Habemus papam

[moltovir]

White smoke, new pope: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has just been elected as the 265th pope, and has taken the name Benedictus XVI. What many feared has come true: the embodiment of all the Churches conservative values has become their leader. He was the late John-Paul II's right-hand man, and they shared political and religious views (ethic-conservative ideas, their aversion of marxism), and he was also pulling the Vatican's strings while JP2 was pining away. His election is a powerful statement in my opinion: Modernization is a forbidden word. We can forget earthly, more humane views on things like anticonception, abortion or homosexuality: Ratzinger is a man who crushes anything that looks like progression, and in his eyes his task is to guard the Church from moral decay. He is the man who sent letters to American bisshops, asking them to refuse Communion to politicians who are pro-abortion, and recently he "warned" the leaders of the European Union of the "dangers that will be caused by allowing Turkey into the EU". It's not the pope or his views that I fear: it's the influence he'll have on the thoughts millions of people. Any opinions or comments?

[ik911]

I also heard his view on Islam is not as tolerant as JP2. This pope will likely not be seen kissing the Koran or entering a mosque. We'll have to see, though.

[dragon wench]

*sigh*
You'd figure the Vatican might have clued in to the fact that they should adopt more progressive values if they do not want to be perceived as increasingly irrelevant amongst younger generations..

At least he's already 78.. Hopefully that will somewhat minimise his impact....

[giles337]

I had an interesting idea for finding the new pope this morning. What the vatican should do, is push every candidate of a very high cliff, and if one is chosen by god, then, god'll save him, and he's the pope.

[Aegis]

There was an article in the Toronto Star the other day, in the international section (So, you might have seen this, DW, in the Star's equivalent in BC). It was talking about the process of choosing a new Pope. Well, when it came near the end, it was discussing the fact that the Pope has always had to have been male. It seems the method to check this (not sure if it's still in practice, and I doubt the Cardinals will ever tell) is that one Cardinal is to feel the new Pope's testicles through a small hole in the clothing

Apparently this was done in order to prevent another female pope from being chosen, as has happened once. It was a short lived papacy

[ik911]

Yeah, I heard a similar story just recently. I thought it was non-sense. hm......

[Dottie]

Originally Posted by dragon wench

*sigh*
You'd figure the Vatican might have clued in to the fact that they should adopt more progressive values if they do not want to be perceived as increasingly irrelevant amongst younger generations..

I'm not so sure about that unfortunatly. The church here in sweden is quite tolerant and progressive, still they keep loosing members. I think that the church can actually gain more by assuming a conservative profile, atleast here.

I belive they come across as irrelevant when they time and again backs down on issues witch they previously have spoken strongly about.

[frogus23]

The story about a female 'Pope Joan' is an unsubstantiated myth from the middle ages. There is no material evidence that she ever existed, and the legends about her contain many contradictions with known facts (like that she was discovered during an Easter celebration in Rome despite the papacy being at Avignon during her supposed lifetime).

There are no papal gowns with ball holes, to the best of my knowledge, and no papal ball-boys to inspect them...

Hullo Dottie I've missed you

[Aramant]

I agree with whoever it was that said the Roman Catholic Church should stick to its guns, so to speak, and enforce its views and doctrines to the T. Part of the reason the church is becoming "irrelevant" may in fact be because it seems to have given ground on some issues, however minimal that amount of ground may be.

If you don't agree with the church or its teachings, fine, don't be Catholic. But I don't think the church should be expected to change to suit the needs or desires of its less than perfectly obedient followers.

For the record, I've been baptised and confirmed and all that, but I'm not a practicing Catholic, nor do I give much thought to religious matters on the whole. If asked, I say I'm agnostic or undecided. I mention all this in the hopes of making it clear that I'm not advocating a strict, conservative church because I myself am a strict, conservative church-goer. I just don't think any organization so strongly rooted in history and so forth should be expected to change because people don't like certain aspects of it.

Of course, this may mean that the Roman Catholic Church could crumble, but I think it's better to fall for what you believe in, religious or otherwise, than to continually change more and more of your organization until eventually you're nothing like what you originally were.

[CM]

I am very sleepy so this will be short. I agree with Aramant. I think the RCC should stick to what it believes in. After all religion is something that does not change. The ideology should not change. In Islam there has been no change. Heck the words in the Quran are the same today as they were 1400 years ago. Change is not always good especially in a religious institution like the RCC.

He is conservative? Good. I am happy with that. Religion by definition is a conservative line of thinking and requires a strong and able leader who sticks to his guns so to speak. The fact that it is becoming irrevelant is not an issue with the RCC per say but more linked to the fact that people do not feel the need for religion in their lives. Be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism or Hinduism. There is a decline in people practicing their religions world wide.

Something taken from Dogma that rings very true. Humans do not fear anything anymore. They have all the luxuries they need. There is no concept of fear for the consequences for ones actions. It has become very much a hedonistic society globally.

[maverick8088]

Originally Posted by frogus23

The story about a female 'Pope Joan' is an unsubstantiated myth from the middle ages. There is no material evidence that she ever existed, and the legends about her contain many contradictions with known facts (like that she was discovered during an Easter celebration in Rome despite the papacy being at Avignon during her supposed lifetime).

There are no papal gowns with ball holes, to the best of my knowledge, and no papal ball-boys to inspect them...

Actually frogus is right there was never a female pope. However, there was a woman who had control of the papal throne and made all the decisions. If you want to know more read the book "The Bad Popes" by Russell Chamberlain, Sutton Publishing. Really a must read for anyone who thinks the pope is infallible. Not only were there Popes who fathered bastard children, but on at least one occasion the bastard son of a Pope sat the papal throne. Great stuff!

[Xandax]

The problem with religions being conservative is when/if they interfere with politics in my view.
Religion is fine and dandy for the individual who feels the need to have things explained, but when interfering/influencing with politics, you force your belifs upon others as well.... something I'm a strong opponent against.

So that is one reason why I don't see "conservative" religion as good, but more as an evil and out of touch with reality. Idologies need not change much, even in more liberal interpreations of the religion.

[Ripe]

I find it interesting that from all the cardinals John Paul II created in the 26 years of his papacy (113 of which were members of the conclave), for next pope conclave elect cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who was made cardinal by pope Paul VI in 1977.

As for impact that Benedict XVI will have on RCC, we'll see. Just remember that when they choose Angelo Roncalli as John XXIII in 1958 he was of the same age as Joseph Ratzinger is today, and in 5 years of his papacy he organized and opened Second Vatican Council that shaped RCC for the next 50 years.

[Brynn]

Originally Posted by giles337

I had an interesting idea for finding the new pope this morning. What the vatican should do, is push every candidate of a very high cliff, and if one is chosen by god, then, god'll save him, and he's the pope.

The just don't trust God enough to do that

What's wrong with him being conservative? You can take it as the upholding of the Chatolic values that have been followed for 2000 yrs...

What I don't understand is why there's no age limit for a new pope. Honestly, what sense does it make to elect a 78 yr old man for this position, when every other old man at this age is retired? Luckily, Ratzinger seems to be in good health, so probably he'll be up for the task for several years, but if he was 50 he would be even more capable of managing the Church, imho. Is it because they don't want a pope for 25 yrs?

I was wondering why he chose the name Benedictus, does anybody know what the previous pope B. or St. B. was famous for?

Oh that story about a female pope is just rubbish Following that "logic" every priest should be tested before consecration

[Aramant]

Originally Posted by Brynn

I was wondering why he chose the name Benedictus, does anybody know what the previous pope B. or St. B. was famous for?

Well, St. Benedict of Nursia was the founder of Western monasticism. And then there's the whole Benedictine monk thing.