Dear Darkwolf,
There are a lot of cradle Catholics who still cling to the myth of the Spirit of Vatican II, that the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council would usher in an era of democracy, modernity, and new and wild things like contraception for all! women priests! married priests! inter-communion with non-Catholics!
Interestingly, cardinals 80 and over aren't permitted to vote. I believe that may have been done to promote a "progressive" agenda in the Church. Ironically, the "progressivism" associated with the myth of the Spirit of Vatican II is a relic of a dying generation.
I wonder if a Ratzinger papacy was assured because some older cardinals could no longer vote.
Younger Catholics who are reasonably devout often just don't want to hear this cr*p. It is older devout Catholics still running around looking for their lost Catholic mojo.
Here's an example. My sons took swimming lessons with a swimming teacher who belongs to our parish. He's a little older than my wife and I (he's in his 60s, we're in our 40s). This week and last week, he's been talking to my wife how after 26 years of oppression, it would be great to get a progressive new pope who would re-open the questions of contraception, married priests, etc.!
He was horrified that my wife wasn't hoping for same.
This is a devout man, a regular, involved church-going Catholic. But he is a man obtained of a delusion - the delusion of the myth of the Spirit of Vatican II.
Conversely, when my wife related this tale to the younger moms of our homeschool (mostly Catholic) chess club, they were at once bemused and horrified by the older man's thoughts, and all thought a Ratzinger papacy would be just dandy.
Older devout, church-going Catholics are often more desirous of a "progressive" agenda. Younger devout, church-going Catholics are often hopeful for greater orthodoxy.
sitetest
You hit the nail on the head. "Spirit of Vatican II" is indeed the delusion many liberal Catholics have been laboring under for a long time.
It's wake-up time!
In the Boston area there is much controversy about closing of churches and Bernard Law's lack of accounting for his passivity while horrible acts were being perpetrated by priests. In my view--not shared by my friend--this is a lot more emotional and political than it is about the nature of the church. I mean, these reasons for wanting to leave are not new, shocking developments. They seem to have emerged when one's church building was put on the auction block.
I have the ability to stand back from that. While I believe Law should have been prosecuted, he wasn't. But I'm not looking for revenge.
My mom is strongly behind the last pope and was hoping for Ratzinger; my friend's mom, just as old as mine, shares her views.
I am left thinking that in the contemporary church we have people who approve of Vatican II's outreach to other churches in terms of civility, but don't want the CORE of the church touched. Which of course makes me wonder, if V2 was wrong, how did it get past the infallible pope?
And on the other side, there are people who abide by the church as long as it is tailored to their already-existing beliefs. Which seems weird to me. The "new churches" popping up all over the US--yuppies in their drive-through services, not actually drive-through but "softer", let's put it that way--remind me of the liberal streak in Catholicism that supports communism. Nice to see that Ratzinger doesn't seem to care for that wing.
It just seems to me that some people don't quite get the church they're a part of, and would be happier in a more liberal church.
That reminds me of the phrase "the excesses of Vatican II" which I heard recently. I think the new Pope will be working on those excesses, rolling some of that back.