posted
As a Benedictine nun myself, I have to say that there are a lot of Catholics who are disappointed in this election. I think a lot of people were hoping for someone a little more forward looking with maybe a little more pluralistic view of the world. We (that is, my community and I) are at least inspired by the fact that he chooses to call himself Benedict which gives us some hope. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:First an unenthusiastic member of the Hitler Youth, and now Pope.
I don't understand this comment. Was it an attempt to draw parallels with fascism? If so, it might also be worth noting that Ratzinger deserted the German army.
I also think it rather significant that the cardinals, who represent world-wide Catholicism, were so quick to choose such an obviously "conservative" man as Pope. To me, it seems as a continuity of John Paul II's legacy and a pretty good indicator of the values that global Catholicism stands for. I respect the decision immensely.
Posts: 285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's interesting to me is that the pope was another European white guy. I am NOT saying tht the cardinals are racist by any means, but given the decline of religion in Europe, particularly west Europe where Germany is, it's interesting that the cardinals didn't go ahead and embrace someone who would be more ethnically representative of the world's Catholics, both now and in the future. Maybe the cardinals are color blind and they just chose the right man for the job....
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
katdog, you're a benedictine nun? seriously?
I also know plenty of folks, myself included, who are NOT happy about the choice of the new pope.
AJ, could you email me what that Dominican nun said? I can only imagine what the Dominican nun professor I had in college is saying right now. And my friend the former Jesuit, and half of the Benedictine monks that I know...
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:that the cardinals, who represent world-wide Catholicism
That's actually one of the controversial issues that's facing the church right now, in more ways than one. From one perspective, there's the issue of the increasing role the laity have been playing in the Church, administratively, during the worship services, and even doctrinally. The late Pope and the current one have been trying to discourage and forbid this.
Also, there's the issue of whether the Church is best represented as an organization ruled by the central Roman Curate and Pope or whether the people in the different diocese should be trusted to run things. Again, the late and current pope agreed that the centralized model was the way to go.
Not suprisingly, this has not been well received by many Catholics, especially those in America.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, seriously, I really am a Benedictine. I can tell you that most here are, not necessarily mad at the decision, but a lot of sisters are very disappointed in the church leaders. He will certainly follow the views of our JPII. I think a number of people were hoping that the church would look to leadership outside of the traditional white European spectrum, but we have to trust (or try to) that the cardinals elected the man who is most able to serve at this time.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:First an unenthusiastic member of the Hitler Youth, and now Pope.
Meaning, I suppose, that the 50+ years of his life in the middle were inconsequential?
I don't know enough about the man and his beliefs to comment knowledgeably on his ability to be a good pope, nor am I Catholic, but common sense would suggest that unless he ever gave the hint later on in life that being in Hitler Youth was fun and he missed it, continually bringing it up is pretty weak.
[ April 19, 2005, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not suprisingly, this has not been well received by many Catholics, especially those in America.
You use the word "many" here, and others in the thread have used "a lot of the Catholics I know" as an indicator. I'd really be interested to find out what these numbers really are. Even if every Catholic in America is of one opinion, I don't think that qualifies as a majority of the church, does it?
In my church, we are asked to sustain (give a sustaining vote to) the new prophets. It would be cool to see what the support would be, worldwide, if the Roman Catholic church did the same thing.
Posts: 285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So many issues are coming up now that we went over in my Church course in college. Wow. Who knew that I'd need that info later.
katdog, the reason I ask is because I went to a Benedictine college and still love the Benedictine tradition. And still have monks whom I count as good friends.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
mack, it was TomDavidson that was talking to Benedictine nuns, not me. (I'm not adverse to talking to Beneditcine nuns, I've liked the one I've met, but they aren't going to pop up on a regular basis in my lab at work.) I have no idea what she said. You'll have to ask Tom.
posted
No, no, Tom was talking (or at least listening) to a Dominican nun.
I haven’t taken the time to check this myself, but a friend of mine who used to work in the Vatican claims that (almost?) every long-serving pope in history has been followed by the election of an older cardinal who agreed strongly with the deceased pope. Radical change comes with the next election.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I haven’t taken the time to check this myself, but a friend of mine who used to work in the Vatican claims that (almost?) every long-serving pope in history has been followed by the election of an older cardinal who agreed strongly with the deceased pope. Radical change comes with the next election.
That's certainly a common occurance in history but God or the church (however you want to look at it) works in mysterious ways. John XIII was 77 at the time of his election to the papacy and expected to be a "transitional" pope and then he called the Second Vatican Council. Vatican II certainly introduced radical change to the church's traditions (small t traditions).
posted
I mixed my Dominicans and my Benedictines. My apologies. I'm not Catholic and while I'm vaguely aware that the different orders have different focuses I have no idea what they are.
posted
Dominicans and Benedictines have one pretty big differents--Dominicans (if I remember correctly) go to where their work is. Benedictines take a vow of stability and tend to stay put.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to know how the Popes pick their names and why..... *knows too little about the papacy*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just want to know how the Popes pick their names and why.....
It would be cool to compare this to why rappers choose their monikers, too. Same thoughts go into it? NPR had a bit on the Benedict name...first is the obvious (the founder of the Benedictine order) and the second was that guy who did some outreach to non-Catholics to bring more into the fold. I think. It was during a car ride so it is vague.
It is more of an ironic name if his history is any indication. He was pretty hard on the more liberal leaning orders in the church, which will upset a good number of women who really were hoping for more of a role in future Church leadership. I don't see him reaching out nearly as much as JPII did, either.
People hoping for the Church to make any radical change are going to have to wait a bit, sadly. Which is too bad, because the very issue Benedict seems to think is most important is the declining membership in the church...which is probably due to the static nature of Church doctrines and traditions that haven't really left the Dark Ages (literally, which is really sad).
Sure, it might not be MOST Catholics who are upset with Benedict's choosing...but there are a fair amount and one would think that the ones that would be most upset are already gone to other faiths that do have an eye on the present.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The likelihood is that Ratzinger is envisioned as a transitional pope, due to his age.
I put this elsewhere, but just to repeat. President Hinkley (president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) is 95. This pope may have 20 years yet.
I am always confused that some people seem to find the quality of keeping close to the church's teachings an undesirable quality in a pope or a religion.
It reminds of people who campaign for this or that thing to stop being a sin. No one is stopping you from living as you want - isn't it nice to have a standard?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I think you could draw a thousand different conclusions from that statement, Mack. I'm sure there are those who would say that John Paul II's stand against communism was an example of just that, and at the same time have no problem with his hard line on contraception. There are also those who would insist that any church that won't let women be priests is not a "living church."
I've just never understood the point of view of someone who wants to be a Catholic, yet doesn't believe that God directs the church and that the Pope speaks His will. Posts: 285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually just had a pretty long conversation with Taalcon about that...I DO want to discuss it, but I'm brain dead at the moment. Just wanted to let you know I'm not brushing you off or anything. In part, I think there's a difference in understanding between that the LDS prophet is and what the pope is.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've just never understood the point of view of someone who wants to be a Catholic, yet doesn't believe that God directs the church and that the Pope speaks His will.
I completely agree. Not to say that the pope cannot make mistakes. He is human. Many errors have been made in the name of the Catholic church, however my understanding has always been that Catholics believe that with the guidance of God errors will be corrected and a part of this process is the presumed divinely inspired selection of each new pope.
Posts: 251 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am always confused that some people seem to find the quality of keeping close to the church's teachings an undesirable quality in a pope or a religion.
It reminds of people who campaign for this or that thing to stop being a sin. No one is stopping you from living as you want - isn't it nice to have a standard?
It's not really about trying to change what is a "sin," but rather about trying to get a church hierarchy to recognize that there have been cultural shifts over the last few centuries.
LSDers have a mechanism for this, yes? At one time it was a "sin" for blacks to engage in certain temple rituals. Times changed, and the church changed with them.
Some catholics simply think it is time for the institutional church to change.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've just never understood the point of view of someone who wants to be a Catholic, yet doesn't believe that God directs the church and that the Pope speaks His will
This is really kind of a cop out, I think. A statement along the lines of 'Shut up and like it.' that ignores the reality of how most human beings work and ignores the concerns of the particular person voicing their concern over a change. When things are happening that someone doesn't like in their religion, they are going to voice dissatisfaction with that change. For them to not say anything about changes in a church which they, most likely, care a lot about , would be inhuman and uncaring. I would hope that if the pope of the Catholic church or the president of the Mormon church had ideas which members found to be against what they considered to be ethical, they wouldn't just shrug and blindly follow those ideas or leave the church altogether to struggle on its own. Maybe some would, though. Maybe some members are just blindly obedient robots with no feelings about their church. But I would hope they would be in the minority, because blind obedience does no favors for any organization. I hope they would say something and be concerned.
There have been discussions about this kind of thing before on this board and my understanding is that there aren't *that* many things that Catholics are absolutely beholden to believe in and do. It's perfectly o.k. to debate many things within the church. The pope rarely speaks for God in such a way that members *must* not question what he is saying. So, this belief that the 'pope speaks his will' is, as far as I know, something that is a vast over generalization to the point of meaninglessness in this instance. Dagonee and other Catholics, please correct me if I am wrong.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:There have been discussions about this kind of thing before on this board and my understanding is that there aren't *that* many things that Catholics are absolutely beholden to believe in and do. It's perfectly o.k. to debate many things within the church. The pope rarely speaks for God in such a way that members *must* not question what he is saying. So, this belief that the 'pope speaks his will' is, as far as I know, something that is a vast over generalization to the point of meaninglessness in this instance. Dagonee and other Catholics, please correct me if I am wrong.
I believe you are refering to "papal infallibility". You are quite right that this does not apply to everything the pope says or does. Papal infallibility only applies to statements made by the pope "ex cathedra". This is seldom used. Someone (Dagonee?) correct me if I'm wrong but I think the last time it was invoked was by Pius XII in the 1950s.
Catholics do however hold to the belief that the church is preserved from error in disseminating the truth contained in divine revelation which encompasses the scriptures and Sacred Tradition.
Posts: 251 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: When things are happening that someone doesn't like in their religion, they are going to voice dissatisfaction with that change. For them to not say anything about changes in a church which they, most likely, care a lot about , would be inhuman and uncaring. I would hope that if the pope of the Catholic church or the president of the Mormon church had ideas which members found to be against what they considered to be ethical, they wouldn't just shrug and blindly follow those ideas or leave the church altogether to struggle on its own. Maybe some would, though. Maybe some members are just blindly obedient robots with no feelings about their church. But I would hope they would be in the minority, because blind obedience does no favors for any organization. I hope they would say something and be concerned.
I agree that believers of all stripes should question their own and their church's teachings. I also think that believers who truly feel a particular practice of their church is in error should work within the church to correct that. I again concur that blind faith helps no one. For instance if someone within the church hierarchy wanted to start up the inquisition again, one would hope Catholics around the world would object and they could back up their objections by showing that such a thing would be rather inconsistent with the doctrines of the church.
I think what Susie was getting at in her post was that if Catholics believe that the new pope is selected through divine inspiration then they should overlook it if they dislike the man personally. If they don't believe that the selection of the pope is divinely inspired and that the church is protected from grevious error then that's a pretty fundamental problem.
I keep rereading this post and can't quite get it right... someone poke a hole in it so I can get it figure out a better way to put.
Posts: 251 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are many current issues confronting the catholic church that require a living view of the Gospel of Christ.
For example: The church is facing a shortage of Priests. How will the church deal with this problem? Some options include a greater reliance on lay ministers, allowing priests to marry (celebacy is one of the key factors that deters entry into the priesthoo), ordaining women to the priesthood and possibly many others. Currently, the church has been relying on the first option but the problem is still becoming critical. In the next decade something will have to be done to address this problem.
There are many other challenges that the church faces such as the AIDS panademic, sex scandals, globalization, poverty and declining membership in South America.
Addressing these problems isn't really a question about compromising standards. It is about finding a meaningful way to approach modern problems within the context of Christianity.
The Catholic church has managed to survive this long because its core teaching have intrinsic worth. They are applicable in a wide variety of circumstances and times. Challenges like the church faces today have always arisen. They cause Christians everywhere to contemplate what parts of the tradition are truly essential and what parts can be cast off. At times the Catholic church has done this well, at times they have waited far too long. For example, the Catholic Church only recently exonerated Galileo, admitting that the sun does not revolve around the earth.
I think that the concern of many Catholics, is that the Church may do a repeat on Galileo and wait a few hundred years too long to cast off inessential and faulty traditions. Given the problems that the Catholic Church and the world are facing -- failing to act now could have devastating consequences.
[ April 20, 2005, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is "transitional pope" an official Church term? Because if it were me up there in the conclave, I think I might be offended by that.
"Congratulations, Cardinal. We have chosen you to be the next Holy Father. Of course you understand, because your predecessor lived such a long time, and you're so old anyway, you aren't a real pope. We need you as a placeholder to give us time to decide where we actually want to go next. But still, congratulations, really."
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oooh, I'm not qualified by any means but I want to tell you about St Benedict and his impact, because I just wrote a medieval history exam and if I don't find a practical use for my knowledge...
(If I'm wrong on any counts, please feel free to contest)
Anyway, St Benedict of Nursia, Italy is most well known for the Rule of St Benedict, which he wrote in 535. This was a detailed set of Rules detailing the ideals for monastic life. The strongest impressions I get from the bits of the Rule that I read was that of Obedience and Humility.
So, although this rule was around for the next four hundred years, it's mostly associated with the Cluniac order which was founded in 910 by William of Aquitaine. Later, this order I believe became to be known as the Benedictine Order.
However, as such things go, people became unhappy with the way this traditional order was doing things and in what I think was the Gregorian Reform in the 11th century, the Carthusian and Cistercian orders were created, both again following the Rule of St Benedict.
Since monasticsm had a huge impact on Medieval life, the original Benedict was/is a pretty important person.
(Ah, I knew there would be a place to use all this knowledge!)
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is my understanding that the Congregation of Cluny is a segment within the Benedictine Order, not a predecessor to it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The survey found that more than eight in 10 Catholics broadly supported the selection of former German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to replace Pope John Paul II.
Nearly as many, 73 percent, said they were "enthusiastic" about the new pontiff, though only one in four said they were strongly enthusiastic about the choice.
...
Half say they want the church to adhere to traditional values and policies, while almost exactly the same proportion believe the church must change its policies to reflect modern lifestyles and beliefs.
....Slightly more than half, 52 percent, believe the Catholic Church is out of touch with American Catholics, while 44 percent disagree.
Eight in 10 expect him to maintain traditional church policies while only one in six believe he will change policies and modernize the church...
American Catholics say the church's top priority should be to deal with sexual abuse by priests.
Seven in 10 opposed denying communion to politicians who support legal abortion...
Slightly more than half, 53 percent, said they would want their son to become a priest while 41 percent disagreed.
I tried to extract just the raw numbers and leave as much of the commentary out as possible.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why? It doesn't mean he'll do the job badly, but that he didn't aspire to it. That's a good thing.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many people say that if you want to be the pope than you shouldn't be pope. That is, if most people who wish for the role have some sort of power problem and agenda to push. Many cardinals, from what I understand, go into the conclave hoping that it's not going to be them, because it is a HUGE responsibility with tremendous pressure and lifetime commitment to serve. You can't just resign when you get tired (though if you become seriously ill, they say it's possible). Though I'd love to give the pope a few suggestions, I would certainly never want to be the pope.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
ps. When will the press stop calling him Ratzinger and start calling him Benedict XVI? Were they waiting for an official ceremony, or did they just like the wat Ratzinger sounded?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:"At a certain point, I prayed to God 'please don't do this to me,"' he recalled. "Evidently, this time He didn't listen to me."
I was talking about this with a former hatracker the other night. I spoke about how usually, the people who never want the office, get the office, because only unbalanced people would covet such responsibility, such as the election of an abbot.
The fact that Benedict didn't WANT the job makes me feel better about his election, actually.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the selection, for two reasons. First, I think he will allow the Church time to reflect on the massive changes wrought by Pope John Paul II, and on what he wouldn't change. Second, I think the Pope Benedict's obvious doctrinal credentials will give him the credibility to seriously look at issues affecting the Church without creating fears of improper doctrinal shifts.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The more I read about Benedict XVI, the more I like him. I think I'm going to be an even bigger Benedict fan than I was a John Paul fan. And I'm not even Catholic.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was doing some reading about the conclave. Theoretically, what happens in the Sistine Chapel is supposed to stay in the Sistine Chapel, but, despite this, the voting for every election in the modern era has been known in great detail. Apparently, the first vote was a for some minor candidates and an almost even split between then Cardinal Ratzinger and Carlo Cardinal Martini, a Jesuit and the standard bearer for the progressive side of the hierarchy.
According to the reports I read, Benedict's election followed a face to face between he and Cardinal Martini in which they came to an unknown informal agreement. On the next vote, most of the people who were voting for Martini (included Martini himself) switched their vote to Benedict.
I thought this was really interesting.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
