Jump to content
IGNORED

Pope to resign? Feb 28


Librul

Recommended Posts

Another view of this that I"ve heard is that he was the one who wanted to expose/prosecute/excommunicate/whatever to the abusing clergy, but was prevented from doing so. JPII would not hear of it when he was Pope and Joey Rats was head of the body that deals with such things. Then when Joey Rats got elevated to pope, he found that even the pope was subject to control by some small group of cardinals, so still the extermination of the bad elements never happened. EVen though he was pope, he couldn't take the kind of large scale action that was needed. And so now he is fed up with his own impotence and the church's indifference, has indeed "examined" his "conscience," and has decided to move on.

I don't buy that view. At all. He sent out a directive to the U.S. church that was widely interpreted as admonishing leaders to not report sex offender priests to the police. No one is going to convince me he didn't mean exactly what people thought he meant, no matter how much ambiguous doubletalk he threw in there to give himself plausible deniability.

Per NPR, he appointed 55% of the voting cardinals, and the rest were in the group that elected him. Not likely to see a liberalization of the church this time.

Yeah, as much as I sincerely hope for a more liberal Pope, I doubt we'll get one. I think they're probably going to take a page out of the American fundie playbook and double-down on the crazy conservatism instead.

Maybe the next Pope will secretly be one of those "change the church from within" people who has just been playing the game to get into power and, once he is Pope, he'll have a bunch of public "divine relevations" about women priests, gay marriage, and abortion before anybody gets the chance to shut him up. Hey, a girl can dream...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Some people are wondering if he quit because he was worrying about a new schism. I wonder if this is true? If a liberal Pope gets elected, I might just go back to church again! :D But then again, the Vatican does that thing about crushing my spiritual dreams... :( I was always a disillusioned Roman Catholic when it came to who became Pope; even when I was young before my teen years. I just couldn't imagine how a group of people could decide who God wanted to lead His Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have one friend on FB (or in general, TBH) who might be described as fundie-lite. She is a devout Orthodox Christian, he is a devout Catholic, both attend a papal university in Rome. They have a joint FB account because they are just too holy to have separate ones. This morning they posted about what a HUMBLE, KIND, brilliant guy and what a shame it is that he is stepping down. Oy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I hadn't thought of it that way. I just meant that I expect the Vatican are smugly thinking they'll have another conservative--possibly way more conservative--guy in there in a month or so and that all can continue in the same lovely way it's been continuing at least in my lifetime. I hadn't thought of actual well-meaning, devout followers of Christ saying, screw this shit and let's get back to the Christianity Christ left us with, which includes love for all, married clergy and no discouraging words on birth control.

So yeah, let's hope that the Vatican have no idea what they're doing! :dance: :dance: :dance:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy that view. At all. He sent out a directive to the U.S. church that was widely interpreted as admonishing leaders to not report sex offender priests to the police. No one is going to convince me he didn't mean exactly what people thought he meant, no matter how much ambiguous doubletalk he threw in there to give himself plausible deniability.

Yeah, as much as I sincerely hope for a more liberal Pope, I doubt we'll get one. I think they're probably going to take a page out of the American fundie playbook and double-down on the crazy conservatism instead.

Maybe the next Pope will secretly be one of those "change the church from within" people who has just been playing the game to get into power and, once he is Pope, he'll have a bunch of public "divine relevations" about women priests, gay marriage, and abortion before anybody gets the chance to shut him up. Hey, a girl can dream...

Re: italicized. I hear you. Again, if he is now too physically ill to continue, perhaps it's his guilty conscience come home to roost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At first this was the best news. I hated him and actually teared up a bit when he was named. I was really hoping for someone, anyone who was progressive. At the time he was named I was teaching at a Catholic school and we had all of the kids in an assembly to watch. When they named him our school's religion coordinator gasped and let out a very loud, "Oh no!" She quickly reined her emotions back in but it was what most of us adults were feeling. He never convinced me that he was a good and holy person and I felt that he was dragging the Church backwards.

So, my first reaction as the news this morning was, "Thank God!" Then I started thinking about how it was just his sneaky way to have a hand in who replaces him, to ensure that someone just as conservative and backwards thinking takes his place to rule for another 20 years. Ugh.

That was pretty much my reaction too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he will not participate to the conclave because he is already 85. There is a rule that says you cannot take part to a pope election if you are 85 or more. But, maybe, he waited until now on purpose...

This event is historically very interesting and I'm eager to know what will happen now. I perfectly remember the last election, the white/black smoke and the final "habemus papam".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, he's going out before he completely kills off the American church. If he'd had ten more years he might well have done so.

Second, he's definitely in declining health. The last year he's shown a marked decline in strength and vigor. He's gone from walking well to riding the Pope mobile, from standing throughout the masses he celebrates to sitting and not doing much. His caretakers have become increasingly careful and protective of him where they used to let him walk alone. I don't care for him as pope and if there were a chance of getting someone more reasonable I'd be happy. Sadly the chances of that are very slim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I am betting that the cardinals will elect the equivalent of Clarence Thomas: someone who's young enough to expect to be in office a long time and conservative enough to make me sad and fearful.

I think it's also likely that the next Pope will be an Italian again. Apparently John Paul II and Benedict were the first non-Italians elected back to back in hundreds of years if not ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another view of this that I"ve heard is that he was the one who wanted to expose/prosecute/excommunicate/whatever to the abusing clergy, but was prevented from doing so. JPII would not hear of it when he was Pope and Joey Rats was head of the body that deals with such things. Then when Joey Rats got elevated to pope, he found that even the pope was subject to control by some small group of cardinals, so still the extermination of the bad elements never happened. EVen though he was pope, he couldn't take the kind of large scale action that was needed. And so now he is fed up with his own impotence and the church's indifference, has indeed "examined" his "conscience," and has decided to move on.

I agree with those who think his health is just a smokescreen. If his health is bad, it's probably the physical manifestation of having surpressed the abuse info for so long.

It's also possible that he's being given the bum's rush. Since he was pretty old when elected, he was only expected to be a placeholder for The Next Big Cardinal. I guess over the past few years the Cardinals have had a chance to agree among themselves over a beer or ten who they want to run things next. I don't look for anyone to ease the burdens on women or the GLBTs of the world; quite the contrary.

Joey Rats, we hardly knew ye.

Once Ratzinger became pope there was a lot of damage control trying to portay him as a person concerned about the clergy abuse scandal who had his hands tied by JPII when he tried to get tough.

I believe that all the whitewashing is bull. JPII was pretty much a figure head during the last years of his Papacy. Talk about ill heath limiting his ability to do the job. Ratzinger has been up to his neck in the vast majority of decisions over many years. He may now want to back away from responsibility, but the Catholic Church is reaping what he helped to sow in the past.

Looking at the Guardian article posted above, my first thought was that it was way too kind to God's Rotweiller. Yes, he began to talk about prevention -- but only when forced into it, far to late, and the measures he was willing to take are inadequate. Ratzinger was always concerned more with protecting the wolves at the expense of the flock. That was the position he touted when heading up Doctrine of the Faith. If he disagreed with that position he should have said so then -- and bloody well resigned under JPII.

He is no sweet little old intellectual now out of his depth and bullied by the Curia. He is and was an extreme conservative and an enforcer of ugly policies. If he has had problems during his papacy it is because he is still out of step with most of the world and disliked by many. even within the Vatican.

His directives during the last few years prove that and he does have end-line responsibility for them.

I'm not hopeful either that the next pope will be much better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I am betting that the cardinals will elect the equivalent of Clarence Thomas: someone who's young enough to expect to be in office a long time and conservative enough to make me sad and fearful.

I think it's also likely that the next Pope will be an Italian again. Apparently John Paul II and Benedict were the first non-Italians elected back to back in hundreds of years if not ever.

I wonder if they'd go with a *gasp* American... to try and gain a hold of the church here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, I have no hope that a liberal Pope will be elected. We may even get someone as conservative but younger and with more energy as someone already mention (so sorry I did not quote).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if his mental faculties aren't up to it anymore. This apparently hasn't happened since 1415.

Yes, dementia of some sort was my first thought. But maybe Parkinson's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still agree with what I said on page 2. There are no more popes although there may be but with less power? I just wish we didn't have people be so gosh darn conservative

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to remember, just after Papa Razzi was elected, that pundits were touting his election as that of an intermediary, semi-conservative pope. to last for a few years as the Vatican reorganised/the faithful became acclimatised and that next time, they would elect someone a) younger and b) more liberal.

Younger, I can see. Liberal.....mmm. Nope.

I think electing a non-european (Latin American and especially African) would be a progressive step in some terms, but not in terms of orthodoxy. Particularly with an African pope, I can see a very long, conservative papacy. With a Latin American? I don't know- Is the Latin American Church liberal or traditionalist? All I really know about Christianity there is a little bit on Brazillian charismatics :oops: Not particularly useful...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't really surprised to hear of this. I got the sense that JPII was tough act for Benedict to follow and he did not have the charisma that JPII possessed which made him likeable in spite of being very conservative and strictly towing the church line. Benedict has looked frailer in the last year or so that I believe health is honestly a factor but not the only factor, just the "official" one.

Expect a younger but still conservative "tow the line" pope to be elected. I just don't see any signs of the church leadership going more liberal on anything, but who knows. Maybe it will be the beginning of a change but I am not holding my breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was pretty much my reaction too.

Yep, same.

I was sick when JPII died and they were electing Ratzinger so I was glued to the newspaper and TV and watched the whole process. I did not like him, but couldn't put my finger on why at the time... it was because he did not represent the Catholicism I knew/understood from my family and community and I did not want to have to follow him. I thought it would be blasphemous to voice this, though, so I just tried to ignore my gut feeling of dislike.

Like someone else said, if they were to elect a more liberal Pope, I'd go back to church :lol: Pretty much the only reason I am not going to church now is the Vatican's stupidity re: birth control, women, sexual abuse, etc. (I'd also be cool with the American church having an official schism. What I'm trying to say is that I like the general Catholic doctrine, and still believe in it, but don't feel I can support the Church as an institution.) I have little hope of that happening, though. I agree that someone from Africa would be a progressive move in terms of race but probably not in terms of policy, I am also of the understanding that the church there is pretty conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an ignorant question, but what does the pope actually do all day?

Well, in the case of Benedict, he is a theologian. I think he's written a multivolume life of Christ (?) as yet unfinished, and other stuff too. "Papal duty" wise he's put out some encyclicals, but I'm not sure if they are him alone or a collective effort.

I think "what the Pope does" varies with each pope. They don't really have a political function in Italy/Spain/other states where Catholicism has previous influence any more: they are mainly a figurehead. Except on "big issues" (teh gayz, abortion) and internal matters for the Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think "what the Pope does" varies with each pope. They don't really have a political function in Italy/Spain/other states where Catholicism has previous influence any more: they are mainly a figurehead. Except on "big issues" (teh gayz, abortion) and internal matters for the Church.

Re: the bolded, this is also how it looks to me, that popes have leeway to decide what they want to do with their own papacy. For example, JPII traveled widely (as opposed to his pedecessors) and improved relations with other religious groups among the many things he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: the bolded, this is also how it looks to me, that popes have leeway to decide what they want to do with their own papacy. For example, JPII traveled widely (as opposed to his pedecessors) and improved relations with other religious groups among the many things he did.

I'd forgotten JPII had gone everywhere. JPI didn't do much except internal wrangling, he barely had the keys before he died/was killed (delete as per personal view).

I don't know anything before him, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if they'd go with a *gasp* American... to try and gain a hold of the church here.

That would be cool. Can we pick a 'fundie' start a campaign? Chris Jeub for Pope!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.