, I was expecting glorius olivae, and instead I get Pope Ratty?

I think he should have gone with the name "Pope Palpatine"

Pope benedict just brings up this guy in my head.

The pope is an old man in a pointy hat and robe and a pointy stick who repeats jingoistic bible slogans to his adoring masses. He has the easiest job in the world - everybody on his team loves him because of the hat and robe and pointy stick - but he is merely a living, breathing wedding cake topper - a sadly human icon of an ancient system of beliefs that more than anything excels at keeping a great portion of humanity numb, confused and unable to make even the tiniest of steps forward.

Of course, the same could be said for Carrot Top.

Nothing much will change, except perhaps new letterhead at the Vatican. A whole new Pope wardrobe. Pious pants, holy loafers and most sacred undergarments.

Could you imagine if all of the great and holy rollers came out of the conclave empty-handed? What if they just shrugged and said, "We're tired of buying new fitted robes and hats. The pope is a symbol of our faith, and these modern times necessitate change. The conclave calls upon Pixar to create a virtual 3D pope based on character designs modeled by Art Clokey. Pixar has the technical know-how and Clokey has the religious cred, courtesy of Davey and Goliath."

The new 3D pope would be accessible to anyone with a dial-up connection, and at churches, libraries and internet cafes.

He could appear in holiday-themed TV specials, and would be able to walk into many books, with his pony pal, Cardinal Bernard "Pokey" Law.

Sadly, it wouldn't work. Clokey was in the employ of the Lutherans.

Commemorative Kellogg's Pope Tarts, anyone?

^^Boss Radio^^ (Also €, et al...)

That's pretty much how I feel. I still don't really have an opinion. Just watching a bit. I wasn't even paying much attention to PopeWatch 2005 as JPII was ill, dead, and the selection process. As a non-Catholic, it didn't shake my world enough, I suppose.

The coverage seemed rediculous, but then again, I live in Southern California, and I know there are a great number of followers who watch the news down here. I was particularly amused while watching the 10:00 news to see a newscaster in Huntington Beach's Old World, getting the opinions of the local German Catholics. Hmmm... Bells & whistles, etc etc etc.

I wrote a paper once on early (and I mean early) Catholicism. Got a much lower grade than any of my previous assignments. Catholic professor (whoops! didn't think of that); guess he didn't like what I had to say. But my philosophy professor did. Got an A from him. (I especially liked that he accepted a multi-purpose paper)

But what to say? I guess nothing at all. I still find it hard to believe that one person gets that much control over so many people, and a religion (for Christ's sake!)...

Oh, and I guess I misheard, or someone misspoke on the news, but I heard this morning that he had defected from his duties in the Hitler Youth. Reading lots to the contrary now.

Sorry for the ramblings. We can strike this from the record if neccesary.

-E

From an article on comcast.net
And from the same article:

Where have you read info to the contrary?

If you, or anyone else (like MBC, regarding interesting statements Ratzinger's made) have supportive info and would like to post it, or links, or send it to me directly, I'd appreciate it.

I was dismayed this morning to have my mother's rebuttal of all the information I gave her yesterday with positive spin from EWTN, the Catholic cable channel. She seems to be trying to support Ratzinger and would like me to stop reading "black press." I would just like to know the truth about a man I don't think has the capability to be a holy leader. And when I say holy, I mean truly compassionate and seeking to better the world.

I'd just like to have some words from his own mouth to show my mother.

Does anyone else expect the sentence, "You know, the Nazis may have had some pretty extreme tactics...but overall they had the right idea," from him? That's what concerns me. His rhetoric hardly is that of a man who truly disagreed with the Nazis. He's divisive, intolerant, and an isolationist. Basically, he just eventaully wasn't cool with the killing, but everything else? This just feels like a giant leap backwards for world-wide tolerance.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...020400,00.html

Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh!!

There is a story out about "the Jewish perspective" of Pope Benedict XVI. I found it interesting, and overall "Jewish leadership" seems to have no problem with his past.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050420/D89J5MSG0.html

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. ;)

No worries....I wasn't saying that is how it is now...but rather that was the Lutheran thought process. Sorry to speak of past and present together without proper disclaimers accordingly.


hehehe

We may never know...it was just a thought. I have heard something about his possible religious intolerant tendencies, though I believe it to be aimed elsewhere not at other Christian denominations.

So who knows?

Why has no one yet mentioned his freakily scary sunken eyes?!?!?


What more do you need to know about the man other than to look at his face for an instant and see those skullfaced eyes glaring back at you?


Fortunately for us all, the man looks to be about a thousand years old, and should survive the papacy for a relatively brief stint.

Oh, It's been noticed.

I keep seeing the title of this thread and thinking that Cliff Claven is the new pope......

That's been noticed too.

This is the crux of my problem, particularly the last line, for certainly Catholicism (and all manner of orthidoxy) not only claim that there is a absolute truth, but the are the sole possessors of it.

Unfortunately for me, when one claims to have this sort of "absolute knowledge," I cannot help but think that they are liars - arogant liars. To me it reveals an uncertainty of faith, that cannot stand up to different practices. I cannot imagine that a God, an omniscient being, would be so narrowminded - it seems almost blasphamously insulting.

But then I'm an atheist, and one comfortable with some things remaining unknowable - including the very existence of God. And it's clear this Pope (like the last) sees me as a dangerous enemy for holding these beliefs. Sadly, I'll have to continue to view the Catholic Church as potential enemy as it tries to purge such thoughts from its faithfull.