Same Old Same Old

...by the looks of things.

German cardinal elected new pope
Joseph Ratzinger is Pope Benedict XVI
CNN.com

Once the archbishop of Munich, Germany, and for many years prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Ratzinger, 78, was one of the most powerful men in the Vatican and is widely acknowledged as a leading theologian.

Ratzinger, who turned 78 on Saturday, served for 20 years as John Paul II's chief theological adviser.

As a young priest he was on the progressive side of theological debates but shifted to the right after the student revolutions of 1968.

In the Vatican, he has been the driving force behind crackdowns on liberation theology, religious pluralism, challenges to traditional moral teachings on issues such as homosexuality, and dissent on such issues as women's ordination.

I guess they decided against the e-route.

Comments

[robert]

I guess we go through this all over again before the Vancouver Olympics. How many AIDS orphans between now and then do you think?

[Reid]

A well-titled post. I hope he's strong on succession planning.

[Vaughn Thompson]

Obviously there weren't any Progressive Christian Bloggers at the Vatican lobbying for change. Sigh.

[ket]

i find it curious, how suddenly everyone is so invested in the leadership of the catholic church. my methodist sister has already shared her doubts about the new pope (last i checked she wasn't studying up on the theology and political leanings of the members of the college of cardinals), and i overheard one of the secretaries at work today -- another non-catholic -- talking about it as well.

if it's so important to us, why haven't we been talking about catholic policy more over the past few years? and how, suddenly, have everyday americans (and canadians) developed opinions about who should or should not be leading the roman catholic church? where are we getting the information to form these opinions anyway? and do non-catholics really have any business touting those opinions? (would i want the pope telling me who i could or could not choose to have as a spiritual leader?)

as i type this i realize i sound as though i have a "tone"... that's not my intent. i'm really just fascinated by how suddenly we have become so invested in a church that, for the most part, we are not involved with in the first place.

thoughts?

amy

[Mike]

Hey Amy - good question.

On most days I'm not in a hurry to label myself as a mindless pawn of the media. However... my first reaction to your question is to say "ask CNN!"

Actually, as I reread my response, it makes sense in a twisted kind of way. If this issue is the number one news event on the planet right now (which apparently it is), then me, you and everyone else gets to have an opinion, and we get to voice them. Welcome to my voice!

On other fronts - the issue of the subjugation of women is important to me. The HIV/AIDS emergency is important to me. Like it or not, the leanings of the new pope (whoever he was going to be) is and will have an impact on those issues.

Does that make any sense?

[kevin]

Actually, bringing in an old guy isn't such a bad idea for the long-term perspective. There won't be as much short term change, but an "interim pope" is a good strategy for long-term transition. This guy needs to serve 3-5 years and retire, without doing a whole lot but keep the boat running. Then, bring in a younger guy who is serious about change.

Bring the younger guy in right now, and it's too much.

[Rick]

"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism," [...]"Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along by every wind of teaching, looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's standards. A dictatorship of relativism is established that recognizes nothing definite and leaves only one's own ego and one's own desires as the final measure."

-Joseph Ratzinger.

Hmmm... he seems pretty cocksure here...

Not a good thing in these parts eh?