Some not as jubilant about Pope Benedict

  • Thread starter Thread starter contemplative
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

contemplative

Guest
**
Some not as jubilant about Pope Benedict
Fr. McBrien
http://www.catholiccourier.com/images/spacer.gif
(Publication Date: 03-01-2006)

When the name Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger rang out from the balcony overlooking St. Peter’s Square last April, nowhere was the jubilation stronger than among conservative to ultra-conservative Catholics.

In recent weeks this column has given voice to a growing suspicion that many of the same Catholics who were once so jubilant about Cardinal Ratzinger’s election are beginning to experience feelings of doubt and even some measure of anxiety. He has not taken in hand the papal hammer they had expected him to wield against everyone on their long “enemies” list.

New evidence in support of this suspicion has surfaced recently in the February issue of First Things, a conservative monthly edited by Father Richard John Neuhaus, one of the late pope’s strongest supporters and one who, to his credit, correctly predicted the election of Joseph Ratzinger when most other commentators, including the present writer, thought him too old and too polarizing a figure to be elected. Rest of the article here.

The Neuhuas article is here

When I first read Mcbrien’s article I could not help but think that Mcbrien might just be so happy to still have his head on his shoulders. What he doesn’t realize is the other shoe is yet to fall.**
 
For a man like McBrien, you’re probably right. What is misleading about his article is with whom he deposits the expectation that Benedict 16 would more quickly to ‘silence’ dissension by whatever means necessary. To be sure, many Catholics hoped/hope Benedict would formally admonish dissenters, given how deep Modernist heretics have imbedded themselves within the institution of the Church. Yet anyone who followed Benedict as Ratzinger, Prefect of the CDF, knows he works slowly, respectfully, and patiently when it comes to dissenters. It is the likes of McBrien, very obviously terrified of actual Catholic Christianity, who expected the hammer.

Another article in that same issue of First Things actually looks at the career and development of Josef Ratzinger as a priest. His theology and institutional philosophy of the Church has been quite dynamic, and one could even say much more grounded the older and more influential he became. Thus the elevation of William Cardinal Levada to the head of the CDF.
 
Colm O'Higgins:
For a man like McBrien, you’re probably right. What is misleading about his article is with whom he deposits the expectation that Benedict 16 would more quickly to ‘silence’ dissension by whatever means necessary. To be sure, many Catholics hoped/hope Benedict would formally admonish dissenters, given how deep Modernist heretics have imbedded themselves within the institution of the Church. Yet anyone who followed Benedict as Ratzinger, Prefect of the CDF, knows he works slowly, respectfully, and patiently when it comes to dissenters. It is the likes of McBrien, very obviously terrified of actual Catholic Christianity, who expected the hammer.

Another article in that same issue of First Things actually looks at the career and development of Josef Ratzinger as a priest. His theology and institutional philosophy of the Church has been quite dynamic, and one could even say much more grounded the older and more influential he became. Thus the elevation of William Cardinal Levada to the head of the CDF.
Click to expand...
“It is the like of McBrien very obviously terrified of actual Catholic Christianity, who expected the hammer”. Goes to show you people’s prejudices towards the gospel. McBrien freaked out when Ratzinger was elected pope. He totally contradicts himself and his ignorance is showing. He also ignores the fact that Benedict said that homosexuals with deep-rooted tendencies cannot be ordained priests. But that fact doesn’t seem to matter him.
 
There is a huge amount of irony in people blasting Fr. McBrien, a Catholic priest, theologian and professor in good standing simply for noting something obvious.

Even THIS sub-forum has another thread about a conservative Catholic newspaper NOT being as “jubilant” as perhaps the original reaction of conservative Catholicism to the election.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=97919

or is this quote from the New Oxford Review not in line with Fr. McBrien’s comments? (and to contemplative I would like to add that the NOR seems to take a much different reading on the ordination of homosexual men than you put forward so frequently).

"When Ratzinger became Pope, we orthodox Catholics were ecstatic. But it’s likely that Benedict’s papacy will be very unpleasant–even bitter, since we had such high hopes.

[T]here is a Lavender Mafia in the Church, and it goes all the way to the Vatican, and Pope Benedict will do nothing about it."
 
40.png
EtienneGilson:
There is a huge amount of irony in people blasting Fr. McBrien, a Catholic priest, theologian and professor in good standing simply for noting something obvious.

Even THIS sub-forum has another thread about a conservative Catholic newspaper NOT being as “jubilant” as perhaps the original reaction of conservative Catholicism to the election.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=97919

or is this quote from the New Oxford Review not in line with Fr. McBrien’s comments? (and to contemplative I would like to add that the NOR seems to take a much different reading on the ordination of homosexual men than you put forward so frequently).

"When Ratzinger became Pope, we orthodox Catholics were ecstatic. But it’s likely that Benedict’s papacy will be very unpleasant–even bitter, since we had such high hopes.

[T]here is a Lavender Mafia in the Church, and it goes all the way to the Vatican, and Pope Benedict will do nothing about it."
Click to expand...
It’s fair criticism.
 
40.png
bones_IV:
It’s fair criticism.
Click to expand...
If NOR’s criticism is fair criticism, then it is fair that Fr. McBrien notes that conservatives and ultra-conservatives have reason not to be too jubilant about Pope Benedict XVI.

By the way, the NOR article also seems to claim that the papal directive is short of a complete ban on homosexuals, alond with the interpretation of the head of the Dominicans, SVDs, Jesuits, and countless bishops now. So who’s “interpretation” is correct? Yours or everyone elses?
 
40.png
EtienneGilson:
If NOR’s criticism is fair criticism, then it is fair that Fr. McBrien notes that conservatives and ultra-conservatives have reason not to be too jubilant about Pope Benedict XVI.

By the way, the NOR article also seems to claim that the papal directive is short of a complete ban on homosexuals, alond with the interpretation of the head of the Dominicans, SVDs, Jesuits, and countless bishops now. So who’s “interpretation” is correct? Yours or everyone elses?
Click to expand...
McBrien’s article is misleading and decieves many a Catholic. NOR’s is also misleading. But apparently you skipped around that point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top