Burnt Orange Report

When will the new pope soaps on a rope be available at the vatican gift shop is what I want to know

I'm disappointed in the selection. While it is clearly meant as a transitional choice to allow the Church to reflect on the impact of the marathon papacy of John Paul II, I don't think that it was the right one.

The Catholic Church is suffering. While growing rapidly in the Third World (mostly due to birth rates, and not conversions), it is atrophying in the West, particularly in Europe. This sort of demographic transition is made worse by the fact that the emerging Catholic world is unable to bear the cost of the Catholic establishment. Without the Third World, the Church would be shrinking. But without the West, it would be tilting towards insolvency. What is needed is a pope who can bridge this gap.

(CONTINUED)

I certainly did not expect a liberal Pope. But a pontiff who recognizes the difference between dissent and discussion would have been a refreshing change from the later years of the John Paul II (when the pontiff grew ill and Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, took ever more control). I fear that Benedict XVI will be unable to stem the vocational crisis and unwilling to engage in a true consideration of how the child abuse scandal came about and what needs to be changed to fix it.

I hope I'm wrong about Pope Benedict XVI, and he surprises us all. It's happened in the past. But I'm not holding my breath.

Being true to myself, and Catholic, was hard enough under the last couple of years of John Paul II. I'm afraid it will be impossible under Benedict XVI.

R. Kirk! I like your site design!

Perhaps my views are less valuable in the long run as I am not a Catholic (though I have thought about converting), but I feel that this choice isn't really that big of a deal. The old saying holds true here- fat pope, skinny pope. John Paul II's reign was wide-ranging, revolutionary, long-term and historic. Benedict XVI's term is likely to be more focused, low-key, shorter and transitional. The cardinals knew that the pope to follow John Paul II would have to deal with a world used to his familiar face and would be resistant to any big changes that followed his term. So why not pick the oldest cardinal in the conclave, someone known for his resistance to change, and begin the process of laying the groundwork for another great pope in 5-10 years whenever Pope Benedict XVI passes? I think that you can expect a third world pope or someone else revolutionary after Pope Benedict, for now it is time to cool off for a while.

Furthermore, I have questions about why people are so interested in changing the church's teachings rather than just leaving the church. The church is based upon the ministry of Christ and the traditions of the apostles. These things do not change. They must occasionally be reexamined in the context of a changing world, yet the fundamental ideas do not change. Scripture and canon law are very clear on the issues, unambiguous in their inconvenient stances. The idea that women will become priests, or that abortion and contraception will be smiled upon, or any of the other liberal pipe dreams are exactly that- hopelessly unrealistic. Either learn to submit to the strictures of your faith, choose to be a "cafeteria Catholic" or leave the faith. Part of the Catholic Church's weakness is that with the liberalization of Vatican II Catholicism went from a lifestyle, culture and vocation to just another church. Their members are less attached to the traditions, less likely to be steeped in religious schooling from an early age and less likely to be observant. Faiths that have maintained their way of life- Islam comes to mind- don't have people pushing to allow drinking or pork eating. Liberal Catholics need to either commit to the Church, or leave it.

To close, I celebrate with the world's Catholics the election through the Holy Spirit of a new Pope, and pray for a blessed pontificate for the Holy Father Benedict XVI. It is a happy day, whether you agree with every thing Pope Benedict says or not.

If not "Nazi" for this allegedly unwilling veteran of the Hitler Youth (or so he says,
after the fact and after the other side won), how about "homophobic hyperbigot."

I think the latter, at least, is accurate.
And is it no less ignorant, fearful, abusive
and worthy of contempt?

Although I think Dobbs had a beautiful analysis of the new pontificate selection, I do not agree that within the next 10 years there will be a Pope from a third world country. This conclave, the candidate from Nigeria stood a chance, but because of the liberal state was not selected. Also, cardinals from South America (a continent where Catholicism is highly prevelent) were not chosen. The church is not ready for more change, and i don't believe it will be any time soon. Give it 20 - 30 years to get use to the new positions it takes and then we will see what happens.

I think Pope Benedict XVI signals a small change in the Catholic Church toward preserving what traditions it still clings to. I agree with Dobbs that the church has prostituted itself to the change of society. Although I do agree with a lot of the "liberal" decisions made by Pope John Paul II, I am afraid the church maybe moving too far from its original intent.
Then again this is where I delineate religion and politics.

Religion is completely different from politics. If one considers themselves to be a Catholic, then they will have to maintain the dogma that is attached to Catholicism. I do not agree with trying to change the church, but I agree with steps taken to open it up (ie) apologizing for not getting involved in WWII, and allowing non-Catholics into St. Peters without special permission.

I’ll keep this short, but as a confirmed Catholic I felt it necessary to comment. I was born and raised Catholic. Baptized at 4 months, Continuing Catholic Education classes starting in the third grade, first female alter server at Immaculate Conception, and confirmed Catholic by the bishop of Epiphany of the Lord not 4 years ago.
I am also vehemently pro-choice and in favor of gay marriage, liberal divorce laws, and open interpretation of scripture. I joke with my family that if I’m ever involved in public life I’ll be excommunicated, but at the same time I can’t imagine ever leaving the church for good.
It’s not as easy as Andrew Dobbs puts it to “commit to the Church, or leave it, ” because he’s mixing two worlds. My spiritual beliefs are not dependant on my social beliefs. And whether the church likes it or not, it’s still made of up of human beings, and is therefore fallible. Many Catholics I know feel the same way. Scripture may not change, but the interpretation of it does. Did you know that Christ never said a word about abortion? Yet the Catholic Church has taken a very strong stance on that issue. All it would take to “liberalize” the church is a change in interpretation, not the rewriting of the Bible.
Saying that Catholics who disagree with the church should leave is like advocating angry Democrats leaving the country after the 2004 elections: it’s a coward’s way out. I won’t let the political beliefs of a bunch of 80 year old men determine how I choose to worship.

Dobbs, even without saying it, it is clear from your post that you are neither Catholic, nor do you possess a working understanding of Catholicism.

Your post above conflates different types and levels of Church teachings and treats them as though they are all coequal. This betrays a staggering misunderstanding as to the stratification of Catholic thought and practice. For instance, you put abortion (which, being connected in Catholic teaching to murder, is an infallibly proscribed act) and priestly celibacy (which is nothing of the sort, which only applies to the Roman Rite, and which doesn't even apply universally therein -- for example, there are well over 100 married, actively pastoring Roman Rite Catholic Priests in this country alone). As someone who has been a pre-vocationate, I beg you not to further misrepresent my religion.

Vatican II was the best thing to happen in to the Church in centuries, and hardly changed the nature of the Church. The common malaises pointed to as being "caused" by Vatican II -- the decline of Catholicism in America and in Europe -- have nothing to do with Vatican II. The fall of Catholicism in Europe can be traced directly to World War I; in America, the mainstreaming of Catholics into the broader society is the root of the Church's problems. Bismark and Kennedy have far more to do with the state of the Church in the West than the much-needed (if unevenly applied) reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

Much the opposite, Vatican II and its embrace of localization is the root of the Church's phenomenal growth in the Global South.

The first few decades after a major ecumenical council always see a period of transition and struggle, and post Vatican II this has been no exception. But frankly, in historical context, the travails of late pale in comparison to the reaction to Trent. The Church will right itself, as it always has.

The main danger I see in Benedict XVI is that as the Grand Inquisitor he led a major crackdown on independent theological thought, ignoring the tradition of such freedom that has long been the wellspring for much of what is great in Catholicism. As the leader of the CDF, Ratzinger showed a lamentable inability to separate healthy theological hypothesizing and heretical rejection of Church authority.

As John Paul II's key apologist, he has administered the staggering absorption into the Vatican of authority which prior to about 1985 had long been the purview of local bishops. This centralization of authority is simply bad from an administrative standpoint -- the Curia cannot effectively administer thousands of bishoprics across the globe, and the lack of freedom for local bishops has played a large part in the sorts of problems exposed so clearly in the American sex abuse scandal.

He's also not quite the traditionalist one might imagine when it comes to moral theology, as evidenced by his proclamations which reject six hundred years of Catholic thought on the subject of the personal applicability of one's own properly-formed conscience.

Catholicism is the most adaptable of all the Christian religions. That's the key to its success. Very little of what constitutes Catholic teaching has been infallibly set, and much of it has changed, and sometimes even reversed, over the twenty centuries of ecclessial history. Far from being a detriment to the vibrancy of the Church, this adaptability has been its strength. Catholicism is a faith that can literally reach into any part of the world. Or at least it has been. I fear the election of Benedict XVI, representing the re-elevation of the worst of John Paul II's excesses could cause the Church to completely lose the West (which is still the source for the vast, vast majority of the institution's financial base).

Some random thoughts...

Those who think of Benedict XVI as "transitional" should consider that John XXIII, who served just five years, yanked the Church into the 20th century. As a result of his papacy, the doctrinal underpinnings of anti-Jewish, anti-Protestant, and anti-Islamic thought were swept away.

The choice of the name "Benedict" was indeed interesting.
Benedict XV (1914-1922) was pacifistic, not a popular philosophy during World War One. Could this be a sign that Benedict XVI wants to expand the term "pro-life" to more broadly cover opposition to war and the death penalty?
For a German who grew up during the Hitler era, it is especially important to symbolically distance oneself from the violence of the Third Reich. Taking the name of the most anti-war pope of the 20th century sends clear signals about this.

Cardinal Ratzinger is frequently credited with engineering the election of Karól Wojtyla as John Paul II in 1978. And he followed up by getting himself elected pope on just the third ballot this week.
This guy clearly knows how to play politics. He may become more active in international politics than John Paul II.

Because he has a solid reputation as a traditionalist, when he does deviate from the conservative path he has the credibility to make his decision stick.
Nixon COULD get away with going to Communist China and Begin COULD afford to negotiate a peace agreement with Sadat.

Tom Coleman ought to take a remedial history class at the nearest community college before slurring Benedict's reputation. After assuming power, the Nazi's suppressed Catholic Youth in Bavaria, forcibly closed dozens of Bavarian Catholic educational and monastic institutions and even went so far as banning a women's Marian devotional society in Munich. All of this in contravention of the Concordat and in part resulted in Pius XI's blistering attack "Mit Brennender Sorge". And yes indeed, Hitler Youth was not optional for most German boys and it is more than plausible that the young Joseph Ratzinger wasn't in the least bit happy about it. Details of the Nazi campaign against the Church in Bavaria is well documented in "Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression" published by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal and available at an academic library.

Thank you for your comments Andrew Dobbs - I wholeheartedly agree with them.

And sorry Kirk McPike, but there is no such thing as a "pre-vocationate", except if you mean the Serra Club's "vocation weekend experience", attendance at such hardly gives you any credibly to speak on behalf of the Church.

I re-read Andrew's missive and he makes no mention of priestly celibacy. However, I would point out that sacerdotal celibacy, which Kirk seems to suggest is merely disciplinary, is actually of Apostolic origin, confirmed by universal Decree of the Nicean Council in 325, again by the Council of Carthage in 390 and has been the practice of the Western church for 2000 years. It is typical of the libertine mentality that the occaisional exception is used to justify the wholesale disposal of the inexpedient elements of Sacred Traidition.

Kirk's proposition that the Church's decline in the west can be traced to World War I is not only factually incorrect but simply ludicrous. Mass attendance peaks in the 1950s as do vocations in 1966 - both crater, literally crater, in the immediate aftermath of the Vatican Council II and the imposition of the Pauline liturgical "reform". And his suggestion that the Council's "embrace of localization" has resulted in phenomenal growth in the "global south" is equally fallacious. The Church is under siege in Latin America - an old Mission field that has been Catholic for hundreds of years - and now finds itself having to embrace the highly dubious and unorthodox "Charasmatic" movement in a last ditch effort to stem the tide of Evangelical advances.

A Church which is so "adaptable" that it embraces every passing cultural fad or desperately jettisons its Tradition and identity to solve every crisis that its amorphousness creates, is a Church that inspires nobody. And a Church that demands little or nothing from its members, where the spirit of "inclusion" reduces the real cost of membership to practically nothing, is a Church that can expect little or no committment in return.

"And sorry Kirk McPike, but there is no such thing as a "pre-vocationate", except if you mean the Serra Club's "vocation weekend experience", attendance at such hardly gives you any credibly to speak on behalf of the Church."

Wow, pardon me for attempting to use a more compact term than "As someone who spent years in discernment, study and preparation regarding a priestly vocation."

"However, I would point out that sacerdotal celibacy, which Kirk seems to suggest is merely disciplinary, is actually of Apostolic origin, confirmed by universal Decree of the Nicean Council in 325, again by the Council of Carthage in 390 and has been the practice of the Western church for 2000 years."

I did not say that priestly celibacy is not of Apostolic origin (of course, St. Peter himself was married, as were a great many early popes). However, priestly celibacy is not a universal requirement for the Roman Catholic priesthood. There are countless Catholic priests of the Eastern Rites who are not barred from ordination due to marriage, just as there are more than a handful of Roman Rite priests who are married. These are, as far as I know, all clergy from Protestant organizations who converted and were given a dispensation from the celibacy requirement. The fact that such a dispensation is possible is a clear indication that celibacy is not an inherent and irremovable component of the priesthood.

[quote]It is typical of the libertine mentality that the occaisional exception is used to justify the wholesale disposal of the inexpedient elements of Sacred Traidition.[/quote]

Thank you for assuming the worst possible motivations on my part. Really. Since you know me so well, after all.

Mr. Fitsimmons should start cracking books beyond the remedial community college level, rather than merely being a propagandist for reactionary Catholicism.

As John Cornwall extensively documented out in his recent book "Hitler's Pope", Pope Pius XII, prior to his elevation and as Vatican Secretary of State, made it possible (along with the German Catholic Center Party) for Hitler's "legitimate" rise to power and as Pope went on to appease him by remaining silent as the Nazis and Italian Fascists enslaved and murdered millions of Jews and other minorities that Pius XII did not like very much anyway. Pius XII even sat silently in the Vatican while the Nazis dragged away and murdered the Jews of Rome in the latter days of World War II.

Of course we know that the Nazis persecuted Catholics who, unlike Pius XII, spoke out against them. But those are not the types who are in charge of holy mother church now--rather they are themselves being harassed by the Catholic inquisitors of the Opus Dei type (itself founded by a good buddy of Spanish Fascist dictator Francisco Franco), who are terrified of women in general (and particularly in power) and are fearful and hostile, to the point of near psychosis, toward gays and lesbians.

The latter point was brought home to me personally when the City of Houston passed a rather modest non-discrimination ordinance relating to sexual orientation in the mid 1980's. During the subsequent anti-gay frenzy spearheaded by the local Ku Klux Klan that resulted in the nullification of the ordinance, then Houston Catholic Bishop Morkovsky publicly commented that the ordinance was only supported by those persons "who happen to be perverts." The next day I requested an "audience" with the Bishop. He immediately saw me--perhaps he had neve met an open gay person before. He wouldn't back off his "pervert" comment and he also began to shake and fidget violently--I can only describe it a a sort of St. Vitus Dance.

Of course, the Bishop was free to express himself in any way he wished, but I have to say it was a real eye opener for me. But then I was Catholic educated (St. Andrews Elementary and Nolan HS Ft. Worth and Loyola University New Orleans) during the relatively brief glasnost period following Vatican II. Back then, we were indoctrinated with the teachings of the Church, but we were also taught to be curious, to think for ourselves and to act on our conscience (with knowledge)rather than to simply accept as dogma everything that is handed to us as "Sacred Tradition" by individuals who view everything they don't understand with fear and loathing.

And you don't have to reference the Decree of the Nicean Council or the Council of Carthage (the more Fitzsimmons writes more it looks like a Bunuel movie) to know that priestly vocations and church attendance have both been on a grim slide for some time, and that this trend has not been abated by neo-inquisitions or forced orthodoxy. The guys in charge of holy mother church are increasingly out of touch and in the end (apart from periodic public pageants) will simply be talking (and St. Vitus dancing) to themselves.

This morning's paper had a captioned photo of Ratzinger nee Benedict XVI in a Hitler Youth uniform. One wonders whether tomorrow's will bring one of him giving the Nazi salute.

Whether Pope Pius XII did enough during World War Ii is an open question, but it is unfair to ignore the things he did do, including the hiding of hundreds of Roman Jews inside Vatican City and the encouragement of similar efforts elsewhere in Europe. In Israel, there is a large grove of trees (sometimes described as a forest) commemorating the Church's efforts during World War II. The notion of Pius XII as a collaborator flies in the face of how he was regarded by his contemporaries, including the early leadership of Israel -- most of whom had first hand experience from the War.

As for Ratzinger, you cannot reasonably condemn him for being FORCED into the Hitler Youth, as all German children of his age were at that time. That he fled the Germany Army (again, after being conscripted) at the risk of execution is more telling, I think, than the fact that as a 14 year old didn't stand up to the most evil regime in human history.

To accuse Ratzinger of being a Nazi based on a situation into which he was forced is to similarly accuse everyone so forced of the same. That's a rather broad brush to be wielding, and you are demeaning a good number of good people.

There is a difference between dogma and doctrine. Dogma never changes, ie Jesus is 2nd person of the Trinity and the Messiah as opposed to doctrine, suicides may not be buried in Catholic cemeteries. Doctrine can change, dogma cannot!

Again, sorry Kirk but your facts are incorrect. R.C. priests of the Melkite, Maronite & Byzantine rites are not permitted to marry - which is a source of some controversy. Eastern Orthodox priests may under some conditions, and it is tightly regulated. And years of "discernment" still do not qualify anyone to speak on behalf of the Church, particularly when the result of that discernment was no ordination. And as for your motivations, I just call em' as I see em'.

But it's Tom Coleman's fatuous little bit of putrescence that has brought me the most pleasure! I cannot tell you how thrilled I am to be called a "propagandist for Catholic reaction" - a title I will surely use in my next race for Precinct Chair.

And just where do I start? The irony of Tom's purported educational credentials whilst apparently taking seriously and actually quoting from "Hitler's Pope" - a scurilous bit of trash that has been universally condemned in critical and academic circles?

Ah but that is hardly neccessary - Tom's diatribe speaks for itself. He's another example of the kind of liberal that has hurt our movement the most - a man who dresses up his petty resentments and bigotry in a chausable of self-righteous anger and sanctimonious slander.

Did anyone yet discuss the age issue? The Pope is now 78, just 6 years younger than his predecessor when he passed away.

I'm not saying the Church should pick a teenager, but 78? I know the College of Cardinals are smart fellas and all, and in this country we elected Ronald Reagan in 1984, but how much and for how long can a 78 year old be expected to lead over a billion believers?

The trouble with Mr. McPike's last submission is that we're not talking about a next door neighbor but the Pope.

I didn't say that Ratzinger was a committed Nazi, but he did wear the uniform. That is troubling enough. Whether he was a "willing executioner"--so far McPike is just taking his word for it along with the usual second hand hagiography that usually erupts from the popular press reporting on an ascension to high office.

Like any up and coming propagandist, McPike is carefully selective about the judgements of Pius XII's "contemporaries, including the early leadership of Israel." This allows him to conveniently ignore the evidence John Cornwall uncovered that strongly suggests otherwise, including anti-Semitic writings by Pius XII himself. It would not surprise me that he may have hid some Jews, but look what he did before--enabled Hilter's assumption of power and his hateful writings about Jews--much like Ratzinger's bigoted claims that homosexuality is "evil" and "objectively disordered" (this we do know). No problem to allow Pius XII some late blooming guilt pangs. But the rest of us should learn from others' mistakes, not just from our own.

As for Ratzinger's "desertion" from the German armed forces in April-May, 1945, McPike is obviously reading the same wire service charactarizations regarding "danger" and "deserters shot on sight" as I am. But the fact of the matter is that desertions were quite common during that chaotic period. The handwriting was on the wall. Everyone from Himmler on down knew who was going to win and were making whatever deals they could. Germany formally surrendered in early May, 1945 and alomost everyone was starting to "identify" with the winner at this time.

I don't know what kind of Catholic Ratzinger was at age 14. I was confirmed as a Catholic at age 12 with a light loving ritualistic slap on the face from Bishop Gorman of (then) Diocese of Dallas-Ft. Worth. At the time I was instructed by the nuns and the priests that part of being confirmed is starting think and act like an adult. I didn't have to face the Nazis (tho I did somehow manage to prudently avoid a molesting priest at my parish church and school between the ages of 12 and 13). On the other hand, I'm not running for Pope, either.

So no broad strokes here, certainly none intended. But I would certainly pause long and think hard before categorizing an entire group of people as "objectively disordered" and their adult, reasonable, natural, consenting and often loving behavior "evil" in the name of religion or anything else. History does teach us where that kind of thinking ultimately leads.

Coleman, you're all class.

Just for the record:

Kirk McPike is a great Democrat and is one of the good guys in the Dallas Party. His activism has earned him the admiration and respect of both myself, the Y.D.'s and those who know him and work with him. Although I highly disagreed with 78.35% of one of his posts, he's a friend and his integrity is beyond reproach - my wisecrack about his motivations wasn't serious, however inappropriate.

Coleman's slanderous comments about Benedict's alleged nazi past and Pius XII, on the other hand, deserve all the oppobrium due.

Red Dog-

They chose an old pope on purpose. They want him to have a short pontificate because he is a transitional pope. Almost none of the cardinals (only 3- including the current pope) have ever been in a conclave before, I imagine that the weight of their responsibility weighed on them and they made a safe choice that they'd only have to deal with for a short time. When Pope Benedict XVI passes, they'll have some experience, some relationships with the cardinals and the opportunity to make a new decision. That will be when we see something of a more creative pope. Katie, that is also why they didn't choose a third world pope this time. Why not go with the guy who's been running the show for a couple of years anyway? When he dies 5-10 years from now they'll probably pick someone a bit more wide-ranging.

Furthermore, the last pope was exceptionally young for a pontiff. Most are in their mid to late 70s and serve for 8 years or less. They chose such a young pontiff because the previous pope, John Paul I, had passed after only about 30 days in office. Don't expect another quarter-century papacy again in our lifetimes.

You never know when we'll see another marathon papacy. After the 32-year-reign of Pius IX, the Church decided to take a breather and appoint an older pope, 68-year-old Leo XIII... who then ruled for 25 years. I'd expect Pope Boniface XVI to administer the Church for 5 to 10 years... but if he's truly recovered from his 1991 malady, His Holiness appears to be in great health, and he could be leading the Church well into his tenth decade on this Earth.

Thank you, Mr. Fitzsimmons, for the kind remarks. You, of course, need no one to bring up your well-known and respected status in the Dallas party. Sorry if I took jestful jabbing incorrectly... plain text leaves much to be desired when it comes to nuance.

And, well, so does Pope Boniface XVI. ;)

Andrew wrote:
"They chose an old pope on purpose. They want him to have a short pontificate because he is a transitional pope."

1) John XXIII was almost as old and served just five years (1958-1963). But the modern papacy indeed begins with him.
Nobody calls him a "transitional" pope.

2) The average reign of a pope is about 7.5 years. That puts things in perspective after the very long reign of John Paul II.
BTW, 7.5 years is just a little shorter than two US presidential terms. And popes don't have to worry about re-election or mid-term elections.

This talk about a "transitional pope" is just slacker punditry.

I love the term "slacker punditry" - a transitional Pontiff would be one without strong opinions and not expected to make any waves; rather reappoint the prior consistories and run around blessing alot of people. Obviously that's not Benedict.

Only time will tell, but I think Benedict marks the end of the post-conciliar period. JPII is probably the last Pope who will have been a voting member of the Council. The great hope of Catholic libertarians is that Vatican II, or at least its "spirit", would be an on-going never-ending reform with a constant outpouring of innovations based solely on pastoral neccessity. Benedict can probably be counted on to interpret Vatican II in context of the early 60s and to draw the line at any further innovation.

Why do you the popes change you once you become
pope

Dear sir

this screen name, soulmatereader3@aol.com is being used by many people and groups

I am not sure what this means

thank you for your time

H. Petters

hi

The selection of Cardinal Ratzinger to be the new Pope Benedict XVI was an excellent choice, and not especially a transitional pope. He is known as a strong defender of Catholic Faith and tradition. This is needed after period when little attention paid to daily details of running the Church. John Paul II was big on show, but neglected the daily operations of the Church (i.e. the Curia, decisions on important matters etc.) With regard to liturgy and the abuses of the last 40 years, JP II was a disaster. However Benedict has already shown an interest in traditional Catholic liturgy. He has already said it is necessary to restore the sacred in the liturgy, as well as in Catholic art and music. Not bad for being in office 1 week!!!! We expect many good things to come from this pontificate. Hopefully not too short, and definitly not merely a "transitional pontificate". Don't sell this man short.