Debates on the New Pope
 

On request from the other thread, I thought I'd move all potentially controversial material here so those who just want to celebrate can do it in the other thread without interruption.

Here's my post from that thread:
Assuming the new pope stays true to his conservative roots, I worry about the route the church is taking. By selecting a conservative pope, the church is essentially sweeping a number of problems (condom use in Africa, the priest shortage, European Catholics becoming less and less religious, etc.) under the rug instead of addressing them. I think we're at the place where the church needs to work with its members (especially European ones) instead of against them, and a conservative pope will be less likely to do that. And in terms of relations with the rest of the world, popes in the near future will probably need to reach out to Muslim leaders the way John Paul II reached out to Jewish leaders.

Hopefully this new pope chose his name for a reason, and he does plan on working towards unification.



Feel free to discuss this, the Hitler Youth ;), or anything else you think might be controversial about the new pope, the direction of the church, or Catholicism in general.

Are you Catholic?

-Rudey

I'm not religious, but many of my family members (including my mom) are Catholic, and therefore it's something I'm supposed to have an opinion on for dinner table discussions. ;)


But as we concluded in a previous thread about Catholicism, the pope has more influence over the world than the leaders of most countries, so the political opinions he holds affect more than just Catholics.

Well things you mention like "European Catholics becoming less and less religious" is something really about the religion and not the world. I would assume it would be Catholics that cared and wanted to provide direction to their own faith.

That is different from the Pope trying to break down the USSR which influenced non-Catholics.

-Rudey

Re: Debates on the New Pope
 

I think it's important not to fall into the media created mental trap of the term "conservative" - conservative or liberal means many different things politically or theologically, outside of the NA media definition of conservative or liberal...

Further it is important to remember that all of the Cardinals are to some extent conservative - they represent, promote and defend teachings that are on the whole "conservative" (or maybe better: traditionalist).

Pope Benedict XVI has in his late career as Cardinal, became a strong proponent of some of the "core" teachings of the Church - teachings that are controversial or "problematic" for segments of the faithful... such as Brith Control. A "conservative" theologian will take the defense of life (or as JP2 termed it the "culture of life") to the philosophical and theological extension throughout society - ie. all life comes from God, and ending or preventing a life is interfering with God's design - this extension precludes the use of "artifical" birth control....

As for Benedict's membership in the Hitler Youth or the German Army... it was mandatory membership and service - service that he deserted when he got the chance... so I don't see why it is an issue.

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/04/041905newPope.htm

Much of the press on Ratzinger leading up to this itimated that he is some kind of nut.

The man that I saw today seemed like a man who is at peace with himself, and with his world. I probably disagree with him on a most issues, but he strikes me as a good man.

http://www.francesco.biz/papa.jpg

Someone emailed me this, I think it's going to far, but good for a laugh while feverishly writing term papers.

Okay, this is kind of related -- so there are some who think the Catholic church should become more, I don't know, progressive and change with the times. There are others who disagree.

Keeping in mind that I'm not Catholic, can someone explain to me why the church should be expected to change? I mean, if you're Catholic, shouldn't you behave according to the rules as they exist now? If you don't agree with much of what the church as a whole has to say on various issues, would you be better served to find a different religion with which you actually agree?

I'm not trying to be a smartass but I want to understand this.

I won't give my opinion based on one issue. It might be a major issue for some, but not for me. When it comes to Popes, I think JPII was a good man, and a great Pope. Sure, he had some positions, e.g., birth control that I didn't agree with him or the church on, but who agrees with anyone on everything 100% of the time?

From what I've seen and heard, Benedict XVI will be an asset to the church.

I had this same conversation with my friend, who is Catholic. She felt the same way. She didn't feel the church should have to change, and if you don't agree with it, don't believe in it. I also agree, but it would be interesting to hear what others have to say.

I think its that the world has changed tremendously, yet the Church has not. And in order to remain relevant and solvant, some (including my family) feel that the Church should reach out to its more modern members and embrace them. Rather than, for example, as stated in previous posts, ordering Catholic ministries to stop helping homosexuals.

There is the church and there is a political structure that comes with the Vatican; the latter should change with the times...

-Rudey

While I agree that the world has greatly changed, even since the time of Vatican II, from my understanding, most of the fundamental doctrines of the church that people have issues with are taken straight from the bible (no women preists, pro-life stance, etc). Those things will probably not change, not matter how much people would like them to.

Other things may be more open to change, such as the marriage of preists. Either way, change is going to take a long, long time.

But I'm not Catholic, so really, what I think doesn't matter.

But we've seen, even here on GC, that the Bible can be twisted and perverted to support pretty much any point.

If the church wants to stay relevant and keep young people active and practicing (and, cough cough, donating money), it needs to adapt. Many young men and women in America are raised Catholic, probably went to Sunday school and all that, but when they reach adulthood do not remain practicing Catholics. Taking such a hardline against certain issues, and not even debating them or considering them or taking baby steps is not helping.

A lot of people that I know that may have been raised Catholic have converted to some other form of Christianity, because those churchs are offering them something the Catholic church is not. Be it their stance on hot button issues, or even a more modern approach to religious services, outreach, and activities.

I think it will be interesting to see what happens over the course of our lifetime within the Catholic church

Just b/c you're not Catholic does not mean your opinion doesn't matter. I agree with whomever said that you can't agree with everyone 100% of the time but if the overall tenents of your faith are strong, then what the new pope decides shouldn't really scare anyone off.

Also, since when is being conservative considered a bad thing? I can be pretty conservative on some issues but I never thought it to be a bad thing. Then again, I'm not responsible for 1.2 billion people in the world.
As a Catholic, I have put my faith in God that Pope Benedict will do what he feels is the right thing whether I agree or not.

I agree. There is a huge age gap at my parish and we struggle to get new members that in the young adult range. And I'm at a Newman Center - something meant for young adults. We are also poor... as are many other churches. It's one of the big issues the church faces.

I'm guessing I'm annomaly. I'm a "non-traditionalist" young adult that continued with her Catholic education and sacraments, rather than turning away from it. There were other parts of Catholism that I did enjoy (the traditions of the masses, the family like setting, the people I've met)... but just because I don't follow the ideologies of the Church doesn't make me less of a Catholic. At least I hope I'm not viewed that way.

Other issues facing the church: the sex scandals. Boy, is this a mess.

Yes, the bible can be taken out of context and twisted to support (or deny) almost any standpoint. From my understanding, the Catholic church takes the stance the bible is divinely inspired and therefore free from error. Likewise, any doctrine derived from or interpretation of the bible is also divinely inspired and free from error (Catholics, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

I agree with Valkyrie, I don't think the church should be expected to change completely to suit the wants of everyone. I think there are steps it can take to make the church more appealing and relevant to today without changing its base doctrine, but it shouldn't have to completely reinvent itself (Buddy Christ, anyone?)

I know, it was more of a sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek comment to those who would argue that point. :)

Is this mostly an American Parish issue/problem? From everything I've been reading, it seems it was more common here than elsewhere. Just curious.

i've heard people say that it's an even bigger problem outside of the US, only it doesn't get talked about as much or made as public

1% of priests

I read an article that mentioned that it was also a problem in a handful of European countries, but I can't remember where this article was -- I'll look around.

I completely agree. When I was a member of a church with whose theology I no longer agreed, I left.

According to the BBC, there are 1.086 billion baptized Catholics worldwide. That 1% would translated into 1,086,000 abused children. Of course, you have to take into consideration that many Catholics who later join other churches would still be counted as "baptized Catholics".

Now the weird part (for our family, anyhow): the phone has been ringing all night, because the new pope looks exactly like my late grandfather, and is from the same area that my grandfather's family was from!

Well yes the Bible is divinely inspired and should be free from error - but it has been transcribed and passed down to us by man, and man is not infallible (see the so-called agnostic books); and finally and most importantly it is the interpretation of the bible by man that is the most open to error (hence a earlier relucance to make the Bible available to the un-educated masses).

As for changes to the Church - the Church is 2000 years old, and changing or altering traditions/teachings with a "historical weight" of hundreds or thousands of years isn't to undertaken lightly or rapidily (well rapid for an org. of the Church's age).

I think he resembles my paternal Grandma (it's the deep-set, baggy eyes) but I have no idea where in Germany her family orginated.

I agree completely. It's not something that can be done quickly or without much thought. As someone on another message board said, although she hates the Catholic church's stance on homosexuality, if they were to suddenly change and say "just kidding, it's really okay!" she would lose all respect for them for turning on their beliefs so quickly.

Well the debate over homosexuality has been around philosphically and theologically since the founding of the Church - with opinions and teachings being as varied as they are today... the current debate is pretty much the same, over whether the "condition" of homosexuality is a sin, or whether it is homosexual conduct that is sinful... and then how sinful...

In this case 'Liberal' means a condemnation of homosexual acts as sinful - whereas the 'Conservatives' are inclined to view a homosexual person as sinful no matter their actions.

Re: Re: Debates on the New Pope
 

Quote:

As for Benedict's membership in the Hitler Youth or the German Army... it was mandatory membership and service - service that he deserted when he got the chance... so I don't see why it is an issue.

The Hitler Youth was completely voluntary.

Re: Re: Re: Debates on the New Pope
 

I'm sorry but how can compulsory membership and service be voluntary?

I am a Catholic who doesn't agree with some of the church's doctrine. Ultimately, I understand that any church doctrine is derived from man's interpretation of the Bible. I went through the RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) to complete the sacraments of Eucharist and Confirmation because I was baptized Catholic but my parents didn't practice while I was growing up. I went to all kinds of different churches and chose to go with the Catholic church because I value the ritual and structure of mass as well as the meaning of the Eucharist to Catholics.

The nun and priest who ran my RCIA classes were pretty liberal, I'd say. When asked about these very controversial subjects, their reply was "You have to pray and discern what the proper thing to do is. It's between you and God". I was able to live with this answer and have clung to that. The priest also drew a big circle on a chalkboard with a dot in the middle. He said the dot in the middle represented being one with God. He drew dots all over the circle, some close to the middle and some further out. He said that we, as Catholics, like to think that we are the dot closest to the center, and that others are further out somewhere, but the truth is, until we get to Heaven, we won't really know. He embellised on the fact that all religions who believe in a higher power would be somewhere in that circle and ultimately have the same goal, being closest to the center.

While it would be nice to have a Pope who expressed this type of doctrine, I do see the Pope as a moral leader. I see the church as an appropriate institution to say "These are the rules based on our interpretation of the Bible". I cared enough to have my first marriage annulled through the church so I could marry in the church again. I haven't bothered doing that with my second marriage, because I will not marry again, so it's irrelevant. I'm ok with the Pope being conservative because I see the Pope as someone who is extreme. I think they have to be seen as very devout and Holy to get the job. I think that he's supposed to be the ideal and the extreme. I'm ok with him having strong opinions and being conservative. And, if his beliefs are as similar to JPIIs as I've read that they are, then at least he is consistent. Pro-life in all situations (abortion, death penalty, war), etc.

I'm not OK with government in this country being that way.

As far as the Hitler Youth issue, I read this interesting article, part of which I'll post here:
link

A Melbourne Jewish group has dismissed concerns about the new Pope's past as a member of the Hitler Youth.

Jewish Community Council of Victoria president Michael Lipshutz said Joseph Ratzinger's childhood should not be a focus.

"He was a mere boy at the time, let's look at what he has done in his adult life, not his childhood," Mr Lipshutz told theage.com.au this morning.

"There is no cause for concern about his actions as an adult.

"When he was a cardinal, he was John Paul II's right-hand man and John Paul II instigated great relations with the Jewish people."

Key Israeli and US Jewish lobby groups also welcomed the election of former German cardinal and noted there was no evidence he had committed any crimes while serving in the Hitler Youth.

Pope Benedict XVI has said he was an unwilling participant in the Hitler Youth movement during World War II, when membership became compulsory.


Dee

I think they are talking about the actual act for the most part. The bible calls one man lying with another an abomination but it also calls lustful thoughts, context being heterosexuals, a sin. As far as Conservatives considering all homosexuals sinners, regardless of their actions...well I think it's safe to say that EVERYONE sins, one person's evil thoughts, though never carried out in action are just as bad as a murder. That's a tough one. I guess NO ONE should be allowed to be ministers/priests whatever if we're looking for perfection!

While a segment of the Church leadership did favour the interpretation of the act as sinful - Pope Benedict XVI has made statements that it is not the act, but the "condition" of homosexuality as a grave moral sin - basically he sees homosexuality as a choice, a "intrinsic moral evil", and therefore (following his theologic logic) a choice to pursue a sinful existence.

I also find it disturbing that he laid the blame for the spread or tolerance of homosexuality on feminism....


Oh and some of you in the US may also remember that he advocated the denial of Holy Communion for political figures that adopted a pro-abortion stance... just shy of saying excommunitcation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Debates on the New Pope
 

.

It wasn't compulsory membership and service, it was voluntary

Where are you reading that it was compulsory?

There were many German children that didn't join. It wasn't even compulsory for Party members to have their children join, though it was highly encouraged.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Debates on the New Pope
 

FWIW, I know two German sisters, one was involved with the female division of the Hitler Youth (Jungen Maidel?) and the other one wasn't. The one who WAS a member had a chance to meet Hitler, but didn't really care. So, the other sister borrowed her uniform, and met Hitler!

The minute they named the pope, I started googling, as I figured things would be very quickly sanitized.

But the condition of EVERY man is a sinful nature. I don't get the reasoning. I guess that's because in my religious background there are no levels of sin, everyone is equally bad in the eyes of God.
Sorry RA, I'm not arguing with you!!! I'm just thinking this through!!

Well we Catholics have differing levels of sin... perhaps you have heard the terms "mortal or Cardinal sin"?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Debates on the New Pope
 

Well let see... membership in the Hilter Youth was made mandatory in 1936 (same time Catholic and Protestant denominational schools where abolished) - so when you hit 14 you where required by law to sign-up. So when the Pope turned 14 in 1941... he was legally compelled to join.

Further the Hilter Youth was official assigned to the role of Flak batteries in Jan. of 1943 - this is where the Pope was drafted into the German Army.

Quick history of Hitler Youth
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar...uth/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/20/op...rint&position=

From nazi youth to homophobic pope
by Tommi Avicolli Mecca

It's official: The new pope is a former Nazi youth member (he says he
was forced to join) and rabid homophobe (he's unapologetic about that).

Cardinal Joseph Alois Ratzinger, Pope John Paul's Prefect for the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the church institution that
gave us the Inquisition in Spain, will now lead the religion that
slaughtered millions during the Crusades and the witch burnings and stood
silently by during World War II while the Nazis wiped out Jews, homos,
Gypsies and others.

Ratzinger has been the voice of extreme homophobia and outright
insensitivity towards queers and others for the many years he worked side
by side with John Paul. In the late 80s he declared in a letter to bishops
that homos were "innately evil" and responsible for AIDS. He also attacked
the Marxist-based liberation theology of Latin America, a theology that
inspired catholic nuns and priests to risk their lives in defense of the
poor and the oppressed.

Ratzinger takes over the reins of a church that is suffering from
shrinking congregations and a serious decline in young people eager to join
the priesthood or convent. Its resources are being drained by hundreds of
lawsuits against priests accused of the sexual abuse of children. Instead
of the cardinals electing someone who could heal wounds, and open doors and
let in fresh air, thereby bringing people back into the fold, they stepped
several centuries back into a darker era when the church committed
atrocities as easily as any evil empire.

Ultimately, It could be a good thing.

Ratzinger's continued persecution of homos may finally motivate
Dignity, the gay catholic group, to become militant and take to the pews
with a newfound intolerance for its church's insane hatred of homos and
other sexual outlaws. What a breath of fresh air it would be to hear
Dignity tell it like it is--that the church's anti-gay theology leads to
violence against queers, not to mention self-hatred and suicide in queer
youth. Perhaps Dignity members will perform civil disobedience at catholic
functions, including appearances by San Francisco Archbishop William J.
Levada, another man of the cloth who doesn't believe in queer rights.

Perhaps having a Jerry Falwell type as pope could motivate liberal
catholics to leave the church in droves. If they need religion, they can
join the Quakers. At least then they wouldn't have to support a religion
that bashes queers and opposes safe sex education, contraception, abortion,
and a women's right to reproductive freedom. C'mon, all you catholics who
march against war and support a woman's right to choose, not to mention her
right to have a role in the church. Join the exodus now. Don't be a part of
an institution that has a track record of always being on the wrong side of
human rights struggles everywhere.

Having a fundamentalist for a pope could also drive moderate
catholics to the left. They might suddenly remember that this is the same
church that persecuted Galileo for saying the world was round and kept
Nicholas Copernicus from publishing his theory of the earth revolving
around the sun. They may recall that they, too, have friends, co-workers
and family members who are queer. That they don't hate Jews or think that
women who use contraception are evil. Ratzinger's extremism may turn them off.

In the end Ratzinger may do more to liberalize his own church than
any Marxist priest in Latin America teaching poor people to fight back
against the rich aristocracy that reaps the benefits of their labor.

It might actually move the church out of the dark ages.

Tommi Avicolli Mecca is an ex-catholic southern Italian queer radical
activist, performer and writer who believes, as Marx did, that religion is
an opiate.

That was a big part of the coverage here in Boston, since the order seemed directed at John Kerry.