Posted on 04/21/2005 3:05:18 PM PDT by swilhelm73
Amid the reactions to the elevation of Joseph Ratzinger to the papacy, there have been some doozies. My favorite came from a furious Ms. Cokie Roberts on Tuesday's night's Nightline. She must have been venting something fierce all evening, because Ted Koppel, none too pleased himself, introduced her with these words: "Cokie Roberts, you, you were, I gather, able to contain your enthusiasm, when you heard the news."
Whereupon Cokie shot back with this. (And if looks could kill, Nightline would have lost its entire viewership, such as it is.)
Well, this, this choice is really something that is different from how Americans approach a lot of things. It's Cardinal Ratzinger who wrote the letter "Dominus Iesus," about [how] other religions are -- deficient. And, and he said, in that letter, he said that, that, "relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism are bad." Well, now, the problem with that is this country is based on religious pluralism. He has written a letter on, on women and feminism that was very disturbing to many women, myself included. Where he essentially, after Pope John Paul II had apologized to women for the sexism in the Church, this letter went back and essentially said that feminism was the, the source of divorce, that it was the source of problems in, in marriage. When, you know, without ever talking about the many problems that, that happen in marriages where women are the victims. So, there are a lot of areas here where American Catholics will look at this papacy and not recognize it.
For a more eloquent version of such unhappiness, albeit more hysterical, one could turn to Andrew Sullivan. Perhaps because of sheer exhaustion he seemed more composed yesterday, restricting himself to observations such as this: "Ratzinger's views on freedom of thought within the church are deeply authoritarian; his views on what conscience is are totalitarian; his conflation of his own views with the Holy Spirit are [sic] offensive." Two days into the new papacy and Sullivan is a spent force.
For calmer, more respectful reactions to Ratzinger's election I turned to an unexpected source: the correspondence pages of the Washington Post and New York Times. In each case, the lead letter was reverential. The Times' missive began in a voice of simple kindness: "With deep joy I offer Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger my warm congratulations and most fervent good wishes on his election to the papacy." The Post's opener began with similarly kind words. "The former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is a man rich in spiritual passion, humility, self-denial, and love for the cause of God and of man." It then hit me that that last description was also to be found in the second paragraph of the Times' lead letter.
There was no reason why it shouldn't have been. Turns out each letter was signed by the same man: Paul Kokoski, of Hamilton, Ontario. Other than the abbreviated opening in the Post's version, and a few slight editorial tics (the Post changed Mr. Kokoski's reference to Ratzinger's defending Catholicism against "modern errors," as the Times had it, to defending against "the errors of modernity"), the letters were identical.
How do you like that! Has this ever happened before, the nation's two top papers running the same opening letter? Was this a case of great minds thinking alike? Or will each now feel it was had?
By the way, you might be wondering how I knew the version with "modern errors" was the correct one. Because that's the way it appeared in the versions of Mr. Kokoski's letter that appeared in yesterday's Miami Herald and National Post of Canada. The Los Angeles Times also posted the letter, and also in the lead spot, though without the disputed clause.
Who knows how many other outlets ran the Kokoski letter? At the risk of earning Andrew Sullivan's wrath, I bet the Holy Spirit does.
I don't agree with Cd. Ratzinger's comments, if indeed Cokie Roberts accurately summarized them, but where does it say that the Catholic Church should bow to the cultural sensibilities of America?
Funny line.
Knowing the lefties in the media, I wouldn't put it past them to have made up the guy and his letter themselves, just to blame it on a conservative operative.
;-)
I see a parallel between the "typical" liberal view of the Church and the Constitution...they think that both should conform to social winds...MO.
When are these people going to understand that the church is not a political entity. It doe snot need to bow to the social pressures (nor should politicians for that matter). I would be more worries about our leader of my church if he told me that all other religions are equal to mine, then why should I remain a Catholic? There are other religions out there that would make my humanistic life a lot easier and promise nothing but warm fuzzies. The problem is that most of these are contradictory to the bible. Why did Martin Luther break from the Catholic church? Because he thought there was a better way, and that was his choice. Why don't these people need to apologize, for breaking from our dictrine in the first place. The Catholic Church, like it or not, is the most intellectually honest institution alive today.
sorry for the horrific spelling...
Troublesome question isn't it.
Personally, I don't pretend to know if "all", "only one", or "some" may be the answer. I do, however lean toward the last posibility.
No. But, I subscribe to the notion that belief in Christ as the "way, truth, and the life" isn't so much a religion, as a personal faith.
right on both points
I chose not to belong to any organized religion because I couldn't reconcile at a young age all these different groups saying they had a monopoly on the truth, I just decided none of them had the monopoly on the truth and that's my call, and I'll have to live with the consequences if I am wrong, though verily, I think I lead my life in more Christian like fashion than many who claim to be Christian but I digress
the solution is so simple, why doesn't someone just set up another religion, if you are unhappy with the Roman Catholic Church, start your own - now for fun you could pick a competing Pope as has happened historically, there was one in Rome and one in France, in the 1300's, I remember reading about this in a history about the Knights of the Templar, the warrior monks of the Crusades, the founders of the Freemasons, fascinating stuff, of course Rome won that battle, eventually, took a few decades to get that straightened out - of course that was a fight about power not doctrine
keep the bits from Catholicism you like, steal a bit here and bit there, after all Catholicism is a meshing of a early Christian and Roman traditions, and Islam steals a bit from Christianity and Judaism and paganism, or start fresh, or really I see the Anglican church as being Catholic church lite so rush on over to Prince Chuck's church.....
then get some George Soros types to fund your new religion, apply some good fund raising and corporate strategy to your religion (kind of like Osama Bin Laden and his Al Queda build up - only legal and with a tax break if you can convince the IRS you're a legit religion.....)though your own private army, hmmm, not a bad idea.....
establish your seat of power in a tax haven even better, the liberal media will love you, think of all the free PR for recruitment, you got the internet now has a prime recruitment, play your cards right you could conquer Europe and North America in no time - ok the tough part is going to be the scriptures, religious authority thing but I mean hey no one believed Jesus was the son of God at first and no one believed God was dictating the Koran to Mohammad but look at em now
sure it'll take time but hey look what one man has been able to achieve, Mohammad, 1300 years and he's got a 1. 4 billion Jesus 2000 years and he's got 2 billion total, Martin Luther and King Henry VIII, well I don't know how the Lutheran and Anglican numbers breakdown these days- oops and I forgot Buddha, he's only weighing at 500 million after about 2600 years, according to this site
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
if you start now, you might just give the Vatican a run for its money, no point just whining about the present Church
I chose not to belong to any organized religion because I couldn't reconcile at a young age all these different groups saying they had a monopoly on the truth
This is indeed a problem. What I've discerned is that every church, every denomination, every "systematic theology" has some inherent error, but that many errors come from either an over-emphasis or an under-emphasis of some essential doctrine. We're told by Christ Himself that when we receive Him, we receive the Holy Spirit, who is a "teacher who will lead you into all truth." While major hierarchical churches don't like the idea, while we are not the autonomous judge of truth, we have been given the tools (Scripture, the Holy Spirit, the gift of spiritual discernment, the wise counsel of trusted and mature friends in the faith) to separate error from truth. Some denominations do not recognize the ability of the individual, with the Scriptures in one hand, and the Holy Spirit as his or her guide, exercising such discernment, but I rest my belief in this upon Scripture, not upon church tradition.
the solution is so simple, why doesn't someone just set up another religion, if you are unhappy with the Roman Catholic Church, start your own
As you know, this is where most denominations have come from. Martin Luther never intended to leave the Catholic Church, but its attitude toward him brought rise to Protestantism. Similarly, Wesley and Whitefield never intended to leave the Anglican church, but when they were denied access to the Anglican pulpit, up rose Methodism. From my perspective, it's the organizational/bureaucratic resistance to the truth and to the movement of God which has birthed most denominations (this doesn't mean that those new offshoots retained their original fire and purity of belief, however).
keep the bits from Catholicism you like, steal a bit here and bit there,
...and you have the Episcopal church.
then get some George Soros types to fund your new religion, apply some good fund raising and corporate strategy to your religion
...and you have the Democratic Party.
One of the real problems with Catholics who aren't too happy with church policies and teachings is that they are told from infancy that the RCC is the ONE, TRUE CHURCH, established by Jesus Christ Himself, and with Peter as the first pope. Break away from the Church, and you're into heretic territory. So, many Catholics suffer under treachings they don't accept, but because of a concern for the fate of their eternal souls, they bite their lips, or grouse in the pages of The Nation.
but I mean hey no one believed Jesus was the son of God at first
Except for Jesus himself. That the gospels don't teach the divinity of Christ isn't a tenable argument.
But, ultimately, one needs to get off the fence and decide where to cast their lot. Buddah, Mohammed, and Christ can't all be correct. At best, one is right, and the rest are frauds; or at worst, and all frauds and we're all still pretty lost in terms of reaching God. After fussing around for awhile with New Age spirituality, the most compelling teachings, to me, eventually came from Jesus Christ (not some denomination). I've cast my lot with him, and I agree with Paul, that if Christ is not raised from the dead, we are still lost, and the most miserable of human beings.
Liberals elevate man's reason, but when anyone acts (according to his reason) contrary to their viewpoint, that person is the object of scorn.
thanks Kenny good response with some humour too, I will remain confused as to who holds the ultimate truth but having been raised Protestant, those are the values I am engrained with
I especially agree with this - I've just begun to understand this:
One of the real problems with Catholics who aren't too happy with church policies and teachings is that they are told from infancy that the RCC is the ONE, TRUE CHURCH, established by Jesus Christ Himself, and with Peter as the first pope. Break away from the Church, and you're into heretic territory.
The Catholic Church does a real good job of getting that message through in those tender impressionable years so I see why this big conflict exists for adult Catholics now
Similar to Islam - in fact Islam went one step better, they defined breaking away from Islam and converting to another religion as apostasy or heresy ie a crime punishable by death,
oh and the other interesting wrinkle is that apparently in Islam no one is guaranteed to go to paradise, even if you think you've lead a good life, etc unless you die shaheed, as a martyr for Allah or Islam, so presumably you would be kept on your toes your whole life, not sure if your record is good enough to get into paradise - most Christians I think feel as long as they ask God to forgive their sins and they try to be good and accept Jesus as their saviour, they are fairly confident they are going to heaven, for Muslims, given the huge number of rules they are expected to follow, sounds like perpetual angst
of course when I asked some Al Queda sympathizer how can you be sure what you think is an act of martyrdom will be considered by Allah as an act of martrydom, I got no answer -
for example:
Palestinian suicide bombers - given I've heard Muslim clerics [perhaps not enough of them but still ] saying that suicide bombers are not martyrs but sinners, suicide is a grave sin in Islam and
killing innocent civilians esp women and children is another sin, two wrongs do not make a right
but I digress
PS Kenny
"This is indeed a problem. What I've discerned is that every church, every denomination, every "systematic theology" has some inherent error, but that many errors come from either an over-emphasis or an under-emphasis of some essential doctrine. We're told by Christ Himself that when we receive Him, we receive the Holy Spirit, who is a "teacher who will lead you into all truth." While major hierarchical churches don't like the idea, while we are not the autonomous judge of truth, we have been given the tools (Scripture, the Holy Spirit, the gift of spiritual discernment, the wise counsel of trusted and mature friends in the faith) to separate error from truth. Some denominations do not recognize the ability of the individual, with the Scriptures in one hand, and the Holy Spirit as his or her guide, exercising such discernment, but I rest my belief in this upon Scripture, not upon church tradition."
I especially like this analysis....I'd never thought of it in those terms, I like it, I agree......
The Pope is not a president. He is the head of a church. He'd BETTER think his church is better than others, or he has no business being Pope.
The choice of this church's leader is the business of no one except for the Catholics.
I firmly believe that GOD is in Kansas. Persons in Southern California aver that the the one true path to GOD is east across the desert and over the mountains. The North Carolinian contend that the true path is due west, through the hills and across the great river. Both are wrong in the eyes of the North Dakotan who believes that the path to GOD is due south, across the snow fields and open prairie.
IMHO the most direct path to GOD really depends on where one happens to be when he starts looking. For some, there are open interstates where one travels in the company of fellow believers along a clearly marked route that many have traveled before. For others, there is the lone footpath through the woods. Like I said, IMHO, the most direct path depends on where you happen to find yourself when you start looking for HIM.
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.