Benedict 'promised to modify hard line'

Pope Benedict XVI used his first sermon yesterday to promise "open and sincere" - though limited - dialogue with other religions, in an early attempt to soften his image.

His words gave substance to reports in Rome of a behind-the-scenes deal hastening his election on Tuesday evening. The former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was said to have given private assurances to his more liberal colleagues in the conclave that he would modify his hard line if elected pope.

The assurances were enough for Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the reformers' candidate, to swing sufficient votes behind his rival for the sake of church unity and a rapid result.

The explanation may indicate why, with an apparently open race, the new pope was elected on only the fourth ballot on the second day of the conclave.

more…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,12272,1464590,00.html

He's the Pope. He's gotta keep his word.

His new job is not, so I think its plausible that he will relax.

You don't go to what is essentially the Grand Inquisitor for a warm, fuzzy group hug for being a heretic.

discipline unruly theologians and clergy. Anyone in such a job has to be fairly hardnosed in demeanor. Yesterday I heard the Australian cardinal, George Cardinal Pell, interviewed and he said people will be surprised to learn that the new pope is a gentle and charming man.

... is Jesse Helms a "gentle and charming man" in private.

He's also a dangerous Neanderthal in policy who would like to turn back the clock to the 1840s.

Pope Ratzo may be a veritable teddybear in manners and presentation, but make no mistake, his agenda is to bring back the golden days of Pio Nono, and he'll work the Dicasteries and Conference of Bishops for all he's worth to bring it about.

Want to take any bets on how long it will be before we have a present-day equivalent to the "Oath Against Modernism" instituted?

Someday the Church will look upon the election of Pope Ratzo with the same regret as the elections of the Renaissance Popes who stonewalled the calls for reform and precipitated the great Protestant break.

prophetically,
Bright

P.S., I'd be delighted to be wrong about this, really. I don't WANT the Church to slide even further into decay, but given the current College and the successful exclusion of any kind of theological oxygen over the last two decades, I can't see any future for it but slow strangulation, at this point.

chance. I think liberals are supposed to give everyone a fair chance.

By calling him "Pope Ratzo" you have, I fear, closed your mind.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...that I have established a working hypothesis. I would be delighted to have it disproved, truly. But so far the evidence to support it is pretty convincing. Ask Hans Kueng. Ask any of dozens of teachers and theologians who have been silenced and marginalized.

As for the name, I have a hard time calling him "Benedict," since that name (to me) suggests the founder of an Order that represents some of the most tolerant and enlightened streams of thought and work in the modern Church.

If he turns out, indeed, to realize the ideals that the wonderful, outspoken, compassionate, down-to-earth, intellectually and spiritually adventurous Benedictine nuns and brothers of my acquaintance work for, I will happily and humbly eat my words, without even ketchup or salt.

Until then, he's the same obsessively controlling, legalistic, power-hungry aging Inquisitor he's always been. He can talk pretty all he wants, but until I see real steps to return to the course charted by Vatican II, he's just another neo-Medievalist more concerned with form than substance.

Of course, I said the same thing about GeeDub, back in 2000: "He says he's going to be a uniter, not a divider. He's still a neo-fascist boob to me, but if he proves otherwise by his actions, I'm happy to eat my words."

Pope Ratzo has the same opportunity to prove his future actions can be different than his past actions. I sincerely hope he takes better advantage of it.

extremely skeptically,
Bright

for your fellow progressives who find your language hurtful. It is for you to decide if that matters to you.

...liberal folks who get quite bent out of shape when I refer to members of the GOP as "GOPpies" or to the Current Occupant of the White House as "GeeDub" or "Chimp," too.

I admire such high-mindedness, resolute maturity, and adherence to principles of etiquette, respect for the office, if not necessarily the holder, etc.

However, my immature and emotional desire to express my sorrow, anger, and disappointment is currently stronger than my regret at causing such wonderful folks pain. I'm sure, however, that their nobility of principle will sustain them through the experience, and give them a warm sensation of appreciation for their own tolerance and moral achievement. Perhaps that will, in some small way, offset the pain I'm causing them.

I'll put this down on my list of things to apologize for, if I ever achieve that degree of nobility of character.

contritely,
Bright

(ed. for redundancy)

And your disrespect of me and the other two billion Catholics on this planet is duly noted.

I find entirely hollow pleas for compassion and tolerance from those unwilling to practice it themselves.

It actually does surprise me that I'm planning on apologizing someday when I reach an elevated moral plane.

You may be right. Stranger things have happened, of course.

I do, however, need to clarify one thing: While I may disrespect you (though I don't know for sure, since we've never met and I would never dream of making such a judgment about a person based on casual statements on an Internet forum,) there are a pretty good number of Catholics I'm acquainted with for whom I have the utmost respect.

Some of them have said even nastier things about the current Head of the Vatican State than calling him "Pope Ratzo."

Since you seem to have a line on what the other 1,999,999,942 Catholics think and feel, you might want to let them know that some of their siblings-in-faith are apparently in need of moral chastisement for their egregious infliction of pain upon their fellow-Catholics.

I wouldn't presume to do so, of course, whether I'm Catholic or not. But I'll take your word for it that I'm not. I wouldn't dream of contradicting you.

provisionally respectfully,
Bright

Better to be plain about it. You don't care whom you disrespect. Two Catholics in this forum have told you how they feel about your language. So pretending that since you have not polled the rest it is somehow less than offensive doesn't pass the smell test. If you actually cared about who you hurt--which evidently you do not--you could always ask other Catholics how they feel about the term.

But then you yourself have acknowledge that you use juvenile insults as a matter or course. That is the person you have chosen to be.

I can't help but wonder why so many people on DU, who seem to harbor such animosity toward others, object so strenuously to the new Pope. They condemn him and other leaders for lacking qualities, such as tolerance and compassion, that they not only do not practice themselves, but do not even value.

Are you kidding me? You haven't seen all the posts sharing the truth about this guy's ideology and past actions (not talking about the Nazi stuff, his actions as an adult)?

I find it hard to believe you don't understand why people have a problem with the guy.

...but I prefer to have people rip into me on a sound basis of understanding exactly how offensive I'm being. So let's clear this up:

First, I made no reference at all to other Catholics on these forums, and second, I've made no claims to being "less than offensive" so I'm not sure what you're talking about in slanging me for "pretending that since you have not polled the rest it is somehow less than offensive" baffles me.

I was sort of under the impression that I was being pretty up front about my puerile, insensitive, offensive manner and intentions.

Perhaps you were confused by my response to your assumption that I felt disrespect for "the other two billion Catholics on this planet." I believe I noted that:

>>there are a pretty good number of Catholics I'm acquainted with for whom I have the utmost respect.<<

Please note, I wasn't referring to Catholics on these forums, although there are plenty of Catholics on these forums who have my respect.

Of course, I'm such a mean, childish, unpleasant, generally vicious, thoughtless, and insensitive person that I have been known to(with full consent of the will) actually offend people I respect. Of course, most of the people I respect have offended me on occasion, too, but in general we get over it.

But don't worry. I'm not asking for tolerance or compassion from you or anyone else. I may be a vulgar, unpleasant, thoughtless, morally reprehensible individual, but I do try to refrain from hypocrisy.

I do have one question for you, though, if you're not just too totally disgusted with me to answer:

Why does it bother you so much what I, a complete stranger to you of whom you know nothing (except the aforementioned inferior and undesirable character traits about insensitivity, offensiveness, etc.,) think of the Pope?

curiously,
Bright

P.S. By the way, while I am happy to admit that his lack of tolerance and compassion is, indeed, part of my objection to Ratzinger, my principal objections to him relate far more to the steady stream of actions that have effectively halted and reversed the work of Vatican II, overturning the single largest and most important Church-wide consensus of the last century, and placing the ability of the Church to achieve the mission left to her by Christ at grave risk.

But also, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to demand tolerance and compassion from a Christian religious leader, even if I am, myself, a basically intolerant and cruel person. After all, I am not appointed by the Holy Spirit to undertake the Vicar-Generalship of the Church and assume supreme responsibility for the spiritual well-being of its membership.

Now, finally: It strikes me that a number of Catholics on these forums, perhaps including yourself, are (quite understandably) a little sensitive about the undeniably bigoted and anti-Catholic tone of some forum participants here. While I agree that anti-Catholic bigotry is reprehensible, don't you think that assuming a bunker mentality in response might ultimately be counter-productive in producing a valid dialogue?

http://www.cathnews.com/news/402/18.php

1.07 billion in 2002, according to the Vatican.

If they did, they wouldn't be progressives. So why should someone fake respect where there is none, for the sake of others who also don't respect the guy?

Is this one of those "respect the office, not the man" things? I don't call b*s* "President", either.

was far out of line with Catholic teaching. They had a choice to modify their work to meet Catholic standards but when they -- exercising the free will allowed to all Catholics -- chose to continue expressing what the Church considers heretical views, they indicated that they considered their free expression more important than receiving an imprimatur or nihil obstat for their work and more important than continued employment with the Church.

The Roman Catholic Church is not the only employer that sets standards for its employees, whether clergy or faculty of its seminaries and, in some cases, its colleges. Cardinal Ratzinger's position required him to discipline employees, including priests who violated the Church's sexual standards as well as dissident theologians. He has written that he viewed that job as "my most uncomfortable position" and he asked John Paul II to allow him to retire in 1991, 1996, and 2001. The late pontiff always said he needed Cardinal Ratzinger to stay and he (Ratzinger) felt a duty to stay, particularly as John Paul's health declined yet he soldiered on.

Cardinal Ratzinger was John Paul's right hand man and the man John Paul hoped would succeed him so I expect him to continue in the direction John Paul had been sailing, not tacking far left or right. As the newly-elected Pope Benedict XVI, he has said things that are promising and, as I've already said, I will give him a fair chance. Popes, like Supreme Court justices, are often different from people's expectations of them, and I pray that Benedict will be different from your very negative expectations.

I really would like to be proven wrong.

The role of "enforcer" is, indeed, a difficult one. If Ratzinger's role had been SOLELY that of "enforcer," working under the direction of someone else who interpreted the standards, evaluated the theology, and made the decisions about who was/wasn't out of line, I might feel some sympathy for his pain.

However, it was Ratzinger himself, as President of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who had the latitude to interpret and evaluate the work of theologians and teachers in light of the Deposit of Faith and the established doctrine and dogma. You will agree, I hope, that as with the Supreme Court Justices' interpretations of the Constitution and the body of law establishing precedents based thereon, such an official has considerable latitude in how he chooses to read and interpret such works.

Ratzinger not only never gave a liberal theologian the benefit of the doubt, he appeared on many occasions to go out of his way to read the most damaging possible implications and interpretations into the works of liberal theologians, even after they had clarified their intent and submitted their own justifications for their work. Some of his decisions and disciplinary letters appear perilously close to complete repudiation of the Decrees of Vatican II.

While it would be risky to draw conclusions or even put too much weight on what might possibly (charitably) be considered a coincidence, I cannot help but note that as JPII's health and vigor declined, Ratzinger become ever more active, influential, and extreme in his conservatism. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith seemed to take on a greater and larger agenda and controlling role in the Curia.

Yet the things that seemed to be near the top of JPII's agenda in the earlier days of his vigor and health-- matters concerning the dignity of the worker, restraining the extremes of capitalism as well as communism, the obligations of the wealthy to the poor, etc., were never among the theological questions singled out for consideration (positive OR negative) by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, once JPII's health began to decline. Ratzinger did not appear to be channelling much guidance from the Holy Father in those areas, matters which had formerly been so important to JPII.

Adding that to the ugly spectacle of Ratzinger's ham-handed intervention in the 2004 elections is cause (to me) for deep suspicion of his motivations, not to mention his declared intention to be more moderate. Reagan was more moderate than GeeDub, but I wouldn't consider him a good President.

cynically,
Bright

Showed him to be a flawed fundamentalist whack job-- who let his pristine robes get soiled in a knock down drag out fight in the mud with all kinds of heretics, Marxists, liberals, Islamists, Jews and other "sub-humans" etc. Who are still out to kick his sorry ass and all it stands for.

and they bear little relation to Pope Benedict's actual statements or actions.

Here's a hint. Your not a Catholic. Don't pay attention to what the man says. His words don't guide your life. Turn the channel. Go back to the quiz shows, MTV, or whatever it is you normally do with your time.

Debating with rustics and the great unwashed.

And in the case of Rat Man-- taking objection to his attempt to control the pattern of voting in amerika, to aid the Bush Criminals.

R-M should have worried about John Geoghan more, and less about John Kerry.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What is happening right now, is that Republicans are using this letter to Kerry as an opportunity to drive a wedge straight through the Democratic party base, of which Catholics have long been an important part. By the time Democrats finish destroying each other, the Republicans won't have a political opposition to worry about.

presidential election, ALL Americans (Papist or not) should be concerned. YOUR pope wields an insane amount of influence.

The RCC has influence outside its own followers. Only liars and fools would argue otherwise. Since you're neither, I know that you understand a Pope's influence as head-of-state.

We will continue to speak out against Ratzinger. Don't like it? Too damn bad.

The Pope is fair game because the Catholic Church is and always has been a political power in the world. They are currently working against liberal politics in america and we are all paying the price.
How much longer are you and other liberal Catholics going to enable them as they continue to work AGAINST our constitutional separation of church and state and AGAINST democratic politicians?
God can be found in many places and the RCC doesn't have a monopoly on Jesus.

He is the Bush of Popes

When it comes to homsexuals, that is. With regards to child rape, of course, it was "all cover-up, all the time" as a matter of written policy.

Salon visited the Theology department at Tuebingen University, where Ratzinger had been professor.

In a statement Tuesday, Tuebingen's most famous scholar, the controversial Swiss theologian Hans Kueng, called Ratzinger's election "an enormous disappointment for all those who hoped for a reformist and pastoral pope."

Kueng, who has lost his official license to teach Catholic theology but continues to teach anyway, was the one who urged the theology department to hire Ratzinger, who later criticized his writings.

He has said that at the time he perceived Ratzinger as more moderate than he was during his years in the Vatican. Several of Ratzinger's students at Regensburg have described him as open to other people's ideas and eager for wide-ranging discussion. That has inspired hope that Pope Benedict may be different from Cardinal Ratzinger.

"But we must wait and see, for experience shows that the papacy in the Catholic Church today is such a challenge that it can change anyone," Kueng wrote. "Let us therefore give him a chance: as with a president of the USA we should allow a pope 100 days to learn."

http://salon.com/news/wire/2005/04/20/pope/index.html

So, the eminent theologian who was "punished"--but not to the extent of losing his job--is understandably disappointed in the choice of Ratzinger. For all that, he's still willing to give him a chance.

Of course, you know better than Hans Kueng!

"Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."

And the record on Ratzinger is far too long to suspend judgment. We have our solid already.

But there is some hope, I suppose. Should Ratzinger reform the manner in which his previous 78 years have thus far been spent--stomping on women rights, sneering at gays, crushing the hopes of the poor for liberation, opposing the delivery of communion to those like John Kerry who try to respect the Jeffersonian Wall, and encouraging the reactionary self-flagellants in Opus Dei--then the planet and I shall be glad of it.

NT!

Papa Razi...!

I have to say, I found that amusing....

I honestly think he is there to just hold the line. I think he is too old and too ill to go too far afield, plus, I don't think he wants to get too risky--he knows what he is, a transitional figure.

He will keep the JP2 attitude going, work hard at encouraging participation in church and loosening the purses of Europe, and attempt to grow the church in the less developed nations. He will call on America to cough up their twenty percent, and maybe a bit more, in the name of JP2, and will try to turn the fiscal situation around. They've been running a deficit for three years or more, and they HAVE to stop the hemorrhaging, else they'll have to start seriously divesting.

I don't see him moving forward, or moving back. He'll just maintain the status quo, and try like hell to be a bit likeable, the better to confound his critics.

his job was a lot like being an assistant principal

so what does that mean in terms of Ratzinger? Nothing!

BTW, the Hitler Youth were not a German version of the Boy Scouts.

It's one thing to be disciplined. It's quite another to label a group of humans born differently as "evil".

His last job was akin to being the Grand Inquisitor.

at this link:

http://www.ewtn.com/pope/words/sistine.asp

But I'll give you some longer quotes as a start.

Pope Benedict spoke about ecumenism and ecumenical dialogue:


"Thus, in full awareness and at the beginning of his ministry in the Church of Rome that Peter bathed with his blood, the current Successor assumes as his primary commitment that of working tirelessly towards the reconstitution of the full and visible unity of all Christ's followers. This is his ambition, this is his compelling duty. He is aware that to do so, expressions of good feelings are not enough. Concrete gestures are required to penetrate souls and move consciences, encouraging everyone to that interior conversion which is the basis for all progress on the road of ecumenism.

"Theological dialogue is necessary. A profound examination of the historical reasons behind past choices is also indispensable. But even more urgent is that 'purification of memory,' which was so often evoked by John Paul II, and which alone can dispose souls to welcome the full truth of Christ. It is before Him, supreme Judge of all living things, that each of us must stand, in the awareness that one day we must explain to Him what we did and what we did not do for the great good that is the full and visible unity of all His disciples.

"The current Successor of Peter feels himself to be personally implicated in this question and is disposed to do all in his power to promote the fundamental cause of ecumenism. In the wake of his predecessors, he is fully determined to cultivate any initiative that may seem appropriate to promote contact and agreement with representatives from the various Churches and ecclesial communities. Indeed, on this occasion too, he sends them his most cordial greetings in Christ, the one Lord of all.


and here he speaks about dialogue to lead to a better world, addressing himself to everyone, not just Catholics or just Christians:

"With this awareness, I address myself to everyone, even to those who follow other religions or who are simply seeking an answer to the fundamental questions of life and have not yet found it. I address everyone with simplicity and affection, to assure them that the Church wants to continue to build an open and sincere dialogue with them, in a search for the true good of mankind and of society.

"From God I invoke unity and peace for the human family and declare the willingness of all Catholics to cooperate for true social development, one that respects the dignity of all human beings.

"I will make every effort and dedicate myself to pursuing the promising dialogue that my predecessors began with various civilizations, because it is mutual understanding that gives rise to conditions for a better future for everyone.

should not need so many words....

in your opinion?

Especially when speaking in either Latin or Italian. It signifies that you care about the content, that you work hard to make it a meaningful, potent discourse. On an unrelated note, SUNDANCE channel is showing a little foreign film this month, called BREAD AND TULIPS, where you see the full flower of the Italian language at its most formal in force. Great movie, BTW....

Yeah, it's a little heavy, a bit wordy, but it is a 'rispetto' thing. If you didn't care, you'd give em a "Hey youse guys, lissen up!"

I have to say, he does well in Italian. He has an accent (it is actually rather endearing), but he speaks very clearly and distinctly--his grammar is good, too, and he doesn't appear to have to reach for words. He's comfortable speaking it, and that is a plus for him.

That's not exactly reassuring language. It sounds like some of the things I've been reading which say that Ratzinger's goal is to bring all the other Christian churches back under Catholicism.

Here's another scary phrase:

"It is before Him, supreme Judge of all living things, that each of us must stand, in the awareness that one day we must explain to Him what we did and what we did not do for the great good that is the full and visible unity of all His disciples."

Sounds like he's warning Protestants that they're going to be condemned by God for not having promoted their own reabsorption into the Catholic Church. If I were a Protestant -- and I'm glad I'm not -- I'd be very wary about this man.

if they don't work for "the full and visible unity of all His disciples."

You are reading into it that he wants to reabsorb Protestants into the Roman Catholic Church.

He has been working on ecumenical efforts since Vatican II.

I'm not hopeful.

To say the least.
Does he mean to say that he did not operate in accordance with his conscience before?

...than for this right wing zealot to curb his taste for the hard line.

Ratzinger is a man as much at war with modernity as with every manifestation of liberalism, from women's rights to the hopes of Liberation Theology for the world's poor.

Democrats are right to turn in horror from him. What a creep!

and neither can we expect Ratzinger to be anything less than what he has been for his entire life. This man rose to prominence as the Polish Pope's health declined over the years. Ratzinger took advantage to position himself as the most "electable" candidate, even by making an unprecedented campaign speech on the eve of the conclave.

Ratzinger will always be Ratzinger!

I would like to see the Bush administration back pedal so quickly.

I hope they are a little more honest than our own leaders.

Even being able to celebrate another papal death relatively soon won't make up for the big FU they gave the European Chruch and any liberal Catholic churchmembers' with this selection.

JP2 had some good qualities that made up for his conservatism and he had a long and active papacy.

I doubt the outpouring will be repeated next time.

...only more talk. While such might generate some goodwill with other faiths, that's not a substantive retreat from a hard-line stance, particularly since Catholic hard-lining affects only Catholics.

....>>Catholic hard-lining affects only Catholics<<

Unfortunately, it is NOT the case. Even if you ignore the secondary effects of encouraging a neo-Medievalist voting bloc to join with the right wing nutjobs in industrialized countries, you cannot ignore the primary effects of encouraging the transmission of disease and population disasters in developing nations.

regretfully,
Bright

Is Catholicism suppressing condom use, say, among non-Catholics? That would be even more terrible.

...disease microorganisms hosted by Catholics do not discriminate based on religion when transmitted to non-Catholics.

And the problems of resource depletion resulting from overpopulation affect everyone, regardless of religious belief or non-belief.

There are a billion Catholics in the world, vast numbers of them (the majority, in fact,) in undeveloped and developing countries. In many of those countries they constitute either a clear majority or a substantial minority with considerable political clout. Figure it out.

The leadership of the world's largest single religious denomination affects everyone.

informatively,
Bright

what could be a first (realistic in the context of RKC) progressive move?

...spotlight the Church has always acclaimed as accompanying the process of selecting a new pope.

In the past, the public face of the church wouldn't have let on to these machinations. It's always been touted as if the skies parted and a radiant heavenly beam lit on "the one," signaling God's choice.

Chompin' on see-gars, and making deals --- sounds like the Rep caucus.

They're certainly human enough to retract the announcement of the Pope's death for 24 hours to ensure maxium live attendance and media exposure.

But beware--running as a moderate, winning, and making a hard right turn is standard procedure with conservatives.

:headbang:
rocknation

I don"t believe anything Ratzinger says.

See link Ratzinger and Neil Bush!

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wochar214226829apr21,0,2092802,print.story

where have i heard that one before...