New Pope In Town

[selfmademug]

Question is, was that the rationale? Cynically I think it might have been.

[selfmademug]

I'm not Catholic, and I don't know who else may or may not be Catholic. But why does it matter to the rest of us whether the pope should be more or less liberal?

Because the stances that the Pope (and by extension the Catholic church) takes on issues such as contraception and sexual abuse by clergy affect real people. Whether or not I am a Catholic, if I have a basic concern for the well-being of humanity. I care about the positions adopted by those in power, because they have real consequences. It's like saying that people in the UK shouldn't care about Bush because he's not their president. Yet every decision he makes has a very real impact on what happens in the world.

Oh, and what he said. Odd question from a history teacher, Noise. What the Catholic Church believes at any given time is not the only factor in determining global fate, but dang, it's a bigger factor than most.

[A rope leash]

I like what Noise said. The pope's job is to keep tradition intact and ongoing. Anyone who is watching for the pope to signal change is practically a heretic.

I like Boom's post, too. This guy looks like he hasn't been laid in quite a while. I'll go ahead and say the superficial: He's creepy-evil-ugly.

None of my business, though, since I wouldn't take the fame, the fees, the glory...

[Who Shot Sam?]

Ah, but Catholics chooseto follow Catholicism. It's still their business.

OK, here are a few examples of what I'm talking about. Let's say a Catholic man in Sub-Saharan Africa refuses to wear a condom during sex because his local priest (acting on the Pope's edict) says it is forbidden. He then contracts HIV and spreads it to several non-Catholics.

Or another one. A young boy (let's say around 10 years of age) is sexually molested by a parish priest. The boy, whose parents both grew up as Catholics and who has only known Catholicism from an early age - he did not choose this faith of his own volition - is psychologically damaged for life. The priest, meanwhile, is quietly defrocked and shipped off to another community where the pattern of molestation continues.

In both instances (and I could come up with ten more), the actions (or non-actions) of the Church have had a real and profound impact on innocents and/or non-believers. This is not to say that the opposite is not also true - there are plenty of examples of Catholic charity, for example, that are wholly admirable. It's all about what you do with the influence you have.

[Emotional Toothpaste]

I thought Ratzinger had a good explanation for the whole Nazi thing in 1944-45.

"It was all a big misunderstanding," the new Pope said. "As a boy, I couldn't hear very good. I thought the priests were praying, 'In the name of the Fuhrer, the Son and the Holy Ghost...'"

[selfmademug]

One pope is not going to be able to dismantle all the things you think he should. And if he did, the religion would cease to be Catholicism. It would be some other animal entirely. I think your gripe is not with the pope, but with Catholicism itself.

One pope can do a lot, no matter how you interpret it. He's a very powerful figure who has huge global influence.

And the Catholic Church is hardly an unchanging animal. Again an odd thing for a history teacher! It's not as if Catholicism has been static since the Vatican moved from Avignon or any other point in time, for that matter. A change in popes is arguably the biggest single determinant in the development of the Church. If this pope (or the one after) doesn't change the church's interpretations on birth control, there'll be a helluva lot more people on this planet a lot faster. I would say that affects pretty much everybody. And that's just one issue.

[noiseradio]

OK, here are a few examples of what I'm talking about. Let's say a Catholic man in Sub-Saharan Africa refuses to wear a condom during sex because his local priest (acting on the Pope's edict) says it is forbidden. He then contracts HIV and spreads it to several non-Catholics.

Or another one. A young boy (let's say around 10 years of age) is sexually molested by a parish priest. The boy, whose parents both grew up as Catholics and who has only known Catholicism from an early age - he did not choose this faith of his own volition - is psychologically damaged for life. The priest, meanwhile, is quietly defrocked and shipped off to another community where the pattern of molestation continues.

In your first example, the pope also teaches not to have sex outside of marriage. If the hypothetical man of whom you speak was completely obedient to the church's teachings (and assuming his spouse was as well), he wouldn't contract HIV in the first place, nor would he spread it to non-Catholics. Why is the obedience in your example so one-sided? And doesn't that just go to prove my earlier point: that individuals are responsible for how they adhere to a set of doctrines even more so than the person who teaches them?

Your second example is much stronger, though it still has a few holes in it. You're right that the boy is totally the victim in that situation and that he's been injured grievously. But the church teaches that molestation is a sin. The priest in question is violating the doctrines of the church. Granted, the reshuffle (a political and not doctrinal decision) is both harmful and reprehensible. And certainly John Paul II should have come down hard on those priests and archbishops instead of looking the other way and promoting Law to Cardinal. I share your concern that Ratzinger (whose nickname should clearly be PapaRatzi) will be less-than-vigilant in this matter. But again, shouldn't that be the primary concern of Catholics? Shouldn't they be the ones demanding in droves that the church take action against these rogue priests?

[noiseradio]

Oh, and what he said. Odd question from a history teacher, Noise. What the Catholic Church believes at any given time is not the only factor in determining global fate, but dang, it's a bigger factor than most.

Really? Because we went to war with Iraq in spite of the pope saying we shouldn't.

I'd say the evidence is pretty clear that what the Catholic church currently believes is of less influence on a global scale all the time. At one time an edict from the pope could shift the course of geopolitics. Now? Hardly. That's not to say that the teachings of the church aren't incredibly influential. But I'd argue that they primarily influence Catholics. Granted, in many Latin American countries, 98% of the population is Catholic. So the influence of the church there would be profound. But if 98% of the population of a country shares a set of beliefs, then policies based on those beliefs would be the will of the vast majority of the people.

It's not an odd question from a history teacher, by the way. It's a tool of the trade. Look at all the good discussion it generated. Just proves I haven't lost my touch.

[Who Shot Sam?]

In your first example, the pope also teaches not to have sex outside of marriage. If the hypothetical man of whom you speak was completely obedient to the church's teachings (and assuming his spouse was as well), he wouldn't contract HIV in the first place, nor would he spread it to non-Catholics.

That's just living in La-La Land. In the real world, many Catholics have sex before marriage and/or cheat on their spouses. You are saying that the policies the church adopts should assume complete adherence by believers to a strict doctrine? That's asking a lot. No wonder we have overpopulation problems and rampant HIV.

As for your points about molestation, we might as well just let Michael Jackson police himself as well. Sexual molestation is a crime, whoever commits it, and the cover ups here in the States (in Boston in particular) have been reprehensible, to say the least. I find it a little troubling that Ratzinger thinks it's all a big media conspiracy.

[selfmademug]

[
It's not an odd question from a history teacher, by the way. It's a tool of the trade. Look at all the good discussion it generated. Just proves I haven't lost my touch.

Oh barf. It's anti-historical to say that the Pope only affects Catholics, or even 'mostly'. He's still massively powerful and influential.

But my specific point is that if this pope continues to grow his Church via preaching abstinence as the only acceptable form of reproductive freedom, those Catholic areas in poverty will be sunk deeper into poverty, simple as that. And again, that's just one issue (albeit the largest, IMO).

MANY Catholics and non-Catholics have well-grounded fears about this pope. He won't last long, so I do think (as I wrote yesterday) that he will just be the one to get the Church to a tipping point.

[noiseradio]

Well, as I said, I share your concerns about Ratzinger in re: his comments about the "media conspiracy." And I'm not suggesting that nothing be done about it. I think the priests in question should go to prison. When I said "isn't that a concern for Catholics" I meant shouldn't Catholics be the ones who are concerned about whether the pope takes care of it. Shouldn't they be the ones demanding those changes, since those affected are primarily their own children.

And in the case of the first one, it's not La-La land. You're quite right that a lot of Catholics have sex anyway. But the person who's ignoring the teachings of the church on sex but adhering to them on condom use is an idiot. If you're going to break the church's rules about sex, then use a condom. The church can't make them avoid having sex, and it can't make them avoid using contraception. People decide what to follow, and the consequences belong to them. If the Catholic church made contraception illegal, that would be different. But I was in Rome last summer, a Catholic city in a Catholic nation. They had condoms in all the farmacias. Somebody's buying them. Your example was inconsistent, that's all.

[A rope leash]

The official church policy has been to cover up the sexual transgressions, and not to involve law enforcement. From what I understand, this rat considers the policy to still be in force.

It isn't just the Catholic church that has had problems with pedophilia. The reason it has the problems it does is fairly simple: celebacy. Children are forced to go to church and admonished by their parents to trust and believe in the church leaders. What pedophile would not be attracted to such a gig?

Celebacy? Everyone's sex life is their own business, but I fail to see how a person who has never had the full human experience could possibly know enough about humanity to be giving out moral directives. Book learnin' just ain't the same.


Another thing, and yer gonna think I'm whacked, but this logic of religion that contains God's wisdom seems a little strained in some of these doctrines. Certain folks seem to think they are God's "chosen".

Now, this is just for jabs, but in the natural sense, as to whom it is that God would like to see prosper and procreate, it would seem that the most attractive and fertile females and the most pleasurably well-endowed males would be God's chosen.

Picking a leader would be a simple matter of tests and measurements.

You can't fool the scientific method.










Mine Fuhrer! I can walk!

[noiseradio]

Oh barf? Is the "I'm rubber and you're glue" defense making a comeback?

Nothing I've asked or said here is anti-historical. I asked a loaded question very much on purpose to generate discussion. I wanted people to stop jerking their damn knees and think about things from a different perspective for a few minutes.

[noiseradio]

Rope,

I agree completely about your comments on celibacy and pedophilia.

What I find funny about the whole idea of God choosing the pope is that the method used is a 2/3 majority. You'd think God would be able to pull off a unanimous vote if He was the one picking.

[Who Shot Sam?]

But the person who's ignoring the teachings of the church on sex but adhering to them on condom use is an idiot.

Then there are an awful lot of American catholics you could classify as idiots.

I haven't been to mass since I was in high school and don't plan to go back. I have always found laughable the idea that the bizarre customs of one of these religions are right and all of the other ones have it wrong. I am faithless and quite happy that way.

[selfmademug]

Oh barf is not an argument; it's my reaction.

Well, thank God you're back to save the rest of us soft-brains from ourselves. I'm not your under-age student, and I'm not that interested in discussions where points are raised only for argument's sake. Some people are; I'm not.

Back to my simpleton's opinions and knee-jerking I go...

[noiseradio]

Then there are an awful lot of American catholics you could classify as idiots.

No argument from me on that. A lot of American protestants too.

[noiseradio]

Well, thank God you're back to keep the rest of us soft-brains from ourselves.

I do my best.


Seriously. If you want to interpret my post as a personal attack, go ahead. I wasn't actually talking about anyone in particular. It just struck me as funny that a bunch of non-Catholics were chiming in on what people from another religion ought to do.

[selfmademug]

I don't take it as a personal attack; I'm just not that interested if you're only being provocative. It's not a game I like, when the inherently superior stance of the provocateur only revealed after others have weighed in. And of course I meant to type "Well, thank God you're back to save the rest of us soft-brains from ourselves." I make lots of mistakes, as is well documented on this board.

I was raised a Catholic and respect it as a religion more than you'd probably guess. But it saddens me when I see this turn in history.

[noiseradio]

Well, I'm not at all trying to come across as superior to anyone. And I apologize if I did come across that way. It's just an area of discussion that I hadn't seen explored. I thought it might be worthwhile, that we might all gain a deeper understanding of the complexities of the issue. I hope we did.

[Mr. Average]

Noise, you have generated true grist for the mill...thought-provoking and challenging. Unfortunately, you are speaking to a board of moral relativists who are the first to react against your thoughtful, and I think quite balanced, comments.

The Catholic Church, for every failing, has dozens of successes to celebrate, all by virtue of the word of God. Does this statement excuse the failings? Hell no! He spoke during his Holy Week address of the filth in the Church, a direct reference to the Catholic Priest pedophilia scandal. Now, really folks, while the scandal is very real, and requires ONLY a direct, incontrovertable solution through excommunication and legal punishment, is there anyone reading this that, even for a minute, does NOT think that this was amplified beyond the scope of its sick limits by the secular media who stands in absolute terror of the power of the Church? Give me a break if you think the press dealt with this issue in a fair and balanced way.

If the human condition was immediately and unequivocally remedied by adherence to the edicts of any one religion, then there would only be one religion, and the defining concept of Faith would be moot. Without Faith in the Higher Authority of a Supreme Being, there is nothing else upon which to base an argument, other than blind, thoughtless following or pseudointellectual claptrap founded on the slipperry slope of moral relativism and secularism. This pope is a theologian who believes that the core edicts of the Church are correct, and flow from the Word of God...not from popular opinion, or whatever 'feels good'. Clearly, Pope Benedict 16 believes that the fundamentals of the Faith must be restored before the Church can properly embrace reform and change. Transitional Pope? Yes, I can't argue with that, but the arguments I hold are different...he is instituted, through divine providence, to restore core theology to the Faith. Once that substrate is re-established, then and only then can his successor begin to work reform from a solid baseline...a platform not based on what sounds to be the best political solution, but what is founded in the historical teachings and Word of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I do not agree with some of your statements, but I see none of your comments as demeaning or down-speaking to anyone here. You have an educated opinion and you are sharing it in, what I think, is a cogent and reasonable fashion. The usual suspects lash out whenever an argument is made that makes them feel 'uncomfortable" or creates dissonance. Highly predictable. Attack the guy that holds up the mirror of accountability. The strange thing about this is that some of your detractors are the ones who claim no accountability to the Faith or the Word of the God that this lowly man embodies as the leaderof the Catholic Church. So why does the mirror seem so threatening? Because somehow, these are the same people who claim atheism or agnosticism but know...they KNOW that should some harm come to them or their loved ones they will drop to their knee's and tremble as they pray for divine intercession.

The Cathoilc Church needs restoration as a religion before it needs mass reform. I believe that the decision is divinely inspired. I believe that our simple minds cannot begin to grasp the complexity of the Higher Power, yet we agrandize ourselves by celebrating our intellect and using it as a way to dejustify the existence of God. Did our intellect evolve from dirt? Really? The emotions of passion, devastating sadness, and exhuberance...are they simply a product of evolution?

I shock no one when I proudly state with conviction that I am pleased with the selection and I will do whatever I can do to support his papacy. As I have mentioned countless times before, the great leaders of the Catholic Faith have written that we are 'bound by conscience' on certain moral decisions. This allows nuns in Africa to distribute condoms to parishoners in direct violation of the public pronouncements of the highest office of the church...they are bound by conscience to counsel the people to use the prophylactic to prevent the spread of disease FIRST. Once in the hands of the individual, they make the moral decision as to how they will use it...for what purpose. This pope is KNOWN for his stance that grass-roots movements...small groups will be the future of the growth of the Church, not top-down imposition. I will give him all the due that is accorded to this position that, in my opinion, you would have to be nuts to covet. It takes an incredible amount of personal conviction and courage to hold the edicts of the church to the highest standard, in spite of popular opinion to the contrary. (that is a sure excised quote!)

"Bound by Conscience" and Moral Relativism are two different things. But I'll stop here and let the debate rage on.

Long Live Pope Benedict XVI.

[noiseradio]

Mr. A,

Thanks for being able to look past our disagreemants to the heart of what I was trying to say. I tihkn it's important that we be able to disagree without losing respect for each other. I am deeply suspicious of organized religion in general, and the Catholic Church is very well organized. I hope saying so doesn't offend you. But those misgivings on my part are about my own convictions. I'll never feel comfortable telling Catholics what I think they ought to believe. It's on equal footing with telling any other religion what to believe or how to act. Or any philosophy. Freedom of religion (and freedom from religion) is a precious thing. But to embrace it means embracing it completely. If I want the freedom to believe or not believe what I want, then I must allow others (even those I vehemently disagree with) the same leeway. And that, I suppose, is what prompted my original post. I can't begin to understand some of Catholic doctrine. That's why I'm not Catholic. But for me to suggest that Catholics should embrace things that the Catholic Church has for centuries taught against would be to suggest an end to the Catholic faith. I'd be asking Catholics to, in essense, stop being Catholic to suit my tastes. And I think that's the height of arrogance. I find that nothion just as offensive as I would an attempt by the Catholic Church to dictate how I live my life. In some countries today, and certainly in much of World History, that has happened. It shouldn't have. But I strongly feel that if the Catholic Church (or any other religious organization) does not dictate the laws that govern me, I have no right to insist that they comply with my wishes.

[Who Shot Sam?]

Noise, you have generated true grist for the mill...thought-provoking and challenging. Unfortunately, you are speaking to a board of moral relativists who are the first to react against your thoughtful, and I think quite balanced, comments.

Could you be more condescending? You don't know me - or SMM for that matter - yet you write us off as moral relativists, presumably lacking your higher powers of discernment and close connection with the man upstairs. I could call you a pompous windbag, but I won't becuase I don't know you.

[Mr. Average]

Its okay to call me a pompous windbag. I think that many might agree.

But I am a person of deep personal conviction who has spent a significant part of my life introspecting about these things. My opinions aren't flip, nor is my right to express them. I do consider the board to contain a high degree of moral relativism. So it is with Canada, Europe, New York, Los Angeles, and other major sections of this country. It isn't a unique thing...it is actualy quite passe'

I have a right to share my opinion. There are hundreds who read these posts who do not contribute. They deserve an alternate view to yours and others.

One thing about me, WSS, I am the real thing, the genuine article. You love it, or you hate it. When the consensus of the board is that my input is too divisive for the general populace, I will leave on the invitation. I haven't flip-flopped on the issues as they cover many area's. Others, including references in your last post, display a moral relativism in their writing that is nearly comical. Shifting like the sands on a windswept beach at high tide.

Meanwhile, I love the music of Elvis Costello and I love music in general. That is why I'm here, first and foremost. I recall the statement wondering how a person of my religious and conservative roots could like the music of Elvis.

Think about that for a minute. Now that is REALLY silly.

God Bless You and Yours.

[invisible Pole]

I am happy with the election, not only because Cardinal Ratzinger was a close friend and advisor of John Paul II, but also because I think Catholic Church needs a leader who combines deep faith, strict moral stance, and a great intellect on one hand, and - contrary to opinions on Ratzinger popularized in some media – humility and serenity on the other.
I suppose this election sends a strong signal that the Church will fight against the secularization of Europe and against the world in which one’s own desires and „easiness” of living are highest goals.
I take great comfort in seeing hundreds of thousands of young people who search for spiritual guidance in a world of empty idols and mindless consummerism. They found this guidance in John Paul II and I am quite sure they will follow Benedict XVI, no matter how many times some papers will call him an inquisitor.

And on a different note – there is something truly amazing about the fact that after more than 400 years of Italian popes, two consecutive ones come from Poland and Germany. We have been neighbours for 1000 years, and sadly this was a history of hostility, conquests, wars, and suffering. If 40 years ago a German cardinal had been elected the Pope, my natives would have been outraged. Now vast majority of Poles are very happy with this election and I hear young people saying that they welcome him with optimism, love and hope.
I take it as another great legacy of John Paul II.