Pope Benedict XVI
I realize I'm making a lot of pope posts (relative to the total number of posts, anyways), but this should be the last one for awhile. I think.
As you all know by now, Cardinal Ratzinger was selected as the new pope and chose the name Benedict. Some of those close to him have said he chose that name out of respect for the Benedictine movement in Germany (he's German, remember). It was amusing watching some commentators trying to explain the name after they'd all built up the name selection and how it could signal what direction he wanted to move the Church in, or whatever.
However, the thing that really gets me is so many members of the media jumping on him as a "hardliner" or "arch-conservative" or the like. They're shocked that the new pope is -- get this -- Catholic! Though, as Jonah Goldberg writes:
That, of course, is a joke, but it wouldn't surprise me if some of them actually thought that didn't sound like a bad idea. The media at large demonstrates a profound ignorance of the Catholic Church (most of Christianity, actually, but more on that another time). They presume that because Americans are split on some issue, that the Church must be, too (and I don't mean split 97-3, here). Those who dissent from the Church's teachings or positions are vastly overrepresented in the media. They think a new pope might "compromise" (read: give in) to these dissenters, but ignore that almost all the Cardinals were chosen by John Paul II himself, so they aren't likely to dissent much from his views (and the balance were given their position by Paul VI, so no huge difference there). Even if a "liberal" was chosen from among them, they'd still oppose abortion, same-sex marriage, and many of the other changes that many in the media want to see the Church make.
The former Cardinal Ratzinger has been very outspoken (in both his speaking and writing) against the kind of moral relativism that the Left (including the media) want to see the Church slide into. They say that the Church needs to "reach out" to the dissenters (read: give in) so that they can draw more people in, but they completely miss what's going on around them. Several of the denominations that have watered-down their teachings (or "reached-out" in media parlance), like the United Methodists or Episcopalians, are hemorrhaging members. Meanwhile, those who have stuck by the "traditional" teachings have seen their membership grow. The Church (used here for all Christianity, not the Catholic Church) doesn't exist to make people feel good about themselves. If you want a cheap, feel-good experience, go to some group therapy thing, or some other dispenser of balderdash. What do you get out of a church that just tells you to do whatever feels good, and that they won't judge you? Nothing! (Incidentally, the whole "don't judge others, lest ye be judged" thing is taken out of context quite often, but more on that another time.) The Church should exist to provide a rigid standard (moral values) that you can use for self-betterment (it should provide much more, of course, but this seems to be most at issue here). When looking for a guide for your moral behavior, is something firm and long-standing good, or a sliding scale that sinks as low as you want to go? Put another way, into an imperfect metaphor, suppose you are trying to lose weight. Do you use an objective standard (your weight, the size of your waistline) to judge your progress, or do you say "well, so-and-so consumed 3000 calories today, and I only had 2700, so I'm doing pretty good"? You use the objective standard, of course; and you might recognize the other form of rationalization as being what some people do on moral values (essentially, "Well, I may not have done that great, but look at that guy over there! He's way worse than me.").
Anyways, I think Ratzinger seems like a good guy. Oh, and for the Nazi stuff -- when he was in the Hitler Youth, it was mandatory to be in it, he was not a willing member. He deserted to German army (when deserters were shot for doing so), and was even a POW under the United States for a short while.
Next time, something not Catholic related. (For those who may not know, I am not now, nor have I ever been, Catholic, nor do I plan on ever becoming one.)
As you all know by now, Cardinal Ratzinger was selected as the new pope and chose the name Benedict. Some of those close to him have said he chose that name out of respect for the Benedictine movement in Germany (he's German, remember). It was amusing watching some commentators trying to explain the name after they'd all built up the name selection and how it could signal what direction he wanted to move the Church in, or whatever.
However, the thing that really gets me is so many members of the media jumping on him as a "hardliner" or "arch-conservative" or the like. They're shocked that the new pope is -- get this -- Catholic! Though, as Jonah Goldberg writes:
Of course, if some of the modernizers had their way, a new pontiff would be announced with the declaration, "We got pope!" Or maybe "The pizzy is in the hizzy!" Then Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake would bump and grind a bit before His Holiness rolled out in a newly pimped-out Pope-mobile.
That, of course, is a joke, but it wouldn't surprise me if some of them actually thought that didn't sound like a bad idea. The media at large demonstrates a profound ignorance of the Catholic Church (most of Christianity, actually, but more on that another time). They presume that because Americans are split on some issue, that the Church must be, too (and I don't mean split 97-3, here). Those who dissent from the Church's teachings or positions are vastly overrepresented in the media. They think a new pope might "compromise" (read: give in) to these dissenters, but ignore that almost all the Cardinals were chosen by John Paul II himself, so they aren't likely to dissent much from his views (and the balance were given their position by Paul VI, so no huge difference there). Even if a "liberal" was chosen from among them, they'd still oppose abortion, same-sex marriage, and many of the other changes that many in the media want to see the Church make.
The former Cardinal Ratzinger has been very outspoken (in both his speaking and writing) against the kind of moral relativism that the Left (including the media) want to see the Church slide into. They say that the Church needs to "reach out" to the dissenters (read: give in) so that they can draw more people in, but they completely miss what's going on around them. Several of the denominations that have watered-down their teachings (or "reached-out" in media parlance), like the United Methodists or Episcopalians, are hemorrhaging members. Meanwhile, those who have stuck by the "traditional" teachings have seen their membership grow. The Church (used here for all Christianity, not the Catholic Church) doesn't exist to make people feel good about themselves. If you want a cheap, feel-good experience, go to some group therapy thing, or some other dispenser of balderdash. What do you get out of a church that just tells you to do whatever feels good, and that they won't judge you? Nothing! (Incidentally, the whole "don't judge others, lest ye be judged" thing is taken out of context quite often, but more on that another time.) The Church should exist to provide a rigid standard (moral values) that you can use for self-betterment (it should provide much more, of course, but this seems to be most at issue here). When looking for a guide for your moral behavior, is something firm and long-standing good, or a sliding scale that sinks as low as you want to go? Put another way, into an imperfect metaphor, suppose you are trying to lose weight. Do you use an objective standard (your weight, the size of your waistline) to judge your progress, or do you say "well, so-and-so consumed 3000 calories today, and I only had 2700, so I'm doing pretty good"? You use the objective standard, of course; and you might recognize the other form of rationalization as being what some people do on moral values (essentially, "Well, I may not have done that great, but look at that guy over there! He's way worse than me.").
Anyways, I think Ratzinger seems like a good guy. Oh, and for the Nazi stuff -- when he was in the Hitler Youth, it was mandatory to be in it, he was not a willing member. He deserted to German army (when deserters were shot for doing so), and was even a POW under the United States for a short while.
Next time, something not Catholic related. (For those who may not know, I am not now, nor have I ever been, Catholic, nor do I plan on ever becoming one.)
posted by DC | 9:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home