Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger Elected Pope

[tspikes51]

Link to the Yahoo! News article.

By WILLIAM J. KOLE, Associated Press Writer

VATICAN CITY - Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany, the Roman Catholic Church's leading hard-liner, was elected pope Tuesday in the first conclave of the new millennium. He chose the name Benedict XVI and called himself "a simple, humble worker."

Ratzinger, the first German pope in centuries, emerged onto the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica, where he waved to a wildly cheering crowd of tens of thousands and gave his first blessing. Other cardinals clad in their crimson robes came out on other balconies to watch him after one of the fastest papal conclaves of the past century.

"Dear brothers and sisters, after the great Pope John Paul II, the cardinals have elected me — a simple, humble worker in the vineyard of the Lord," he said after being introduced by Chilean Cardinal Jorge Arturo Medina Estivez.

"The fact that the Lord can work and act even with insufficient means consoles me, and above all I entrust myself to your prayers," the new pope said. "I entrust myself to your prayers."

The crowd responded to the 265th pope by chanting "Benedict! Benedict!"

Ratzinger turned 78 on Saturday. His age clearly was a factor among cardinals who favored a "transitional" pope who could skillfully lead the church as it absorbs John Paul II's legacy, rather than a younger cardinal who could wind up with another long pontificate.

The new pope is the oldest elected since Clement XII, who was chosen in 1730 at 78 but was three months older than Ratzinger.

Cardinals also had faced a choice over whether to seek a younger, dynamic pastor and communicator — perhaps from Latin America or elsewhere in the developing world where the church is growing.

Ratzinger is the first Germanic pope in nearly 1,000 years. There were at least three German popes in the 11th century.

Benedict XVI decided to spend the night at the Vatican hotel, the Domus Sanctae Marthae, and to dine with the cardinals, said Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls. He was to preside over a Mass on Wednesday morning in the Sistine Chapel and will be formally installed on Sunday at 10 a.m. (4 a.m. EDT).

If Ratzinger was paying tribute to the last pontiff named Benedict, it could be interpreted as a bid to soften his image as the Vatican's doctrinal hard-liner.

Benedict XV, who reigned from 1914 to 1922, was a moderate following Pius X, who had implemented a sharp crackdown against doctrinal "modernism." He reigned during World War I and was credited with settling animosity between traditionalists and modernists, and dreamed of reunion with Orthodox Christians.

Benedict comes from the Latin for "blessing" and is one of a number of papal names of holy origin such as Clement ("mercy"), Innocent ("hopeful" as well as "innocent") and Pius ("pious").

The last pope from a German-speaking land was Victor II, bishop of Eichstatt, who reigned from 1055-57.

On Monday, Ratzinger, who was the powerful dean of the College of Cardinals, used his homily at the Mass dedicated to electing the next pope to warn the faithful about tendencies that he considered dangers to the faith: sects, ideologies like Marxism, liberalism, atheism, agnosticism and relativism — the ideology that there are no absolute truths.

"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism," he said, speaking in Italian. "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.

Ratzinger served John Paul II since 1981 as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In that position, he has disciplined church dissidents and upheld church policy against attempts by liberals for reforms.



He had gone into the conclave with the most buzz among two dozen leading candidates. He had impressed many faithful with his stirring homily at the funeral of John Paul II, who died April 2 at age 84.

Some have questioned whether the new pope betrayed any pro-Nazi sentiment during his teenage years in Germany during World War II.

In his memoirs, he wrote of being enrolled in Hitler's Nazi youth movement against his will when he was 14 in 1941, when membership was compulsory. He says he was soon let out because of his studies for the priesthood.

Two years later, he was drafted into a Nazi anti-aircraft unit as a helper, a common fate for teenage boys too young to be soldiers. Enrolled as a soldier at 18, in the last months of the war, he barely finished basic training.

"We are certain that he will continue on the path of reconciliation between Christians and Jews that John Paul II began," Paul Spiegel, head of Germany's main Jewish organization, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

White smoke poured from the chimney atop the Sistine Chapel and the bells of St. Peter's pealed at 6:04 p.m. (12:04 p.m. EDT) to announce the conclave had produced a pope. Flag-waving pilgrims in St. Peter's Square chanted: "Viva il Papa!" or "Long live the pope!"

The bells rang after a confusing smoke signal that Vatican Radio initially suggested was black but then declared was too difficult to call. White smoke is used to announce a pope's election to the world.

It was one of the fastest elections in the past century: Pope Pius XII was elected in 1939 in three ballots on one day, while Pope John Paul I was elected in 1978 in four ballots in one day. The new pope was elected after either four or five ballots over two days.

"It's only been 24 hours, surprising how fast he was elected," Vatican Radio said.

The timing, more than an hour before the end of the afternoon session, indicated that the pontiff may have been chosen on the fourth ballot, although it was not immediately known. Voting began Monday night with a single ballot, and there were two ballots to be held Tuesday morning and afternoon.

The cardinals took an oath of secrecy, forbidding them to divulge how they voted. Under conclave rules, a winner needed two-thirds support, or 77 votes from the 115 cardinal electors.

After the smoke appeared, pilgrims poured into the square, their eyes fixed on the burgundy-draped balcony. Pilgrims said the rosary as they awaited the name of the new pope and prelates stood on the roof of the Apostolic Palace, watching as the crowd nearly doubled in size.

Niels Hendrich, a 40-year-old salesman from Hamburg, Germany, jumped up and down with joy and called his father on a cell phone before Ratzinger was announced. "Habemus papam!" he shouted into the phone, using the Latin for, "We have a pope."

In the pope's hometown of Traunstein, Germany, a room full of 13-year-old boys at St. Michael's Seminary that Ratzinger attended jumped up and down, cheered and clapped as the news was announced.

"It's fantastic that it's Cardinal Ratzinger. I met him when he was here before and I found him really nice," said Lorenz Gradl, 16, who was confirmed by Ratzinger in 2003.

Antoinette Hastings, from Kent Island, Md., rose from her wheelchair, grasping her hands together and crying. She has artificial knees, making it tough to stand.

"I feel blessed, absolutely blessed," she said. "I just wish the rest of my family were here to experience this with me."

After the bells started ringing, people on the streets of Rome headed from all directions toward Vatican City. Some priests and seminarians in clerical garb were running. Nuns pulled up their long skirts and jogged toward the square. Drivers honked horns and some people closed stores early and joined the crowds.

Police immediately tried to direct traffic but to little effect.

Ratzinger succeeds a pope who gained extraordinary popularity over a 26-year pontificate, history's third-longest papacy. Millions mourned him around the world in a tribute to his charisma.

While John Paul, a Pole, was elected to challenge the communist system in place in eastern Europe in 1978, Benedict faces new issues: the need for dialogue with Islam, the divisions between the wealthy north and the poor south as well as problems within his own church.

These include the priest sex-abuse scandals that have cost the church millions in settlements in the United States and elsewhere; coping with a chronic shortage of priests and nuns in the West; and halting the stream of people leaving a church indifferent to teachings they no longer find relevant.

Under John Paul, the church's central authority grew, often to dismay of bishops and rank-and-file Catholics around the world.

Pope John XXIII was 77 when he was elected pope in 1958 and viewed as a transitional figure, but he called the Second Vatican Council that revolutionized the church from within and opened up its dialogue with non-Catholics.

Benedict will have to decide whether to keep up the kind of foreign travel that was a hallmark of John Paul's papacy, with his 104 pilgrimages abroad.

He may already be locked into one — to his home country: the mid-August Catholic youth day gathering in Cologne, Germany. John Paul had agreed to visit and organizers have already spent millions of dollars in preparations.

Navarro-Valls said he expected Benedict XVI would attend.

"It seems obvious," Navarro-Valls told RAI television, noting that young people in the crowd had already started chanting "Benedict XVI" the way they chanted "Giovanni Paolo," John Paul's name in Italian. He added that he hadn't discussed it with the new pope but that it seemed likely, since the event was in the pope's homeland.

"With the new Holy Father, we can be assured of continuity with his predecessor and of a personality who will lead the church with great responsibility before God," said Heiner Koch, the prelate in charge of the event.

I'm glad that the council came to a quick decision. I also wonder if he can follow in John Paul's footsteps.

[Ace_O_Spades]

Where was I when I first heard about the new pope?

Sitting in a beanbag chair drinking sprite out of a tupperware container.

[roachboy]

great: the church elected jp2's ideological hatchet man as the next pope.

way to go.

and here i had thought that my particular alienation from catholicism had reached a kind of limit.
live and learn.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by roachboy

great: the church elected jp2's ideological hatchet man as the next pope.

way to go.

and here i had thought that my particular alienation from catholicism had reached a kind of limit.
live and learn.

Dude, it's the CC. Why should they alter their rules towards liberal idealogy (Aside from the fact non-practicing liberals say the Church needs to)?

[meembo]

It's time to move pope news from the front page
God bless him, I'm glad the job's not mine

[ironman]

Originally Posted by NCB

Dude, it's the CC. Why should they alter their rules towards liberal idealogy (Aside from the fact non-practicing liberals say the Church needs to)?

Couldn't agree more, although Ratzinger wasn't my favorite...

[RAGEAngel9]

Damn!
I was really betting on a Latin American or African pope.

Oh well, back to only goign to church twice a year to please my grandmother.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by RAGEAngel9

Damn!
I was really betting on a Latin American or African pope.

Oh well, back to only goign to church twice a year to please my grandmother.

I was leaning that way too, but I see the wisdom behind this choice. It will be a brief papacy because of Benedict's age, and the conservative position of John Paul II will continue while the church regroups.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by ironman

Couldn't agree more, although Ratzinger wasn't my favorite...

Yeah, mine neither. I was hoping for a Latin American pope.

[martinguerre]

god's rotwieller...

Ugh. I hope he learns some compromise...but my sights are not set high for this papacy.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by martinguerre

god's rotwieller...

Ugh. I hope he learns some compromise...but my sights are not set high for this papacy.

1. Whay and why should he compromise?
2. As a liberal, are you sight set high on any religious institution? Seriously.

[Leviathan[NCV]]

Originally Posted by NCB

1. Whay and why should he compromise?
2. As a liberal, are you sight set high on any religious institution? Seriously.

Most likely because plenty of people on this board find it enjoyable to ignorantly comment on others religions.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Originally Posted by NCB

Dude, it's the CC. Why should they alter their rules towards liberal idealogy (Aside from the fact non-practicing liberals say the Church needs to)?

Nice Pull, I got a chuckle

[roachboy]

As a liberal, are you sight set high on any religious institution? Seriously.

seriously indeed---i continue to be surprised that you are able to continue with your ridiculous, arbitrary assertion that "liberal" (whatever that means) = not religious--which of course has to be true for a loyal footsolders of the right like yourself--but you obviously have no idea what you are talking about insofar as the empirical world goes--so i assume that you have some bizarre psychological need to believe this.
maybe it helps to shore up the rickety structure of your politics if you assume that your position has a monopoly on "being religious"---but in the world that other people know about, the assertion is absurd. i know more religious people who are on the left than i do on the right, frankly: and since you are in no position to comment on their beliefs, you simply have to accept this information as such.
on this basis alone, you are wrong.

as for the other elements of your arbitrary posts, ncb: you might think about the importance the notion of the dignity of the poor has in the actual gospels and wonder if the present type of reactionary church policy shows an adequate concern for this.


as for ratzinger: i am amazed that he was elected. the assumption must be that he represents a kind of holding pattern after jp2 during which the question of appointing someone who might represent a shift for the church into the 21st century might be contemplated. if this assumption is correct in explaining the motives (i have seen it recurring in various reports) my suspicion is that it represents the naievte of the college of cardinals.

[StanT]

Originally Posted by martinguerre

god's rotwieller...

Do you think a "German Shepherd" joke would be in poor taste?

[Superbelt]

Dude, it's the CC. Why should they alter their rules towards liberal idealogy (Aside from the fact non-practicing liberals say the Church needs to)?

Second Vatican council?

Adolph Ratty seems intent on reversing all of that.

[NCB]

Originally Posted by roachboy

seriously indeed---i continue to be surprised that you are able to continue with your ridiculous, arbitrary assertion that "liberal" (whatever that means) = not religious--which of course has to be true for a loyal footsolders of the right like yourself--but you obviously have no idea what you are talking about insofar as the empirical world goes--so i assume that you have some bizarre psychological need to believe this.

So I guess I took the Christian bashing on this board the wrong way. Liberals in fact, love Christianity I take it.

Roach, I'm not saying all liberals are irreligious, but as a general rule it holds. Just look at this board as a microcosm of society. The liberals who have come fourth and defended Christianity are few and far between, while the liberals taht bash it are a dime a dozen.

But since you prefer to pretend that it doesn't exist, please feel free to continue to call me ignorant

know more religious people who are on the left than i do on the right, frankly: and since you are in no position to comment on their beliefs, you simply have to accept this information as such.
on this basis alone, you are wrong.

No, I don;t have to accept your word as gold. I'll call bullshit anytime I think I sniff it.

[Coppertop]

Nevermind, I'm not going to bother. What's the point?

[RAGEAngel9]

How about the fact that in many ways JP2 was liberal?
He was for helping the poor.
He was against racial discrimination. <- (I think this bugged and confused a number of people)
He was adamantly against war and violence for any reason.
He was very well educated (j/k )

Politcally, he balanced out between his left and right ideas.
Obviously, he was very conservative by a basic definition.
It's not that difficult to see why people could hope that the church would realize other modern ideas (i.e gay not evil, women priest)

I don't ever expect the Church's stance on abortion to change.

One thing I've always missed: What is the Catholic Church's opposition to invitro-fertilization.

One last point, I would have to say people on the right follow the teachings of Christ about as pourly as those on the left. It's just a matter of which things each side considers the bigger sin.

[ngdawg]

Originally Posted by RAGEAngel9

)


One thing I've always missed: What is the Catholic Church's opposition to invitro-fertilization.

.

They're against it.
Cue Groucho Marx singing "whatever it is, I'm against it".....

78? Sheesh....

[RAGEAngel9]

Sorry that should have been
What is the Catholic Church's reason for opposition to invitro-fertilization?

I guess I shouldn't chat in class.

[roachboy]

probably about the same as the basis for their opposition to birth control--for jp2, birth control was a way of playing god, interrupting the divine plan, etc.

ncb: whatever--the conversation is not interesting enough to pursue. i do not care what your imagination tells you about those who do not share your politics. sorry.

[sailor]

Originally Posted by RAGEAngel9

How about the fact that in many ways JP2 was liberal?
He was for helping the poor.
He was against racial discrimination. <- (I think this bugged and confused a number of people)
He was adamantly against war and violence for any reason.
He was very well educated (j/k )

Politcally, he balanced out between his left and right ideas.
Obviously, he was very conservative by a basic definition.
It's not that difficult to see why people could hope that the church would realize other modern ideas (i.e gay not evil, women priest)

I don't ever expect the Church's stance on abortion to change.

One thing I've always missed: What is the Catholic Church's opposition to invitro-fertilization.

One last point, I would have to say people on the right follow the teachings of Christ about as pourly as those on the left. It's just a matter of which things each side considers the bigger sin.

Very true. Ive maintained that while JP2 may have done things I really disagreed with (no women in any sort of major role in the church, gays, CONDOMS), he really did quite a bit of good, and other than issues that you would expect the Catholic church to have to be very conservative on, he was quite politically liberal.

Although I still *strongly* disagree with those points I just raised. Especially condoms, given that AIDS in Africa has killed more than all of WW2, and the Church refuses to concede that condoms would be a good thing to prevent its spread.

[SecretMethod70]

Honestly, I was quite upset when I heard about Pope Benedict XVI. Josef Ratzinger embodies most of the conservative things about Pope John Paul II that I didn't like, and more. And by the way, the Catholic "liberals" are not non-practicing - a perfect example is Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini who is a polar opposite of Pope Benedict XVI. The worst thing is not his stance on issues such as birth control or priestly marriage, it is that he will likely continue Pope John Paul II's history of not even being willing to openly discuss these issues. I can accept someone having stances I disagree with if I see that person is willing to consider other arguments, even if he does not accept them in the end. There is no reason he cannot or should not create a panel of Bishops to look into the merits of the changes many of the "liberal Catholics" are calling for. It seems to me that, for all the doors of progress opened with Vatican II, Pope John Paul II slowly began to close them and and Pope Benedict XVI will likely continue. One can only hope the next Pope (who will hopefully come relatively soon) will be someone more like Cardinal Martini who will seriously reevaluate the Church and its position in the world.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Why should the pope have to entertain notions that go contrary to church teaching and that ultimately are in opposition to the will of God?

[RAGEAngel9]

How are women being ordinated or priests being allowed to marry (again) in opposition to the will of God?

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Priests are to follow in the line of Peter who was a man. And the priests not being allowed to marry is a situation were the priests focus is their relationship with God and how it trickles down from there, they are here to serve his will. I don't necessarily agree with either points, I could care less if women were priests, but it's not hte rule. Likewise I think priests should be allowed to marry, they used to be able to marry way back when, and it would appear that the Catholic church is having a crisis of clergy because of dwindling numbers.

But at any rate the most basic answer is they are in opposition to the will of God because the pope says so, he is inspired directly by the holy spirit and as such is infalible(sp) on church matters.

[Lebell]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Priests are to follow in the line of Peter who was a man. And the priests not being allowed to marry is a situation were the priests focus is their relationship with God and how it trickles down from there, they are here to serve his will. I don't necessarily agree with either points, I could care less if women were priests, but it's not hte rule. Likewise I think priests should be allowed to marry, they used to be able to marry way back when, and it would appear that the Catholic church is having a crisis of clergy because of dwindling numbers.

But at any rate the most basic answer is they are in opposition to the will of God because the pope says so, he is inspired directly by the holy spirit and as such is infalible(sp) on church matters.

A correction.

The Roman Catholic logic on women and the priesthood is that Jesus did not pick any women to be disciples.

The problem with this is that many consider Mary and Martha to be disciples. Also, by the same logic, Jesus only choose Jews.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

My bad, I always thought it was due to the whole Simon-Peter-Petro deal.

[StanT]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

But at any rate the most basic answer is they are in opposition to the will of God because the pope says so, he is inspired directly by the holy spirit and as such is infalible(sp) on church matters.

Not exactly true. The pope is only considered infallible when he says he is infallible and goes through a specific formal process. That is not the case for the issues above.

What is Papal Infallibility

The battles within the Catholic Church since Vatican II have been fought over many issues, mostly sexual, but the real conflict has been over the teaching authority of the Magisterium. Both on the left and the right—inadequate political labels which will have serve—there has been a reluctance to accept the guidance of the Magisterium on certain topics. This has led to an outright rejection of the Magisterium’s teaching authority by dissenters on the left, and, less frequently, to attempts at a highly legalistic revisionism on the right.

Man in his fallen state does not like authority. He prefers to make his own rules. Satan’s proposal to Adam and Eve will always have resonance: man, rather than God, gets to decide what is right and wrong. But this attempt at a radical human autonomy is bad metaphysics; it ignores the fact that in God "we live and move and have our being." It is also a formula for unhappiness. God is only interested in our own good, both now and in eternity, and this good can be anchored only in objective truths which we ourselves do not create.

But we need an infallible means of knowing these truths, since our intellect and judgment are clouded by original sin. In fact, our salvation depends on it. This is why the plan for our redemption includes a teaching Church built on the "rock" of Peter. Christ conferred this name on the apostle in Caesarea Philippi, where to this day there is a large rock formation, almost a small mountain. When Christ said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church," he and his disciples may well have been standing in the shadow of this sign of permanence and immobility. Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. He meant by this not only that the Church would last until the end of time, but that it would be indefectable and teach truth, not error.

In the Acts and Letters of the Apostles, in the letters of Pope St. Clement and St. Ignatius of Antioch, we see the teaching authority of the Church already firmly established. One of its early tasks was to establish the canon of the Old and New Testaments. Although the fact is understandably overlooked by our Protestant friends, it was not until the end of the fourth century that the twenty-seven books which comprise the New Testament were agreed upon by two ecumenical councils, subject to final approval by the pope. The Bible was never meant to stand alone as a separate authority. It is the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, which preserves the deposit of the faith, of which Scripture is a part. St. Augustine, as usual, got it exactly right: "But for the authority of the Catholic Church, I would not believe the Gospel."

But how does the Church exercise this authority? How does it make clear that a certain teaching is objectively true and cannot change? One way is through the exercise of what is called the extraordinary Magisterium. This refers to the authority granted to each successor of Peter who, in the words of Vatican II, enjoys "infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals."

When making such solemn pronouncements, the pope is not speaking as a private theologian, but as supreme teacher of the universal Church. Before doing so, he may consult with bishops and theologians, but it is he, and not they, who exercises infallibility under carefully defined conditions. This infallibility is not a personal attribute of the pope, but a charism of his office. Its most recent exercise was the promulgation of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary by Pius XII in 1950.

Papal infallibility is a stumbling block for many Christians, even many Catholics. But it is actually a very limited doctrine. It means that when, and only when, the successor of Peter makes a solemn pronouncement about faith or morals, he is guarded by the Holy Spirit against teaching error. Unlike scripture, such pronouncements are not "inspired." They are simply free from error. The other way the extraordinary Magisterium can be exercised is through an ecumenical council of bishops when they define a doctrine under the guidance of the pope and subject to his confirmation. Two of the sixteen documents of the Second Vatican Council are "dogmatic" in this manner: Lumen gentium, or the Constitution of the Church, and Dei verbum, on revelation.

Solemn pronouncements are not, however, the way the Church usually goes about teaching the faith. There is also the doctrine of the ordinary Magisterium. It was succinctly defined by the First Vatican Council in 1870: "Moreover, by divine and Catholic faith everything must be believed that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, and that is proposed by the Church as a divinely revealed object of belief either in solemn decree or in her ordinary universal teaching."

In other words, there is a body of infallible teaching that has not been made known by solemn declarations. What this refers to is the deposit of faith handed down through the centuries. The pope is its chief guardian, and he may use whatever means he chooses to preserve and teach it. As one writer puts it, the pope does not invent the truth, he locates it.

The infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium was clearly and explicitly taught by Pius XII and by the Second Vatican Council. Here is what Pius XII wrote in his 1950 encyclical Humanae generis: "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in encyclical letters does not itself command consent, on the pretext that in writing such letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their teaching authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say, ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’ … But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that the matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians."

In Lumen gentium #25, a key Vatican II text about which dissenters don’t like to be reminded, the Council Fathers teach that "loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated."

These words constitute a "hard saying" for dissenting Catholics. They are one reason why enthusiasts of the "spirit of Vatican II" are seldom eager to discuss what the Council Fathers actually wrote about papal authority. One liberal theologian has gone so far as to deride what he calls "Vatican II fundamentalists." These are people who refer to the Council’s specific texts about the role of the pope. But faithful Catholics can be grateful that Christ left a teaching office which need not solemnly define as dogma every doctrine in order for it to be held as objectively true.

The ferocious attacks on the pope’s authority to teach in the manner affirmed by Lumen gentium began in the 1960’s—not coincidentally the decade of the pill and sexual liberation. No document has so divided the Church as Paul VI’s Humanae vitae (1968), which simply reaffirmed the Church’s traditional teaching that contraception is an intrinsically evil act. John T. Noonan’s analysis of the authority of an earlier papal encyclical forbidding contraception, Pius XI’s Casti connubii (1930), applies equally to Humanae vitae:

"How great was that authority? By the ordinary tests used by the theologians to determine whether a doctrine is infallibly proclaimed, it may be argued that the specific condemnation of [contraception] is infallibly set out. The encyclical is addressed to the universal Church. The Pope speaks in fulfillment of his apostolic office. He speaks for the Church. He speaks on moral doctrine that he says ‘has been transmitted from the beginning.’ He ‘promulgates’ the teaching. If the Pope did mean to use the full authority to speak ex cathedra on morals, which Vatican I recognized as his, what further language could he have used?"

Noonan was quite correct, although he failed to apply his own logic when he later dissented from Humanae vitae. No Catholic should doubt that recent papal encyclicals like Veritatis splendor and Evangelium vitae speak infallibly about such issues as birth control, abortion, euthanasia, and the inadmissibility of the theological fad known as consequentialism. Note the language used by John Paul II in confirming the Church’s condemnation of abortion in Evangelium vitae:

"Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred on Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops …. I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of a human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium."

In May 1994, John Paul II issued a statement reaffirming the Church’s traditional ban on ordaining women to the priesthood. On October 28, 1995 Cardinal Ratzinger of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, with the Pope’s approval, released a statement saying that the norms of the earlier statement of 1994 required "definitive assent" to the fact that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women. He said that the decision was irrevocable, irreformable and infallible as a doctrine of the Catholic faith.

In this case, the Magisterium was merely confirming what was already obvious to many Catholics: that Christ wanted a male priesthood, that this teaching was handed on to the Apostles and has been taught always and everywhere by the Catholic Church, and has always and everywhere been believed by the body of the Catholic faithful.

Since such a declaration does not fit the mood of the times, it has naturally been criticized by those eager to see women ordained as priests. One criticism is that the Congregation’s 1995 statement is not in itself infallible. But this is mere technical quibbling: the Congregation’s statement was a very serious exercise of Church authority, and the logic of such criticism would be to demand extraordinary papal declarations on every doctrinal question submitted to the Congregation. This would ultimately reduce the Church to solemnly defining every point of doctrine before it could be taken seriously. It would force the Magisterium into a legalistic mode of operation which is the reverse of Christ’s way of teaching.

Another criticism is that the Vatican did not poll every bishop in the world before making its pronouncement about ordination. But the pope is not required to do this, and, in any event, until the advent of modern communications, such a poll would not have been possible. Even today, there are jailed bishops in places like China and Vietnam who cannot be reached by any means. All the pope is required to do is to determine that the doctrine in question is Apostolic. Which is another way of saying that it is taught firmly and irrevocably by Tradition and supported by Scripture.

Cardinal Ratzinger has warned that legalistic carping over the teachings of the Magisterium is a symptom of the kind of rationalism now rampant in the West, but which has still not infected the Eastern churches. More important than the concept of infallibility, Ratzinger writes, is that of auctoritatis—authority which is humbly accepted because of what it is, without a constant demand for legal credentials. Such auctoritatis has to be the basic assumption of any community of believers. And auctoritatis cannot be limited to ex cathedra decrees. The living organism of the faith would suffer if reduced to a skeleton of solemn and binding pronouncements.

In the final analysis, the pope and Cardinal Ratzinger are right in resisting demands that teachings such as that against contraception be stamped and sealed by solemn definitions of the extraordinary Magisterium. Such a precedent would be dangerous; it could easily turn the Church into a pharisaical institution, a kind of ecclesiastical Supreme Court. Catholics of good will already know that these teachings are authoritative and true and will not be changed to suit the whims of a dying secular culture. And in charity, faithful Catholics should propose, rather than impose, them to the less discerning.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

It seems to me that the lack of women priests and marriage rights to priests are long stemming historical traditions, at the very least these two issues would be covered under infalliability seeing as to they are directly related to morals and faith.

[SecretMethod70]

The Pope is only considered infallible when speaking ex cathedra, and that has only occured once since the doctrine of Papal infallibility was codified - regarding the assumption of Mary. There are other teachings which are considered to also fall under the ex cathedra consideration, such as the immaculate conception, but the two that I have just mentioned are the only papal declarations in the past 200 years that are considered infallible.

Point being, just because something is different does not mean it goes against church teaching. It means it goes against the opinions of some people as to what church teaching should be. Vatican II is a prime example of this - many things the Bishops agreed on changed or altered previous church teachings. Priests not being able to marry is an entirely administrative decision with no theological reasoning. That does not mean that there is not an explanation, and you touched upon it - they are free to dedicate their full energies to the Church community. But there is no reason to not reassess the situation and decide if that decision is still the best for current times. Same goes for female priests. With new scientific evidence pointing toward a natural basis for homosexuality, the doors are wide open for change regarding that teaching as well. Just as the Church's teachings regarding creation were altered nearly 100 years ago when it became obvious that evolution had a sound basis in reality (the Catholic Church has long supported the likelihood of evolution), so too can the Church look toward the scientific evidence for a new understanding of the human condition and the place of homosexuality within it. Finally, the teaching regarding contraception is a rather dubious one as well. In 1966, the Papal Commission on Birth Control found 30-5 that the Church should no longer reject the use of birth control. The 5 dissenters did not do so primarily on theological grounds, but on the basis that, if the Pope changes the teaching, it would be in direct disagreement with a previous Pope and, therefore, undermine the Pope's authority. Pope Paul VI agreed. There was significant belief from within the Church that this stance was wrong in 1966, and I know that this is not something that has changed in recent times either.

So, there is no reason whatsoever to NOT reasses these and other topics, but this Pope will not do so. Vatican II called for the Bishops to have greater input in theological discussions, basically undermining the Pope's authority, and Pope John Paul II consistantly fought this idea. Now it is a Pope who not only will not act in the spirit of Vatican II's call for more collegiality, but who flat out disagrees with it and other progressive aspects of the council.

[Meridae'n]

The Roman chatholic church is a political structure propped up by Roman imperalism and a tradition of european barbarians who were impressed by Roman culture, after they almost wiped it out. All the rest are splinters with thier own political ambitions.

Theres no mention of any of them in the Bible, no mention of popes being devine. There is a bit on how people can be mislead by church, how the message got distorted over time by church bureaucracy. There's a little bit on how people forget God in trying to keep up with those who self appoint themselve as Gods messenger in church.

Theres also a bit about false prophets.

Nope. Nothing on popes.


As far as there's any "Debate" to be had over the guy, what we really should be conclaving about is what we're going to call him over the next 10, 15 years. Some good suggestions already. The Panzerpope? The Popestapo? The Blitzchrist?

My vote: Ratso the Magnificent.

[ObieX]

10-15 years seems like a bit much, the guy is already 78.

Vote ObieX for the next pope! Write your local cardinal! I plan to uh.. stomp.. out.. corruption.. yea thats it! I shall end all wars and even small arguements with my uber uberness. Under my rule i promise the return of Jesus and the kingdom of heaven. Every wish shall be granted and every belly shall be filled! Salvation for all! I shall return to the flock the strays of the jews and muslims and all those guys who were mislead in thier beliefs. All polar bears will be shipped to the south pole and all penguins shall be shipped to the north pole. And all will be right with the world!

All i need now is a name. Hmm.. Pope Spanky? Popalicious the Great? Popetacular Pontifitasic?

Here is an artist's conception:

[ObieX]

[MSD]

And it only took 16 posts ...

[martinguerre]

Originally Posted by NCB

1. Whay and why should he compromise?
2. As a liberal, are you sight set high on any religious institution? Seriously.

1. Because the Catholic Church is comprised of a vast spectrum of beliefs and practices. Keeping what unity is left is the only way for the Church to survive the present challenges of 3rd world poverty, 1st world ennui, and all over the place mismanagement.

2. I'm planning on ordained ministry in the Baptist church. I also consider Catholics to be my sisters and brothers in Christ. I'm sorrowed that their leadership made such an extreme choice.

Seriously.

[crazybobmarley]

I think if you asked my sister she'd say it's based on the ' Bible '

The rest is magic