TrueHoyaBlue
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,861
Member is Online
|
Post by TrueHoyaBlue on Apr 19, 2005 11:24:24 GMT -5
The smoke has risen, and the bells are ringing... waiting to hear the name...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2005 11:49:59 GMT -5
Joseph Ratzinger of Germany, taking the name Benedict XVI.
Interesting they chose a man of such advanced age. We'll likely be seeing another papal election in the relatively immediate future, I would guess. I thought they might go with a somewhat younger man who would carry whatever messages and traditions they deem of greatest importance into the foreseable future. Oh well... what do I know?
|
|
hoyahoyasaxa
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Sead Dizdarezvic doesn't write term papers. The words rearrange themselves out of fear.
Posts: 464
|
Post by hoyahoyasaxa on Apr 19, 2005 12:01:21 GMT -5
He's extremely conservative as well. Wonder if the cardinals wanted to shore-up any wavering parts of the church.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger Once the archbishop of Munich and for many years prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Ratzinger, 78, is one of the most powerful men in the Vatican and is widely acknowledged as a leading theologian. Ratzinger has 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. The dean of the College of Cardinals since November 2002, he was elevated to cardinal by Pope Paul VI in June 1977.
|
|
|
Post by showcase on Apr 19, 2005 12:23:48 GMT -5
I suspect they wished to have a 'transitional' Pope while the College of Cardinals comes to a consensus on where the Church is headed. Thus, picking an an older Pope who will continue the status quo while ensuring another chance to revisit that decision appears to be a good compromise choice.
|
|
|
Post by Nitrorebel on Apr 19, 2005 12:52:51 GMT -5
I'm from Munich, and let's just say, he's not very popular back home to put it very mildly. In fact, most of us are pretty ashamed to have our city be associated with him. When I first heard his name being mentioned as a serious contender, I had that horrible sinking feeling.
Wolfowitz, Bolton, now him. What next, Scalia as UN Secy-Gen?
|
|
|
Post by RaleighHoya on Apr 19, 2005 13:03:00 GMT -5
This pope is going to take the Catholic Church places I did not think they could go, further into the dark ages. This is the worst choice that could have been made in my opinion.
No matter what your thoughts on politics or religion, clearly one must see that homosexuality, abortion, and things of the such are here to stay in one form or another. This Pope will drive people away from the one place they need, a church.
Also, he will continue to hide (most likely) the priests that break laws and the others that cover these occurences up. It amazes me that a Vatican that basically outlaws homosexuality will go to no end to protect a child molesting priest.
Then there is the subject matter of how the Catholic church is still in the dark ages when dealing with women and their roles in the church. Maybe this is not as big of a problem world wide, but in the Sates, I can't see this increasing the Catholic Church's membership.
|
|
|
Post by Nitrorebel on Apr 19, 2005 13:12:20 GMT -5
Excellent analysis Raleigh. He is extremely notorious in Germany and will not bend. He is dogmatic to the nth degree and will alienate moderates and liberals and not really care about it.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 19, 2005 13:17:45 GMT -5
Outstanding choice and one who will reflect Catholic teaching going back the early days of the church. Not one to let "modern" trends get in the way of truth.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Apr 19, 2005 13:25:35 GMT -5
does anyone know how the Pope's choose their names? Is their a group of acceptable names?
|
|
|
Post by RaleighHoya on Apr 19, 2005 13:29:19 GMT -5
They really get to choose whatever they want. They can pick their own first name, or go from a name from a past pope. They can also pick a new name I think. Here is a story that talks about it a little more. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7540353/
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,783
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 19, 2005 14:42:15 GMT -5
Outstanding choice and one who will reflect Catholic teaching going back the early days of the church. Not one to let "modern" trends get in the way of truth. I do not think people should sway their beliefs jut because of current trends. The issue is the assumption that old ideas are not the effect of the trends of the day. The lack of women in the priesthood stems more from competition with other religions than anything Jesus said or did. Many in the church think that the mass should still be said in Latin. Ratzinger was supposedly against putting it in the vernacular. How is that the "truth" you're referring to? I sincerely hope our new Pope Benedict is as you say, Easy Ed. We should not pay attention to what is hip and compromise our beliefs as a Church. But let's hope that we understand what that Truth is and should be. Personally, I see a problem in the Church continuing to focus on homosexuality, contraception and premarital sex and failing to focus on the individual's spiritual connection.
|
|
hoyahoyasaxa
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Sead Dizdarezvic doesn't write term papers. The words rearrange themselves out of fear.
Posts: 464
|
Post by hoyahoyasaxa on Apr 19, 2005 14:57:31 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 19, 2005 17:50:21 GMT -5
SFHoya, I don't think the Catholic Church is the one focusing too much attention on homosexuality, contraception and premarital sex. Instead, it's the people that want to see the Church change its views on these matters that are focused on them. The Church, in response, is merely re-stating what its views have been since the early days of the Church.
And, Raleigh, I'm probably a lot older than you so I can see some trends that you might not be able to see. When I was at Georgetown, only a priest was allowed to distribute communion or to do the readings from the pulpit. Today, lay women and men do those things every day. What has happened is that there has been a blurring of the duties of a priest and lay women and men. Also, today, women are very much a part of individual parish councils, are in charge of administering to the sick (and distributing the Eucharist), directors of religious education, directors of the music ministry, etc. All of these are changes and are things that have taken place over the last 30 years or so. Will there be women priests in our lifetimes? I don't know. I suspect there will be some movement in that direction, perhaps by having women deacons as a start, but the movement is likely to be slow. There has already been a movement with married male deacons.
The one thing I don't think any of us will ever see is a change in the doctrine of the Church. The Real Presence in the Eucharist, Abortion, embyronic stem cell research (another name for abortion), euthanasia (another word for killing), and out-of-wedlock sexual activity (homosexual or heterosexual) are doctrine based on the Scripture - so, don't look for any change in the Church's position on these. I look for the new Pope to strictly adhere to these age-old doctrinal things while being open for change in non-doctrinal things (like married priests or woman deacons). We shall see.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,783
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 19, 2005 18:41:33 GMT -5
SFHoya, I don't think the Catholic Church is the one focusing too much attention on homosexuality, contraception and premarital sex. Instead, it's the people that want to see the Church change its views on these matters that are focused on them. The Church, in response, is merely re-stating what its views have been since the early days of the Church.
I agree, but the Church has made no effort to make its public face any other issue. They have done a crappy job of promoting, for lack of a better word, the benefits of religion and have allowed others to create the perception of the church.
As for the views since the early days of the Church, 1) never has the Church never said that it cannot change its mind on things and 2) many of these early things have no basis in Jesus' teachings.
The original Catholic Church had female priests, I believe. It changed thanks to the feelings of the day.
The Church has been used for the political aims of individuals for all 2000 years of its existence. I, for one, have a hard time sticking to tradition because some bishop did his older brother a favor by helping to start a war.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 19, 2005 18:52:11 GMT -5
I have to take issue with the comments on embryonic stem cell research from a pragmatic point of view. Most, if not all, embryos that would be used for such research would be discarded anyway. What is worse: murder of such embryos or "murder" of such embryos by virtue of research that could be used to save lives?
Maybe my disagreement is more with the Church than with you on this matter, but I find the language of "murder" inappropriate in this context. I also view the conservative stance on such research as philosophically incoherent, but we can leave that one for another day.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,776
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Apr 19, 2005 19:04:35 GMT -5
To suggest that the Church has done a poor job of promoting itself is not altogether fair.
The Church is growing in Africa, China, and in the developing world, and is really one of only two faiths (the other being Islam) to be doing so. Mainline Protestant denominations are declining, while evangelical and Catholic populations grow because they stand for something, whether you agree with them or not. While this growth may or may not be seen in the Northeast, it certainly is in the West and Southwest. Contrast that with the Episcopal Church, which has been more accomodating with doctrinal changes, has seen its membership drop 36% in a generation.
As to the earlier point on women and married priests, I do not recall any citation of women priests in past history. Some non-cloistered priests were married in early Christianity but the practice was phased out, in part, because the Church did not want to pay for entire families.
FWIW, my parish has a married priest (who is a converted Episcopalian priest) and it works fine. I can see both sides of that issue.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 19, 2005 19:27:52 GMT -5
The Chair of our Theology Department weighs in: βIn America, he has many avid supporters, but many who are not so keen on the power he has wielded. [His elevation] is not going to be received unequivocally with great admiration by all American Catholics β no question about that.β<br> www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7516788/
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,776
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Apr 19, 2005 19:40:16 GMT -5
Why is the chair of the Theology Department not a Jesuit?
And here's a question I posed earlier--will the University ever select a Jesuit going forward to be dean at MSB, or Law, or the College? Are Jesuits no longer considered dean material at a "Top 25" school?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 19, 2005 19:53:18 GMT -5
More info on the Chair: theology.georgetown.edu/faculty/bios/gillisbio.htmSomehow, I don't think his course on Religious Pluralism would go over with Pope Benedict XVI. Anyway, I agree with you to a certain extent about preserving the Jesuit tradition in positions of power at the university, even though I am not Catholic. I think we're also running into a situation where Jesuits are few and far between in applicant pools for such jobs, especially since GU took off as an elite university. Now that we're mentioned in the same breath as the Penns of the world, we're shifting away from the traditions. My $.02.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2005 8:21:35 GMT -5
In the wake of JP2's death, one thing frequently mentioned was his role in defeating communism (whether you give him much credit or little credit, he gets SOME credit).
Maybe its just me, but I would love to see the new Pope - as well as future Popes (is that plural for Pope? Popes? Popi?) - try and cause the same history-altering changes in the developing world, specifically Africa where poverty and AIDS are reaching epidemic levels. I understand he'll have other issues to deal with (women in the clergy, birth control, the child molestation issues, etc.), and maybe its just all these years of Jesuit education getting to me, but I personally feel that to truly do God's work he (and people of all faiths who have the means) should try and rally his millions upon millions of followers to some of the worst poverty and suffering our planet has seen.
|
|