Comments on: RECEIVE THE BENEDICTION

by: dw

Sat, 23 Apr 2005 04:47:05 +0000

I’ll say this, then spend the next 100 words qualifying it: Ratzinger was 10% right about the media. Many journalists have a bias against organized religion, and they used the scandal to pile on not only the Catholic Church but Christianity in general.

Now, the qualifications: I am not excusing anyone in the Catholic hierarchy. Their inaction, denial, silence, obfusctaion, and indifference to the scandals, as well as their hardened and arrogant attitude towards the laity embodied by the micromanagement of diocese affairs by the Curia, is inexcusable. The beatdown they got from the Boston Globe was well-deserved, and it’s disappointing (I mean that like a father’s disappointment) they have failed to show they’ve learned a lick from the scandals.

B16 has an opportunity now, as Pope, to rebuild the American church by mending fences and using his ex cathedra power to clean up the mess. It would be a miracle-category event if he did this, though, since he’s had the same opportunities half a hundred times over the years to do something about the anger in the Church. And trust me, they are feeling the failure right now, what with all the checks they’re writing to lawyers and the meager collection plate takings.

by: Mark Hasty

Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:29:15 +0000

I admit I’m not familiar with Ratzinger’s role in that scandal, and I do believe that the Vatican has underestimated the ill will priestly child abuse has created. It is entirely possible that they don’t realize the low regard many Americans–even many American Christians–have for the Vatican’s (in)actions in dealing with the scandal.

For what it’s worth, the reason I never wear a clerical collar (in fact, I don’t even own one) is that, frankly, I don’t want people to think I’m a Catholic priest. So I’ll leave you readers to guess what I think about how the sex abuse scandal has been dealt with.

by: M1EK

Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:04:26 +0000

I think both you and Dylan have underestimated one thing in particular, at least for American Catholics, of whom I am more of one than you and at least as much of one as Dylan:

The child abuse scandal. Ratzinger was the primary force behind the PR effort to paint this as a media hack-job rather than an atual problem. That goes beyond conservative and into the realm of actual EVIL.

by: The American Mind

Fri, 22 Apr 2005 02:36:35 +0000

A More Conservative Christianity
Mark Hasty is not a instant pundit (as opposed to an instapundit) but his take on Pope Benedict XVI is…

by: dw

Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:00:14 +0000

I commented on this myself.
http://clientandserver.com/archives/001030.html

I’m still amazed people thought there would be this pope who would be up for “discussing” all these “issues.” Non-Catholics, especially the non-religious, just don’t understand the concept of time in the Catholic Church.

by: Vidiot

Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:54:42 +0000

John Paul II transformed both the office of the papacy and the worldwide expectations of what a pope should do, where he should go, and how he should act. That genie isn’t going back into the bottle anytime soon. Yes, John Paul II’s papacy was the beginning of a new era, but he had the strong pastoral impulse to make his policies work. From what I can tell, Ratzinger doesn’t. To perhaps oversimplify, Ratzinger is an administrator, not a globe-trotter. (I look forward to watching his reception at the previously scheduled World Youth Day in Cologne.)

After John Paul II, the Pope (whoever he may be) is not just the head of an organization (and a Church, Harry); he’s a de facto world leader, on a par with (but with more oomph than) presidents, prime ministers, and kings. And in that light, I was very surprised that the cardinals elected someone with no discernible trace of warmth or compassion to go along with his hard-line message.

I am also very disappointed that they chose the person who seems to have been in charge of the movement to deny Communion to John Kerry. (But that’s another blog post, if I may self-link.)

by: Harry

Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:34:51 +0000

I’ve found myself wondering why as a Protestant US Christian I should be concerned at all about the new Pope. And the context I keep framing is this: John Paul II made me think of the Catholic Church as a church rather than an organization. That may seem trite, but the exposure I’d had to Catholicism growing up was limited to what seemed to be a very formal, but unfeeling, ritual of adherence on the part of the few Catholics I knew, combined with an aunt who had converted to Catholicism when she married and then, after the death of my uncle, immersed herself in her local parish until a priest approached her with earthly pleasures on his mind. But the Pope is the most visible Christian in this world, and John Paul II seemed to genuinely try to proclaim and live an honest version of the Christian life. Did I agree theologically with him on everything? Obviously not - I don’t accept what seems to be the basic premise of Catholocism, that I must approach God through a priest. But he made Catholicism, and thereby Christianity, a living presence in the world. And that means that my hope for Pope Benedict XVI is that he can continue this vibrancy.