|
I am not Catholic, and am amazed at my constantly coming to his defense. Not in regard to the specific law of Spain (although I completely agree with CP about laws being disagreed with everywhere, and immediately within the context of the subject matter thought of Lawrence vs. Texas), but in wondering what people expected.
He was JP II's right hand man. JP II and Benedict XVI are basically the same theologically. I am not sure why JP II was seemingly exempt to much of the criticism for his doctrinal stances that B XVI is encountering - I was not very aware when I was 10 and JP II became pope - it could be he got the same criticisms. Is it an issue of style over substance? JP II was a likable individual even for those who adamantly disagreed with him, and there is a huge campaign to besmirch B XVI. Now, investigate his nazi past all you want - that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the huge number of stories run with negative opinions of him by the lay people even though it seems he is much more widely accepted than vilified within the Catholic community.
He was elected in the second fastest papal election ever. He must obviously have the respect of the Cardinals.
Now, dislike him all you want. That isn't what my post is about. I'm just wondering why huge differences in doctrinal stance were expected in his first week as pope.
|