V
VociMike
Guest
“How many divisions does the Pope have?”
- Status
M
m134e5
Guest
I converted in 2003. By that time, Pope John Paul II had A LOT of trouble getting around and speaking. I never could *understand *why people were so captivated by him. I also hadn’t heard of redemptive suffering, and the idea of it would have been so strange to me I would have just laughed it off as a joke at the time. As I was growing up, in the 80’s and 90’s, the pope didn’t mean much to me. Even though some of his most enthusiastic fans weren’t much older than me, I didn’t know or care what he had to say. My only exposure to him was the occasional news clip I saw of him.I love this line. I think B16 was elected at a time when most of the Church was still enraptured by the charisma of JP2. John Paul II was the pope a very large number I dare say most Catholics grew up with and grew to love and even more to understand. Now here we have this odd figure, who without much of a stretch could be the long lost twin brother of emperor Palpatine from Star wars, sudenly accend to the Papacy.
I fall in the camp of those who were dissapointed in his election. The memory of JP2 was a hard one to let go. But after a few years of reading his writings and seeing how he is guiding the Church I have to admit, what he lacks in charisma he make up with administrative ability. He has the makings of a forimdable Pope. As the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he is well suited for managing the many turmoils of faith and doctrine that have arrisen in Church today.
Am I still dissapointed? Yes. But that is just me. JPII is a hard act to follow
Recently (last year, actually), I began to read about his life and his ministry. I also saw that movie about him with Cary Elwes and John Voight in it. Since I started learning more about him, I have developed a much greater appreciation for him. He lived through some of the most horrific events of the last 100 years, and as pope, he fought injustice with diplomacy- and helped many unstable areas of the world work towards peace. He went to the ends of the earth to reach out to my generation, and the generation before mine- the youth of his pontificate- to show them that God loves them, that he (the pope) loves them, and that they have a very important place in the world and in the Church. He was a prolific writer, and his writings will be discussed and praised by intellectuals for many generations to come.
Some people seem to go so far as to see anything good Pope Benedict does as only because of John Paul II’s influence. They like to point out the “obvious influences of Pope John Paul II”. No doubt, when you work so closely with such a holy man for so long, your life is going to be heavily influenced by him- but Pope Benedict is his own person, with his own style, and God asked HIM be the pope at this time in Church history- he did not simply reincarnate John Paul II. I admire Pope John Paul II very much, but I also admire Pope Benedict XVI- and recognize him as an individual, and a Holy Father who has made a name for himself because of his own cooperation with God’s will.
Pope Benedict XVI is a quiet person. He is shy and is much more introverted than John Paul II. He is not the same person- but we have seen great things from him, and I believe we will continue to see great things come from him. He will make his own, unique impact on church history- and on world history.
I was not the least bit disappointed when he was elected. In fact, when I heard about a new pope being elected- “someone from Germany”, I was VERY hopeful that it was Cardinal Ratzinger. The person I heard it from didn’t catch the name. I was in a building clear across campus from my dorm room, but I’m sure I made the trip back in record time to check the news. Still, it seemed to take forever. I can’t describe the excitement I felt that day. A new pope had been elected- the one I had hoped would be. God sent me another blessing with that event- the day was April 19th- the anniversary of my baptism and reception into the Church. From then on, I would share that anniversary with another anniversary that is very special to me- the two events making both of their memories all the more special to me. I have, and always will have, a particular fondness for the pope that was elected that day.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Being hated is no evidence of anything; merely a fact of life. Stalin was well hated in some some quarters, but only a fool would conclude this proves what a wonderful Christian Stalin was. Sometimes, people are hateful, & get the hatred they deserve. Those words in John 15 cannot be ripped out of context and used as a figleaf for covering the vileness of which the CC is too often guilty. Evil people do hateful things, so hatred is the appropriate response to such people.
As for that antichrist rubbish - it’s not important, because anyone who is anyone in public life is sooner or later identified as the AC. Think of it as a rite of passage. Today it’s him - tomorrow, it’s certain to be someone else; just as it was in the past. Calling people that is a disease of some forms of religion - it’s best ignored, as are the frivolous & foolish people who think like that. Some people’s criticism is worth no more than their praise; what sort of person is upset by such foolishness anyway ? Calling people the AC is to some other people what mooing is to cows or bleating is to sheep.
J
JPUSC
Guest
Agreed! It’s funny how people love to call every public figure they don’t like the antichrist from Pope Benedict, to Pope John Paul II to Bush, to Britney Spears, to Obama.
When the real one actually comes along, how will we know since there’s so many antichrists running around? LOL
L
latingirl
Guest
Gottle, what did the Pope do that makes him a hateful person?
You cannot pin the mistakes and outrages of the Catholic Church in history on today’s Catholic Church. Humans caused all the persecution and abuses of power- they are not a representative of the Catholic Church as a whole- Protestants, Hindus, Muslims, Jews and Atheists have all committed atrocities of which no belief system is innocent of. Frankly, bringing up the Church’s troubled history as an excuse to call it a hateful institution…is just illogical and unreasonable.
You cannot pin the mistakes and outrages of the Catholic Church in history on today’s Catholic Church. Humans caused all the persecution and abuses of power- they are not a representative of the Catholic Church as a whole- Protestants, Hindus, Muslims, Jews and Atheists have all committed atrocities of which no belief system is innocent of. Frankly, bringing up the Church’s troubled history as an excuse to call it a hateful institution…is just illogical and unreasonable.
E
e61iuser
Guest
Can The Church Survive?
by: William F. Buckley
Time magazine’s cover line is, “Can the Catholic Church Save Itself”? In the spread, author Frank McCourt is quoted: “The church is going to lose children and families, and it’s doing this to itself. If this all continues, the church will disappear.”
On this thought, a Catholic might say: If the church disappears, it will be God’s fault. Christians believe that God founded the church. If it is to disappear because of scandalous behavior by a cohort of American priests, then perhaps the whole idea of Christianity was, after all, an epiphenomenon – one that lasted a very long time, and engaged the loyalty of scholars and martyrs, but proved of insufficient stamina to survive the triumphant claims of secular concerns.
It becomes clearer every day that the fraternity of American critics has discovered sin. The broader community was initially aroused by a president who bent under the demands of libido, but they struggled for, and attained perspective by, impeaching him not for sin but for clerical felony. The uproar today has substantially to do with clerical ineptitude. The bishop who did not report the priestly abuser to the police is being held responsible for incremental abuses, much as a parole board might be held responsible for letting out someone who then re-engages in crime. You can’t sue a parole board, but you can sue a diocese, and this is being widely done.
The consequences of such suits can be dire. A lawyer persuades a jury that the damage done to a plaintiff when he was 14 years old entitles him to $5 million, $10 million, $15 million, and the jury goes along. Perhaps the plaintiff has spent years in psychological therapy. Perhaps he is just plain angry, as in the case of Frank Martinelli of Connecticut, who was paid a million dollars and then said he’d have asked for nothing at all if he had just gotten a apology.
But people are asking for new distillations of policy, social, civil and theological. We begin with celibacy. Almost everywhere we are told that Catholic reliance on it for its clergy should end. Perhaps it should, though we are left wondering why this should have taken 20 centuries to discover; yet there is no obvious appetite to probe what it is in these years that anachronizes the call to celibacy. There is no reason to suppose that the libido was less active in the year 1902 than today. What is acknowledged, but not very deeply explored, is the quite general conviction that sex is king.
Then there is the accompanying question of homosexuality, or, more reliably mentioned, homophobia. Fifty years ago, in my own college with an undergraduate body of 5,000 male students, one could not recall a single homosexual. Now they are expected to march in the St. Patrick’s Day parade. And we know, too, that there were indeed homosexuals on campus back then. They were certainly not encouraged to give rein to their impulses, or perhaps better said, they were intimidated in the matter.
Resentment is firm against homosexual advances toward children, but the question is not explored whether that crime – which was then, continues to be, and will be in the future, a sin – has increased in proportion to the toleration of the practice at an adult level.
At the civil level, we gravitate to the conclusion that episcopal responsibility for order in religious communities cannot be relied on anymore. Cardinal Egan of New York has said that henceforth he will relay all reported abuses to the police, but advises that he will do so only when the family of the aggrieved consents: It is by no means proved by the scandals that every adolescent boy or girl is willing to take the stand to describe what happened, and submit to the cross-examination of the insurance company’s lawyer. What certainly will happen is an end to the forlorn conviction by many dioceses that psychological counseling was all that is required to protect against the recurrence of the crime.
The dominant sadness of the day is the bereavement of the Catholic community over the triumph of sinful temptations in so many men prepared to give over their lives to the spiritual service of others. Which teaches us – what, exactly?
Father Andrew Greeley accosted the question some years ago, commenting: “The question is not whether the Catholic leadership is enlightened but whether Catholicism is true. A whole College of Cardinals filled with psychopathic tyrants provides no answer one way or another to that question.” And the most direct answer to the question posed by Time magazine on its cover: “Search for the perfect church, if you will; when you find it, join it, and realize that on that day it becomes something less than perfect.”
by: William F. Buckley
Time magazine’s cover line is, “Can the Catholic Church Save Itself”? In the spread, author Frank McCourt is quoted: “The church is going to lose children and families, and it’s doing this to itself. If this all continues, the church will disappear.”
On this thought, a Catholic might say: If the church disappears, it will be God’s fault. Christians believe that God founded the church. If it is to disappear because of scandalous behavior by a cohort of American priests, then perhaps the whole idea of Christianity was, after all, an epiphenomenon – one that lasted a very long time, and engaged the loyalty of scholars and martyrs, but proved of insufficient stamina to survive the triumphant claims of secular concerns.
It becomes clearer every day that the fraternity of American critics has discovered sin. The broader community was initially aroused by a president who bent under the demands of libido, but they struggled for, and attained perspective by, impeaching him not for sin but for clerical felony. The uproar today has substantially to do with clerical ineptitude. The bishop who did not report the priestly abuser to the police is being held responsible for incremental abuses, much as a parole board might be held responsible for letting out someone who then re-engages in crime. You can’t sue a parole board, but you can sue a diocese, and this is being widely done.
The consequences of such suits can be dire. A lawyer persuades a jury that the damage done to a plaintiff when he was 14 years old entitles him to $5 million, $10 million, $15 million, and the jury goes along. Perhaps the plaintiff has spent years in psychological therapy. Perhaps he is just plain angry, as in the case of Frank Martinelli of Connecticut, who was paid a million dollars and then said he’d have asked for nothing at all if he had just gotten a apology.
But people are asking for new distillations of policy, social, civil and theological. We begin with celibacy. Almost everywhere we are told that Catholic reliance on it for its clergy should end. Perhaps it should, though we are left wondering why this should have taken 20 centuries to discover; yet there is no obvious appetite to probe what it is in these years that anachronizes the call to celibacy. There is no reason to suppose that the libido was less active in the year 1902 than today. What is acknowledged, but not very deeply explored, is the quite general conviction that sex is king.
Then there is the accompanying question of homosexuality, or, more reliably mentioned, homophobia. Fifty years ago, in my own college with an undergraduate body of 5,000 male students, one could not recall a single homosexual. Now they are expected to march in the St. Patrick’s Day parade. And we know, too, that there were indeed homosexuals on campus back then. They were certainly not encouraged to give rein to their impulses, or perhaps better said, they were intimidated in the matter.
Resentment is firm against homosexual advances toward children, but the question is not explored whether that crime – which was then, continues to be, and will be in the future, a sin – has increased in proportion to the toleration of the practice at an adult level.
At the civil level, we gravitate to the conclusion that episcopal responsibility for order in religious communities cannot be relied on anymore. Cardinal Egan of New York has said that henceforth he will relay all reported abuses to the police, but advises that he will do so only when the family of the aggrieved consents: It is by no means proved by the scandals that every adolescent boy or girl is willing to take the stand to describe what happened, and submit to the cross-examination of the insurance company’s lawyer. What certainly will happen is an end to the forlorn conviction by many dioceses that psychological counseling was all that is required to protect against the recurrence of the crime.
The dominant sadness of the day is the bereavement of the Catholic community over the triumph of sinful temptations in so many men prepared to give over their lives to the spiritual service of others. Which teaches us – what, exactly?
Father Andrew Greeley accosted the question some years ago, commenting: “The question is not whether the Catholic leadership is enlightened but whether Catholicism is true. A whole College of Cardinals filled with psychopathic tyrants provides no answer one way or another to that question.” And the most direct answer to the question posed by Time magazine on its cover: “Search for the perfect church, if you will; when you find it, join it, and realize that on that day it becomes something less than perfect.”
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
, what did the Pope do that makes him a hateful person?## I have no idea what that is meant to refer to
I was including the CC, but not limiting myself to it.
By that reasoning, the Church is without members; for everyone, no matter how representative, authoritative, official or essential to visibility the CC claims they may be, can be called unrepresentative the moment they are said to have done some great evil. Such a defence destroys the visibility of the CC, in order to keep its members free of guilt; which is a suicidal move (as well as contrary to Catholic doctrine).
Communism is sometimes defended by the plea that Stalin wasn’t a real Communist, so his deeds must not be allowed to make Communism look nasty. But he thought he was a Communist - just as plenty of unpleasant Catholics of high rank in the CC have supposed that they were Catholic bishops, or whatever it might be. They can’t be removed from the Church posthumously, centuries after the deaths of some of them, in order to make the Church look nice. That is like de-Stalinising Communism in order to make Communism look nice - while he was alive, probably most of the Politburo (& the Party) imagined that he was a Communist.Changing people’s identities once they are dead because they have become an embarrassment is a hopeless defence.
Those “humans” were supposedly Christian. If Christianity is compatible with enslaving Africans & others, & is defended as compatible, & if slavery is defended as God’s Will: what does that say about Christianity ? Yet now, these Divinely-guided (at least, they claim to be Divinely guided) persons inform us that God is against slavery. So what is one to make of the change ? Christianity is a chaos of confusion & immorality, in which the blind lead the blind.
Protestants, Hindus, Muslims, Jews and Atheists have all committed atrocities of which no belief system is innocent of. Frankly, bringing up the Church’s troubled history as an excuse to call it a hateful institution…is just illogical and unreasonable.
What happened to “By their fruits you shall know them” ? Are you willing to say, “Hey, don’t be nasty to the neo-Nazis; Nazism has a troubled history, but all beliefs systems have committed atrocities, so why single out them ? Besides, that was in the past…” I certainly hope not. If we refuse to look at how systems have acted, if we ignore their past records & keep making excuses for them, we are asking for trouble. Christianity’s past matters because it shows us in the present how it might be expected to behave in the future.
As for the Church today - it’s as bad as ever: as its behaviour during the paedopilia scandals shows. Cardinal Law wasn’t being iobstructive in the dim & distant past, but in the very recent past. And what is Rome’s reaction ? Business as usual. Not repentance, or something healthy like that - just a few token resignations of a few bishops here or there, then back to business as usual.That is just one little corner of the history of one Church. Sorry, but Christianity as a whole - Rome included - has a record. It is an ugly one, & the muck-raking of Christians busily digging for filth to throw at other Christians is one source of just how much evil there is in Christianity.
The badness of Christianity needs to be insisted on, because it is not good enough to say that “all [religions & Churches have] committed atrocities”. Christianity is not just one religion among others - it makes very exalted claims, moral, theological, historical, doctrinal; so it is only right to do it the courrtesy of supposing that it means those claims seriously, & to try it by them. It has burnt its boats - if it really no different & no better than any other religion, it should not go on so about how superior to all other religions it is. For if does that, someone is going to make the mistake of thinking it means what it says. So I have no sympathy for it - yet again, it is being irresponsible.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
St peter says that our faith will be tested. there you have it. stand still with God. how do you know which is True, the one most persecuted.
R
reggieM
Guest
Being representative of the Church means living by the norms that are taught. A person who violates the norms is not being representative of what Catholicism teaches.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Fortunately, Catholicism has always taught that while we walk this earth we are still human and subject to gravity. That is, each baptised in Christ will be tested in our faith and suffer persecution for daring to defy Satan and being baptised into Christ’s suffering so we may live in His Glory. Some will fall and try again and some others will just fall-away. But there is a difference in nature to what is represented in the two kinds of people.
Jesus recognized this ever present tension between our human nature and our call to participate in divinity with Christ. So to bring more souls to the father He gave us the sacrament of reconciliation to wash away sins. Thus, in those cases were a test is failed Jesus yokes our raw human stubbornness and pride to a more noble struggle so we we may try, try, try-again to meet his example. On The Way of the cross Jesus fell 3 times just as Peter denied Him 3 times; though the former was not “disgrace” but to exemplify that our human form can only bear so much and the need for help (a community of believers). Clearly the determination of human will to complete to an end is what prevails and gets us to heaven’s door (the narrow gate of Christ on The Cross with the blood of the lamb sprinkled on its door lentils). Some of us just must help carry the cross for those who can’t carry their own - we all suffer together.
What would be unacceptable would be for a Catholic of any ecclesial role to fall into the mire of the same imperfection from which humans (humus) come and remain there just to wallow and crawl about on all fours; and there find comfort among the animals that God also created on day 6 (a day shy of the perfection of the 7th day - the Lord’s Sabbath).
But it is the Church’s universal recognition in each person the potential for Christ-like dignity and human-divine ascendancy, together with the potency of His saving grace (which leads us back to self-respect) that tell us we need not ever despair over the occasional human failures of our ecclesial leaders. **Thus an opportunity to fall is also an opportunity to again stand upright on 2 legs (hopefully wiser in the discovered weaknesses) to restore our place of dominion over the animals and rise above our animal-like fallen nature. ** To fall is forgivable to lay there is not. And to get up over and over again in spite of weakness is inspirational and which wins respect (and converts) from those who can identify with their own human failures and stubborn desire to persevere - but in something more noble than just “self”.
How ironic it is that perhaps Catholics frank admission and recognition of human imperfection in our ranks taken together with the assurances of provisioned sacramental grace that we Catholics can find the courage to always get back on our feet after these high profile trip-ups. To me, the best representation of what Catholicism teaches is the resiliency and recovery aspect by which disgraced Catholics of all ranks and roles may be restored to full grace without gravely wounding The Church. The song “Amazing Grace” does not even come close to describing the profundity of The Church in its thriving in the storms of scandals that would sink any human institutions and governments. **The buoyancy and forbearance of The Church is so profound we Catholic should be most concerned with loosing faith (in the technical sense) by displacing it with the certainty of knowing that “God is with us” and thereby not achieving our highest and greatest glory (as lesson from St. Thomas). **
Catholics Impeccable? No.
Catholics, human, forgiven and progressively perfected? Yes - for those that do not cast of their yoke and remain seated through the storm in the Barque of Peter.
Honestly, Catholics should be proud that we can admit to all of our imperfect and weak humanity because ‘where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more’ and because while there are ever more assaults the trend is certainly established that “the gates of hell will not prevail”.
**The Catholic Church - God’s kingdom on earth where saints pray side by side next to sinners struggling to repent and learning to walk upright in God’s grace - often falling but try, try, trying-again. **
Our outcome is already pre-ordained - we just need to Keep The Faith.
James
J
jmcrae
Guest
The question is not “was he a Communist” - obviously, he was - but rather, was he following the tenets of Communism (the good of all, in equal share, without fear or favour) when he did so? It can be reasonably argued that he was not, and that, therefore, his crimes cannot be laid at the feet of Communist ideology - they were his own idea, and his own responsibility.
T
Trinityisgod
Guest
That’s odd, because I actually think president Obama is the anti christ
L
latingirl
Guest
Trinity, I may second that but I don’t want to so soon. All I know is times are changing…and not for the better.
N
napoli426
Guest
“New” Catholics should spend less time reading the secular media about opinions of the Holy Father and spend more time reading the Catechism, Bible etc.
L
latingirl
Guest
I have my Bible and Catechism right here. 
…and a ton of other devotional books.
…and a ton of other devotional books.
D
Duong_Nguyen
Guest
I really like this post. It is very poetic.
I
Ignatius
Guest
Bump.
L
latingirl
Guest
I also think people don’t like the Pope…well because he is a pope (duh, obvious). It is natural that the modern world would reject someone who stands up against moral laxity. Is it true that Benedict XVI spoke out against Obama? …you know how much people love Obama. So we have two things here, speaking against the moral climate and speaking against a leader who seems to encourage it. (This is my own opinion please don’t be too offended).
Benedict goes so much against the grain that people can’t stand it. He also angers and intimidates those churches who resulted from the Reformation. “They just couldn’t get rid of the papacy…darn those Catholics.”
He’s an old fogey who stands for all the dusty, dogmatic traditions that have been “strangling mankind”
“The world hates a wicked pope - just as it hates one who his righteous.”
The best solution: lash out and call him the Anti-Christ.
Benedict goes so much against the grain that people can’t stand it. He also angers and intimidates those churches who resulted from the Reformation. “They just couldn’t get rid of the papacy…darn those Catholics.”
He’s an old fogey who stands for all the dusty, dogmatic traditions that have been “strangling mankind”
“The world hates a wicked pope - just as it hates one who his righteous.”
The best solution: lash out and call him the Anti-Christ.
R
RobbyS
Guest
If you are English, you come from a place that has a long tradition of Catholic haters. Even if they are no longer Christian themselves, they carry over the hatred. Winston Churchill was good friends with the Catholic archbishop of Wesminster and disliked the archbiop of Canterbury, but he was not allowed to be seen in public with the former in deference to his position as First Minister. It is a bit like people’s feelings toward the Jews. If they can’t hate us for one thing, they will hate us for another.
- Status