Has anyone considered that all this anti-Benedict hysteria of the liberals might actually backfire? Even Catholics who are not devout may not take kindly to their new Pope being smeared as a Nazi and denounced as a "rottweiler" for nothing more than upholding the historic tenets of the faith. I wouldn't be surprised at an increase in church attendance and a renewed interest in Catholic orthodoxy resulting from all this.
In France, so-called humorists have represented the pope as hitler; the bishop help by jew officials have protested ....
I think these foolish guys go so far that they will be the victims of their own attack.
Well, you know how wayward our Catholic brothers and sisters at the National Catholic Reporter can be. What's the harm? It's all in the Catholic family in the end. More amusing is the fact the the British "Sun" and "London Times" have been the worst anti-German Pope bashers. Both newspapers are owned by none other than Rupert Murdoch, also owner of Fox TV. Is it possible that the born again non-Catholic right is hedging its bets just in case old Papa Ratzi insists on a purer high-octane form of Catholicism that leaves Evangelical's high and dry? These are certainly be interesting times full of fascinating contradictions.
The born again non-Catholic right ranges from the more ecumenically minded all the way to the most lumpen of Know-Nothing anti-Catholic fundamentalists.
As for NCR being all in the family, well . . . let's just say that our parish priest call it the National Catholic Distorter, and try not to roll their eyes when again mentions it in their presence.
"priests," not "priest." (I'm typing onehanded because I've got my month-old daughter sucking on the pinkie of my other hand . . . .)
Okay. That's very funny. Nevertheless, regardless of how recusant our NCR bretheren may be they are still family no?
Actually, as much as the conventional wisdom has NCR liberals alternately foaming at the mouth or quaking at the the thought of Pope Benedict, our German shepard's absolutist teachings will probably also require conservative Catholics to reevaluate the strategic, doctrinally neutral alliance with Christian Evangelicals.
I'm starting to see a different spin from liberals, beginning with an article that appeared in the Religion section of our local rag, The Winston-Salem Journal. There, a liberal Catholic commentator observed that Pope Benedict is a very "sophisticated" theologian. And, of course, as we all know (he implied), conservatives are obtuse blockheads whose minds are incapable of subtlety or nuance. So, the commentator went on, seeing that this pope really [i]is[/i] such a brilliant, intellectual kinda guy, he shouldn't be typecast as a hardliner (read: dunce); he's more nuanced and "complex" than that blah-blah; so we may find that he's actually open to "dialogue" on key theological issues that haven't been definitively resolved yet, such as "sex and gender issues," contraception, and women priests. (Silly me, I thought the issues of contraception and women priests [i]had[/i] been definitively resolved, but what do I know? I don't teach at Loyola like this commentator, so I guess I'm not qualified to say what's definitively determined in my Church and what isn't. :p)
Anyway, after I read this article--with its "he's more sophisticated than you think; he could be open to the liberal agenda after all" coda--I started running across similar arguments on the Internet. The underlying assumption seems to be that anyone with a sophisticated mind must ipso facto be liberal, despite appearances to the contrary--because conservatives by definition do not have sophisticated minds. Or something like that.
Anyway, this is another variation on the liberal reaction to Pope Benedict. I thought it was interesting. Of course, I think these self-deluded liberals who assume "theological sophistication" must perforce mean "support for women priests" are going to be sorely disappointed. But I thought it was interesting that they at least acknowledge that the pope is a lot smarter than they are! :D
Blessings,
Diane
One reason they misunderstand Benedict XVI and the Church is because they see things through the prism of politics, especially Western and American politics, and don't understand that in Catholicism the categories that matter are faithful and unfaithful, orthodox and heretical, not conservative and liberal.
Jared, so when you keep bitching about "liberalism", and Blosser dumps on John Kerry in his blog, there is no political motivation whatsoever? What a bunch of pharisees ... *LOL*
No, none whatsoever, except in the sense that I hope to advance the cause of Christ's Church, so that eventually all governments and nations may swear fealty to the Vicar of Christ. But as I've made clear, I object to liberalism because it is a proscribed heresy. I couldn't care less what conservatives and Republicans think, and I don't disagree with you that your friends John Kerry and his ilk do remind one of the Pharisees.
I could only read so much of this post. To call him those names is profoundly offensive and ignorant.
May God bless Benedict XVI! May his reign be long and successful!
Isn't it fascinating how all these self-appointed Catholic crusaders use the first person "I" like an excess of arrows whizzing by while spitting out imagined put-downs. I can just see these Internet crusaders hunting down poor John Kerry and other heretics all the while exclaiming "take that you liberal and that you heretic!" It is like something out of Michael Palin's Life of Brian or better still Rowan Atkinson's Black Adder.
yes Anon, it is interesting and somewhat ludicrous ... especially given what we know of the new Pope's progressive past.
In 1968 Ratzinger wrote,“Above the pope as an expression of the binding claim of church authority stands one’s own conscience, which has to be obeyed first of all, if need be, against the demands of church authority.”
Hans Kung claims that like Kung himself Ratzinger was summoned to meet Pope Paul VI, was criticised for his progressive views, and aws was invited to serve the papacy. Whereas Kung refused to compromise his principles, Ratzinger accepted and despite his total lack of pastoral experience was rewarded with a meteoric rise within the Church ranks, becoming Archbishop of Munich in 1977.
We know the rest of the sorry tale : Ratzinger set about purging the Church of its dissenting voices, the results of which can be seen today in the fundamentalists who post their unholy bile in forums like this one.
Here is is an extract from a good article explaining why progressive Catholics have problems with the new orthodoxy:
The conservative defence of Ratzinger is that he brought greater clarity to Catholicism. Many orthodox Catholic theologians quarrel with this assertion. Catholic doctrine, they point out, allows for “development”, whereby a deeper understanding of an issue can lead to new perspectives and therefore change. An example of this was explained (...) several years ago by the other favoured candidate in the conclave, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, then Archbishop of Milan. Speaking of the doctrine on contraception, he suggested there could be change: “I don’t know what the development will be as regards contraception. But I believe the church’s teaching has not been expressed so well.”
He pointed out that the doctrine banning usury had changed in the past. “Usury was an almost insurmountable impediment in the 14th century,” he said, “but little by little we began to see the problem in a different light.”
With John Paul II, Ratzinger developed a rigid version of “magisterium”, a Catholic teaching whereby declarations by the pope on matters of dispute require from all Catholics “submission of will and intellect”. Truth as defined by the pope, Ratzinger insisted, is the final arbiter. Catholic critics say that far from bringing clarity to teaching, John Paul II and Ratzinger created an unwarranted inflexibility. They even attempted to create new doctrine.
In 1995, Ratzinger forbade discussion of the possibility of female ordination since the issue had already been “set forth infallibly” by the Pope. Nicholas Lash, a world-class Catholic professor of theology, described this as a “quite scandalous abuse of power”.
Lash argued that, according to Vatican II, the formation of orthodox Catholic doctrine requires long-established beliefs, consultation with all the world’s bishops and an “echo” of agreement from the faithful. Yet there could hardly be universal consensus on the ordination of women since the question had been asked only recently. The Pope and Ratzinger, in other words, were themselves propounding unorthodox doctrine.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
new...82117_3,00.html
Diane,
What you've observed is a sophisticated, highly nuanced policy practiced by liberals of all varieties: sucking up to power.
I know it must be hard to let go but people need to find peace and let go of the word "liberal" as the perjorative du jour. Yes, Karl Rove and co have trained us all well to react with hound-like Pavlovian instinct to the command of "liberal" as shorthand for a floating free association feast of all manner of ills and maladies. Unfortunately for some, the world is about to get a tad more complicated. Pope Benedict XVI will privilege reason as opposed to emotion as the Catholic path towards spiritual enlightenment and understanding. Which path will we choose I wonder? The way of Pope Benedict or pope Rove? Clearly not all paths lead to Rome, running over liberals along the way notwithstanding.
Well said Anon. ...
... it is all too easy to characterise "liberal" Catholics (and liberals in general) as being slanderous sinners who could not wait for a chance to dredge up the Pope's past.
In fact, all reasonable secular and progressive Catholic commentators have recognised that Ratzinger was never a Nazi, and that in fact he came from a family who actively resisted Hitler.
But of course it is much easier for Blosser and those of his ilk to choose a few sensational headlines from filthy (and thoroughly illiberal) rags like "The Sun" and use them as a stick to beat so-called "liberals" with.
The Catholic Church's opposition to Liberalism long antedates Karl Rove and the Republicans.
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Peri...00/
assault.html
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/...nt/
libissin.htm
As for the above 1968 quote from Cardinal Ratzinger, I would be interested if someone could provide context and a source citation for it. I also note that what he is reported to have said in 1968 is, as far as it goes, in agreement with orthodox Catholic doctrine. However, the remainder of what the Church believes about conscience is frequently omitted by liberals. It's always worthwhile to refresh one's memory on what the Church teaches about conscience, especially since much disinformation have been promulgated on that subject since the late 1960s:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ca...sm/
p3s1c1a6.htm
Hmm, it seems that "Anonymous" agrees with himself/herself. . . .
"Yet there could hardly be universal consensus on the ordination of women since the question had been asked only recently. The Pope and Ratzinger, in other words, were themselves propounding unorthodox doctrine."
By that "logic," there was no consensus that Jesus is God prior to the time of Arius, because no Catholic seriously questioned the Church's faith on that point until Arius came along. That's really a pretty perverse, Orwellian, way of thinking, to classify as heretical those who say that what the Church has always believed must always be believed, whereas those who say we should believe something new, something we've never believed since the time of Jesus, are the orthodox ones.
No, I'm not agreeing with myself. There is, thankfully, another anonymous out there who has come to my aid. Imagine just two of "us" against all of "you" in the Orthodox blogosphere. It's a real verbal swash buckler! Will we escape or get caught and put on your crusader torture rack condemned to hear the word liberal over and over again?
Just joking, Anonymous.
Now, are you Anonymous #1 or Anonymous #2? 
Liberalliberalliberalliberalliberalliberalliberall
iberal!!!!!!
ok, time to fess up, i was that (2nd) Anonymous man (forget to put me name in, even progressives are not perfect ... )
Jordanes, the Ratzinger quote re. conscience can be found in the Sunday Times link in the subsequent post. Dont know when he said it, in which context etc. But we can assume it was before the '68 student uprisings which turned him into a martinet.
Lovehandles, you and I both know of a another occasion when you very recently used anonymity -- don't we.
Ahh from rage to humor all in the space of a few days. You see dear crusading Orthodoxi you are capable of growth. Hey Lovehandles/Anonymous I'm impressed by how well you can hold two opposing views nearly at the same time. I guess you have now become the accidental relativist.
Brooke, I think the wish amongst some that women be ordained priests reflects a cultural rather than dogmatic/scripturally based evolution.
To accept the idea that Jesus might not be God, on the other hand, would require a huge root and branch re-examination of the faith.
Therefore your Arius analogy fails to hold water.
Anonymous, what "opposing views" are you talking about? *S*
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
new...RTICLE_ID=43966
"Brooke, I think the wish amongst some that women be ordained priests reflects a cultural rather than dogmatic/scripturally based evolution."
I don't disagree. There's obviously nothing in scripture or dogma that could support the ordination of women.
"To accept the idea that Jesus might not be God, on the other hand, would require a huge root and branch re-examination of the faith. Therefore your Arius analogy fails to hold water."
I disagree. In either the case of women's ordination or the case of Arius' denial Jesus' divinity, you have the rejection of what the Church has always said is absolutely true and nonnegotiable. So the Arius analogy is a perfect fit.
http://www.americanprowler.com/d...asp?
art_id=8083
Brooke, my point was that women have not traditionally been allowed to be ordained as priests because of the lower place given to women in cultures across the world. But as you know the times they are a changin'.
Women dont identify themselves with Adam's rib anymore, and are seen as equal to men in every sphere apart from certain organised religions.
nb. Is there anything in scripture which forbids the ordination of women?
Is there anything in scripture that allows you to act in a way that damages and endangers the reputations and livelihoods of others because you disagree with their faith?
Is there anything in scripture which allows you to accuse another person of being a paedophile?
Why do you ask? Are you thinking of accusing someone of being a pedophile?
You called me a paedophile, remember? btw I hope you are on your lunchbreak? *L*
nb. dear Jared, do you think for the sake of others you might confine our disagreement to the original thread? I was attempting to engage in an adult conversation with Brooke about the role of women in the Church, and I am sure that others, including the good doctor Blosser, are getting as bored as I am with your behaviour.
Not only am I on my lunchbreak, but I have most of this day off and won't have to go in to work for another hour or so.
But if you'd like me to stop reminding everyone here of what you did, you can post a formal apology, and I will post a formal acceptance of your apology.
Well, as by my reckoning as it was you who cast the first stone, you should be doing the first apologising *S*
That's okay, "lovehandles," I didn't really expect you to do the right thing.
... and I suspected you wouldnt be man enough either.
Lovehandles, personally I find your conduct, especially the behavior towards Jared that led to Dr. Blosser (temporarily?) banning you, to be most reprehensible, so I'm really not interested in any conversation with you about the role of women in the Church. You should just get it over with an apologize. Then we can have that conversation.
That's alright, Brooke -- I don't need an apology. I'm quite done with "lovehandles."
Brooke, it is no surprise to me that you take the side of this unrepentant sinner. Blood is thicker than water, right?
I am not particularly proud of what I did, but neither will I apologise to him until he recognises that he did wrong by calling me a paedophile.
Jimmy Akin takes apart the liberal media's smear of Pope Benedict XVI and his alleged attempt to obstruct justice by reminding the bishops that internal church investigations of sex abuse allegations must be carried out in secret:
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/
04...serve_this.html
Commenting by HaloScan
