Asymmetrical Information

I have to say, I *like* Benedict. Has a real papal sound to it. Kinda rolls off the tongue. Plus, we've had too many "P" popes lately, with Paul, and the John Pauls, and Pius. Makes for a nice change of pace.

I still think Pope Melvin would be better.

On the possible significance of the name:

http://www.catholic-pages.com/grabbag/malachy.asp

I agree with your Update III. People look to religion for moral clarity. Changing a church's doctrines on significant issues, like some people change clothes, makes the church seem more like stagnant backwater of human emotion than a font of inspired truth.

I, too, agree with Update III.

The PCA has been losing a thousand or more
communicants each week for last 20 years.
The more lefty-liberal PCA becomes, the more
bottoms leave their pews. It's newest funding
tactic seems to be adopting a truly wacky
IslamoFascist theology. No doubt even more
of their 'faithful' will be leaving at an
ever faster rate.

So the one true Church picking a traditionalist
will help it's ability to retain souls.

Regarding the new Pope's chosen name, there's room here for a theological groaner:
The Cardinals went into conclave looking to elect a successor to JPII and chose a Benediction!

The etymology of "benedict" is rather nice, I think - and it's much more mellifluous than "ratzinger." I used to wonder what name John Paul II would have taken if he hadn't been John Paul the second - that is, almost obligated to memorialize his ill-fated predecessor because he succeeded him after such a tragically short time.

I was raised Catholic but have been Episcopalian for some years now, not through a falling-out with the Church but because of spousely compromise; being an Episcopalian in Texas was more satisfying, from a spiritual-rigor standpoint, than I've found being an Episcopalan in Pennsylvania to be so far.

It's American and Western European chauvinism to call Ratzinger "very conservative." The majority of Catholics live in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, and they no doubt consider him a moderate.

The main thing the Catholic church seems to stand for these days is raping young boys.

Very astute, Jeff. Think of that all by yourself?

Jeff's post is fatuous, but I must say that having Bernard Law moved to Rome, and given a honored role at JPII's funeral, puts the Roman Catholic church in an extraordinarily bad light. To forgive is Divine, but it must be preceded by acknowledgement of wrongdoing, repentence, and an honest attempt to repair the damage done to wronged parties. It is hard to argue that Law and the Church have cleared the hurdle.

Actually, I kind of like the sound of Pope Update III. Or would it be Update II, if John XXIII was Update I?

Benedict is tied now for the second most popular name, so obviously they don't think it's the equivalent of 'Melvin'.

I believe that in the past, those Popes who have chosen the name "Benedict" have done so to signal their commitment to the traditions of the church, eschewing modernism. So, Jane, you were right, there is definitely some historical symbolism in the name.

I see a couple of advantages to Ratzinger's election, tho I have to admit I don't know much about him.

1) He's not Italian. Maybe the Vatican won't climb back into its provincial Italian hole. Also makes it more likely that the next Pope will be non-European, imho.

2) Ratzinger is a western European; I'm hoping that, unlike JPII, he understands the whole marketplace of ideas concept that underlies large swathes of Western thought (especially the American part). There's also the possibility that he understands free markets, but I'm doubtful. After all, most bishops in the US don't.

- PJ/Maryland

P.S. Benedict is an unpopular name in the US due to Benedict Arnold. (But give it another half generation, and no one will know who he was.) Perfectly legitimate name, tho; straight Latin translation is Bene (adverb from bonus, good) and Dictum (from dico, to speak). Could be translated as "speaking well", but is usually "wishing [someone] well". I see the news reports are saying it translates as "Blessing", which is close enough. The opposite would be "maledict", which would be to wish someone evil, aka curse. We're more familiar with "benefactor", someone who does good (bene + factor, to make or do).

The fact the Benedict the 16th was in the Nazi Hitler youth...even tho his gun was" empty" is not a good omen to me. His gun was empty, and Clinton did not inhale.
Even if he did nothing, he did not stand up for what was right. A sheep...not a leader of courage. Someone who does what he is told. gigi

I believe that in the past, those Popes who have chosen the name "Benedict" have done so to signal their commitment to the traditions of the church, eschewing modernism. So, Jane, you were right, there is definitely some historical symbolism in the name.

It sounded much better when the guy said it in Italian (or latin?) as Benedetto. Much nicer sounding.

gigi wrote:

The fact the Benedict the 16th was in the Nazi Hitler youth...even tho his gun was" empty" is not a good omen to me. His gun was empty, and Clinton did not inhale.
Even if he did nothing, he did not stand up for what was right. A sheep...not a leader of courage. Someone who does what he is told. gigi

As I understand it, he was "drafted" into the Hitler Youth at the age of 14 when it was mandatory that all boys his age be in it. He was later drafted into military service, serving as a helper on an antiaircraft gun and later in building tank barriers in Austria. He deserted the German army in May of '45, risking almost certain execution if caught.

Now, what, exactly, do you think he should have done differently? Steal a Panzer and launch a solo attack on Hitler? Start an underground railroad to sneak Jews out of the country? Organize a military coup?

He was just a teenager, for goodness sakes, doing menial tasks as a conscript -- and he eventually deserted from doing even that. It's not like he was a prison guard at Auschwitz.

But, no doubt, when you were 14 you would have told the Gestapo to take flying leap rather than perform the "public service" that was demanded of you.

Mycin

The majority of Catholics live in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, and they no doubt consider him a moderate.

I'm not sure I would generalize to that extent.

I don't know if the policies of the church are responsible, but the most recent papacy has seen the largest religious transformation in Latin America since the 16th century. It's rather like what the Clinton presidency did to the Democratic Party to the South. Guatemala is now a majority Protestant country. Millions of people in Brazil and Colombia have moved over to the Evangelical denominations. There are certainly a variety of reasons for why this is happening, but Ratzinger and the late Pope have been trying a certain approach for the last 25 years, and whatever the cause-and-effect relationship, it doesn't appear to be succeeding in keeping the Latin American flock intact.

I know next to nothing about "liberation theology" except that it was semi-Marxist (as much as possible for a religious movement), popular in Latin America, but opposed by John Paul II. Ratzinger is identified with opposition to the movement. Can anyone say more whether this is related to the changes in Latin America, or if LT is an old issue without relevance?

I'm not a Catholic, so I have no personal comments for the church or the Pope; I wish the whole organization and its members well with whatever policies they pursue.

Subjective concerns aside, I have to say that I look at the trends and I wonder where all of the priests of tomorrow are going to come from. The demographic trends look objectively bad. If the church can find a way out of this while maintaining current policies about celibacy and women, that's great. I don't really see how they can. Pope Benedict XVI may surprise us all.

Sorry, PJ, 'benedictus' does not mean 'blessing' someone else -- that would be 'benedicens'. It means 'blessed' (one syllable or two), that is, 'having been blessed' by someone else, in this case presumably God.

To be totally pedantic (I'm a Latin teacher), 'dictus' is a perfect passive participle, while 'dicens' is a present active participle.

Does "PB16" sound better?

On your Update III I don't think the issue is that the Catholic Church is going to implode. Rather it's becoming more and more irrelevant for daily life. Catholics all over the world simply do not follow its teachings on divorce, sex education, and contraceptives. In the US and Europe views on abortion and homosexuality also go counter the Church's teachings. In Lation America abortion is not legal but is widely accepted and available (although not very safe).

Yawn.

I think Seanbaby said it best: When I need to melt a vampire, I'll call a Catholic.

"He was just a teenager, for goodness sakes, doing menial tasks as a conscript -- and he eventually deserted from doing even that."

Firstly, involvement in the Hitler Youth was not mandatory. It was merely expected and within the choice of the child, not the parent. One of the ironies of national socialism was that it proclaimed to be reinforcing the family structure while actually giving substantial choice to the individual. My relatives had no problem refusing to join the Hitler Youth and neither did over one-quarter of eligible children. Why recruit popes from the bottom 3/4ths of upstanding citizens?

Secondly, the resistance movement was open for recruits of all ages and made up by a sizable portion of teenagers. My grandfather, active in the resistance, was caught by the Gestapo in his youth as well (and like many others merely forced to join the army, not executed). The inescapability myth is pleasant and reassuring, especially for Germans as myself, but today there exists a real need to separate the wheat from the choff.

Digging up dirt is not the most novel form of journalism but neither is repainting history in pastel colors.

Interested in harsh, politicized commentary with a comical twist? www.damnesty.blogspot.com

I'm not Catholic, so I don't have a horse in this race. Still, judging a 78 year old man on his actions at age 14 seems more than a tad uncharitable. Particularly when the man's entire adult life seems to bear no relationship to the acts of the putatively evil youth. What are we to think, that he's been faking it the past 60 years?

Let's let the Catholics, and the new Pope, have their day. Those who are not Catholic can safely ignore both Pope and church. We don't have to be churlish about it.

In response to Prospective Despot: [taken from www.historyplace.com]

"Schirach's goal in 1936 was to enroll the entire population of ten-year-olds throughout Germany into the Hitler Youth as a present for Hitler on his 47th birthday. Called "The Year of the Jungvolk," enormous pressure was put on young children to join. In school, they were pressured by Nazi-affiliated teachers. At home and at play, they were aggressively pursued by individual Hitler Youths and through neighborhood propaganda marches, meetings for parents, and special childrens' sing-a-longs."

[And later in the article . . .]

"On December 1, 1936, Hitler decreed "The Law concerning the Hitler Youth" which mandated that all young Germans (excluding Jews) would "be educated physically, intellectually and morally in the spirit of National Socialism" though the Hitler Youth from the age of ten onward. This law also effectively ended the Catholic Youth Organization which had managed to hold for three years amid continual Nazi harrassment. Parents who prevented their children from joining the Hitler Youth were subject to heavy prison sentences."

Re: Update 3, having attended a carol service in a Church of England church this past Christmas, I can confirm that the Anglican Communion seems to have replaced the Unitarians as the Church of What's Happening Now; right down to an appeal for a Palestinian school with slideshow showing nasty Israeli checkpoint a mile away...

It almost makes those quotes about false prophets from the Book of Revelation, from one's childhood attending evangelical churches, come alive for this agnostic. [shiver]

So the question I have for all the American Catholics and their trumpeters at the NY Times, et al is this: in what year was the Papal Decree issued that transformed the Catholic Church into a democracy?

The impact of the opinions of the Church's flock is and should be nil. The Pope is responsible for spreading the word of God, for enforcing the long established teachings of the Church. He is not beholden to a bunch of liberal, relativistic, nominal Catholics in the United States, or anywhere else for that matter.

Of course, this may lead to a decline in membership - but so it was with various Protestant (protesters, after all) sects over the years from Martin Luther to all the rest. But all of that is more about politics than religion and did very little to diminish the power of the Church.

Me? I am a lapsed Catholic with a capital "L".

So far I've seen articles calling him conservative, extreme conservative, ultraconservative, and extreme radical conservative. Sounds like an OK guy!

Too many steves:

Hear hear. And concerning declining membership, it might, it might not have that effect... Look, after all, at the effect John Paul II had on young Catholics. He may not have increased the ranks of Western congregants (I don't know), but he was wildly popular with "the young."

GT:

The Catholic church isn't about being "relevant."

Those who believe Benedict's Nazi Youth membership sixty years ago should disqualify him:

Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles and a stumbling-block to the wise, as they say, had a penchant for persecuting members of the then-new Jewish splinter group that wasn't yet called "Christians." He underwent a powerful spiritual experience that utterly changed everything about him except his outspokenness, which apparently God had a use for, and spent the rest of his peripatetic life shouting in public squares, getting beaten, getting arrested, traveling by ship and on foot all over the northeastern Mediterranean region in a time when ONE trip was a dangerous rarity, converting, working alongside new converts, chiding, writing, founding communities, etc., etc., etc. The nature of Christianity is that God gives you a lot of chances, even when humanity wouldn't be inclined to give one. (This is, I think, also why Law is still where he is, which I think is shameful on HIS part - he ought to have retired to a Benedictine monastery or something - but shows on the part of the Church an unfortunate commitment to trying to act like Christ. IMveryHO, the Church has misstepped in dealing with the competing values of being Christlike in giving Law the chance that humanity wouldn't be inclined to give, while also being Christlike to abuse victims in experiencing their pain and attempting to heal their wounds. The balance appears off. I won't question their motives, but I wish they'd gotten better, or different, advice at the beginning of the storm.)

John Paul II came from Poland, where, if he'd been invited to join the Hitler Youth, I imagine he'd have viewed it much the way a young Southern teenager would have viewed being invited to join the Union army during the later phases of the Civil War - NOT to equate the Blues with the Nazis, for heaven's sake. I'm just making the point that it's an unfair comparison.

Jamie,

If the Catholic Church is not relevant to Catholics then it's useless.

Of course it's about being relevant.

GT, I'm sure the Catholic Church is sorry it doesn't appeal to the American atheist and agnostic demographic. What the hell does "relevance" mean? Is that like saying iPods are "relevant" today and Creative's Rio isn't? It's a religion, not McDonalds.

I have to agree with the comment above. The theology and doctrine of the Catholic Church should not be driven by public opinion or fashion. It should be driven by scripture and faith.

Having said that, there are plenty of things about the Catholic Church that are traditions and not driven by theology and could be changed.

I'm not Catholic, but I have a lot more respect for a Catholic or a Church that at least tries to be consistent with scripture than one who tries to figure out how to be popular by creatively interpreting (or ignoring) scripture.

I am particularly amused by the comments of non-Catholics on what the Catholic Church should do regarding doctrine (I'm not talking about comments here, but elsewhere).

They could have made a much more Fabulous choice. Cardinal Law perhaps. I was raised a Catholic, but I now fall under heathen. This guy will make for good comedy. I see SS uniforms and a nazi pope mobile on the comedy horizon. Perhaps the new eucharistic blessing in the matza line will be "Body of Christ...Schnell!!! keep the line moving." I figure the over under on Ratty to be 4 years.

In all seriousness, the job is mostly a figurehead deal. There just isn't going to be a change in the Catholic dogma as it applies to contraception, abortion, gays, or female priests. In a way, the whole ordination of a new Pope is just the Catholics telling all the other Christians, "We have been here from the start, and we are way more fabulous than you."

GT:

I'm puzzled too: what do you mean by "relevant"? My interpretation of your comment was that you believed the Church should "modernize" or "liberalize" in the sense that the Episcopal church has done: ordination of women (married male priests having been around for a very long time among the Episcopalians), elevation of an openly gay bishop (which may get American Episcopalians booted out of the Anglican Communion, which I'm sure they knew was a possibility when they voted), an "acknowledgement" that people's sex lives are their own business, and that anything their church teaches them about sex ought to be in the form of a suggestion rather than a command. Was I wrong?

If I was, if you were talking about some other form of relevance, please explain it - I can't come up with one, now that Mass is said in the vernacular all over the world and so forth. But if I wasn't, if you were indeed talking about this type of modern relevance, I stick to my guns. American Catholics who are not willing to abide by the doctrines of their church are perfectly free to do what I did (but oddly enough am rethinking) and head for a different denomination.

None of which means that a Catholic can't be Catholic unless s/he performs perfectly, like a purebred dog at a show or something. Again, Christianity is all about being gifted with more chances than humanity would like to give.

This guy will make for good comedy. I see SS uniforms and a nazi pope mobile on the comedy horizon. Perhaps the new eucharistic blessing in the matza line will be "Body of Christ...Schnell!!! keep the line moving." I figure the over under on Ratty to be 4 years.

This sort of smear-job isn’t going to work for several reasons. First, this Pope isn’t going to crumble under the weight of a few harsh words and snide remarks nor is he likely to lash out uncontrollably. In which case it’s a few boneheads taking cheap shots as grandfatherly looking figure whose loving sternness will be offset by his humility and compassion for his followers just as it was for his predecessor.

Second, most Catholics (even if they disagree with some of their Church's teachings) aren’t about to stand for a smear job on their Pope. Nor for that matter will other fair-minded people regardless of their faith. Which could result in people flocking to defend the Catholic Church and perhaps win a few converts.

Third, no serious person is going to buy the “he’s a Nazi” because of what happened when he was a young boy (which wasn’t much). He’s been upfront about this from the beginning and by all accounts they forced him and every other boy his age to join Hitler Youth but he pretty much refused to participate. They impressed him into the army to provide civilian support for an anti-aircraft gun and he deserted. As soon as he could, he put his life back on track to go into the seminary. Pretty damning stuff.

On the other hand, he and Pope John Paul II were instrumental in reconciling with Jews over abuses of Christianity and unequivocally condemning anti-Semitism. His “Memory and Reconciliation” that he prepared to account for the Church’s errors in its treatment of Jews will live on longer than the idiots who refer to him as the “Panzer Pope.”

Finally, I for one am tired of catering to the lowest common denominator. I’m not Catholic nor am I even religious but I applaud them for not caving in for fear that someone would make stupid comments about a German Pope. The charges against him for what happened as a boy are absolute garbage (click on my name for the Jerusalem Post article) and the last thing we need to do is to cave into those who spread this nonsense.

Viva il Papa, indeed!

So Fabulous,

You're not by any chance gay, are you? I see a strange preoccupation with Nazis and SS uniforms.

Sorry about the digression but

Ted,

The lefty-liberal Presbyterian Church is the PCUSA. The PCA is the conservatives, and is growing fast.

SamChevre

I take exception to this post.

AT, Jamie,

What I mean is that a growing number of Catholics across the world (not just,or specailly, in the US) simply ignore the Church's teachings on a variety of topics especially on contraceptives and divorce but also on gay rights, abortion and stem cell research. To this grwoing number of people the Church has no or little (or diminished) relevance in how they lead their lives.

I'm Catholic, I grew up in the Catholic church, and I still go to church on Sundays. I also have been exposed to non-denominational, fundamental teachings, which most Catholics that I know have not. I feel that my fundamentalist leanings are not shared widely in my parish. I also suspect that at least one of the priests in my parish (who I consider a 'new age' priest) will be less than thrilled with PB16, yet the pastor in the next parish over must be dancing with joy.

The reference to Paul above is right on. Everyone has something to hide, some things are more publicized than others.

The most important thing in my mind concerning the direction that the papacy takes is to follow biblical theology. As was stated earlier, there are a lot of things that are "Catholic" but not biblical. Those things don't have as much meaning to me, and for a few of them I choose to disagree. I may be wrong, but I haven't been excommunicated yet. There are a number of biblical tenets that I fall short on, which results in me being a sinner (aren't we all?), yet God still accepts me into his family due to the sacrifice of His Son.

Our goal in life should be to please God, not man. Changing doctrine to please people or make things more 'relevant' just makes for a secular religion (read "idolatry"), which is useless to me. If you can't find relevancy in God's word, you have bigger problems than the selection of the new pope.

I'm also against neutering the songs and prayers. I'm waiting for the Sign of the Cross to turn into "In the name of the Parent, the Child, and the Holy Spirit."

To respond to the above post, where it mentions John Paul II's stance againtst liberation theology. It wasn't moderately connected with marxism, it essentially put Jesus on the same level with Marx.

With the back and forth on the Hitler Youth issue, I am amazed that no one mentioned the Papal encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge that was read in all Catholic churches in Nazi Germany on Palm Sunday in 1937. That encyclical told Catholics that Nazism and racism were anti-christian.

The young Ratzinger was 10 years old at that time. He was clearly devout and from a devout Catholic family, which traditionally would have been associated with a the Catholic Center Party. What effect would the priest reading a papal encyclical calling the Nazi government anti-christian racists have had on a young, devout boy who was probably being groomed for the priesthood by his family? I think that explains a lot about his ambivalence toward the Nazis, as suggested by his desertion from the Army in 1945.

Of course, I assume that everyone was acquainted with the Mit Brennender Sorge incident before I mentioned it.

Comments are Closed.