They still update salon.com?
Let's face it. ANY German who had been elected would be labeled "Nazi". Prejudice against Germans is Politically Correct.
Quisling wants a war...
Bring it on.
Instead, he has pushed the church away from social justice and peace concerns.
Say what???
Clean sweep. Every cliche warmed over and rehashed for your listening and dancing pleasure. Like a course in 1000 Different Ways To Use Nazi In Speech. B-XVI off to smashing start. Making exactly the right enemies.
I *heart* Panzerpope.
Since being a member of Hitler Youth was compulsory, that membership is irrelevant.
Greely does not speak for this woman. I do not hate the Church, and I always loved Pope John Paul II. I am not hung up on this notion that women must be made priests. That is just some stupid women thinking that they have a right to grab power. Personally, I would never want to see a woman in such a position. They cannot be trusted when it comes to being power crazy.
Greely doesn't speak for me either.
"let teh unholy war begin" - when did it stop. We've been fighting an unholy war since Christ. I have a prediction - Christ wins.
Victor's list is excellent!!
Isn't Francis Kissling too old to fight any kind of war?
Cheap shot from Kathleen who also loves JPII and BXVI.
He thinks that Catholic Christianity is the answer. All religious traditions may embody some truth, but somehow Catholics have got more of it.
Well, actually, that statement is neither false nor stupid, but quite perceptive...
Aw, we should let the libs have their little hissy fit. After all, what the election of Benedict XVI proves is that their project is completely dead; and not just during this pontificate, but during the next one, as well. That, to me, is the real significance of the selection of Ratzinger: What cardinals remain for the next conclave will be joined by those appointed during the reign of Benedict XVI. Is there any doubt that THAT conclave will choose someone as committed to the tradition of the Church as JPII and Benedict XVI? And he will likely have a long, distinguished reign. If you're Joanie Chittister or Dickie McBrien, it is over. C'est mort!
Of course we all know Fox is lying, but here is the real story on Ratzinger's criticism of yoga etc. It's a thoughtful criticism, and body-hatred is not a part of it at all:
"With the present diffusion of eastern methods of meditation in the Christian world and in ecclesial communities, we find ourselves faced with a pointed renewal of an attempt, which is not free from dangers and errors, 'to fuse Christian meditation with that which is non-Christian.' Proposals in this direction are numerous and radical to a greater or lesser extent. Some use eastern methods solely as a psycho-physical preparation for a truly Christian contemplation; others go further and, using different techniques, try to generate spiritual experiences similar to those described in the writings of certain Catholic mystics. Still others do not hesitate to place that absolute without image or concepts, which is proper to Buddhist theory, on the same level as the majesty of God revealed in Christ, which towers above finite reality. To this end, they make use of a 'negative theology,' which transcends every affirmation seeking to express what God is, and denies that the things of this world can offer traces of the infinity of God. Thus they propose abandoning not only meditation on the salvific works accomplished in history by the God of the Old and New Covenant, but also the very idea of the One and Triune God, who is Love, in favor of an immersion 'in the indeterminate abyss of the divinity.' These and similar proposals to harmonize Christian meditation with eastern techniques need to have their contents and methods ever subjected to a thorough-going examination so as to avoid the danger of falling into syncretism."
Hissy fit. I like that.
Mathew Fox is no longer a Catholic. I heard he was now an Episcopalian minister? If he crossed the Tiber going the other way, then he should keep quiet.
On Sister Joan: go visit the Blog: musings of an Expagan, Ha! Ha! Ha!
Sullivan: He even backs a pre-modern view of the conscience, which holds that you can only have a good conscience if you agree with him.
L: Sully, change the "h" in the last word to upper case and you got it right. Otherwise, stop thinking with your glands, you embarrass yourself.
For Fox, "Swam the Channel" is the proper phrase, I guess.
Why do they *always* sound the same?
hieronymus,
He meant it as a putdown. These guys seem to think that to actually believe that there is an eternal truth that one can know and then proclaim as such is some sort of PC anathema.
To steal a line from a movie, they seem more like No. 2 to me.
Well, here's one more woman, "devout Catholic to the core" who falls happily into that category which Greely has clearly never heard of.
I'm thrilled with the election of Benedict XVI, I thought John Paul II was probably the greatest human being whose lifespan intersected mine, and I tend to get quite angry when I hear people say he "hated women."
"I'm thrilled with the election of Benedict XVI, I thought John Paul II was probably the greatest human being whose lifespan intersected mine" -
-Karen in Canada
Me too (and I like your phrasing). The guy really walked the walk, didn't he?
Crap. Now I'm missing him again!
In John Paul II's papacy, was anyone besides Lefebvre excommunicated?
There was the guy in Inda.
Feminists: get this: you do NOT speak for all women! You certainly do not speak for me, or for any woman that I know, of any age. To imply that you do is appallingly dishonest.
p.s. Thank God for the Feminists for Life, with which I do happily identify.
p.s. Thank God for Pope Benedict XVI!
As a woman, who converted to Catholicism, I've actually found more for me than I had as a Southern Baptist. More places of leadership (as in religious communities) and a greater acceptance of the gift of celibacy.
And I am quite pleased with our new German Shepherd. (I mean that most respectfully.)
Well, Marty, they don't sound like the NEW Number 2. And as for what do they want.. they won't get it!
John refers to Fr. Balisuriya who denied basic doctrines but was allowed to sign a statement of belief and the excommunication was lifted.
More fodder for the Papal Papal Critique-O-Matic! Don't these pundits realize that technology has rendered them obsolete? Computers can repeat more memorized cliches per second than any human.
Matthew Fox needs to revisit Planet Earth more often. Msgr. Escriva was canonized more than two years ago. I know because Cacciaguida and two of our boys (both normally pigmented, so unfortunately not in the running to become assassin monks) were there, and saw the whole thing.
The election of Benedict, I hope, marks the closing parenthesis for the past 40 years of decay.
Salon and those who agree with it are a living museum: "What Went Wrong, 1965-2005. Here the Destroyers Speak Their Minds! See the Fallacies and Lies They Used to Spread! But hurry: displays and side shows soon to vanish."
I wonder if they offer group discounts to visit, for all the young people of the future who will never have been catechized in the way we unforunately were since the early 1970's.
I wear with pride being called by Fox "a fanboy of the German Mafia" in a Salon discussion a year or so ago.
Here's another Catholic woman who disagrees with that self-involved whiner, ANdrew Greeley. I loved and respected JPII and am beginning to know and love BXVI. As I said in another post, he himself loves Mozart and cats! What more can you say -- the man is eminently civilized, infinitely more so than those who trash him. Viva il Papa!
Actually, Salon was just getting warmed up when Victor took his measure.
There seems to be a lot more where that came from. My personal favorite du jour:
Holy warriors
Cardinal Ratzinger handed Bush the presidency by tipping the Catholic vote. Can American democracy survive their shared medieval vision?
by Sidney Blumenthal
On the other hand, check out John Allen over at NatCath: "Not a transitional Pope."
Not to be missed.
He loves cats? He's perfect!
Fr. Greeley does not speak for this Catholic woman.
My new spokes*person* is Sr. Gertrude OSB from Ave Maria University. You've no doubt seen her in the celebratory picture taken when B16's election was announced. I love her!
She is the new poster child for the "No! WE are Church!" movement.
I too have a great and new love for this new Pope of ours B-16 - sounds like a vitamin - he must be good for you (and me).
German Shepard he is - former watchdog for PJII apparently. Don't laugh, its true, I read it in the newspaper.
These comments must drive the opponents bonkers eh?
Peace
I was reading an article by Mark Steyn this morning. In the course of complaining about the spinelessness of Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Amen to that! 
), he had this comment about B-16's election:
"I'll bet Pope Benedict XVI is glad that his conclave doesn't include either Cardinal Biden or Cardinal Voinovich, or his church would be pontiff-less indefinitely while they 'investigated' last-minute rumors that he'd been off-hand to some guy in seminary 55 years ago. I had no strong views about the new pope one way or another, but I'd have voted for him just for the pleasure of seeing him drive the U.S. media bananas. Apparently, the New York Times was stunned that their short list of Cardinal Gloria Steinem, Cardinal Rupert Everett and Cardinal Rosie O'Donnell were defeated at the last moment by some guy who came out of left field and isn't even gay or female but instead belongs to the discredited 'Catholic' faction of the Catholic Church.
"Unlike the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the conclave of cardinals takes its job seriously. They understand the demands of the New York Times: women priests, gay sex, condoms for all. But, as befits an ancient institution, they take the long view: They think that radical secularism is weak and that the consequences of its weakness will prove dangerous and possibly fatal for the Western world. Therefore, there's no point accommodating it -- and, after all, those churches that do (the Episcopalians, for example) are already in steep decline. You can disagree with this, particularly if you're as shrill and parochial as Pope Benedict's American critics. But the conclave at least addressed the big issues."
Double Amen, brother Steyn!
Mark Steyn is shockingly insightful with near super-human consistency.
Greeley:
gay and lesbian Catholics will find it difficult to forgive him for his comment that they are 'objectively' disordered.
Um, in point of fact that was not and is not a "comment" and it did not come only from Cardinal Ratzinger.
That language appears in the Congregtion for the Doctrine of the Faith's 1986 letter to the U.S. Bishops on the pastoral care of people living with same sex attraction.
It refers to same sex attraction itself not to people who live, as I do, with some degree of it. If someone wishes to identify so closely with SSA that they take any comment about it as a comment about them that is there business but it is not what the Catholic Church has said.
I wonder if it's worth mentioning I never loved cats until I had mice.
Cats--the best mousetrap ever created.
Came across 2 letters from the Letters page of the 4/24/05 issue of the New York Post, which bear futher reflection:
http://tinyurl.com/9d6e6
http://nypost.com/seven/04242005...tters/
45106.htm
[note: issues are freely available online for only 7 days; when the page is no longer available, at least the posted URLs make for reference]
One New York reader wrote:
"Pope Benedict XVI was "forced to enlist" in the Hitler Youth, but remained there because it afforded him reduced seminary tuition. He quit when he was out of the seminary and no longer needed its monetary assistance.
In the United States, one couldn't get a job as dog catcher with this resume. Enough said."
And another, from New Jersey, wrote:
"The new pope is the leader of people of faith. But, it should be noted that faith is the belief in the truth of something without evidence or contrary to known evidence.
Those people who rely on facts and evidence in forming their beliefs reject faith in favor of reason.
Pope John Paul II's embrace of poverty and environmentalist causes was in direct contrast to any rational defense of capitalism that has been presented.
The current pope will likely continue that tradition and further highlight the differing implications of faith and reason for the free-enterprise system."
So, how would one reply to the points raised by these readers?
Pray for them???
Works for me, Karen.
I'm disappointed in the response to far; y'know, in the Gospels,every time someone posed a question to Jesus, he always had an answer, always had a reply--*even when* it was a trick. Those 2 Post readers raised some good points, but all you can do is dismiss them--a far cry from how Jesus did things.
Anyone here recall last Sunday's readings? We're supposed to know how to give a reply.
If you don't rebut an argument, you *concede*...
And I thought I had heard it all...I was wrong. Faith is our hidden strength in life from the cat calls, and untruths of this ugly time. There is power in knowing that when those who distroy with their lies, will find that there will come a time when the truth will win out, and reign supreme.
Oh, I forgot to say, WHAT A BUNCH OF WHINERS!!! It won't matter what this Pope does, they will find a reason to pick him apart. Thank God our new Pope doesn't listen to these pin heads.
I'll take a stab at those two letters to the Post, I speak under correction, but both of the letters are starting from false premises. In that case, it's not the reasoning that needs to be addressed. In the first case, I had read in news stories after the election that Ratzinger left the Hitler youth in order to join the seminary, not because he'd left. In either case, what specifically about his resume would make it impossible for him to be elected dog catcher? Being drafted into the Hitler Youth? Being drafted into the Army? By those standards, a hefty number of Germans would be irrevocably tainted, regardless of what they themselves thought about the matter at the time. Maybe there really is some Germanophobia involved after all.
And in the second case, the writer has used a false definition of faith (and of capitalism, for that matter). He draws a false dichotomy between faith and reason-- has he ever heard of Thomas Aquinas? Augustine? Theology in general? Again, anyone can make a logical argument based on false premises (All men have antlers/Socrates is a man/Socrates has antlers), so in cases like this it's the premises that need to be corrected; trying to reason with this type of thing (especially since this author's 'argument' seems to be all over the map) wouldn't be of much help.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
