Joseph Ratzinger

[NDLyght37]

Cardinal Ratzinger is the new Pope.

Interesting choice, IMO. At 78 is he the guy you want for your "Franchise QB"?

He also heads what used to be called the Spanish Inquisition (The Council of the Doctrine of the Faith).

And no-one expects the Spanish Inquisition!...Especially not headed by a German!


Seriously, what are your thoughts on the appointment?

 

[irishtexan]

lol, nice post. i wonder why they elect someone thats that old? experience? im catholic and i dont even know.

 

[Rip Rap]

Interesting choice, IMO. At 78 is he the guy you want for your "Franchise QB"?

He also heads what used to be called the Spanish Inquisition (The Council of the Doctrine of the Faith).

Seriously, what are your thoughts on the appointment?

All courts were called 'Inquisitions.' The Spanish Inquisition was carried out by the royal houses of Spain. The papacy only had the authority to carry out a temporal inquistition within the Papal States (Lazio, Umbria, and Marches).

They chose a 78 year old precisely because they want somebody who will only be around for a decade. Ratzinger is really of the same mold as JPII. He was JPII's primary theologian and was forged of the Cold War era. I can only guess that in choosing a First World German with a commanding intellect the Cardinals want to address the so-called 'progressivists' in the West currently seeking to 'change' the Church. After a good decade of that, Ratzinger's famous First World 'Mustard Seed' will have the responsiblity of working with a Third World pontiff.

 

[BigIrish]

All courts were called 'Inquisitions.' The Spanish Inquisition was carried out by the royal houses of Spain. The papacy only had the authority to carry out a temporal inquistition within the Papal States (Lazio, Umbria, and Marches).

They chose a 78 year old precisely because they want somebody who will only be around for a decade. Ratzinger is really of the same mold as JPII. He was JPII's primary theologian and was forged of the Cold War era. I can only guess that in choosing a First World German with a commanding intellect the Cardinals want to address the so-called 'progressivists' in the West currently seeking to 'change' the Church. After a good decade of that, Ratzinger's famous First World 'Mustard Seed' will have the responsiblity of working with a Third World pontiff.

i think that pretty much sums it up. they're looking for a "transitional" pope that won't be expected to undo any of the previous efforts over the past few decades. the western "changes" consist if issues such as birth control, the ability for clergy to marry, female clergy, etc.

 

[NDLyght37]

That makes more sense then, Rip/BI.

When I looked at the candidates, nothing really extra-special jumped out at me about Cardinal Ratzinger. But if he's there to "stay the course" and to provide stability to the Church, I can definitley see that.

So what we're basically saying is that he is like the Trent Dilfer/Steve Beuerlein/Steve DeBerg of the Papacy.

And I knew about the Inquisition...but why let facts & logic stand in the way of a good Monty Python gag?

 

[Guest]

I thought it would be an Italian. Seems like a good choice though. He' very conservative I hear.

Wonder if we'll ever see an American Pope

 

[Rip Rap]

I thought it would be an Italian. Seems like a good choice though. He' very conservative I hear.

Wonder if we'll ever see an American Pope

I am actually baffled they selected a European. I think Ratzinger comes across like a First World Pope, unlike JPII (who was an eastern European). Given the economic stresses of the Third World, that is an interesting reality. In any case, there will never be a Pope from the global superpower of military and economic might. At the same time, the selection of Ratzinger really is somewhat a call to arms. I take this as saying something like:

"All you little Westerners are a bunch of rich spoiled brats, and you've become whiny little bitches who want religion to comform to your lazy lifestyle. Well guess what? We just chose the guy who dedicated his life to pointing out that you're lazy. Some of you can stay on board, the rest of you can become Wiccans, and if you're up for it, the Church is still strong in the Third World and that's where we're taking this show next. You will be the Mustard Seed, or you will be a weed."

That was the pastoral side of me speaking.

 

[jiggafini19]

I thought it would be an Italian. Seems like a good choice though. He' very conservative I hear.

Wonder if we'll ever see an American Pope

Say it with me....NEVER NEVER EVER will there be an American Pope. Not in our lifetime, anyway. I was having this discussion at work yesterday with my fellow Catholics. It won't happen, especially with our popularity being at an all time low all over the world.

The odds in England were 3-1 for this guy. He was Pope John Paul II's right hand man.

Watching that ceremony on TV was awesome.

But I was thinking of Godfather III the whole time for some reason.

 

[BigIrish]

I am actually baffled they selected a European. I think Ratzinger comes across like a First World Pope, unlike JPII (who was an eastern European). Given the economic stresses of the Third World, that is an interesting reality. In any case, there will never be a Pope from the global superpower of military and economic might. At the same time, the selection of Ratzinger really is somewhat a call to arms. I take this as saying something like:

"All you little Westerners are a bunch of rich spoiled brats, and you've become whiny little bitches who want religion to comform to your lazy lifestyle. Well guess what? We just chose the guy who dedicated his life to pointing out that you're lazy. Some of you can stay on board, the rest of you can become Wiccans, and if you're up for it, the Church is still strong in the Third World and that's where we're taking this show next. You will be the Mustard Seed, or you will be a weed."

That was the pastoral side of me speaking.

Interesting take, Rip. I can't say I really disagree with you....in terms of church reform, it's more than just the Catholic public - there's a number of clergy that have expressed a desire see change. And while there are some values that I don't think should change with the whims of secular culture, I'm hard pressed to understand why the Church continues to take a hard line against 1) expanding the role of women and 2) marriage among clergy. But you're right - the Church is strong in the third world where parishoners are much more likely to adhere to a traditional view of Church doctrine. On the flip side, the Church is losing touch with some western parishoners who view much of the doctrine as religious dogma more than anything else.

 

[Aerosmith777]

Lol, I think we'd see them elect a protestant as Pope before they elected an American. There are a few good, orthodox American Cardinals (i.e. Cardinal Regali in Philadelphia), but the fact is that the Church in America is percieved as WAY too liberal to most Catholics in other parts of the world, w/ some justification in my opinion (although I do also think its exagerrated by some of those non-American Catholics). So as long as that is the case, I would be shocked to see an American Pope. There are less likely places for the Pope to come from however (in my opinion at least), like England and (thank God!) France. Many leaders in the Church in both those places are far less orthodox than some here.

I was a little suprised by the choice of Cardinal Ratzinger, and I think the Trent Dilfer comparisons may be a little appropriate. I've got the feeling that sometime before he passed away J.P. II gave Ratzinger his personal stamp of approval as his successor, and if I'm right I'm sure that recomendation would have went a long way in the voting. I personally have always liked the man, he's as orthodox as John Paul II was but at same time is can be warm and engaging much like J.P. II was, so I'm pretty happy w/ the selection (although I also really like the Cardinals from Nigeria & Argentina for the same reasons, and both are younger which made me kind of hope one of them be elected, but hey, that's why I'm not a Cardinal I guess).

And way to bring in the Monty Python gag, so I have to bring in Mel Brooks to counter..."The inquisition, what a show, the inquisition, here we go..."

 

[Rip Rap]

Interesting take, Rip. I can't say I really disagree with you....in terms of church reform, it's more than just the Catholic public - there's a number of clergy that have expressed a desire see change. And while there are some values that I don't think should change with the whims of secular culture, I'm hard pressed to understand why the Church continues to take a hard line against 1) expanding the role of women and 2) marriage among clergy. But you're right - the Church is strong in the third world where parishoners are much more likely to adhere to a traditional view of Church doctrine. On the flip side, the Church is losing touch with some western parishoners who view much of the doctrine as religious dogma more than anything else.

I think the married clergy issue is very uncompelling until the diaconate swells, and it hasn't. And when it does, there really won't be a need for married priests anyway. I think that is the real future of the clergy in the Western world, for better or worse: Parish deacons and communion services.

I also think celibacy is an important theological issue. If the Church were to proclaim priests could be married, it could no longer say with a straight face that celibacy is the ultimate form of self-sacrifice. I think the Church's position on issues of sexual morality are correct (regarding homosexuality and contraceptives), and they would ring hollow from a married clergy.

Besides, celibacy is one of the three vows for priests in religious orders. They will never be subject to change. And eastern European priests in communion with Rome have (as I understand it) always been allowed to marry. So too with Anglican converts.

But the idea of celibacy comes from Matthew 19:12: "Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

As for the second point, I don't really understand what people mean when they say the 'expanded role of women.' You mean as tribunal heads and the like? That may be coming, but there are few nuns with the proper academic credentials.

 

[BigIrish]

I think the married clergy issue is very uncompelling until the diaconate swells, and it hasn't. And when it does, there really won't be a need for married priests anyway. I think that is the real future of the clergy in the Western world, for better or worse: Parish deacons and communion services.

I also think celibacy is an important theological issue. If the Church were to proclaim priests could be married, it could no longer say with a straight face that celibacy is the ultimate form of self-sacrifice. I think the Church's position on issues of sexual morality are correct (regarding homosexuality and contraceptives), and they would ring hollow from a married clergy.

Besides, celibacy is one of the three vows for priests in religious orders. They will never be subject to change. And eastern European priests in communion with Rome have (as I understand it) always been allowed to marry. So too with Anglican converts.

But the idea of celibacy comes from Matthew 19:12: "Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

As for the second point, I don't really understand what people mean when they say the 'expanded role of women.' You mean as tribunal heads and the like? That may be coming, but there are few nuns with the proper academic credentials.

you make some compelling points, Rip. you've obviously reflected on the issue - i respect that. and with all due respect, i'm going to avoid getting into a religious debate...partly because this is a fan site and partly because i get the impression that i may be outgunned here.... ;-)

 

[Rip Rap]

I actually have plans to start a blog. I've always wanted a blog (to help proliferate blogs, which they tend to do for better or worse...), and I figured I would address these issues. I think it will be up after graduation, sometime in the summer when I settle into a new job. Blogs are worthless unless they're good, so I'll try and be ambitious.

Regarding deacons: http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2003/03-027.shtml

 

[BigIrish]

sounds like your blog would be an interesting read. make sure you post a link when it goes up.

 

[Aerosmith777]

I think the married clergy issue is very uncompelling until the diaconate swells, and it hasn't. And when it does, there really won't be a need for married priests anyway. I think that is the real future of the clergy in the Western world, for better or worse: Parish deacons and communion services.

I also think celibacy is an important theological issue. If the Church were to proclaim priests could be married, it could no longer say with a straight face that celibacy is the ultimate form of self-sacrifice. I think the Church's position on issues of sexual morality are correct (regarding homosexuality and contraceptives), and they would ring hollow from a married clergy.

Besides, celibacy is one of the three vows for priests in religious orders. They will never be subject to change. And eastern European priests in communion with Rome have (as I understand it) always been allowed to marry. So too with Anglican converts.

But the idea of celibacy comes from Matthew 19:12: "Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

As for the second point, I don't really understand what people mean when they say the 'expanded role of women.' You mean as tribunal heads and the like? That may be coming, but there are few nuns with the proper academic credentials.

Geez, & I thought I knew what I was talking about. Those are some great points, and I agree w/ you %100. I never really thought about that as far as the married clergy goes, that if having one is supposed to increase numbers then why haven't there been more men out there signing up to become deacons until now? Good work, hopefully I'll be able to visit your blog once its up & running.