I am not Catholic, but I do care about what the Catholic Church says or does b/c it has the potential to be a source of great good - and at times it often has been. More importantly it is important b/c of its following. They have tremendous influence.
Say what you will about John Paul II - I had many disagreements with him and he was quite rigid. But he genuinely wanted to expand the fold and bring people together. I strongly applauded his efforts at promoting peace and understanding among different religions. He didn't involve himself in secular politics. He did genuinely try to bring people together.
Note what one Catholic priest says:
``He could be a wedge rather than a unifier for the church,'' said the Rev. Thomas Reese, editor of the Jesuit weekly magazine America. From the same article:
This was clear in St. Peter's Square moments after the announcement of Ratzinger's election and the name chosen by the first Germanic pope in 1,000 years: Benedict XVI. Amid the applause were groans and pockets of stunned silence.
``It's Ratzinger,'' French pilgrim Silvie Genthial, 52, barked into her cellular phone before hanging up.
``We were all hoping for a different pope - a Latin American perhaps - but not an ultraconservative like this,'' she said. Link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4949251,00.htmlRatzinger - or as we should probably now call him - Benedict XVI, has indicated he wants a smaller, purer church. JP II did not like dissent but Benedict XVI one-ups him. Rather than try to convince others, he simply wants them to agree with him and if they don't, they can leave.
Moreover, he doesn't show any passion in inter-religious dialogue. At least Cardinal Arinze, as conservative as he is on social issues, was very liberal on interfaith issues. Arinze had written that people of other faiths could go to heaven, which is something that many Catholic theologians have said in the past and something that many documents coming out of Vatican II agreed with. John Paul II never explicitly said anything like that, but he never condemned other religions.
(Link for info on Cardinal Arinze:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,12272,1055080,00.html)
Benedict on the other hand is very hardline. He believes not only that non-Christians cannot attain salvation, but that non-Catholics cannot either. He has called Buddhists "indulgent" and loudly proclaimed Catholic exclusivity.
From the same AP article:
In recent years, he took on issues outside church doctrine. He once called Buddhism a religion for the self-indulgent. In an interview with the French magazine Le Figaro last year, he suggested Turkey's bid to join the Europe Union conflicted with Europe's Christian roots - a view that could unsettle Vatican attempts to improve relations with Muslims.
``Turkey has always represented a different continent, in permanent contrast to Europe,'' he was quoted as saying.
In a book released last week, ``Values in a Time of Upheavals,'' Ratzinger also called demands for European ``multiculturalism'' as a ``fleeing from what is one's own.''
``If he continues as pope the way he was as a cardinal, I think we will see a polarized church,'' said David Gibson, a former Vatican Radio journalist and author of a book on trends in the church. ``He has said himself that he wanted a smaller, but purer, church.'' Do you remember the footage of John Paul II blessing a couple break-dancers? It's hard to imagine Benedict XVI being open to even something as innocuous as that, especially when he has gone so far as denounce rock music.
Benedict XVI is also FAR more willing to get involved in secular politics than John Paul II and he values doctrine even more than John Paul II, who despite his interest in hardline doctrine was very concerned with freedom, poverty, corporatism, and war and peace. I don't think it has been said on DU very much, but many analysts have credited John Paul with getting many of the countries on the UN security council to go against the Iraq War. He lobbied very strenuously against it and his associates said he was more animated and more alert than at any time in years.
Benedict, on the other hand, has shown he is willing to get involved in secular politics and has never indicated such an interest on issues like war, poverty, etc. He is above all concerned with doctrine and absolute truths.
I truly hope he is merely a placeholder and does not act as an activist hardliner.
I'm willing to give Benedict XVI the chance. Maybe he'll surprise us. But I think the Catholic Church just took a massive step backward. Moreover, I cannot see the logic of a "placeholder" pope in this day and age. John Paul's long infirmiry crippled the Vatican for so long, you would think they would want someone energetic and more in tune with the times. And after his long papacy, one would think they'd be interested in someone who could reenergize and provide new focus to the Church. Someone who could connect with people like John Paul II did. You would think they would value charisma, warmth, compassion. Ratzinger/Benedict does not have any of that.
Note what this Guardian op-ed piece says:
John Paul II was loved and admired by Catholics who disagreed with him profoundly. That is not the reputation that Ratzinger had as a cardinal. Those Catholics who disagreed with him - and they number in millions - saw nothing especially admirable or lovable about his personality. A recent poll among German Catholics suggested that even there opponents of his papacy outnumbered supporters by a clear margin. Now he is the Pope there will be some transfer of loyalty, but the underlying tensions must remain.
<snip>
On all those subjects, the church's official teaching is wildly out of line with the local culture's understanding of human nature. Pope John Paul II, by his evident theatrical humanity, was able to bridge this gap, even though he believed in all the things his various flocks rejected. Benedict XVI, no less an intellectual, is more closely identified with struggles within the church; and with the suppression of dissent by force when argument fails.
<snip>
Pope John Paul II saw that a large part of his task was to stiffen the sinews of the church and make it stronger. But he came from a country where the church had grown strong in the face of persecution, and where there was never any shortage of candidates for the priesthood. Benedict XVI - Ratzinger - comes from a country where the church has grown weak in the face of a tolerant secularism, congregations are falling and there are fewer vocations to the priesthood every year. Link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,12272,1463791,00.htmlI also worry that his will not be a "placeholder" pope. I do not wish death on anyone, but if the intention is for him to just stick around for a few years to buy them more time to think about a long-term direction, then I'm skeptical that will happen. He could last only a few years. But he could conceivably last a decade. He appears far healthier than John Paul II had appeared for the last 10 years. And with modern medicine it is not inconceivable that he will last a long time.
I sincerely wish him the best, hoping he surprises us all or will at least maintain the status quo rather than pushing a hardline activist approach.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
