That was quick. I hope it isn't Cardinal Rat.

It is.

Benedict XVI

Who's going to do the mash of "The Vatican Rag" and the "I Was Not A Nazi Polka"?

Was he really a Hilter Juden?

My mind is ill-disciplined enough that it began replaying the "Inquisition" section from Mel Brooks' History of the World Part I. Complete with the Esther Williams-style swimming pool setpiece.

On the other hand, he is 78. Perhaps they were thinking "There won't be too many surprises from him, and we've bought ourselves some time."
All reflections on his positions aside, it must be hell to have to follow one of the greatest glad-handers in the history of the papacy, especially for a man of the new pope's temperament.

Fuck.

At least he's old.

Well, lots of the media is saying that he was in the H.Y. but I wouldn't hold his actions at age 12 against him.

His actions as an adult, however, are a totally different story. A disappointing choice, but any surprises are likely to be positive. (Hoping...)

What's funny is that the Prophecy of St Malachy floating around the net (one version here), says that there's only 2 popes after JPII before the end of the world. The penultimate Pope was supposed to come from the Benedictine order. And Ratzinger picks the name Pope Benedict.
More Hollywood end of days movies fodder.

This was previously posted to another thread, but it belongs here, too:

Ratzinger Fan Club .

Be sure to check out the t-shirts.

Rats.

well, this is sort of heartbreaking.

Also, without pretending to know anyone's soul, humble? Cardinal Ratzinger, who took on himself to announce that Kerry couldn't receive communion without referring the matter to the Pope (who of course overruled him) humble?

I suppose he thinks so.

Mayakda, the wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI]reports that he was indeed in the Hitler Jugend*, but notes that joining was legally required. He was also drafted into the army along with the rest of his age, group, and deserted in 1944 while in Hungary. He was in an Allied POW camp for a while, too.

As for humility, maybe now that the buck stops with him, we'll see some. Things can really change when you go from being a favored subordinate to beng The One in Charge.

*Maybe you meant to type Juden, but maybe not. I'm trying to imagine an organization called the Hitler-Jews. It isn't wokring.

Benedict, huh? He should be Rattus I.

He's a goddam Grand Inquisitor! I've just added this to my list of bad things that happened on this day.

Well, at least he's old. I suppose I could take the position of one character on The Simpsons, who, viewing Marge's naked portrait of Mr. Burns, said "He's bad, but he'll die, so I like it."

Benedict, hell. Look at the guy--he's Palpatine I.

Fidelio wrote As for humility, maybe now that the buck stops with him, we'll see some. Things can really change when you go from being a favored subordinate to beng The One in Charge.

That's not the impression I get from him. He seems MUCH more the sort who believes that the world will bend to his will (the opposite of, you know, reality-based folks), and now he has the lever and the fulcrum to exert BIG pressure.

Damn. Damn. Damn. And other words much less nice.

Granted, Ratzinger wasn't the most forward-thinking choice in the College of Cardinals. But actions that he could take as the Dean of the College (such as the Kerry contretemps) aren't necessarily going to be possible now that he's pope -- he can't pass the buck upstairs anymore.

And he's also the oldest pope to be elected in the last century -- hopefully this means that the Catholic Church just wants to consolidate for the next couple of years or so.

From Wikipedia's entry on him:

"When Ratzinger turned 14 in 1941, he was required by law to join the Hitler Youth, but according to his biographer John Allen he was not an enthusiastic member. In 1943, at the age of 16 he was, along with the rest of his class, drafted into the Flak or anti-aircraft corps, responsible for the guarding of a BMW plant outside Munich. He was then sent for basic infantry training and was posted to Hungary, where he worked setting up anti-tank defences until he deserted in April 1944 (an offence punishable by death). In 1945 he was briefly held in an Allied POW camp. By June he was released, and he and his brother (Georg) entered a Catholic seminary."

What do you mean, old? Wojtyla lived to be 85 and he was sick! This guy's not giving in without a fight. And he's going to appoint lotsa more like-minded Cardinals in the meanwhile.

There's a piece by one Erica Walter on the TNR web site
that argues for his humility, largely one the basis that he
not only did not want to be Pope but stayed in his previous
post only at the insistence of JPII. It isn't every job where
you're literally expected to keep working until the day you
die...

A long-standing Ratzinger joke was told on NPR over the
weekend: Ratzinger and two other cardinals die at the same
time, arrive in heaven, and are summoned to one-on-ones
with God. The first cardinal emerges from his interview in
tears saying "I can't believe I was so wrong about theology!".
The second cardinal emerges in tears saying the same thing.
Finally Ratzinger goes in, and soon God emerges in tears,
saying "I can't believe I was so wrong about theology!"

Doesn't sound like a humble guy to me...

LOL Patrick! Wish I'd said that. And I will, Christopher, I will.

[violently suppresses image of Pope Rat leaning over an altar boy and calling him "my young apprentice" -- no, no!]

Benedict, hell. He's Palpatine I.

Oh, that's good.

Sorry. Tin foil hat is interfering with typing. Hah. Hitler Youth. Not his fault he joined; just following orders.

I was scrabbling desperately for optimism. Hey, it could happen. Pigs can fly, after all [although you have to buy them tickets, since they get sick if they fly in the cargo hold].

The Ratzinger Fan club seems to have been slashdotted. Another Ratzinger 101 can be found here, from BBC.

It's not the Hitler Youth bits that worry me (and BBC doesn't mention those in so many words either); it's his stated stances since (and BBC does mention some of those). A much less charitable profile is here.

Aw, dammit. Please accept my heartfelt sympathies.

As somebody who grew up Catholic, I'm bummed that it's not somebody with a reputation for being more progressive, but I also don't believe that he's an evil person. I think he's someone who is trying to do what he believes is the right thing, but which, unfortunately, is not the way I'd like to see it done.

I don't think he's a hypocrite, someone who mouths the platitudes but will be found in a room with bondage workout equipment, five underage prostitutes, and a death ray aimed at France sometime later this year. I think he's someone trying to do what he believes is right, based on what he's been taught.

Which, honestly, is sadder for me than a puppy-kicking evil person would have been. I could get all worked up in a lather about that. With this guy, I pretty much just get to shrug sadly, spend a moment feeling sad that my son won't grow up Catholic, and trot off to the Episcopalean place down the street instead, where the ministers can be women, gay, and/or married.

Y'know, I didn't think I'd care so much--I'm no longer a practicing Catholic--but surprisingly I do care.

And I care enough that I find myself desiring a Whiskey and coke and an entire pan of brownies.

Michelle: I'm disappointed because I'd like to feel like there is a place for me in the church, but its become increasingly obvious to me that the church is rejecting everything I value about it.

And as I just obsevered elsewhere, any time I find myself thinking "Well, maybe he'll die soon" as an attempt to hang onto optimism, I get kind of depressed.

"When Ratzinger turned 14 in 1941, he was required by law to join the Hitler Youth, but according to his biographer John Allen he was not an enthusiastic member...."

I'd like to point out the parallel to Wernher Von Braun, who was technically an officer of the SS, because he had to be. According to my fatgher's conversation with him, when they shook hands on a book deal rendered moot by his death very shortly afterwards, he only wore his Nazi uniform once, then put it in a drawer and refused to wear it again.

All together now:

"Vhen der Vhite Smoke goes up,
who cares vhere it comes down?
Dat's not my department,
says Benedict XVI,
with a frown."

Funny. The guy they just buried went into the papacy as young and liberal and came out as mary-deluded conservative. And it could have been predicted, if one had looked at his writings.

Ratzinger is an intellectual. He was one of the young wild theologians during the second Vaticanum and he was very much liked as Bishop in Bavaria.

He may revert to his older positions or he may carve new ones, he may be liberal or conservative, but he's going to be an honest and smart pope, whatever else he'll be.

But I don't think that'll be seen in USAnia as theology is not a matter of soundbites.

Food for thought:

When it was proposed after the pope's funeral that the cardinals be forbidden to talk to the media, he suggested that such a prohibition would violate freedom of speech and that if they wanted such a rule they should rather unanimously adopt it — a technicality perhaps but not an unimportant one. It did not prevent Italian cardinals from talking to the media (perhaps through their staffs), but no one really thought they would keep the rule which was enacted because the Italians objected to the presence of so many American cardinals on the international news channels.

He is also supposed to have persuaded John Paul that birth control was not an appropriate issue for an infallible declaration. Finally, the processing of the pedophile cases from the American bishops suggests that he and his staff are aware of the dimensions of the problem.

If one assembles these arguments into a projection of a Joseph Ratzinger papacy, one finds some reasons to believe that it would be quite different from the previous one, as Oxford don Owen Chadwick predicted in his "Law of Constitutional Elections" – the new man is always different from his predecessor. Maybe Papa Ratzinger also would be a different man as pope than he was as the head of the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith.

Maybe.

This collection of arguments does not eliminate the fact that Joseph Ratzinger would come to the papacy with some very heavy baggage. Nonetheless it does suggest that should he be elected (which I repeat I don't expect) he should be given a chance to prove who and what he is. When men become pope they tend to surprise both their friends and their enemies.

For what it's worth....

An honest Pope? That'd be a first.

I am willing to give him the benefit of a clean slate. But if he starts talking about refusing communion to pro-choice american politicians in 2008, I will not be amused.

Over at Jesus' General, the commenters have been suggesting names as well. I think my personal favorite is Panzerfaust I.

"At least he's old."

He looks healthy in his pictures. If he is, he could easily last another 20-30 years.

One may hope for a return to liberal values. I doubt it. What repentance could gain forgiveness for his opposition to the use of condoms to control the spread of AIDS, or his defense of the molester priests? Still, guilt might turn his thinking; reality might crash in.

Church of Tashlan, indeed.

Caw! Caw! Caw!

TH, for what it's worth, Cardinal Ratzinger's 'theology' was behind a number of purges in the church in the past twenty years and what was lost is (to my mind) far more important than the intellectual consistency of a man with the kind of tunnel vision Ratzinger has displayed.

As has been pointed out by many people, I'm Jewish so I can at least ignore him.

My first response to the news was unprintable. His funeral sermon wasn't scary, but he's got a long record of being the Enforcer, so unless the Holy Spirit works miracles, you're going to find me watching this papacy from the sidelines.

I commented right after the funeral that they keep a lot of traditions of the Roman Empire. Apparently that includes having the heir give the funeral oration.

I wonder why he chose Benedict? Is it to honor St Benedict or Pope Benedict XV?
Is it a name he picked out years ago?

Dave Weingart:

I left the Catholic Church so I could ignore the Vatican.

Now, I find that while I could probably ignore the Vatican insofar as it impacts my day-to-day life (in all honesty, very little), I cannot allow myself to ignore the Vatican's impact on the rest of the world, which is unfortunately a fair bit.

Then, when I think about the positive impact the Vatican could have on the world, if it only would, it gets my childhood dreams about what the Church could be (but is not) all in an uproar, and I get nauseated and my mouth goes all acidic, and I realize that the baptized, confirmed, ritual-lovin' Catholic in me (a part of myself that I just cannot seem to kill off, no matter how hard I try), is deeply, deeply affected by the Vatican, and right now that small little girl with the white satin covered missal and ashes on her forehead is very, very disappointed.

And not returning to the Church this year.

Second thoughts...

The Ratz may surprise us. But this makes me feel the way I felt after the election of W. Bush in 2000. And I think one of our hostesses observations about the radical right Republicans applies to the Vatican conservatives, too--they don't expect ever to lose power.

It looks to me like the world is going mad.

I find myself considering the possibilities inherent in electing a Pope who has all of JPII's doctrinal hardheadedness, with none of JPII's personal charm or charisma. JPII was able to charm people around the world faaster than he could piss off people who were already Catholics; I seriously doubt that B-16 (if only there had been one more Benedict previously, he could have had an appropriately martial handle) will be able to do likewise.

Meet the new pope; same as the old pope...?

"Maybe you meant to type Juden, but maybe not. I'm trying to imagine an organization called the Hitler-Jews. It isn't wokring."

Log Cabin Club.

well, as an Asian German, non-buddhist (although my family believes the opposite ;=)), non-catholic (although went to all catholic lessons in school for 10 years, was lots of fun, got the best grades), with catholic grandparents and some hindi relatives...
I think ratzinger is a great choice ;=))
why, well he is German, I am German ;=))
sorry to interrupt your so serious discussions

why, well he is German, I am German ;=))

I understand, actually. If they'd elected an ultra-conservative Filipino Pope, I'd be rather tickled. Ah, nationalism.

Giblets reveals that it is actually himself in a Josef Ratzinger costume. He has to stand "on top of two dwarves and a monkey just to reach the point where I can operate the head properly."

I find that I don't actually doubt Ratzinger is not only lntellectual and honest, but also intellectually honest. However, I think his premises are problemmatic. While I can appreciate the intellectual rigor that dictates that if condoms are forbidden as birth control they're forbidden for other purposes as they'd still perform the birth control function when used in heterosexual sex (as for homosexual sex -- well you gotta know where he is on THAT), the result is appalling and if it were me, would lead me to question the premises, i.e., the whole birth control thing. But he doesn't seem prone to questioning his premises. While I am not a catholic, I have friends loved ones who are and this affects me through them. I am a woman and his stances on women's issues and their impact throughout the world certainly do affect me. Damn. I had hoped for a better result. We shall have to wait and see I guess.

MKK

MKK

The idea of an American Catholic Church is looking better and better these days. It's been too long since we had a good schism.

Looks like someone at Wikipedia has had the same idea as Patrick ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Benedict_XVI&direction=prev&oldid=12526972

David B.:

Didn't Jimmy Breslin already cover that?

I don't know. I have hopes on this one. Most - not all, but most - opposition to Ratzinger is kneejerk stuff. He earned his reputations for clamping down on theologians for teaching things that were, as the Magisterium saw it, contradictory to the faith.

His difficulty seems to have been, not that they were teaching something that contradicted Catholic teaching, but rather that they did so in the name of the Church. Withdrawal of licenses didn't stop people from continuing in their theological work, if they really believed in it. It simply meant that they'd have to do so without the support and imprimature of the Church.

There's a fairly thoughtful piece about him, critical but nonetheless respectful, by John Allen, his biographer, here, who also speculated on what a couple of days back on what a Ratzinger papacy might look like.

One thing Allen's sure of is that the quality of bishops appointed under Benedict are almost certainly going to be better than those appointed by his illustrious predecessor. And that can hardly be a bad thing.

Well, Greg, he's the author of the encyclical "On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons," which condones queer-bashing. That makes him my enemy. And by appointing him, the College of Cardinals has made the Church my enemy as well.

Doesn't change much. Just more blatant.

And I haven't read the Allen piece yet, but I suspect that in your last para 'better' must be used in a way I haven't previously encountered.

He's also the guy that has said that Vatican II Was full of wild excess and that a non-Latin mass is a tragedy.

Oh, yes, he does indeed hate fags.

Greg: I just read the piece in the National Catholic Reporter, and I have to say that it didn't do very much to change my knee-jerk reaction.

Oh, yes, he does indeed hate fags.

Ah, symmetry.

Kimberly:

I so know what you are talking about...

My non-Catholic wife is continually trying to understand whereinthehell I got the idea that the church and I were ever on the same theological page--compassion, tolerance, an imperative to work for social justice, respect for others' beliefs...these are not the lessons I'd argue we see the church put into practice. Yet I learned them there, I know I did, and that's what breaks my heart every time.

Wow, the photoshoppers sure are quick.

He was always so funny on "Cheers..."

Lisa: My spouse doesn't get my concern either, I don't think. I mean, he does, but it's like you said, "What, you're surprised???" He knew it would be King Rat.

I learned about the compassion, and the social justice, and the mercy, in Catholic school, seventh and eighth grade religion classes. Mr. Fleischman.
I learned it from my mom. I learned it by listening to homilies when I went to church every Sunday with my family.

Somehow, somewhere along the line, I missed the parts about hatred, intolerance, and misogyny. And I'm sorry, Xopher's right. David Bilek's right. The Church hates fags. And if the Church hates fags, I can't be walking around saying, "I'm a Catholic." I can't, for the same reason my kid is not a cub scout. I have a lot of respect for people like my mom, who try to change the Church from within, but at the age of 22, I figured it out. I have irreconcilable differences with the Church of my youth. It's not the ONLY reason I left, but it's a big part of it.

I don't believe God thinks homosexuality is wrong, or else, well, why would there be homosexuals? God is sadistic? Hatred, however, is wrong. In fact, my morality tells me that hatred of a person for being gay is evil. Which leaves me, to say the least, at odds with the Vatican.

Catholicism is still such a big part of who I am, though, and I have to admit that I still feel connected sometimes. Because I remember them teaching me about compassion and tolerance. And so I did have hope for a new pope. And I didn't really think that the choosing of King Rat would upset me this much, estranged as I am. But it did.

The photoshoppers are indeed quick - although I believe this one dates to April 13th.

http://metaphorge.cyber1a.net/livejournal/ratzinger.gif

Kimberly: Obviously I agree with your main thrust. I don't believe the Church's stand on homosexuality is compatible with modern egalitarian society. I've been pretty vocal about that. But on a purely logical note, I don't think "God can't think homosexuality is wrong or else there wouldn't be any homosexuals" follows. Lots of things exist which a benevolent God clearly must disapprove of. For example... "God can't think pedophilia is wrong or there wouldn't be any pedophiles". Clearly a non starter.

Which brings me to another bit about Pope Palpatine: He called the Church pedophilia scandal in the USA an event manufactured by enemies of the Church.

Yep.

Hmm... operating on the assumption that German words always consist of at least 20-25 smaller words smooshed together, I tried to get google to translate "ratzinger" into something comprehensible.

The closest I could come to anything at all was something like: "more zinger advice".

Which convinces me that this whole time? Everything he's ever said or written? He was, like Don Rickles, only kidding.

David B:

There is an American Catholic Church--the last I looked, they seemed to have outposts only in NY and FL (!!!) They ordain women, their priests can marry, etc. I found them completely by accident--when my sister got married, she chose to have the ceremony at the hotel, which is Not Allowed, so she couldn't get a priest from my parents' parish. The hotel gave her the name of an American Catholic priest who did a lot of weddings for them and he was so great that, when we were planning our own wedding, Jenny and I did some research. The website we found specified that they performed interfaith ceremonies, and ceremonies for persons who had been divorced, and etc. "Ceremonies for gay people" wasn't on the list, but you could see it there, just hovering beyond the verge of the spoken.

So we wrote to Father Bob, and asked if he would marry us, too. And he did, using the same exact ceremony. Literally, his homily was word-for-word. I was almost disappointed by that, but then, when he got to the end, he said something about how did many, many weddings, and that even though Jenny and I were both women, that nothing else was different and how important it was to honor that.

I know my extended family loves me, but realistically, at least some of 'em were only there to avoid pissing off my mom, who is Formidible when it comes to protecting her kids. That they could hear this, from someone dressed in the vestments of a Bishop, no less...well, it was mindblowing.

It is my ambition to figure out how to get us an outpost up here in Boston.

Initial reaction: it may be time to check out the local Quaker meeting.

On the other hand, he is "an intellectual" and "a concert pianist" and "personally humble, living near a bus stop in a crime-ridden neighborhood and walking to his office in the Vatican."

Yet, to be optimistic about the reign of Benedict XVI on those bases would be parallel to those who were optimistic about Andropov succeeding to power over the CCCP, on the basis that he liked American culture, especially Jazz. There are also 3 successive Cs in "Catholic College of Cardinals."

To be optimistic on the basis that he will push the church further into ultraconservative doctrine, and the NEXT pope will bring a swing of pendulum more favorable to women, dissidents, homosexuals, and those worried about overpopulation -- well, that's like the "Dump the Hump" activists who voted for Nixon instead of Humphrey, hoping that Tricky Dick would discredit the Republican Right. Look what THAT attitude brought us!

Warning about and apologies for a long post:

David:

Well, I think you have a point based on my phrasing, but I think my point is just poorly phrased. It is a strong object of faith with me that the divine is not homophobic, any more than the divine is heterophobic.

I didn't mean, however, to make a LOGICAL defense of homosexuality based only on its existence, although I admit that it reads as if I were (I remember them, from the LSAT). There are unstated assumptions in there that are based on theology rather than logic. But I need to feel around it a bit more to express it well, methinks.

Maybe the unstated assumption is that I don't believe "God" (which is, to my level of faith, also a bit touchy...the Catholic thing is a past part of my person, remember) makes people into pedophiliacs. And I believe that homosexuality is at least in part biology, and is normal sexual function, rather than a disease.

And it's an interesting question, isn't it? Upon what do I make the distinctions between healthy sexuality and unhealthy sexuality. Did the divine make rapists? See, not my divine, not my god(dess). My god(dess) made sexual beings who decide to rape. Did the divine make alcoholics? Asthmatics? Are some things natural accidents or evolutionary accidents or environmental accidents, or societal accidents (which I think is the basis for most sexual disfunctions --within which I count pedophilia, but not homosexuality)?

Just meandering now, trying to figure out how best to really describe what I mean, without the benefit of a rough draft. THIS is why I need a livejournal account of my very own.

tried to get google to translate "ratzinger"

Well, it just means "guy from Ratzing." I tried to find something about Ratzing from Yahoo, but I only found that they have a volunteer fire department.

Michael:
Rat in German may mean advice or council. Zinger appears not to be German at all, all Google comes up with are Dutch-language pages. In Dutch zingen means to sing, which presumably makes zinger mean singer, if nouns are related to verbs in the same way in Dutch, English and German (not an unreasonable assumption, since they are all Germanic languages.)
Dutch rat (German Ratte) is rat in English.

Another possibility is that Ratzing is a place name (which indeed it is), in which case Ratzinger would mean something like person from Ratzing. Does that make any sense?

Rats. I see Rich beat me to it...

Kimberly: Yeah, this is going to go beyond the scope of this thread so I'll leave it at this: a position like yours strikes me as playing into the arch-conservatives hands. You're making *exactly* the argument that the reactionaries are making and simply placing homosexuality on the other side of the natural/unnatural line. Sexuality you're okay with (homosexuality) is "natural" and "from God" and sexuality you're not okay with is "a choice". That's what the anti-gay people say! They just put "gay" in the "not okay" category.

If you get a livejournal and think about it more, I'll read it. This is a topic I'm interested in.
Difficulty with arbitrary distinctions such as this is one reason I'm a very lapsed Catholic.

Who needs the tv/radio for news when you've got the net? Looked at my Livejournal Friends page this morning and it was wall-to-wall Pope Rat...

Thank you for that image of Pope Palpatine, Patrick. And thank you, Xopher, for that enchanting extension of that image, which I'm sure will delight those of my friends who are into Star Wars slash. :->

David, I sort of see what you're getting at. My church-state separation post on gay rights, for what it's worth, is posted to the open thread five minutes from now.

Teresa: I believe many things you believe. Not all of them, I don't think. But many. And you put it very well, a skill of which I am very, very envious.

I think I'll spread it around.

For the completely different (well not so completely, as we have already heard from Giblets)

Pope Benedict

I weep. I came (though with clarity than above) to the conclusion of point 4 when I was in my late teens. It may be what caused me to abandon thoughts of taking Jesuit Orders (girls were certainly a factor, but not so much as Ex cathedra.

I feel as Martin Luther, God help me, for I hope his tenure is short lived.

Would that JP I's had not been.

TK

'It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.'

That's from the Letter on Pastoral Care, Xopher. It doesn't really seem to condone 'qeer-bashing', but maybe I've read it wrong. Granted, he still regards homosexuality as an 'intrinsically disordered' condition, but then, that's pretty much Church teaching. You might have a case against that, but it's hardly one against Benedict himself.

For what it's worth, he also never said the non-Latin mass was a tragedy - rather, he said that ditching the Latin mass in the wholesale way that was done marked a tragic breach with the tradition of the Church. He's not alone in that. Plenty of others - and not just the hard-line nutters - feel that some of the changes that followed the Second Vatican Conference were unwarranted, and that we've been throwing loads of babies out with the bathwater.

Anybody else noticed how much the guy resembles Boris Karloff?

Greg:
maybe I've read it wrong

You read it wrong. See #7.

but then, that's pretty much Church teaching

And why is it Church teaching? Could it be because guys like Ratzinger, from positions of high authority, make it Church teaching?

My impressions: Herr Starr with a mitre.

I must admit, I haven't exactly been keeping track of the likely candidates. "Ratzinger" meant nothing to me. But firing up Google:

Vatican Letter Denounces 'Lethal Effects' of Feminism
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30761-2004Jul31.html
The sharp critique was contained in a document issued by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. . .

The letter argued that "the obscuring of the difference . . . of the sexes has enormous consequences," including inspiring ideologies that "call into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality."

http://www.consciouschoice.com/1995-98/cc116/bridginginfinite1106.html
There are those who regard Buddhism with suspicion, and even contempt. There is the example of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in Rome, the prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the department that ensures orthodoxy is maintained. He granted an interview to the French weekly L'Express more than a year ago, and in "off the cuff" remarks, stated that Buddhism was "spiritual, mental autoeroticism," or mental masturbation! He went on to quote an unnamed writer who had said in the 1950s that Buddhism would be the undoing of the Catholic church. Vatican officials are not in the habit of making such "off the cuff" statements unless they are calculated for publication.


I believe that latter marks a world record for largest number of people simultaneously called "wankers" by a major international religious leader.

Hey, Rattie kicked out Hans Kung after Kung had mentored him. How Christian is that?

Er, right. Here's section seven of that letter, just plucking out the less charitable bits: It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally... essentially self-indulgent... moral disorder... acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God'

Now, you might well call that homophobic. Maybe it is, though it calls homosexuals people to follow exactly the same set of rules as heterosexual ones.* But there's nothing there to condone 'queer-bashing'. Nothing at all.

As for why it's Church teaching? I don't fully know. Partly for scriptural reasons I guess, partly because theologians through the ages have considered it, and partly simply being what we (rightly) call homophobic attitudes have historically been the views and attitudes of ordinary people - prejudices that predate Christianity, for what it's worth.

The Church hasn't yet fully grappled with our conviction that homosexual is what some people are. It still tends to think that homosexual acts are what people do. It's getting there - Ratzinger's letter is evidence of that - but it's a slow process.

And if it's any consolation, the likes of Arinze, who the media were falling over themselves to lionise as 'the first black pope', is rather less charitable on this matter than Ratzinger has ever been. Now he is a hardliner.

;)
_________________________________________________
*The difference is that heterosexual people can get married, which the Church sees as part of God's plan. Whether homosexual marriages ought to be permitted is a separate issue. Maybe it's one for another day, I dunno.

The Catholic Church doesn't claim that the Pope is infallible in all things, only when speaking ex cathedra. The vast minority of Catholic teaching is considered infallible dogma.

It was Ratzinger that convinced JPII not to add the ban on contraception to dogma, actually. (And 75% of American Catholics breath a sigh of relief.)

Ratzinger. If Catholics were allowed to say "Oy vey", that would be my reaction. So much for any hope that the new Pope would move the Church into the 21st century.

At least those Catholics who admired John Paul II for his more progressive stances, but regretted his medieval views on other issues, will probably be able to dispense with the mixed feelings.

It's early to be making predictions, but the best thing that might come of this papcy would be for the modern-minded Catholics to make up their minds once and for all that the Pope doesn't, in fact, speak for them.

Additionally, Arinze wouldn't have been the first black Pope had he gotten the nod -- just the first in 1500 years or so. I'm pretty sure one of the very early Popes was a Moor, also, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

mayakda asks, I wonder why he chose Benedict? Is it to honor St Benedict or Pope Benedict XV?
Is it a name he picked out years ago?

I checked out Ratzinger and Benedict first thing when I heard the name he'd chosen and found this, a Ratzinger chat with Peter Seewald, a German journalist (19 Apr 1997):

Religion in modern society is tolerated, but merely as a subjective experience. But he [Ratzinger] reminds his interlocutor how St Benedict, too, was an outsider in Roman society, yet what he created "proved to be an ark of survival for Western civilisation".

Perhaps Ratzinger fancies himself an outsider in modern society fighting to preserve Western civ. and the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps even then he'd been considering what papal name he'd choose, given the opportunity.

Teresa, I would agree about point 4, if I thought you weren't mistaken in your notion of papal infallibility.

The doctrine, which was always assumed in the eastern church, by the way, to be true of the corpus of bishops as a whole, merely states that when speaking on matters of faith and morals, he will be protected from teaching error. Protected from teaching error--not protected from being a vain, greedy or even stupid man.

What many people think the doctrine has to do with a pope's alleged personal faultlessness or impeccability truly beats me. But if it was ever defined the way you assume, I'd agree with you, too.

John Farrell and Dan Guy: I don't understand why it's supposed to be a comfort if the Pope is only infallible a small percentage of the time (and only when he says he is), or if he's "merely" protected from teaching error on matters of faith and morals instead of from doing error. (And how many Roman Catholics would agree that the Pope's behavior was not supposed to be a teaching example in itself? "Do as I say, not as I do" doesn't even work for ordinary parents, much less major religious figures.) Leaving aside personal foibles and teaching by example, I still don't think a quick survey of the past Popes would show that they had never taught error on matters of faith and morals. And their moral agency is still of great importance when it comes to teaching faith and morals. Possibly of greater importance. I don't see how the objections our hostess listed to infallibility only apply to vanity, greed, stupidity, or other personal faults.

(I'm a wild-eyed schismatic myself, so naturally that would color my views of whether the Popes screwed things up. But I think they've clearly varied teaching on faith and moral issues over the last two thousand years.)

just plucking out the less charitable bits:

Awww, you miss out on the rolling thunder of tonsure to toenail condemnation when you do that.

Maybe it is, though it calls homosexuals people to follow exactly the same set of rules as heterosexual ones.

No, it doesn't. A comparable set of rules for heterosexuals would require they renounce all romantic relationships forever, as evidence of self-indulgent disorder and evil. In my neighbourhood, we call this "queer-bashing".

It's on the order of saying red can be just as worthy a colour as blue, so long as red becomes blue. It's nonsense.

It seems as though there's a disagreement as to whether "bash" is to be understood metaphorically or literally.

I had in mind this section: But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.

Emphasis mine. "Don't be surprised when they beat you up, because you're a worthless criminal." That's tantamount to excusing (i.e. condoning) the "irrational and violent reactions," while seeming - to the gullible - to be deploring them. The emphasized portion is designed to convey the message that homosexual behavior is outside the realm of conceivable rights -- therefore a fitting target for retribution. Hypocrisy in its purest form. The man's a scumbag, pure and simple.

But you also say ...it calls homosexual people to follow exactly the same set of rules as heterosexual ones.* And your asterisk is The difference is that heterosexual people can get married, which the Church sees as part of God's plan. Whether homosexual marriages ought to be permitted is a separate issue.

It's NOT A FUCKING SEPARATE ISSUE, GODDAM IT. How can you sit there and type that? If I single you out for not being allowed to have silverware, and then label you a sinner for eating with your fingers, can we call those separate issues? If I say anyone who menstruates shall be put to death, would you claim that that's exactly the same rule for men as it is for women?

Namecalling is forbidden under the rules, but when I see disingenuous bullshit like this written by an otherwise intelligent-seeming person, it's very hard for me to refrain. In the interest of maintaining civility, I'll stop here and sign off for the night.

OK, one more: thanks, pericat. And David Moles, no, actually I meant it literally. I think the Ratz Bastard thinks it's OK to beat up faggots, and he tried to force that idea into the encyclical while seeming to deplore it.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids both rich and poor the right of sleeping under bridges." I have the sense that Ratzinger is one of these people Alice Miller wrote about; maybe an abuse survivor himself. We are not going to see sense out of him on homosexuality, it seems plain.

On the other hand, I may have spoken too soon, in comparing him to W. Bush. He is, at least, truly educated and has expressed a more moderate opinion on priestly celibacy. He has after all been working as something like the Church's Attorney General; his personality may have some compassionate aspects which weren't apparent in his previous position.

All these celibate men. How much true intimacy has he had in his life, I wonder? If the answer is "little", I fear for the Church.

Yeah, uh, that bit about "civil legislation...to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right" being the cause of violence against gays... that's a bit over the top there, Josef Cardinal Ratbastard. I know theocracy sounds like a great idea to you, but the rest of the world is on the road (long though it may be) to getting fed up with your type. The best thing that could happen to liberal Catholicism (given the extremely unfortunate circumstances) is for you to keep shooting your mouth off with crap like that. Most people are better at being people than you are. I hope you learn that lesson someday, even if it's the last thing you ever learn.

(Note to self: you're not really sure you believe all of what you just said, are you? About "most people"?)

(Note to note to self: no, I'm not sure, but saying it gets me through the night.)

On the subject of Pope Palpatine I:

Fandoms: The Catholic Church/Star Wars
Pairings: None, otherwise this would be even WRONGER.
Summary: Now that Pope Palpatine I has been elected, he reveals that there is a Chosen One who has been born to a virgin mother. This Chosen One, of course, is the Antichrist, but he is hailed as the Second Coming. Palpatine keeps a close eye on the boy, shaping him to his will, until finally unleashing him to kill all those who disagree with the Church. A bloody civil war and Rebellion follow, until the love of God moves the Antichrist to kill his evil master and be redeemed.

I'm not seeing much sense here. I'm seeing some ignorance about the Church that I find distressing. The Church does not "hate" anybody. Homosexuality is a disorder. The Catholic belief about the sanctity of life does not allow for sexual behavior that is not procreative. Homosexuals are not to be treated with hate, but with love. Love (as in charity) demands correction for sin. This is a hard saying, and not many will accept it. The Church will ultimately be better off without those who would destroy it from within.

"Love (as in charity) demands correction for sin."

Wow. Abuser-speak: I love you, therefore I punish you.

"Judge not, lest you be judged.

"I say unto you, that every one that is lightly angry with his brother shall be subject to the judgment

"For if ye forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father also will forgive you [yours], but if ye do not forgive men their offences, neither will your Father forgive your offences

"For if ye should love those who love you, what reward have ye? Do not also the tax-gatherers the same?"

And if you start quoting the Torah I will ask why it is you do not humbly seek teaching from the Jews.

Oh my... A drive-by sermon from someone who calls himself "toledo_jesus".

I'm not seeing much sense here.

And that's the only thing you said about which most of the folks here will agree.

There is no reason to think that there are any dark secrets held by Pope Benedict XVI.

You have a misunderstanding of papal infallibility.

1. It was dogma since the beginning of the Church, but until recently, there was no great reason to define it.

2. The pope is infallible in his teaching authority, when speaking ex cathedra, on faith or morals. This does not mean that he is impeccable. He can sin and certainly does. John Paul the Great went to Confession weekly. Is this the action of a man who thinks he cannot sin?

3. Papal infallibility was defined by ecumenical council, not by a papal statement.

4. Again, the pope still has his moral agency, regardless of his charism of infallibility.

Guys, you are making a common error here: discussing with dittoheads. Once you put the fight on theology or "matters of doctrine", you lose: because once you admit the existence of the "Catholic God", you have to accept the fact that Catholic doctrine is pretty well clear on a number of issues. You can discuss over cataloguing homosexuality as sin or simple illness as much as you want, but for the Catholic Church It-Won't-Ever-Be-A-Normal-Condition, so please stop arguing about that. It's pointless. Everyone, even his enemies, can recognize Ratzinger as an extremely intelligent and educated man; and if he says that the book says this and this, taken to the letter, he's right.

I do invite everyone that cannot put up with catholicism to stay well away from the Catholic Church. After all, many good things went in the world with Martin Luther and that "bloody heretic" St.Francis (he was, in life, extremely despised and marginalised by the Church after all). Don't try to reconcile your views with a bureaucracy, there's no point.

Boggle boggle boggle boggle boggle boggle... or maybe not so boggling...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1113877273080

"Apr. 19, 2005 19:12 | Updated Apr. 20, 2005 4:34
"New pope hailed for strong Jewish ties
"By DAVID BRINN AND NEWS AGENCIES

[excerpt]

"In one indication of his respect for Judaism, Ratzinger authorized in 2002 the publication of a report that stated that "the Jewish messianic wait is not in vain." That document also expressed regret that certain passages in the Christian Bible condemning individual Jews have been used to justify anti-Semitism.

"The 210-page document, titled "The Jewish People and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible," says Jews and Christians share their wait for the Messiah, although Jews are waiting for the first coming and Christians for the second."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1113877274646&p=1078113566627

"Apr. 20, 2005 0:49 | Updated Apr. 20, 2005 10:41
"Analysis: Growing into role of Benedict
"By BY LISA PALMIERI-BILLIG

"ROME

"Pope Benedict XVI, or Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as the media continue to refer to him, is no stranger to Israel or to the Catholic Church's present commitment to serious, respectful dialogue with Judaism...."

==============================

The boggling is that Pope Benedict in his past life as Cardinal Ratzinger seems to have accorded Jews a much higher degree of respect and cordiality that he was extending to non-Roman Catholic Christian branches. The non-boggle was a consequent thought/analysis, regarding Outsider status sometimes being one that provides one a distance that makes for less contention and strife and ill-will and disagreement.

But on the other hand, Cardinal Ratzinger went on the attack against those outside of religions that claim Abraham as an ultimate Patriarch. That brings me back to boggling again.

I am now full of mixed feelings!

Giacomo writes:

Once you put the fight on theology or "matters of doctrine", you lose: because once you admit the existence of the "Catholic God", you have to accept the fact that Catholic doctrine is pretty well clear on a number of issues.

Everyone who took part in the Second Vatican Council agreed on the existence of the "Catholic God", yet there was much debate about doctrine and quite a lot of change came about as a result.

Neal --

The problem with 'sex only for procreation', aside from the impossibility of supporting it from scripture -- check out the Old Testament bits of law about why it is good to marry young -- is that Catholic teaching accepts evolution.

It is very, very clear that human evolution includes sex-for-social purposes. (We are, for instance, ridiculously infertile for a large mammal, considered in terms of the typical number of sex acts required per pregnancy.)

Throw in that all of this focus on procreation and the control of reproductive tech ties in with the possibilities of social change brought on by industrialization, rather than being long term doctrine, and the whole thing starts to look an awful lot like the well-rationalized change aversion of the old and powerful.

An ability to glory in the diversity of creation would better recommend the piety of the Princes of the Church than any amount of padding the chains of former necessity with doctrine.

If a Pope, speaking ex cathedra, were to say that the use of contraceptives is a deadly sin, he would be speaking from his teaching authority on a matter of morals, and this would be infallibly correct, no?

Very well. What would happen if the next Pope, shocked to his back teeth by the results, were to say, ex cathedra etc, that his learned predecessor, blessed be his name, was blowing smoke?

Which one would be the more infallible, do you suppose? And are all Cretans liars? Wait a second, I'll ask one....

Strict adherence to the procreative-only sex theory would mean that infertile couples (whether through illness, age or systemic dysfunction) would have no right to valid marriages in the Church.

Call it the trophy wives' charter.

Okay, so the pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra. That in no way refutes Teresa's argument #4. He's "only" protected from teaching wrongly as concerns morals and values? That's more than any of the rest of us get.

Graydon's right. In fact, didn't Pope Pius XII (of all people) in one of his later letters state that it was perfectly legitimate for Catholic couples to exploit the woman's infertile periods for sex without procreation?

Very well. What would happen if the next Pope, shocked to his back teeth by the results, were to say, ex cathedra etc, that his learned predecessor, blessed be his name, was blowing smoke?

Obviously, the absolute and unalterable rules of morality would have changed just then, just like in Protestant Apocalyptic Dispensationalism. Roll out the Jenkins and LaHaye!

I wouldn't expect a non-Catholic to beleive in papal infallibility, and I'm certainly not going to try to convince anyone to beleive in it.

I'm a Catholic, but I acknowledge that this stance rests on faith, not on logic - the most logical stance is agnosticism, and in the case of papal infallibility, the most logical stance is to disbeleive it (Occam's razor).

That being said, there are a few issues in your enumerated thinking above:

1. If that were true, surely someone would have noticed it earlier than 1870.

Church doctrines, like many laws, only become explicitly issued when there is a challenge to the preceding implicit consensus acceptance of the attitude/behavior/etc.

I was a history major, and one can find - for example - tons of Roman laws that did not encode new practices, but merely encoded old practices that were starting to be abandoned (one minor example: at one point soldiers were banned from having wives living in the barricks with them. This was not a new stance - it was a regulation codifying old practice, in response to flagrant violation).

2. When you look at the history of the Papacy, “infallible” is neither the first nor the twentieth adjective most likely to occur to you.

Infallible has a very specific meaning. Lots of dumb stuff (pronouncements on astronomy, etc.) did not meet the standards for Papal infallibility. The Pope can express his opinion of icrecream flavors, life on Mars, wether the square root of 9 is 3 or not, or whether the EU should have new standards for what time convenience stores close at night, and none of these are covered under the concept of infallibility.

Check out wikipedia.

4. Shall the Pope, alone of all God’s children, be stripped of his moral agency? That seems very wrong. Yet moral agency necessarily implies the ability to screw up.

The pope is not impeccable; merely infallible. He can rob a liquor store, keep concubines, or side with the RIAA in a legal case.

The pope absolutely has the ability to sin.

I suppose, to keep within the domains of your moral agency argument, I would agree that the Pope does not have the ability to commit one particular sin: he does not have the ability to teach a doctrine of faith or morals that he knows to be wrong.

However, that does not necessarilly mean that he lacks moral agency. One alternative explanation (plucked out of air just now) is that God is holding a deadman's switch that strikes the Pope dumb or dead. Thus, the pope can still sin in this area through intention, but he can not actually issue a false doctrine of faith.

I acknowledge that this stance rests on faith, not on logic

Interesting discussion, TJIC. But I propose that the stance rests neither on logic (rather obviously) nor on faith, but rather on creative misuse of the faculty of language.

It's not that the pope infallible in the sense of actually being infallible. It's that infallibility is now redefined to describe something new, an aspect of popeness. He is, therefore he is this new form of "infallible".

It is, sadly, what happens whenever people from outside a religious group get into the discussion of premises with the people inside it. It's the same way that people can identify both as "uncompromisingly pro-life" AND "for the death penalty", or the way that the word "love" is used by evangelists in order to justify some things that really don't look very loving.

I believe it extends beyond what we normally see as religion, too: try having a discussion with a Zionist that tries to define the words "without" and "people" (in the phrase "a land without a people for a people without a land", an early Zionist slogan which ignored the people who were actually in the Turkish county of Palestine in the early years of the 20th century). Try challenging any right-wing American what the words "for all" mean in the pledge of allegiance (and most lefties get pretty tangled up, as well...)

Thing is, muddy thinking by people hopelessly confounded by faith tends to be wielded by people with far more political power than logical facility, which makes for scary times.

I do invite everyone that cannot put up with catholicism to stay well away from the Catholic Church.

Well, I don't agree with that at all. People close to me, who are Catholic, who think the Church is wrongheaded about things, are very disappointed today--because they had hoped for a forward-looking choice that would lead to a greater role for compassion and tolerance in the Church.

For me, even if I didn't think it was of value to try to change Church doctrine for the good of the Church, I feel quite free to criticize the Vatican as a political actor. So long as the Catholic Church chooses to swing its big doctrine all over the world political stage, I'm going to feel free to argue with it, not only to change its collective mind, but also to change the minds of those who would be swayed by it to enact bad policy or fail to enact necessary reforms.

(No, no midnight livejournal for me. I fell asleep post hockey game).

Raphael writes:

John Paul the Great...

Being a bit hasty in our judgment, are we not? Or did someone appoint you the Muse of History while no one was looking?

Dave Luckett writes:

What would happen if the next Pope, shocked to his back teeth by the results, were to say, ex cathedra etc, that his learned predecessor, blessed be his name, was blowing smoke?

SYNTAX ERROR

More specifically, the second Pope's pronouncement would not be infallible "were a pope to become a public heretic, i.e., were he publicly and officially to teach some doctrine clearly opposed to what has been defined as de fide catholicâ. ... by becoming a public heretic, the pope would ipso facto cease to be pope."

Source: Catholic Encyclopedia article: Infallibility

Neal de Toledo, are you a troll, or are those your true beliefs? If the latter, come back and discuss them in a civil fashion. If the for