Benedict XVI: After the Council, I was 'too timid' in challenging liberals [Allen]

[mdgspencer]

I originally brought Jesus as shown in the Gospels into the discussion because Jesus too acted in a way that was divisive, bluntly castigating others for their religious practices and teaching things that others would not accept, such as the fact of course that he is Divine. I presume in his case there was a time and place for such criticism, but all the same his language definitely stung the sensitivities of others. So I don’t see how the mere fact of being divisive must be a flaw, which is precisely what some here have castigated Pope Benedict for when it comes his words and actions to other Catholics.
It is true that Jesus spoke of other religions few times (though for example he did tell the Samaritan women in John that salvation comes from the Jews [and not from her religion]). Still some very harsh things were said in the Old Testament about the religious practices of the pagan neighbors of the Jews, and in fact about the Israelites who adopted them. Such criticism of other religions isn’t necessarily bad. However, I agree that if the Pope spoke about Mohammedism in the way the Western press said he did, that he would have been imprudent. However, his remarks were misinterpreted by the Western media, by some at least I suspect maliciously.

LRThunder

The pharisees were his people, not some one else.

The Pope shouldn’t be using language that stings the sensitivities of other religions and cultures, especially in this current hot-bed of political climate between Islam and the West.

Well the Pope in his apology said, he did not share the view of Islam, with that of the 14th century quote he used that was insulting to Muslims.

You call this quote truth, so you’re in disagreement with the Pope on this issue?

Jim

 

[Ender]

Well the Pope in his apology said…

The pope did not apologize for his comments at Regensburg. He expressed regret that his comments had been misinterpreted … something you continue to do by repeated claims that he apologized when it is unmistakably clear that he did not. He is not responsible for the misrepresentations of others about the content of his remarks.

Ender

 

[Richardols]

The pope did not apologize for his comments at Regensburg. He expressed regret that his comments had been misinterpreted

Yeah, he just backtracked. We might note that he has not made such gaffes since. His advisors have been careful to see that he doesn’t put his foot into it again.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

His advisors have been careful to see that he doesn’t put his foot into it again.

That is a very offensive comment, IMO. First, the Holy Father never ‘put his foot into it’ in the first place.

Second, the idea that Benedict’s advisors somehow have the capacity to ‘muzzle’ this ‘less than intelligent’ pope–I mean, if you say he ‘put his foot in it’ you obviously think what he said wasn’t all that ‘smart’, right?–to keep him from making the mistake again, means that you are putting ALL the ‘blame’ on Benedict for that first speech you didn’t like. . .while not allowing him any ‘credit’ (that, of course, MUST go to those shadowy 'advisors) for any speeches afterward (which apparently you haven’t found fault with).

You must never have read any of his books, or you would know that this Pope’s command of language, of history, philosophy, etc., is masterful. He is one of the people LEAST likely to make a verbal ‘gaffe’ in any situation, certainly not of the type that people ‘make out’ his words in the situation under discussion to be.

God bless Benedict XVI.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Several of the posts in this thread are far more offensive than anything the Holy Father has ever written or said, no matter how his words are interpreted. Only those who want to deliberately misunderstand what he says can truly find grounds for offense. As such, they have their own agenda.

I’ll take the Holy Father’s words over theirs any day.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

That is a very offensive comment, IMO. First, the Holy Father never ‘put his foot into it’ in the first place.

Second, the idea that Benedict’s advisors somehow have the capacity to ‘muzzle’ this ‘less than intelligent’ pope–I mean, if you say he ‘put his foot in it’ you obviously think what he said wasn’t all that ‘smart’, right?.

Actually, the Popes usually use screeners to review their speeches and writings, before they go public. In this instance, Pope Benedict chose not to have his talk screened. He does now.

He does have to be careful on how he speaks. He’s no longer a Cardinal who can say something and have it go mostly unheard. As Pope, watch and listen to what he says. Enemies in particular, will use whatever gaff he makes against the Church, as what happened with the Muslims.

The Pope is a very intelligent man. I have tried to read one of his books, but wasn’t getting much out of it at the time, I’ll try again sometime. I never had a hard time reading Pope John Paul II’s works and he is very dear to my heart.

I haven’t come to know and love B16 like JPII, but that doesn’t mean I won’t in the future. I’m just not connecting with him and I think he has some failings that have not been healthy for the Church.

Jim

 

[Richardols]

That is a very offensive comment, IMO. First, the Holy Father never ‘put his foot into it’ in the first place.

If that were so, why the necessity to backtrack and to have his remarks “clarified”?

Second, the idea that Benedict’s advisors somehow have the capacity to ‘muzzle’ this ‘less than intelligent’ pope–I mean, if you say he ‘put his foot in it’ you obviously think what he said wasn’t all that ‘smart’, right?

1. You are the one using the terms “muzzle” and “less than intelligent.” I do think that what he said wasn’t all that diplomatic.

to keep him from making the mistake again

I think that such is partially the case. You’ll note that he has been more diplomatic since then.

You must never have read any of his books, or you would know that this Pope’s command of language, of history, philosophy, etc., is masterful.

If that were so, why did he find it necessary to have to explain himself?

 

[Richardols]

Actually, the Popes usually use screeners to review their speeches and writings, before they go public. In this instance, Pope Benedict chose not to have his talk screened. He does now.

He does have to be careful on how he speaks. He’s no longer a Cardinal who can say something and have it go mostly unheard. As Pope, watch and listen to what he says. Enemies in particular, will use whatever gaff he makes against the Church, as what happened with the Muslims.

Just so. Just so.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This is so appropriate in this forum;

As Dominican theologian Melchior Cano observed at the Council of Trent when an overreaction to Protestantism was forming the basis for neo-Catholicism:

"Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the
Holy See–they destroy insteand of strenghthening its
foundations

.

Jim

 

[MelanieAnne]

A good portion of this thread is totally off topic as the thread has been utterly derailed and transformed into a discussion about something entirely different from the opening post. Before being told to do so, or having the thread closed, perhaps we should return to the original topic?

 

[Michael_C]

He is still a person and we have to consider the times right after the Council. It was a confusing time for the entire world.

" I myself, in that context, was almost too timid with respect to what I should have dared to do in order to get directly to the point,” the pope said.

I think he’s doing a great job and a lot of what he does and says are directly related to his feeling he should have spoken up 40 years ago.

Many theologians took the council out of context and many Bishops failed to speak up.