Joseph Ratzinger named new pope-- Benedict XVI

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

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

[MickeyD]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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?

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".

[Prudence]

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.

[MickeyD]

Originally Posted by Prudence

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.

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

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Ratzinger.

Unfortunate name he has. Blech.

[scaeagles]

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?

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by Prudence

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 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.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Originally Posted by Prudence

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.

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.'

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by mousepod

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.

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.