The Oregonian: Receive Pope Benedict XVI as one would welcome Christ

[stumbler]

Thursday, June 02, 2005

Soon after Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI, I was reading Scripture from John 13:20 where Jesus said: "Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.

Since the new pope was elected, some have expressed fear and hesitation because of his reputation as a polarizing personality. In his former role as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly known as the Inquisition), it was his job to clarify the teachings of the Catholic Church as well as discipline and encourage groups or people who held positions of authority or teaching in the church.

For many Americans, this role appears to go against our sense of freedom of speech, press and thought. But when the purpose of the church is to evangelize and make disciples of Christ (Matthew 18:19), “the will of the people” is not the standard, but rather the will of Christ.

Therefore, the election of the new pope is a moment of rejoicing for the Catholic Church and the world in general. Why? Because it is the biblical response. While we all have fear in our lives, Christ challenges us multiple times in the Scriptures not to be afraid. Furthermore, we know that Jesus will grant what we ask (John 14:13) if we ask the Father.

Catholics, Orthodox and many other Christians were praying for God’s guidance upon the cardinals who would elect the new pope. With such unity in prayer, we can have faith that Benedict’s election is part of God’s providence. If that still doesn’t quell your fear, let’s look at the pope to see what we can understand about him.

First and foremost, he is a humble man of Christian faith. He is reported to be kind and gentle. He also has great intellectual stature. His former students testify that he dedicated himself to the freedom of ideas. Yet he won’t be exactly like John Paul II. Pope Benedict XVI is a quiet person, a thinker. He may not be able to woo a crowd with the stage presence of his predecessor, but he doesn’t shy away from reporters. . . .

---

Full editorial

 

[stumbler]

From The Oregonian???

Wow!

 

[MJE]

I have yet to read today’s issue. Gads this is something. Altho, David Rheinhard is an editor there and an orthodox RC.

 

[Lisa_N]

Wow I need to read my Oregonian more closely today! I generally just skim as it’s very very leftist. All about homosexual rights and Republican bashing. I do agree David Reinhart is the one voice from the other side and I am glad we have SOMETHING besides the priest scandal and our archdiocese bankruptcy in the news
Lisa N

 

[jlw]

Guys, guys!.. this was written by a GUEST. A priest, right??

Did you expect David Sarasohn to right this?? Marge Boule?? Steve Duin??

I mean, kudos to the fish wrap for including this, and smile today, but this is but a drop, a drop, of water in the liberal northwest rain.

Oh, and yes, thank goodness for David Rienhard.

 

[threej_lc]

It appears to be an editorial by Fr. Bill. Good priest. Awesome homilies.

I happen to like the oregonian… at least as much as one could like the mass media. You didn’t see no Statesman Journal having a cover story on the new mysteries of the rosary, explaining in depth how to pray the rosary, and why we as Catholics love it.

Josh

 

[BLB_Oregon]

threej_lc:

It appears to be an editorial by Fr. Bill. Good priest. Awesome homilies.

I happen to like the oregonian… at least as much as one could like the mass media. You didn’t see no Statesman Journal having a cover story on the new mysteries of the rosary, explaining in depth how to pray the rosary, and why we as Catholics love it.

Josh

Yes. Considering we come from a state in which only 14% of the population identifies themselves as Catholic, while 21% identify themselves as having no religious affiliation at all, I think the Oregonian does fairly well by us. They make an effort to explain Catholicism and Catholic issues in a non-partisan way to the 86% of their readers that aren’t Catholic–not to mention the sizable percentage of Catholics who don’t know their own facts. Considering that they are a secular newspaper in a very secular state, they do a good job of it. I have no doubt that having Catholics on the staff has something to do with this, but I think the paper has also come to realize that religious news is real news and that religious thinking is (or at least can be*) real thinking.

For those who want Catholic reporting, we have the weekly Catholic Sentinel which, judging by their sometimes hilariously eclectic “Letters to the Editor” section, manages to both please and offend Catholics the length of the spectrum, often with the same story.

*(I say “can be” because there is not a philosophical or theological position that doesn’t have adherents capable of spouting utter drivel.)

 

[Lisa_N]

BLB the problem with the Oregonian is their obsession with the priest scandal. Remember the recent HEADLINE that parishioners would be added to the named parties? Of course you read through and it’s not as if we will be personally liable, it’s just a way to get to the parish properties. I am also incredibly offended by the anti-Catholic political cartoons. One by Oliphant showed the church as consisting of pedophile priests and fat wealthy bishops while the ‘the poor’ are outside knocking on the door. I wasn’t even Catholic when that cartoon came out and I found it incredibly offensive. I’ve seen several,particularly by this man that were definitely deliberate Catholic bashing. Any other faith so derided would have generated objections but it’s fine to bash Catholicism.

I just think they go out of their way to paint a rather negative picture of the church and focus on all the bad news unfit to print. Thus a total surprise that this column/article was allowed in.

Lisa N

 

[Franze]

Good article.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Lisa N:

BLB the problem with the Oregonian is their obsession with the priest scandal. Remember the recent HEADLINE that parishioners would be added to the named parties? Of course you read through and it’s not as if we will be personally liable, it’s just a way to get to the parish properties. I am also incredibly offended by the anti-Catholic political cartoons. One by Oliphant showed the church as consisting of pedophile priests and fat wealthy bishops while the ‘the poor’ are outside knocking on the door. I wasn’t even Catholic when that cartoon came out and I found it incredibly offensive. I’ve seen several,particularly by this man that were definitely deliberate Catholic bashing. Any other faith so derided would have generated objections but it’s fine to bash Catholicism.

I just think they go out of their way to paint a rather negative picture of the church and focus on all the bad news unfit to print. Thus a total surprise that this column/article was allowed in.

Lisa N

I don’t put too much stock in political cartoons, because no one comes off well in those. The voters are stupid and lazy, the politicians two-faced, the religion is hypocritical, the intellectuals are idiots… it is satire. Except in dire circumstances, those cartoonists aren’t reverent, and none of them make a living being “balanced” or “fair.” We are the biggest, oldest, and most powerful church, representing the lion’s share of Christians on the planet. By our own admission, we talk better than we walk. We’re an awfully big target to not take a hit once in awhile.

The abuse scandal put a negative face on us, but it was not entirely undeserved. We needed some criticism. That the newspapers went overboard is par for the course. We need to remember that when we read about others.

OTOH, I have read articles about the rosary, about the monastery in Mt. Angel, about sisters who were celebrating their jubilees, about painters of icons. They paint us from our good side, too. I guess I’ve decided to be happy with that.

 

[threej_lc]

Lisa N:

BLB the problem with the Oregonian is their obsession with the priest scandal. Remember the recent HEADLINE that parishioners would be added to the named parties? Of course you read through and it’s not as if we will be personally liable, it’s just a way to get to the parish properties. I am also incredibly offended by the anti-Catholic political cartoons. One by Oliphant showed the church as consisting of pedophile priests and fat wealthy bishops while the ‘the poor’ are outside knocking on the door. I wasn’t even Catholic when that cartoon came out and I found it incredibly offensive. I’ve seen several,particularly by this man that were definitely deliberate Catholic bashing. Any other faith so derided would have generated objections but it’s fine to bash Catholicism.

1. The priest scandal WAS headline news to the 10th degree. That wasn’t the Oregonian’s fault. That was the fault of the fact it existed.
2. Political cartoons are editorials. Feel free to send in your own if you choose.
3. I dont’ know about you, but I thought the fact that I was about to be named a defendant in a sexual abuse case that took place before I was even born quite belonging to be front-page news. I was very pleased the Oregonian realized the importance of the matter to put it there. The article quite well pointed out the idiocy and the greed of all the lawsuits, and the mindset that “If the archdiocese can’t give us the money we want, we’ll sue every parishoner in diocese for it,” is not justified.

 

[Lisa_N]

1. The priest scandal WAS headline news to the 10th degree. That wasn’t the Oregonian’s fault. That was the fault of the fact it existed…

True but papers have a lot of latitude about what they print. For example the NYT put Abu Ghraib on their front page for 48 days in a row. I just think that the Oregonian tends to print something negative about the church on the front page and if there is anything positive, it’s buried in the back.

12. Political cartoons are editorials. Feel free to send in your own if you choose…

Not a very helpful response frankly. Sometimes these cartoons are beyond the bounds of good taste and I thought this particular cartoon (others by Oliphant are just as offensive) was utterly tasteless. Do your recall the one I am speaking of? It generated a number of angry letters from Catholics and non Catholics alike. As I said, I wasn’t Catholic when I saw it and was just disgusted.

I ASSURE you they would not have portrayed Islam or Hindusim or Judaism in such a negative light. For whatever reason the Catholic church is fair game. Maybe BLB is right, we’re the 10000 lb gorilla and people want to shoot spitballs.

3. I dont’ know about you, but I thought the fact that I was about to be named a defendant in a sexual abuse case that took place before I was even born quite belonging to be front-page news. I was very pleased the Oregonian realized the importance of the matter to put it there. The article quite well pointed out the idiocy and the greed of all the lawsuits, and the mindset that “If the archdiocese can’t give us the money we want, we’ll sue every parishoner in diocese for it,” is not justified.

The article was relatively well balanced. OTOH I thought the headline was very sensationalist. As a Catholic my immediate conclusion was that with the lists of parishioners, we’d all been added INDIVIDUALLY to the suit. I thought it was intentionally and inappropriately trying to alarm Catholics who are already facing the loss of our parishes, schools and other properties.

Lisa N