Cardinal Ratzinger of Germany becomes the new Pope Benedict XVI. -- Fordham Rams Basketball Message Board

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ]

Replies:

Interesting choice for the papal name: Benedict XV reconciled liberals and conservatives in the church from 1914-1922, following the "Modernist" controversy. (NT) -- O'Ram85, Tue April 19, 2005 13:57:00
God bless him. The media will have a field day w/ him and he is not as charasmatic as his predecessor, in fact he's quite shy and has tried to retire and return to teaching, but he will make a great leader for the Church. (NT) -- bfg, Tue April 19, 2005 14:16:27
- You can't be serious when you say of Cardinal Ratzinger : "He tried to retire and return to teaching." Gimme a break! This man wrote the book on "Papal Gamesmanship," and was working overtime to get his ticket puched in all the right places ever since he became Archbishop of Munich. He used the services for John Paul II to showcase himself, and his recent exhortations to the Cardinals on the sanctity of tradition and the need for a quick vote was a shameless campaign speech for himself. (NT) -- Guido Sarducci, Tue April 19, 2005 16:44:52
  - you're completely wrong. It's John Allen, the Vatican correspondent of the Nat'l Catholic Reporter and a Ratzinger biographer, who has said that he wanted to return to teaching. BTW, NCR is a VERY liberal magazine and probably upset by the selection so it's unlikely that Allen worte that b/c he's a big fan. (NT) -- bfg, Tue April 19, 2005 18:56:45
    - bfg, I never mentioned John Allen. My reference to Cardinal Ratzinger's supposed desire to go back to teaching came directly out of YOUR post, to which I was replying. I'm not a reader of the National Catholic Reporter, and don't think one has to read "VERY liberal magazines" (your words, again) to conclude that the new Pope is an anachronism. The only positive thing I can see in a Ratzinger papacy is that it might not be all that long, since he is already 78 years of age. (NT) -- Guido Sarducci, Tue April 19, 2005 21:07:02
      - exactly. I was citing a person who knows the new Pope better than any of us. The fact that someone like John Allen has reported it is significant b/c he's no Ratzinger apologist. (NT) -- bfg, Tue April 19, 2005 23:25:17
This Pope was a member of the "Hitler Youth" and in the German Army in Hungary. He says membership in the former was compulsory and that he and his brother deserted from the latter "without shooting at anyone". Actually, posts of this type are perhaps better left to other venues but praise should not be left unchallenged. (NT) -- Jimbo65, Tue April 19, 2005 14:28:58
- I'll take my chances with Pope Benedict XVI over Jimbo65 anyday , how you can challenge praise of the Pope and praise Fordham football players as if you a trying to have sex with them is something I can not fathom nor attempt to describe (NT) -- Opinionator, Tue April 19, 2005 14:41:39
  - Speak slowly, Opionator, and try to say it in English (NT) -- what he say?, Tue April 19, 2005 21:20:37
  - Opinionator, you can relax. I'm sure the new Pope is going to come out soon in favor abolishing Fordham football. After all---the game wasn't played in the days of St. Augustine; it's a clear violation of natural law; and the presence of scantily-clad temptresses (masquerading as cheerleaders) on the sidelines encourages unchaste thoughts. (NT) -- JC'78, Tue April 19, 2005 21:44:55
- He came from an anti-Nazi family and there was no sign that he was anything but against the regime. In addition, he was 14 years old when he was required to join. How actively should a 14 year old be expected to resist the Third Reich? Also, of all media outlets, the Jerusalem Post rejects the condemnation of his past and notes the compulsory nature of his membership as well as the affirmative role he took in working w/ JPII on Catholic/Jewish relations. (NT) -- bfg, Tue April 19, 2005 14:49:46
  - Concentration camp guards also used to say that their actions were excusable due to "the compulsory nature" of their work. "I had to obey orders" was what they'd say again and again. As for Ratzinger's tender age at the time he entered the Hitler Youth, that's not a very good excuse either. In Catholic school, we were taught that children reach the age of reason at 7. Ratzinger was twice that age when he became part of the Hitler Youth. As a young man, Karol Wojtyla resisted (although non-violently) the dictates of Naziism, and in fact was arrested by the Nazis in 1942. He risked his life, carrying a Jewish woman on his back to safety through the forest. No matter what the Jerusalem Post says, Ratzinger doesn't have the credibility that his predecessor did on this issue. His election has to set back Catholic-Jewish relations. (NT) -- Pius XIII?, Tue April 19, 2005 22:25:06
    - That's funny b/c Jews around the world have praised the selection. Why are they happier than many of us? (NT) -- bfg, Tue April 19, 2005 23:22:21
    - Interesting, and ironic, that you post under the name Pius...since the unsubstantiated allegations of Pius' complicity with the Nazis in a book and promoted by 60 Minutes have now been largely discredited. (NT) -- TrentonRam, Wed April 20, 2005 14:27:25
      - don't let facts get in the way, Trenton... (NT) -- bfg, Wed April 20, 2005 16:14:36
        Sorry, but the facts speak for themselves. See JJ's post below. The author of "Hitler's Pope" has now admitted that his scholarship was poor. (NT) -- TrentonRam, Thu April 21, 2005 09:04:47
        I think bfg was agreeing with you, TrentonRam. (NT) -- JoltinJoe, Thu April 21, 2005 09:16:32
        Oops...my apologies, bfg (NT) -- TrentonRam, Thu April 21, 2005 09:36:24
      - John Cornwell, the author of that work, has retracted his allegations and acknowledged that his work "lacked balance." This was reported with far less fanfare than the reportage about the book in the first place. This is from The Economist, published on December 9, 2004: As he admits, “Hitler's Pope” (1999), his biography of Pope Pius XII, lacked balance. “I would now argue,” he says, “in the light of the debates and evidence following ‘Hitler's Pope', that Pius XII had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by the Germans.” Any word from 60 Minutes when they will acknowledge their error? (NT) -- JoltinJoe, Wed April 20, 2005 16:59:49
  - There are reasons some Catholics may be opposed to Cardinal Ratzinger's appointment, but being a Nazi sympathizer should not be one of them. He was 14 when membership in the "Nazi Youth" was compulsory. He would have put his family in danger had he refused to participate. Also, he deserted the German Army in 1944, risking being caught, shot and hung from a lamppost without a trial. As I said, he may not be the right choice for everyone, but claiming he has "Nazi ties" is a non-strarter. (NT) -- Ram'83, Wed April 20, 2005 09:08:20
ugggggggggggggh, i LOVE how you chumps act like you knew this stuff all along when really you spent your lunch on YAHOO News -- Rooster '01, Tue April 19, 2005 14:49:17
Remains amazing to me how after the fact there were so may "Anti Nazi" people in Germany during the war. Guess the carnage was the work of a few zealots most of whom were convicted at Nurenberg.. (NT) -- Jimbo65, Tue April 19, 2005 15:07:56
- Hey Jimbo, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Honestly, the Catholic Church has many problems, but the new pope being forced into Hitler Youth at the age of 14 is not one of them. (NT) -- LJ, Wed April 20, 2005 10:57:57
His very doctrinaire views will not endear him to North Americans and Northern Europeans, and his comments about other religions have been extreme in their intolerance. I suspect the Cardinals were content to continue, for now, the doctrinal policies of John Paul II while selecting a Vatican insider to retool the Curial institutions. All we can do, I suppose, is wish him the best. (NT) -- John, Tue April 19, 2005 15:39:10
- That will be the script of the MSM (and probably already is). We will hear very little from the millions of American Catholics who are thankful and pleased by his election. (NT) -- bfg, Tue April 19, 2005 15:44:01
- I am sure the Cardinals did not want to rock the boat and go with someone who had different philosophies than JP II. It's obviously a tough act to follow. Also, not terribly sure how much of an impact Benedict XVI will have on the church as the man is 78 years old. (NT) -- Air Hej '02, Tue April 19, 2005 16:01:56
  - As a diehard conservative I'm sure he'll give us more of the same, whether its working for the Church and Catholics or not. But before he does so he may want to consider what's happening in Latin America. Apparently the Church is considered so hard-line and out-of-touch with the people that they are flocking to the Protestant Evangelical churches. Part of the widespread indifference is apparently because people perceive it's not meeting their current needs, are part of it is in response to the fact the Church was aligned with the conservative governments that conducted the "Dirty War" back in the 70's and 80's. The Church's bizarre attempt to quash the liberation theology which Archbishop Oscar Romero championed and died for only reinforces that perception. Since Ratzinger has been a lead opponent of LT it will be interesting to see what happens in this respect. I predict the general drift away from the Church will continue. (NT) -- DamnRam, Tue April 19, 2005 18:59:55
    - Violent revolution is not and will never be part of Catholic theology. (NT) -- bfg, Tue April 19, 2005 20:35:05
      - Liberation theology isn't about violent revolution necessarily. That's merely the most extreme interpretation which is used to discredit LTand prevent Catholicism (and religion in general) from being used as the engine for social justice. I would think that you as a conservative of all people would understand how organized religion with a goal can be a catalyst for positive social change. (NT) -- DamnRam, Tue April 19, 2005 21:20:44
        I agree that the Church is a very important vehicle for social change and Benedict XVI and JPII are on the same page. However, the Latin American liberation theologians explain LT in terms of violence and many of them, including Friar Boff, claimed that Christ's disciples fabricated the idea that Jesus' death had a transcendent, salvific significance. He and other LT'ers were silenced b/c they were engaging in heresy and there's no other way to look at it. This is against the most basic theology of the Church. (NT) -- bfg, Tue April 19, 2005 21:40:41
        You're right! They were engaging in HERESY! John Paul was just too kind-hearted by giving them a slap on the wrist. The new Pope will have them burned at the stake! Gimme that old time religion! Hosanna! Amen! (NT) -- T. Torquemada, Tue April 19, 2005 22:37:45
        My understanding of LT is as follows (more inside) -- DamnRam, Tue April 19, 2005 22:47:29
        my sources were both Gustavo Gutierrez and Leonardo Boff. As for the practices that you cited, you're probably right but that's irrelevant to the issue of the heretical nature of Boff's writings. It runs completely counter to the most basic teachings of the Church. It's not an issue of driving out the unbelievers. It's a question of the nature of Christ. Why don't we just deny the Trinity while we're at it? (NT) -- bfg, Tue April 19, 2005 23:35:56
        I don't think it was a question of driving out unbelievers but rather of staying in good graces with the right-wing governments in Latin America. I think if the Church wanted to it could have found another theological underpinning or even a formal endorsement from the pope for the LT movement but apparently chose not to. (NT) -- DamnRam, Wed April 20, 2005 08:29:19
        I was referring to your previous post of the Crusades, etc. (NT) -- bfg, Wed April 20, 2005 08:34:48
        I heard (but haven't been able to confirm) that Ratzinger said he would be quite comfortable with a smaller, purer Church. If he really thinks that then it suggests to me he is intent on driving out those who don't conform to his views on things. (NT) -- DamnRam, Thu April 21, 2005 12:21:04
        That doesn't mean he's going to drive out. it means he's going let those institutions that have already drifted away and lost their identity to go their separate way. (NT) -- bfg, Thu April 21, 2005 12:35:14
        "Drifted away"? I would say still in the fold and still caring enough to be involved. The ones who have drifted away are now called Protestants or secularists. "Lost their identity"? I would say that organizations and persons which don't agree with every tenet of the Church can still be Catholic and have an identity as such. The Church has been wrong before, they will continue to make mistakes, and refusal to go along with those mistakes shouldn't mean that you are no longer a member of the institution. (NT) -- DamnRam, Thu April 21, 2005 15:50:14
        Very interesting article in today's NY Times about Catholic university at Louvain. Many of the issues/complaints cited by the students apply to the Church in the US. At the end of the article, Times cites a poll of students at that school from a few years ago -- only 16 percent said they believed in the resurrection of Christ, 12 percent in the Holy Trinity and 11 percent in the virginity of Mary. That's "drifted away". These are core beliefs of the Church and the new Pope will try to appeal to people to those who believe (or don't believe) like the poll respondents, but this is what the Pope was referring to. (NT) -- bfg, Sat April 23, 2005 12:30:23
        And about the fabrication regarding Christ's sacrifice -- DamnRam, Tue April 19, 2005 22:50:31
    - What drift from the Church? The Church is growing, rapidly in fact in many areas of the world. You have a Western perspective on things. The Church, however, is a worldwide institution. The Church is only losing ground in the nations in which materialism has become a god. That is more a condemnantion of the values of those nations than a condemnation of the Church. Given the values which have taken hold in Western society, I'd be concerned if the Church was rapidly growing in those countries. Europeans and Americans need to hear the message of the Church, not the other way around. (NT) -- JoltinJoe, Tue April 19, 2005 22:05:34
      - Hey, JJ, lets talk about something really important. Is Ratzinger a Sox or Yankee fan? (NT) -- Boston Ram, Tue April 19, 2005 22:26:53
        If he's a man of God, he's a Yankee fan. ;) (NT) -- JoltinJoe, Tue April 19, 2005 22:30:00
        But only when the Yankees aren't playing the Red Sox. (NT) -- DamnRam, Tue April 19, 2005 22:53:26
        Popes typically root for the Cardinals or the Angels. (NT) -- John, Wed April 20, 2005 08:13:44
        On the collegiate level, I'd suspect that Ratzo is a Holy Cross fan given that most of his views date back to the Crusades. (NT) -- RAMerican, Wed April 20, 2005 12:35:06
        On the collegiate level, I'd suspect that Ratzo is a Holy Cross fan given that most of his views date back to the Crusades. (NT) -- RAMerican, Wed April 20, 2005 12:35:30
        J2, I doubt that our new Pope would support an organization know as the Evil Empire. (NT) -- Boston Ram, Wed April 20, 2005 21:39:52
      - There is a major drift from the Church in most of the Western nations, including the United States. The fact that we're picking up converts in the third world (and priests that we can bring over here) is scant consolation for the dwindling church-going population and virtual non-existence of religious vocations in Europe and America. This isn't due just to Western decadence and materialism, but also to the fact that many reasoning people think that the Church's positions on things like priestly celibacy, the all-male priesthood, and artifical contraception are archaic. (NT) -- Ram'69, Tue April 19, 2005 22:54:10
        I believe that you believe that due to the materialsitic influence of our society. But I'm not going to debate the point here. I'll only repeat that we in the West ned to hear the Church's voice, not demand that the Church hear our voices. (NT) -- JoltinJoe, Wed April 20, 2005 01:08:41
        Joltin Joe, don't you think it's a bit presumptuous of you to suggest that "materialistic influence" shapes my moral views, when you've never even met me? In fact, I've devoted a 35-year career (with low pay) and a great deal of unpaid free time to community service. As for priestly celibacy, I feel that it should be an option, and that many would people feel that experiencing the fullness of family life would enrich their ministry and broaden their human perspectives. Married clergy were common in the early Church, as they are in many other religions today. As for forbidding the ordination of women, why should we continue a practice that is rooted not in some significant moral or intellectual differences between men and women--but rather in the cultural norms of bygone days? I do believe that priests should bear a resemblance to Jesus, but a spiritual one, rather than a mere physical one. More.... (NT) -- Ram'69, Wed April 20, 2005 20:16:52
        Sorry, I didn't mean it the way you took it. I didn't mean to suggest that you are materialistic. In America, we all are exposed to materialistic influences, and those influences shape our opinions -- all of our opinions -- in some fashion or to some degree. We've all been influenced. That doesn't mean, in the end, that you are materialistic. I never intended for the comment to be taken that way. I'm sorry for the confusion. (NT) -- JoltinJoe, Wed April 20, 2005 20:46:16
        ....As for artificial contraception, it seems to me that timing/limiting the birth of one's children, and taking individual or social resources into account in making such decisions, can be the expression of a deep personal responsibility--rather than the "irresponsibe hedonism" of which Cardinal Ratzinger once wrote. There is an old saying: "Roma locuta est, causa finta est" (Rome has spoken, the matter is closed.) When it comes to issues where the Church's position is rooted in deep moral principles (such as those on abortion), I have no problem with the "Roma locuta est" approach. But on matters where Church teachings simply reflect transient cultural norms, I see no reason why there shouldn't be dialogue and openness to different points of view. That's the kind of Church which Vatican II envisioned, and the kind which I hope will eventually re-emerge. (NT) -- Ram'69, Wed April 20, 2005 20:39:35
        On that last point about openness to different points of view, I would hope that the AIDS epidemic that is ravaging Africa and other poor regions should cause the Church to reconsider its dogma as it pertains to contraception. Quite literally it can be the difference between life and death for millions, which should be the top priority for anyone who professes to be concerned about the suffering for the people who inhabit those regions. (NT) -- DamnRam, Thu April 21, 2005 10:37:18
        In Latin America (which is what I was talking about specifically), the Church is losing worshippers all over the place. Many are going over to the Protestant/Evangelical/Charismatic denominations for a variety of reasons, and many of the rest are just falling away because they see the Church as irrelevant to their lives. I would say that the Church should understand how its voice is actually coming coming across and decide if that's how it really wants to be heard. (NT) -- DamnRam, Wed April 20, 2005 08:18:10
Shall we evaluate him here (strengths? weaknesses? best and worst aspects of his game? etc.) the way we do with incoming players? Or would that be sacrilegious? (NT) -- Guido Sarducci, Tue April 19, 2005 16:21:05
- He's a strong defender, with a good move to the right. (NT) -- John, Tue April 19, 2005 19:26:28
  - John, you're correct about his strong move to the right. Ratzo (as he is called affectionately by his fans) moves so far to the right, he often takes shots from the tenth row of the bleachers. But at least we misogynists can rest assured he won't let any girls try out for the team! (NT) -- JC'68, Tue April 19, 2005 21:24:16
  - classic!! (NT) -- bfg, Tue April 19, 2005 21:44:52
- Ratzenberger, well its good to be the pope as the actual legacy of the papacy goes back to the early mail men of central europe (NT) -- Cliff Claven, Tue April 19, 2005 21:08:59
  - CC, although the new pope is viewed by many as lacking in charisma, I feel that his decade of experience on the cast of the NBC hit comedy "Cheers" provides him with a media savvy that his predecessors lacked. (NT) -- Boston Ram, Tue April 19, 2005 22:31:31
    - Like Karol Wojtyla, Joseph Ratzinger is another man who has never been in my kitchen. (NT) -- Cliff Claven, Tue April 19, 2005 22:42:06
Two facets of this thread are fascinating: 1. Its resemblance to what gets said about FU BBall. 2. Its vitality: clearly FU grads are concerned about the Church and the future. So is following FU hoops a species of religion? A symptom of how much we want to believe in something good? (NT) -- Rambow, Tue April 19, 2005 22:24:16
- THis is a basketball board. all you people should be banned. (NT) -- joe b, Wed April 20, 2005 10:48:04
  - joe b, you posted right under my message, so I guess your comment is somewhat triggered by having read mine. Well, if you read carefully, you might see that I was attempting to connect the two subjects. Or did you not notice? (NT) -- Rambow, Wed April 20, 2005 14:41:10
I wonder whether Cardinal Ratzinger's election to the Papacy will have a chilling effect on academic freedom in American Catholic universities (esp. the theology departments). At the Vatican, Cardinal Ratzinger seemed to function basically as a "watchdog," enforcing Orthodoxy and whipping dissidents back into line. Will he still being doing this with the same vehemence as Pope? And, if so, how will this be received in modern Catholic universities where freedom of inquiry is valued and people don't take well to people to being led around by the nose? Is a confrontation inevitable? (NT) -- Ram'69, Tue April 19, 2005 23:44:19
- '69, Ratzinger was the adviser of another German Cardinal during Vatican II and was seen as a progressive. The social unrest of '68 change his views on some things and some of his fellow progressives went a lot further than he was willing to go for "reforms". As for dissenting theologians, during the last 20 years as he's run the CFTDF, he's removed the license of Fr. Charles Curran (a special license necessary to teach @ Catholic U) and the silenced several liberation theologians (see above). When it comes to most Catholic universities in the US, I think you need only look to the theology departments @ ND, G'town, and BC (among others) to see that Cardinal Ratzinger did not have much effect on eliminating dissent at Catholic universities. (NT) -- bfg, Wed April 20, 2005 19:36:12
  - I would say "it's a good thing" that Ratzinger was not successful in eliminating dissent, or as I would phrase it "other viewpoints". Catholic colleges need to be true to their identity as religious-affiliated institutions by teaching what the Church wants, but as institutions of higher education they should also allow for exploration of other viewpoints. To me that is what separates academic integrity from indoctrination. (NT) -- DamnRam, Wed April 20, 2005 20:12:11
    - That's fine but the point I was trying to make is that people have been claiming that as a Cardinal quashed dissent. All people have to do is look at universities in Europe and the US to see that's not the case. There's no lack of dissent, especially @ ND. BTW, to whoever asked above, I just saw an interview w/ Cardinal Dulles. He was quite complimentary of Pope Benedict and didn't voice any criticism of Ratzinger's role @ the CFTDF. Had an interesting analysis of differences between JPII (a Thomist) and Benedict (an Augustinian). (NT) -- bfg, Wed April 20, 2005 21:35:43
      - I think the bottom line is we need to give the new pope a chance to perform for while before we form our opinions of him. His role now is much different and I predict he will not be what many think he will be. Just a gut feeling. (NT) -- Rambacker, Thu April 21, 2005 09:52:11
        I agree. I think the new Pope is going to surprise a lot of people. (NT) -- bfg, Thu April 21, 2005 10:13:58
        The scope of responsibility for a pope is so profound that it can cause a priest to look inward and ultimately reveal qualities that were heretofore unknown. Let's hope and pray that is the case. (NT) -- Rambacker, Thu April 21, 2005 11:16:40
        I'm still concerned with Ratzinger's seemingly doctrinaire qualities, with his emphasis on ecclesiastical discipline rather than on Christian charity, and by some of his past comments like calling other Christian denominations "deficient". But, I agree that--as Rambacker says--we have to give him a chance. History is filled with examples of people growing and changing once they're in a new position of authority. I hope that will be the case with the new Pope, and I hope that you're right in thinking he is going to surprise a lot of people. (NT) -- Ram'69, Thu April 21, 2005 11:31:36
        I've got to go to a meeting so I'll throw out this bomb and let you guys have fun w/ it but why is it that so many are talking about the new Pope changing yet no one talks about a reexamination and changing by wayward Catholics to return to the orthodox teachings of the Church? IMO, many people have adopted a new version of "Rome has spoken, the matter is closed". For many, it is now "I have decided and the matter is closed". I'm outta here. (NT) -- bfg, Thu April 21, 2005 12:40:43
        If the orthodox teachings of the Church don't make sense in a modern context (prohibiting condoms in the age of AIDS, for example), then why should "wayward" Catholics put their lives at risk just to satisfy the litmus tests imposed by an obviously out-of-touch institution? And in regards to the child molestation scandals, how can the Church expect anyone to give them the same level of respect when they turned a blind eye to what was happening for decades (centuries?), and then attacked the accusers, and then tried to minimize the significance of all this, and are now closing parishes to help pay for the damages that resulted, and even now have Cardinal Law heading up his own basilica in Rome? The problem is that the flock needs a more sensible shepard, not that the shepard needs a more docile flock. (NT) -- DamnRam, Thu April 21, 2005 17:01:49
        I agree w/ some of your comments re: the molestation scandal. What happened in the Church was nothing short of a modern day Judas. The people, especially kids, were betrayed. However, that doesn't really answer the question of why the faithful shouldn't reexamine their/our views. It seems like we expect others to reexamine their views and revise them but no one dares to challenge people who don't agree w/ the orthodox teachings of the Church. (NT) -- bfg, Fri April 22, 2005 07:37:18
        But that's just begging the question of why they don't agree with the orthodox teachings of the Church in the first place. Instead of telling them they should just disregard their own misgivings, the Church should give them the benefit of the doubt and address the reasons for those misgivings. You can't "challenge" people to get with the program if they believe the program is corrupt. This is much larger than just the child molestation issue (which isn't over yet, by the way). Even now, for instance, the Church is actively shielding a Rwandan priest (now living in a Church compound in Florence under an assumed name) who was already tried and convicted (one of three Rwandan priests) for his role in the murder of 2000 Tutsis in the Rwandan massacre, and a South American priest who was complicit in the executions of alleged "leftists" during the Dirty War (he would extract their confessions, then tell the soldiers it was okay to shoot them). (NT) -- DamnRam, Fri April 22, 2005 09:39:04
        People are smart enough to distinguish between the acts of men and the moral teachings of the Church. You seem to imply that b/c some clergy (a very small number) have failed to live up to the Church's teachings then it's OK for Catholics to hold beliefs other than the Church's teachings. While it might creat doubt, it doesn't give them a free pass to, as Catholics, hold views which are contrary to the teachings of the Church. (NT) -- bfg, Fri April 22, 2005 10:05:02
        A priest who smokes and drinks a little too much has a minor personal failing with no bearing on the authority or teachings of the Church. When the Church as an institution over a period of decades allows its priests to commit horrendous acts and then protects those perpetrators, that creates a lot more than doubt - it severely erodes their credibility and moral authority. Being a person of faith in an age of instant communications and mobility is a matter of trust and choice, especially since the Bible can always be read directly. Catholics have every right to ask questions of those who demand their obedience; leaders have the burden to prove they and their message are worthy of the followers' trust. (NT) -- DamnRam, Fri April 22, 2005 11:05:21
        Another interesting article in Sat Times shows how Ratzinger has become more involved in review the abuse allegations and some of the real movement in these cases is due to his intervention. I think we will see even more work on this in the coming months and credibility in the Church is going to be slowly restored. At the same time, the obedience and trust that you site should be in the teachings and not as much in the persons. Do as they say; not as they do. (NT) -- bfg, Mon April 25, 2005 16:02:54

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums^(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2012 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.