Posted on 04/19/2005 3:13:15 PM PDT by Pokey78
Aspellbinding pause came after the words "habemus papam" were pronounced on the balcony of St Peter's at 5.43 yesterday, before the name was given. Then came "Josef" - Josef Ratzinger. Those watching, in the city and the world, waited during those seconds, agog to know the identity of the new Pope. But why should the world care who the new Pope is?
The answer lies in the extraordinary influence of the last papacy, of Pope John Paul II. Geopolitically, it changed the face of the world, not least by bringing the Soviet empire tumbling down. John Paul's importance was recognised by the turnout of world leaders at his funeral, and not just those who agreed with his principles.
Cardinal Ratzinger was one of two cardinals in this conclave who had voted for John Paul II. Yet he is not John Paul III, but Benedict XVI. It was 1978 when we last had a new pope, and many have forgotten the interest and uncertainty such a change brings. No one can predict the reign.
Some hopes of the secular world certainly will not be fulfilled. Western liberals are shocked by the Church's attitude to abortion, contraception, practising homosexuality, the ordination of women and the ordination of married men. But the Western world will be disappointed if it expects Pope Benedict to countenance abortion or sex outside marriage. Movement might have been expected on the ordination of married men, a matter of discipline, not moral doctrine.
But in whatever years are left to Pope Benedict, 78 last Saturday, no betting man would put money on change even here.
Cardinal Ratzinger was no monstrous obscurantist. He did not tolerate out-of-line theologians teaching in the name of the Church, but at least he was a proper theologian with an international reputation himself. As a theologian he attended the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), and he intends to continue its engagement of the Church with the world. But, in line with that council, how open will he be to collegial authority, and will he see the laity as prime movers of the Church in the new century?
His choice of the patronal name Benedict invokes his unfortunate predecessor Benedict XV, elected at the beginning of the First World War, and dead eight years later, worn out by unsuccessful efforts for peace. But the name also refers back to St Benedict, the builder of Western monasticism.
At the opening of this conclave, Cardinal Ratzinger delivered a sermon stressing continuity of religious doctrine in contrast with the endless experiment of secular ideologies, seesawing from "Marxism to free-market liberalism, even to libertarianism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism". If St Benedict of old built a new Christian society for a Europe ruined by the fall of the Roman Empire, Pope Benedict is confident that he knows where to look for a vision to transform newly decayed Europe and the world.
It is no business of a national newspaper to decide the pastoral priorities of a man Catholics call the Vicar of Christ. Some readers will be very interested in his reverent attitude to liturgy. As far as Britain, its Queen and Government go, there is a presumption of friendship with the Pope, cemented by the visit of John Paul II in 1982. Society shares with the Church the furtherance of family values, education, social cohesion, peace and aspirations to human fulfilment, with a rejection of a culture of pornocracy or drugs. Christian rivalries no longer turn the Pope into Antichrist. Pope Benedict's task is daunting, and he asked in his first public words for prayers. He surely has those of Christians and the good wishes of many beyond his flock.
"Just because we are conservative"
We?
"doesn't mean we are anti-modernist, does it?"
Modernism has a specific definition within the context of Catholicism. See the writings of Saint Pius X.
"What are American democracy"
America is a republic, not a democracy.
"capitalism"
Capitalism is not an "ism." It's just the way people act when they are free. Goes back as far as history.
"the bill of rights"
The Bill of Rights is grounded in Natural Rights philosophy, which does not fall under the heading of modernism as the term is used in the Catholic Church.
"internet blogging"
The Soviet union had its samizdat; the French revolutionists had their pamphleteers, and in earlier ages information was passed by word of mouth.
BLogging is just a more efficient way to do what has always been done.
They removed the comment, but not the poster.
One of Dana Carvey's characters, shown here on the right, was "the Church Lady" who had a fictional cable access show (cf. "Wayne's World") called "Church Chat".
The character was drawn from life, according to Carvey; ladies of his family's church who said things like "some people only come to church when it's con-VEEN-ient" and rhetorically wondering whether some malfeasance or other-- short skirts or unwed snuggling-- was caused by-- "could it be...SATAN!?"
Of course, it could be, but is more often our own Adamic nature that really needs no supernatural impetus.
Which explains why I, a serious Christian of the Baptist brand, enjoyed "Church Chat" :)
"Of course, it could be, but is more often our own Adamic nature that really needs no supernatural impetus."
I find it very hard to know how to know.
IMB, since the fact that we have a sinful nature is attributable to Satan, all sin is due in a way to his influence.
I don't imagine that Satan is imminently present every time a minor sin is committed, but he precipitated the events that led to it.
Then, too, he has a lot of help. A whole army of angels was cast out of Heaven with him, right? What we Catholics used to refer to as Satanum aliosque spiritus malignos: Satan and the other malign spirits (that wander the world seeking the ruin of souls).
I sometimes hear liberals arguing in favor of abortion on demand, and at such times I have no sense of Satan's presence or any reason to suspect it...but can we say his influence is absent?
As I said, I find it very hard to know how to know what might be direct influence, and what is just the influence of the wrongheaded ideas he introduces into the world.
Talking about it makes me want to say the prayer to the Archangel Michael (which I know Baptists don't do).
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio;
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Imperat illi Deus; supplices deprecamur: tuque,
Princeps militiae coelestis, Satanam aliosque spiritus
malignos, qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in
mundo, divina virtute in infernum detrude. Amen
Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle;
be our safeguard and protection against the wickedness
and snares of the devil; may God rebuke him, we humbly
pray; and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host, by
the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all evil
spirits who wander the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.
For the record, since my comment went to the issue of motive, I never asserted that Ratzinger had somehow succeeded in stopping the teaching of every known or conceivable error among a billion or so Catholics.
Feel free to take that debate up with someone else.
He's dead now.
He's still alive:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~milljohnstuart/
Whoops. I could have sworn he was dead. Anyway, what's the VK consensus?
I expect he will step in a bear trap soon enough. :)
Sounds good. :)
Thankfully your new Pope seems to take his from the Bible.
"you seem to be"
I'm not even going to waste time on that.
Here's a clue: most people on FR have been around long enough to have seen every device you try to employ in that post, and to become heartily tired of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.