Shock! New Pope a Catholic

(emphasis added by IRTradRU?)

Shock! New Pope a Catholic
By Gerard Baker
Pinning a conservative label on Benedict XVI is absurd. His mission transcends Left and Right

WHAT HAS been most enjoyable about the stunned reaction of the bulk of the media to the election of Pope Benedict XVI has been the simple incredulousness at the very idea that a man such as Joseph Ratzinger could possibly have become leader of the universal Church.
Journalists and pundits for whom the Catholic Church has long been an object of anthropological curiosity fringed with patronising ridicule have really let themselves go since the new pontiff emerged. Indeed most of the coverage I have seen or read could be neatly summarised as: “Cardinals elect Catholic Pope. World in Shock.”

As headlines, I’ll grant you, it’s hard to beat God’s Rottweiler, The Enforcer, or Cardinal No. They all play beautifully into the anti-Catholic sentiment in intellectual European and American circles that is, in this politically correct era, the only form of religious bigotry legitimised and sanctioned in public life. But I ask you, in all honesty, what were they expecting?
[precisely what I was talking about in the ‘Habemus Papam’ thread]

Did the likes of The Guardian, the BBC or The New York Times think there was someone in the Church’s leadership who was going to pop up out on the balcony of St Peter’s and with a cheery wave, tell the faithful that everything they’d heard for the past 26 — no, make that 726 — years was rubbish and that they should all rush out and load up with condoms and abortifacients like teenagers off for a smutty weekend? Or did they think the conclave would go the whole hog and elect Sir Bob Geldof (with Peaches, perhaps, as a co-pope) in an effort to bring back the masses?

rest of story here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19269-1578210,00.html

Not true. Protestant Fundamentalists are considered open game… no… just that label, itself, is increasingly intended as a slur.

Unfortunately, I think all religions have become fair game, including the lack of one.

Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Moslems, Pagans, secularists, humanists, agnostics, and atheists are all universally reviled…by everyone but their own.

:roll:

Just human nature, I reckon. Or, as my old Momma might say, “They all have got the old Devil in 'em.” :slight_smile:


–James

I don’t know if that’s fair to say. I think alot of people who aren’t members of a given religion respect and have respect for others’ beliefs. It’s when these ‘religious groups’ try to weild their influence on the population at large that people get pushed out of shape. I guess it’s hard not to try and control people, even those outside your religion, when you believe you have an in with the dude who created the universe. I don’t think it’s the religions though but the power they try to exert on others that gets them reviled. --Whoever said that religion was the last vestige of scoundrals had a point.

mike

Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Moslems,
And everybody hates the Jews.

But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
It’s National Everyone-smile-at-one-another-hood Week.
Be nice to people who
Are inferior to you.
It’s only for a week, so have no fear.
Be grateful that it doesn’t last all year!

(With a respectful bow of appreciation to Tom Lehrer)

I don’t believe there’s any particular animosity towards the Catholic religion per se, any
more than towards any other religion. The reason the Catholic church gets such attention,
both good and bad (let’s remember all the praise lavished on the late Pope John Paul’s various
visits around the world, and of course the late Mother Theresa’s every breath was reported
on in glowing terms) anyway, the reason they get so much press both good and bad
is because they are a -political- force at least as strong as a moderately prosperous
European nation, and they wield that power to affect governmental policies across the globe.
That makes the actions of the church a valid target of interest and criticism for -everyone-,
not just Catholics. Declaring contraception as not a sin is simply not going to happen, but
it is possible to not interfere with pro-condom programs. (And, while I haven’t been following
the Catholic Church’s policies too closely in this regard, I believe that John Paul was
fairly hands off in regards to nations handling of condoms, sex education, and so on,
though as I recall his predecessor was pretty high-pressure on the issue. I’d have to
doublecheck the record to be sure, though.)

Anyway, details aside, the point is, the election of the Pope affects far more than Catholics,
but it is ironic that people are surprised that the pope has strong Catholic views…

I do, however, find the ‘my group is the last group it’s okay to persecute’ thing a little
tiresome, though. I’ve heard it before, and I’m sure all hear it again. They can’t -all-
be the last group it’s okay to be prejudiced against…

Chris, That’s basically what I was saying as well a couple of posts back- about people being not against the religion but objecting to their power and influence over those not part of their church. Then again, what else is new? This has been basically the story of civilization, for better and worse.

About saying you’re tired of the ‘my group is the last group it’s ok to persecute’ thing; what do you expect to have anyone say? “My group is the first group it’s ok to persecute”?

Funny to think though that if Christ were alive today he’d be arguably one of the richest guys in the world and driving around in the Christ-mobile.

mike

THe fact remains that Ratzinger is conservative on issues that are not doctrinal and about which there is latitude for Catholics to disagree. Hence, it would have been possible to elect a more liberal pope.

Was Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago not a “real” Catholic?

Possible to elect a more conservative pope? I dunno.

Are RC’s more liberal than Da Rat not a Catholic anymore?

I don’t know enough about the new pope’s views to comment on how conservative he is, only what I’ve been hearing. I don’t think the good cardinal from Chicago, whoever he is, was going to have a chance getting elected considering the American priest scandel, do you really think that was going to happen? -probably even without that, so you may well have a point.
I wonder though if the fact that Ratzinger was so high up in the church as it was that he wasn’t the most logical choice. I thought when I heard he was 78, and I’ve since heard it alluded to, that since he is elderly the thought was that he may not be in all that long and eventual and somewhat overdue reform could be postponed at least for a little while.

I haven’t been to church in many years and am pretty cynical about the religion of my birth but even I wouldn’t refer to the guy as ‘Da Rat’. Although maybe you have more insights to his background than I do, I don’t know.

mike

I believe Bernardin passed away several years ago, so no election for him. The point was that he represented a liberal but legitimate branch of the Catholic Church.


On Ratzinger’s nickname… . nothing serious meant by it. I’m a Duke fan. . . Coach K is often called “Da Rat” too.

Wormdiet, Sorry, didn’t mean to get on your case about the nickname. I should have known your initial comments were a little too thoughtful for you to be putting the guy down or something.

I just heard from a friend who just had her car broken into in Oakland so maybe I’m a little touchy right now!

You get 10 points for that one.

Ahh. Beautiful Oakland, the Detroit of the West coast.

Is that right, Ted?

Yes Dougal, it is.

Anybody remember this thread?

http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php?t=27616

Note how many people found Koranic apocalyptic prophesy ridiculous. Note how many people acknowledged the point when I reminded them gently that Christians go in for this sort of thing. I’m not having a personal go at those who contributed to this thread. But I do find the selective mockery deeply ironic.

Actually it’s almost comical how almost everyone with an axe to grind around here regards themselves as persecuted. I think it’s disgraceful how we ironists are singled out for especially harsh treatment.
:wink:

:laughing:

Dougal: ‘Do you believe in God, then Ted?’

\

Dougal: ‘God, I’ve heard about those cults Ted. People dressing up in black and saying Our Lord’s going to come back and save us all.’ Ted: ‘No, Dougal, that’s us. That’s Catholicism.’ Dougal: ‘Oh right.’

\



Ted: I’m not a fascist. I’m a priest. Fascists dress up in black and tell people what to do. Whereas priests… …More drink!




As a Christian, it stands to reason that I would believe Christian eschatology above Islamic.

Well, I wasn’t singling you out Walden. Actually, I think the Koranic prophesy fell short of eschatology, properly so-called. That guy was predicting disaster in the United States, not the end of the world.

If I remember rightly, most of the mockery focussed on the process of extrapolation of contemporary details from an ancient text; not much seemed to hang on the fact that it was a Moslem who was doing it.

There are many here among us who believe that anything which affects the States is the end of the world.

'Though not Brother Walden - who is far to clever to buy into that kind of thinking :wink:

Slan,
D.

No prob, it was in poor taste anyway.