The latest from Pope Benedict XVI:
"The various forms of the dissolution of matrimony today, like free unions, trial marriages and going up to pseudo-matrimonies by people of the same sex, are rather expressions of an anarchic freedom that wrongly passes for true freedom of man."
Well, you know, freedom IS on the march.
Please share widely!
sighs The RCC had such an opportunity to reach out when they selected their new Pope. They squandered it, and we’ll just be getting more of the same from them for the foreseeable future.And they will continue to hemorrhage followers. If they can’t keep up with the times, too bad for them. I’m saving my sympathy for people who deserve it.
Unfortunately reaching out to gays, woman priests, priests marrying, and other such issues are as far down on the food change of concerns, if they are there at all, for the Vatican. Fortunately The Church is very much concerned and very active in third world human rights issues, and issues facing the poor throughout the world. The Church’s main concerns are not the same as those of most Americans.
If they were so concerned about the third world, why did they elect Ratzinger? The lost opportunity I see is, in part, their failure to elect someone outside the Vatican political realm…say, a cardinal from Latin America. Now that would have been reaching out to the poor and the third world.Instead, they waste their breath defending the dogmatic history of opposing progress instead. Oh, and defending their new Pope from accusations that he was complicit in the cover-up of the sex abuse scandals.The Church screwed the pooch, and everyone knows it.
Lynne, Are you saaying the Church is nopt doing anythiong for the poor around the world?I don’t understand? How did they “screw the poor”?
I’m saying they had an opportunity that they missed. They screwed the pooch on their selection of an insider with questionable reputation as Pope. I didn’t say they screwed the poor, now did I? I said they missed their chance to really show they were ready to reach out to the latino or African Catholics. I’m saying that the election of Ratzinger is a slap in the face to the hard working cardinals in the third world, and a bigger slap in the face, mind you, to the victims of the sex abuse that he allegedly covered up. That memo he wrote would be grounds for charges of obstruction of justice.
It will be interesting to see whether Ratzinger is indeed a “caretaker” Pope, who (as everyone expected) follows pretty much the direction that JPII was on without really rocking the boat, or whether he wants to use whatever time he has (he’s 78 years old) to really leave his stamp on the church. So far, I’d say the jury is still out.The REALLY interesting thing will be to see who gets chosen once Ratzinger is gone. Ratzinger was the easy, obvious choice this time (I happened to be listening to the radio when the word came in that the choice had been made, and as soon as I heard that it took only 4 ballots I knew it was him before they announced his name), but as I understand it there’s no one similarly situated to succeed him.
Lynne, this is not an election for President of the Lowell City Council. Electing a Pope is not about reaching out like a neighborhood.I wonder if you have a real undestanding of what the Church does in the Third World and has been doing for years.Reaching out is not a candlelight vigil promoting diversity, yet it seems to me that that is what you want to see the POpe doing.
P.S. I admit my ignorance. What does that mean? “Screw the pooch”?
I think we have to remember that we’re all looking from our own perspective. For the RCC, there is only one set of rights and wrongs. Homosexuality is wrong. Period. Same with dissolutions of marriages. So when people scream, “Why did they pick such a Conservative? They should’ve picked someone more tolerant!” The fact is, they’re not a business. They would rather have five die-hard people who are definitely going to heaven (in their view) then the entire population of the world be Catholic and yet go to hell.As for picking a foreign Pope, again it’s not a selling item. Their goal is to pick a Pope who is knowledgeable about the inner workings of the system, and who will keep the course going in the direction they view is correct (which, unfortunately, is conservative). So they picked the person who was most familiar with the inner workings of the Church and its doctrine.
Russell: I agree with your first paragraph, but I think not with your second. First, although Ratzinger was obviously the ultimate insider, each of the cardinals who were serious contenders is plenty knowledgeable about the inner workings of the church. Second, although I agree that the church is unlikely to go with a radical break in doctrine any time in the foreseeable future, everyone knows that Catholicism is a growth industry in Latin America and Africa, but is waning here and in Europe. There’s no reason the church can’t have both the doctrinal conservative they want and the non-European face they will soon need (Cardinal Arinze of Nigeria is, I believe, just as conservative as Ratzinger if not moreso). To some extent, I believe that it is a “selling item,” as you put it. There’s a reason that the vast majority of Popes have been Italian over the course of history, and for that same reason I would wager that Ratzinger may be the last European Pope that anyone sees in a long time.