MaxedOutMama
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
I'm Floored
I can't imagine getting this upset over the choice of any church leader. The Pope does not have armies and squads of people rounding up people and beating or killing them. Considering the tragedies playing themselves out in the world right now, I can't understand why some people are reacting so intensely to the announcement that Cardinal Ratzinger has become Pope Benedict XVI. This Democratic Underground thread has some intensely upset comments as well as some calmer heads. Does everything have to be political?:
"the deep moral sickness" of europe was a fave topic for ratzy and jp2. we are in for one hell of a ride. keep your eye out for commentary on how SOON they arrived at this decision. it's about money and power -- the blood cult wing of the theocrats is now in power in catholicism as well as protestantism. this is frightening in the extreme, but not surprising. those of us who left in the 80s over jp2's siding with latin american dictators over their own preists, expected this.and:
the church has thrown down the gauntlet. their priority is absolute power. "holy war." same old song and dance -- i don't mean that to sound defeatist. i think we can at least take some time right now to examine the history of the catholic church in world war. how did they position? who went awol -- how to harness the change to build the people's power. reading list, anyone?
We resigned from the Catholic Church this winter after all the pro-Bush political crapola the Vatican spewed during our 2004 Presidential elections, their vocal pro-Bush, anti-gay-American-marriage crapola, the American bishop (s?) who refused John Kerry communion for his support of the law of Roe v. Wade, the San Diego bishop's refusal to give a gay nightclub owner a Catholic burial, and the Tom Delayish crapola the Vatican publicly spewed about the Terri Schiavo fiasco. The Vatican has become an arm of the neo-con/fundie movement in Amerika because it too has always been obsessed with power, and they see that right now that's where the power is.Yeah, yeah, yeah. I wonder why Pope John Paul II objected to the Iraqi war? Didn't fit in with his world domination plans? He wanted Bush to invade France, perhaps?
...this was a setback for progressives everywhere. Not just Catholics. Let's not be naive, this wasn't good.A setback for progressives who aren't Catholic? I can't follow this line of thought at all. And of course, the accusation (see prior post of mine with link to rebuttal):
Former Hitler youth... here's the linkAnd more in that vein:
Oh c'mon Pope Panzer SS won't be that bad... I don't know why people like to toy with right wing, almost fascist, side of life.Now here's a good question, because many were mourning John Paul II even as the excoriate his successor, and the two men were extremely close so one has to believe that not all that much will change:
Why? Ratzinger might as well have taken John Paul III as his nameSomeone attempts to interject a note of fairness (DU defies any attempt at stereotyping it):
I would not expect much functional difference between him and JPII, except that Ratzinger will probably be much more forceful in actually acting on things because he is in good health.
OK, I'm pissed about this too, but the Nazi thing is thin If you read the article, he only joined after it was made compulsory, his father worked against the Nazis (to the point that he had to move frequently) and as a 14-year-old kid, he had a peripheral role in the war.Which is rebutted by a Popeblitzkrieg on CNN:
I would prefer to beat him up on his right-wing doctrine and embrace of the word "fundamentalist" rather than a past that I can't say I could have avoided myself if I were 14 and living in a fascist state.
German U boat commander Wolf Blitzer just said his (Benedict's) father was a Nazi on CNN.I'm sorry, I don't believe in trying 14 year-olds as adults or bills of attainder. And here's the weirdest yet, a person who left the Catholic church after the American election because:
I would only go to a Church that respected individuals rights re: sexual orientation, reproductive freedom etc. I just went, this Church is too GWB for me, buh bye.And here's another who somehow thinks it is about some vast Rovian conspiratorial election fixing thing. I've got news for these people. To the Vatican, the US is a recent innovation:
This fix was in before JP died. Bush and Cheney are smiling today.And still, the Hitler Youth fixation comes up and up and up. Not many people are defending the Pope on this thread, although some are:
Sorry, but no, it's not "basically garbage". If you look closely at the Hitler Youth indoctrination, I think you'll discover that it forms the bedrock of his current belief structure.Do, do tell. Strong on theology and celibacy, were they?
Comments:
<< Home
Like I said before, I think is because he is even more conservative than John Paul. So far, we know he is opposed to everything that the religious left is for. He has not been vocal (so far as I know) against war, caring for the poor/sick. So far, he is all the conservative of JP, but none of the liberal. This day is actually fairly sad for me. I was really hoping for someone who would help draw me back in. I highly doubt the this pope will. I feel like a child estranged from his parents who keeps hoping the parents will open the door a little so I can come home. But, then again, changing the things that estrange me from the church would probably estrange someone more conservative.
That makes more sense. Thanks for the explanation. So you see him as all of the negative but none of the positive.
I wonder though - in his previous post he was sort of a guardian of the gates of theology, wasn't he? Maybe he will have a different purpose and concentration as a pope?
I'm genuinely sorry you're sad and disturbed (but awfully glad you are not talking about Nazis and GWB influencing the cardinals' choice). I look at popes the same way as judges - you never really know until you see them in action!
I wonder though - in his previous post he was sort of a guardian of the gates of theology, wasn't he? Maybe he will have a different purpose and concentration as a pope?
I'm genuinely sorry you're sad and disturbed (but awfully glad you are not talking about Nazis and GWB influencing the cardinals' choice). I look at popes the same way as judges - you never really know until you see them in action!
Unbelievable. All these armchair experts on theology- ask them if they can spell 'Deuteronomy.'
Their opinion is about as relevant as mine is on the space program.
Their opinion is about as relevant as mine is on the space program.
And yes, I will give him a chance. Like I said in the prior post, I will give him the benefit until he proves otherwise (I am just not holding my breath).
Dingo, no - it is NEVER wise to hold your breath. It does surprise me that some people who aren't Catholic apparently were!
I'm still brooding about the estrangement/change issue. Some Catholics are still mourning the Latin mass. I wonder if dogma changes would affect people that much - I just don't know. It seems to me that most American Catholics go their own way on some issues regardless.
SC&A - yeah. My grasp of Catholic theology and trends within the church wouldn't get me through Catechism either, but at least I know it. It always surprises me that some people have such strong ideas about religions of which they really have little knowledge.
One day on a blog I read a guy dismissing the Bible as like a novel about made up characters that would just take a couple of days to read. He ended with the conclusion that therefore there was no reason for him to read it because he already knew what it was about and that it didn't mean anything, and wondered why so many people made such a big deal out of it. I am not kidding.
I'm still brooding about the estrangement/change issue. Some Catholics are still mourning the Latin mass. I wonder if dogma changes would affect people that much - I just don't know. It seems to me that most American Catholics go their own way on some issues regardless.
SC&A - yeah. My grasp of Catholic theology and trends within the church wouldn't get me through Catechism either, but at least I know it. It always surprises me that some people have such strong ideas about religions of which they really have little knowledge.
One day on a blog I read a guy dismissing the Bible as like a novel about made up characters that would just take a couple of days to read. He ended with the conclusion that therefore there was no reason for him to read it because he already knew what it was about and that it didn't mean anything, and wondered why so many people made such a big deal out of it. I am not kidding.
Here's a simple-minded thought (mine) but bears a kernal of truth I think: When the Church has historically been in the throws of great political controversy it has been at it's weakest in terms of faith. The Christ in Christian gets blown right out of the water and it becomes difficult to find people remotely behaving in a way that they claim their faith dictates. As a person of relatively strong faith and relatively little religious affiliation I've been doing that church search thing for a number of years and I've come to the conclusion that it's not helpful for me to be seeking the church who has the priest or pastor who preaches "the way I want." (More than once a good preacher has wandered off with the church secretary and then the whole church falls apart.) I'm not sure we can look to any one person as the definitive mouthpiece of our faith. We have come to be a society of people looking for external quick fixes and we are evolving right out of the ability to find our strength and resolve internally. Is the enduring structure supported by scaffolding or a system of sturdy internal beams and girders? There's too much pollution in the politics of the atmosphere here on earth. At least look to the stratosphere...
# posted by 
: 9:46 AM
: 9:46 AM
Vicki,
I think I understand what you're saying and I agree. Real religion and faith is like science - it is the imposition of an outward truth upon our consciousness. Whether it is what we want to hear or not is irrelevant.
There are plenty of valid criticisms that can be made of any one person, but the issue is what one is trying to achieve and for what purpose.
Making yourself comfortable or others more comfortable? Justifying yourself or trying to save others? Christianity with its focus on individual salvation and grace can resolve itself into a form of narcissistic self-preoccupation - but that is not what it is meant to be.
Ron,
I'm not sure they are reviling Catholics so much as the leadership, but sometimes when I read the worst rants I think they don't really know what they are ranting about themselves!
I think I understand what you're saying and I agree. Real religion and faith is like science - it is the imposition of an outward truth upon our consciousness. Whether it is what we want to hear or not is irrelevant.
There are plenty of valid criticisms that can be made of any one person, but the issue is what one is trying to achieve and for what purpose.
Making yourself comfortable or others more comfortable? Justifying yourself or trying to save others? Christianity with its focus on individual salvation and grace can resolve itself into a form of narcissistic self-preoccupation - but that is not what it is meant to be.
Ron,
I'm not sure they are reviling Catholics so much as the leadership, but sometimes when I read the worst rants I think they don't really know what they are ranting about themselves!
This is what I am talking about. Intervening against a pro-choice person, but not a pro-war person.
"New pope intervened against Kerry in US 2004 election campaign"
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&ncid=696&e=8&u=/afp/20050419/pl_afp/vaticanpopeus
"New pope intervened against Kerry in US 2004 election campaign"
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&ncid=696&e=8&u=/afp/20050419/pl_afp/vaticanpopeus
Dingo, I went to advocate.com and found out why the GLBT groups aren't too happy, and I find their perspective credible.
But the article you cite is quoting Ratzinger selectively. The rest of the quote said that Catholics in good standing could vote for a candidate who supported abortion if their vote was predicated on other parts of the agenda:
"When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."
In other words, the letter gave a theological justification both ways, and it was also meant to be confidential. See this Washington Post story which gives a far more balanced picture and begins:
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican's arbiter of doctrinal orthodoxy, has given Roman Catholic voters leeway under certain circumstances to vote for politicians who support abortion rights, U.S. Catholic officials said yesterday.
In keeping with Ratzinger's pronouncement, Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis last week clarified the remarks he made earlier this summer, when he said any Catholic who votes for a politician who supports abortion rights is committing a grave sin and must confess before receiving communion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3534-2004Sep7.html
You can make a very good case that Ratzinger was trying to soften a pronouncement made by a certain Catholic archbishop while preserving the Catholic doctrine that abortion is wrong. I feel the Yahoo article is biased, to say the least - especially since JPII was on record as criticizing the Iraqi war.
Post a Comment
But the article you cite is quoting Ratzinger selectively. The rest of the quote said that Catholics in good standing could vote for a candidate who supported abortion if their vote was predicated on other parts of the agenda:
"When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."
In other words, the letter gave a theological justification both ways, and it was also meant to be confidential. See this Washington Post story which gives a far more balanced picture and begins:
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican's arbiter of doctrinal orthodoxy, has given Roman Catholic voters leeway under certain circumstances to vote for politicians who support abortion rights, U.S. Catholic officials said yesterday.
In keeping with Ratzinger's pronouncement, Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis last week clarified the remarks he made earlier this summer, when he said any Catholic who votes for a politician who supports abortion rights is committing a grave sin and must confess before receiving communion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3534-2004Sep7.html
You can make a very good case that Ratzinger was trying to soften a pronouncement made by a certain Catholic archbishop while preserving the Catholic doctrine that abortion is wrong. I feel the Yahoo article is biased, to say the least - especially since JPII was on record as criticizing the Iraqi war.
<< Home
