New Pope selected...

[Escher]

awaiting announcement of who....

[Beth]

That was pretty quick (at least, I think so -- can't remember past votes or how long they took).

[sneezles]

Very fast indeed! I think they only had 4 or 5 votes. I just pray that the new Pope is not past 70...

[gertdog]

One of the things I read is that the cardinals may favor an older Pope, as many aren't particularly fond of having a Pope who lasts for 20+ years- they prefer to see a more frequent changing of the guard, I guess.

[ClaraB]

Habemus papam - Cardinal Ratzinger.

[funnybone]

Originally posted by sneezles
Very fast indeed! I think they only had 4 or 5 votes. I just pray that the new Pope is not past 70...

They said the new guy was born Apr. 16, 1927 (just now on the Radio). His name will be Benedict XVI too.

[Beth]

Yahoo only has his name and that he is from Germany and "a longtime gurdian of doctrinal orthodoxy."

[Escher]

From what I remember from earlier review of the contenders, he was East German, and was considered one of the more conservative candidates, and he was older as well....

(speculation was that the cardinals wanted shorter pope terms)

[Laura]

The new pope is 78 and was the one who gave the homily at the John Paul II's funeral mass. I am surprised that they selected one as old as they did; I am sure age is not the predominant factor, but I thought they would go with someone in their 60's.

[LaraW]

Its interesting...they were saying this morning on GMA that Ratzinger did not want the job.

He's 78, all the speculation has been that they would pick someone who was 65-72 years old.

[Bailey]

Originally posted by Beth
Yahoo only has his name and that he is from Germany and "a longtime gurdian of doctrinal orthodoxy."

I'm not surprised by this...disappointed, but not at all surprised.

[ClaraB]

From the POV of a Catholic - hopefully the cardinals would pick the man who would make the best Pope. Age shouldn't be the deciding factor, or even a terribly important one. However, it's essential that the Pope be able to speak Italian, since he's the Bishop of Rome. I would assume this would narrow down the field of candidates significantly.

[ClaraB]

Originally posted by Bailey


I'm not surprised by this...disappointed, but not at all surprised. Bailey, why are you disappointed?

[Laura]

The Catholic commentator for ABC didn't seem particularly thrilled with the choice either. It seemed as if he felt that the selection ignored the desires of the American and Western Eupopean Catholics who were believed to have wanted a pope that might be willing to embrace non-traditional ideas (birth control, right of priests to marry, etc.) I am no longer a practicing Catholic, so the selection of this pope does not affect my faith, and I am watching from the sidelines only.

[Escher]

Joseph Ratzinger-- does thes mean we have a "Pope Joe"?:p

[SandyM]

I thought I heard on the news last night that he was a member of the Hitler Youth for a short time when he was a teen.......but I can't find anything on that now.

[bobmark226]

Originally posted by SandyM
I thought I heard on the news last night that he was a member of the Hitler Youth for a short time when he was a teen.......but I can't find anything on that now.

Yes, he was.

Bob

[SandyM]

ahhhhh - it helps to know the background. :)

Ratzinger: Guardian of orthodoxy
Tuesday, April 19, 2005 Posted: 1:27 PM EDT (1727 GMT)

TRAUNSTEIN, Germany (AP) -- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger alienated some Roman Catholics in Germany with his zeal enforcing church orthodoxy. But in the conservative Alpine foothills of Bavaria where he grew up, he remains a favorite son who many think will make a good pope.

Ratzinger, a rigorously conservative guardian of doctrinal orthodoxy who turned 78 on Saturday and was chosen the Catholic Church's 265th pontiff Tuesday, went into the Vatican conclave a leading candidate to succeed Pope John Paul II.

"Only someone who knows tradition is able to shape the future," said the Rev. Thomas Frauenlob, who heads the seminary in Traunstein where Ratzinger studied and regularly returns to visit.

But opinion about him remains deeply divided in Germany, a sharp contrast to John Paul, who was revered in his native Poland. A recent poll for Der Spiegel news weekly said Germans opposed to Ratzinger becoming pope outnumbered supporters 36 percent to 29 percent, with 17 percent having no preference. The poll of 1,000 people, taken April 5-7, gave no margin of error.

Many blame Ratzinger for decrees from Rome barring Catholic priests from counseling pregnant teens on their options and blocking German Catholics from sharing communion with their Lutheran brethren at a joint gathering in 2003.

Ratzinger has clashed with prominent theologians at home, most notably the liberal Hans Kueng, who helped him get a teaching post at the University of Tuebingen in the 1960s. The cardinal later publicly criticized Kueng, whose license to teach theology was revoked by the Vatican in 1979.

He has also sparred openly in articles with fellow German Cardinal Walter Kasper, a moderate who has urged less centralized church governance and is considered a dark horse papal candidate.

"He has hurt many people and far overstepped his boundaries in Germany," said Christian Wiesner, spokesman for the pro-reform Wir Sind Kirche, or We Are Church movement.

Ratzinger himself, in his autobiography, sensed he was out of step with his fellow Germans as early as the 1960s, when he was a young assistant at the Second Vatican Council in Rome.

Returning to Germany between sessions, "I found the mood in the church and among theologians to be agitated," he wrote. "More and more there was the impression that nothing stood fast in the church, that everything was up for revision."

Ratzinger left Tuebingen during student protests in the late 1960s and moved to the more conservative University of Regensburg in his home state of Bavaria.

Catholics and Protestants each account for about 34 percent of the German population, but Bavaria is one of the more heavily Catholic areas.

"What Wadowice was for John Paul, Bavaria is for Ratzinger," said Frauenlob, referring to John Paul II's hometown in southern Poland. "He has very deep roots here, it's his home."

The cardinal was born in Marktl Am Inn, but his father, a policeman, moved frequently and the family left when he was 2.

He and his older brother, Georg -- former director of the renowned Regensburger Domspatzen boys choir -- return annually to the peaceful halls of St. Michael's Seminary to stay in the elegant, but sparsely furnished bishop's apartment next to the church.

An accomplished pianist who loves Mozart, Ratzinger enjoys playing the grand piano in the seminary's main hall, and walking through downtown Traunstein greeting people, Frauenlob said.

Traunstein was also where Ratzinger went through the harrowing years of Nazi rule and World War II.

In his memoirs, Ratzinger wrote that he was enrolled in the Nazi youth movement against his will when he was 14 in 1941, when membership was compulsory. He said 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 taks for teenage boys too young to be soldiers. A year later he was released, only to be sent to the Austrian-Hungarian border to construct tank barriers.

He deserted the Germany army in May 1945 and returned to Traunstein -- a risky move, since deserters were shot on the spot if caught, or publicly hanged as examples to others.

When he arrived home, U.S. soldiers took him prisoner and held him in a POW camp for several weeks. Upon his release, he re-entered the seminary.

Ratzinger was ordained, along with his brother, in 1951. He then spent several years teaching theology. In 1977, he was appointed bishop of Munich and elevated to cardinal three months later by Pope Paul VI.

Pope John Paul II named him leader of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1981, where he was responsible for enforcing Catholic orthodoxy and was one of the key men in the drive to shore up the faith of the world's Roman Catholics.

Ratzinger speaks several languages, among them Italian and English, as well as his native language German.

Frauenlob calls him a subtle thinker with a deep understanding of Catholic tradition and a personal touch he's not often given credit for.

He cites the example of the seminary's 2003 confirmation service where no bishop was available. Ratzinger swiftly agreed to come, confirming the 14 boys, then taking time to speak personally to each one after the ceremony.

"I find it hurtful to see him described as a hard-liner," Frauenlob said. "People are too quick to say that, it's not an accurate reflection of his personality."

[Bailey]

Originally posted by ClaraB
Bailey, why are you disappointed?
I'm disappointed because I disagree with a lot of "doctrinal orthodoxy" as it has been applied to the conditions of the world we live in today. I'd like to just leave it at that and avoid getting into territory that might offend, but thanks for asking. :)

[Escher]

Originally posted by bobmark226
Yes, he was.
Bob

Boy, it's sure a whole lot easier to nod on and encourage a smear than to actually dig and find facts, isn't it?

[SandyM]

Originally posted by Escher


Boy, it's sure a whole lot easier to nod on and encourage a smear than to actually dig and find facts, isn't it?

A smear? :confused:

[BeachBum]

Here is another biographical type article Benedict XVI (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1572667_1,00.html) . This one doesn't seem as favorable as the one posted above. Both were interesting.

[jmarie]

A smear?

Yes, Escher was commenting on Bob's remark to your

I thought I heard on the news last night that he was a member of the Hitler Youth for a short time when he was a teen

Escher was wanting actual facts and until he got them this was considered a smear, I think....Anyway, forgive me for speaking in your behalf, Escher. I know that you do not pay me to represent you.:D

[Robyncz]

As a more progressive Catholic, Ratzinger obviously wouldn't have been my first choice. But I'm absolutely not surprised.

As for the Nazi thing. Come on, people!!! I think those people tossing around the Hitler Youth reference (not here--but in the media) either have a malevolent agenda or are simply uninformed. My understanding (admitedly, college was a LONG time ago, but I majored in German and political science if it matters) is that membership in the Hitler Youth was mandatory. It would be almost impossible to find a German man of a certain age who WASN'T a member.

[jmarie]

Yes, and was it possible to be a member of this group until you figured things out and then drop out?

As a youth, I remember being very liberal in my thinking until I grew up to my conservative views. He could have made changes just as I did.
Joyce

[SandyM]

Originally posted by Robyncz
My understanding (admitedly, college was a LONG time ago, but I majored in German and political science if it matters) is that membership in the Hitler Youth was mandatory. It would be almost impossible to find a German man of a certain age who WASN'T a member.

I didn't realize this, which is why I posted the article (with the bolded information) to clarify what I "thought I heard".

No smear intended.

[Laura]

Not a practicing Catholic, but I also find it incredulous that given the circumstances that this man was under at the tender age of 14, that his short-term membership with the Nazi youth movement is what is being raised in the media. Forget what he has done the 64 years since. :rolleyes:

[SandyM]

Originally posted by Laura
Not a practicing Catholic, but I also find it incredulous that given the circumstances that this man was under at the tender age of 14, that his short-term membership with the Nazi youth movement is what is being raised in the media. Forget what he has done the 64 years since. :rolleyes:

Sorta reminds you of Presidental campaigns, doesn't it? It always seems to be the way.

[Robyncz]

Originally posted by SandyM


Sorta reminds you of Presidental campaigns, doesn't it? It always seems to be the way.

Absolutely! Which is what makes this clip from the Daily Show so darn funny! The kicker is the "attack ad" against Ratzinger at the end.

http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/

The link will get you to the Daily Show page, then you have to click on "choosing a pope" in the red column on the right of the page.

Hilarious!

[MusicMom]

Thanks Robyn- that was very funny!

I'll have to show it to the Latin scholar in my house. :D

[Jeanz]

I love the italian nickname for him I heard:

"Papa Ratzi"

[Beth H]

Not a practicing Catholic, but I also find it incredulous that given the circumstances that this man was under at the tender age of 14, that his short-term membership with the Nazi youth movement is what is being raised in the media.

I heard this discussed yesterday on CNN on Wolf Blitzer's show. Evidently he has done much as a Bishop/Cardinal to reach out to the Jewish community. He has not hidden his membership in the Nazi youth but rather always explained that he was coerced into membership.

So, as a non-Catholic, while I may not agree with him on many issues, I do not think that the media should make a big deal of this.

[Chefzhat]

Originally posted by Jeanz
I love the italian nickname for him I heard:

"Papa Ratzi"

*snort*

[sneezles]

I'm not surprised that the new Pope is conservative and older. I did read a couple of days ago that there was a school of thought that the new Pope would be older and more or less an interim Pope (much like John Paul I) but really there hasn't been a 20 year reign since Pius XII (and his was only 18). It's not as if the cardinals have an inside line on how long a person is going to live...

What disappoints me more is that the Hispanic community has been overlooked and yet makes up quite a large percentage of Catholics worldwide.

Americans will continue to be "Cafeteria Catholics" regardless of who the Pope is or where he comes from.

[Beth]

I like Papa Ratzi and Pope Joe better than Pope Benedict, but maybe because Pope John Paul sounded so down to earth and real. Benedict sounds ancient. I'm not commenting on the man at all. I know even less than I have read here and mean no disrespect.

I did think the look on the faces -- both his and some of the cardinals at the other windows was very interesting.

[badunnin]

Originally posted by Robyncz


As for the Nazi thing. Come on, people!!! I think those people tossing around the Hitler Youth reference (not here--but in the media) either have a malevolent agenda or are simply uninformed. My understanding (admitedly, college was a LONG time ago, but I majored in German and political science if it matters) is that membership in the Hitler Youth was mandatory. It would be almost impossible to find a German man of a certain age who WASN'T a member.

Basically, youths were conscripted into the Hitler Jugend. Kind of like maligning an American male who was drafted and fought in Vietnam - you may not agree with it, but what choice do you have?

[ClaraB]

Originally posted by Beth
I like Papa Ratzi and Pope Joe better than Pope Benedict, but maybe because Pope John Paul sounded so down to earth and real. Benedict sounds ancient. I'm not commenting on the man at all. I know even less than I have read here and mean no disrespect.
Actually, St. Benedict was a really interesting person, and one of the "great" saints of the Church. I admit to being biased because of the strong presence of the Benedictine community here (they even own the hospital where I work), but I kind of like the name :) .

[HejazSunKat]

Originally posted by sneezles
Americans will continue to be "Cafeteria Catholics" regardless of who the Pope is or where he comes from.

What is that Susan? I've heard the term 'Buffet Catholic' (i.e. one who picks and chooses which piece of church regulations he/she feels like adhering to). Same thing? Given all the drama and pain we've experienced (in particular in the Archdiocese of Boston) over the priest abuse scandal in America and given our history as a country of questioning authority and freedom of speech etc I'm not surprised we have such a hard time reconciling the blind adherence the church wants with our more secular ideals. I think you're right (if I understand your term) and we will continue to butt heads with Rome.

[jellyben]

Hmm, a conservative pope. And I was hoping this pope would let me get my tubes tied.

[badunnin]

Originally posted by jellyben
Hmm, a conservative pope. And I was hoping this pope would let me get my tubes tied.

You raise a good point, though. Does anyone really expect the Church to do a 180 at this point and allow birth control, allow priests to marry, etc?


Joyce - for the record, one did not just leave the Nazi party after one had seen what was going on.

[jmarie]

Joyce - for the record, one did not just leave the Nazi party after one had seen what was going on.

Yeah, I came to that understanding before you logged onto this thread, Bethany. You were a little too late, but I appreciate it though.
Joyce

[badunnin]

Joyce - sorry, I missed your lightbulb moment. Oh, wait, it wasn't posted - the question you posed was in your last post to this thread.

[jmarie]

Joyce - sorry, I missed your lightbulb moment.
No problem! Can't expect you to be around for everything.
Joyce

[ClaraB]

Originally posted by HejazSunKat


What is that Susan? I've heard the term 'Buffet Catholic' (i.e. one who picks and chooses which piece of church regulations he/she feels like adhering to). Same thing? Given all the drama and pain we've experienced (in particular in the Archdiocese of Boston) over the priest abuse scandal in America and given our history as a country of questioning authority and freedom of speech etc I'm not surprised we have such a hard time reconciling the blind adherence the church wants with our more secular ideals. I think you're right (if I understand your term) and we will continue to butt heads with Rome. Yup, "cafeteria Catholic" and "buffet Catholic" mean the same thing.

I don't see what the sex abuse scandal has to do with adherence to Catholic values. Our (former) parish priest was revealed to have been a pedophile a couple years ago, just as the scandal was breaking nationwide, so I guess I have some personal experience with the issue. While it left a bad taste in my mouth (he should have been removed from the priesthood 30 years ago when it happened, not 30 years later), I see it as more of an administrative issue - yes, Church administration is going to screw up big time occasionally - it's a bureaucracy, after all.

I also don't think the Church asks for blind adherence to its teachings, otherwise we wouldn't be encouraged to read the Bible or the Catechism (or encyclicals, for that matter), so we can understand the "why" of Church beliefs. Is it really much different than the American government making laws and expecting us to obey them?

[ChristieinMB]

My sincere question to you Catholics, if you do not like the leadership of the Pope, why do you stay in the church, why not leave it, or do you want to stay and try to change it. I do not understand you belonging to a religion to which you do not agree?
Christie

[Beth]

Originally posted by ClaraB
Actually, St. Benedict was a really interesting person, and one of the "great" saints of the Church. I admit to being biased because of the strong presence of the Benedictine community here (they even own the hospital where I work), but I kind of like the name :) .

I figured the name Benedict had some significance in the history of the Catholic church, but the only Benedict I could think of was Benedict Arnold! :o Not very Pope-like. Not being Catholic, my knowledge of the saints is somewhat limited, so I wanted to be sure I didn't sound critical of the amn or his choice -- just that others were more comfortable to me -- more familiar, I suppose. I'm sure I'll get used to hearing Benedict in another context before long. Maybe even pick up some knowledge of another saint. ;)

[jellyben]

Originally posted by badunnin


You raise a good point, though. Does anyone really expect the Church to do a 180 at this point and allow birth control, allow priests to marry, etc?



I was raised Catholic, and since I do not believe in many of the major points(birth control, abortion, etc) I cannot see remaining a part of it. But I also do not expect the church to change with public opinion. I respect it more for remaining true to its basic beliefs. But since I am married to a recent convert/strict follower of Catholic doctrine, it can be quite inconvenient for me!

[Robyncz]

My sincere question to you Catholics, if you do not like the leadership of the Pope, why do you stay in the church, why not leave it, or do you want to stay and try to change it. I do not understand you belonging to a religion to which you do not agree?
Christie

What kind of question is that? Should I leave the United States because I disagree with the current president? Although I'm sure there are plenty of you out there who think the answer to that question is yes, the idea is ludicrous. Contrary to what is apparently popular belief, you don't have to follow all church doctrine blindly and without thought or question to be "Catholic." There's alot more to it than liking or not liking the leadership of one person, or even one or two aspects of church policy.

[Laura]

Interestingly, I did leave the Church because I disagreed with many of its teachings; at least in part. But more than that, for me, I felt as if I had very little spiritual growth during my 29 years in the Church. I now consider myself an Evangelical Christian, and find myself in much greater alignment with the Church than when I was a practicing Catholic. Go figure.

[HejazSunKat]

Originally posted by ClaraB
I don't see what the sex abuse scandal has to do with adherence to Catholic values. Our (former) parish priest was revealed to have been a pedophile a couple years ago, just as the scandal was breaking nationwide, so I guess I have some personal experience with the issue. While it left a bad taste in my mouth (he should have been removed from the priesthood 30 years ago when it happened, not 30 years later), I see it as more of an administrative issue - yes, Church administration is going to screw up big time occasionally - it's a bureaucracy, after all.

I also don't think the Church asks for blind adherence to its teachings, otherwise we wouldn't be encouraged to read the Bible or the Catechism (or encyclicals, for that matter), so we can understand the "why" of Church beliefs. Is it really much different than the American government making laws and expecting us to obey them?

I personally don't see the abuse of vulnerable members of the church/society and the covering up of that as simply an administrative issue. It's criminal behavior that I find abhorrent, appalling and disgusting. What I was trying to convey before is that many people have lost trust in the church due to the scandal. I also do happen to think that there is very little room for discussion on certain issues: The ordination of women or marriage of priests for example - both of which would provide badly needed clergy to parishes that are going without, both of which would utilize talents and abilities that are not serving the church now, both of which might serve to get people who've turned away from their religion back to the church. We've suffered alot of church closings around here lately and I do mean suffered. It's been extremely painful for the people whose home parishes are closing. The Archdiocese can't support all of the poorly attended parishes anymore (and why are they poorly attended I wonder?) that they were carrying before they had to pay out big settlements in the abuse cases. That makes people mad, that makes people less trusting of the church heirarchy. I think it is much different than having to abide by civil laws: If we don't like a law or a lawmaker we have recourse. In the church we have none.

[newtricks]

Originally posted by Robyncz


What kind of question is that? Should I leave the United States because I disagree with the current president? Although I'm sure there are plenty of you out there who think the answer to that question is yes, the idea is ludicrous. Contrary to what is apparently popular belief, you don't have to follow all church doctrine blindly and without thought or question to be "Catholic." There's alot more to it than liking or not liking the leadership of one person, or even one or two aspects of church policy.

Robin, I'm not Christie but I have two reactions to what you've said. Understand that I respect your position but I'm trying to give a non-catholic perspective.

I think it's hard for non-catholics to understand the loyalty to the church itself. Because from the outside looking in it seems like there are many other churches that believe the same things (the gospels, ressurection, communion, etc.) without the hierarchy/leadership that comes along with it. So it's a reasonable question when people complain about the leadership.

And my understanding of current church doctrine and what the new pope has said is actually the opposite of the second part of your statement. The people making church doctrine do expect catholics to follow it. All of it. Don't they? :confused: This is where it gets very confusing.

I hesitate to post this. But this is an honest opinion and question about the laity's attitude toward the leadership. I know from my friends that they feel that the church is "in their bones". I feel that my spiritual beliefs are "in my bones" and my church is where I feel most comfortable but my loyalties are to my beliefs more than the church per se.

[ErinM]

My religious background is Catholic. Attended catholic school from ages 5-12, did the CCD thing, was confirmed an all that jazz. After I left for college I only went to church when my parents "forced" me too or I was a "Christer". Now, with the scandals, and also some practices at the local levels, even my parents are no longer attending church, not even for Christmas. This, I'm sure, is tough on my dad, who attended the seminary in high school, but chose to leave after one year. He's always been pretty strong in his faith, but not the beliefs of the church (birth control, that type of thing).

Turning back to me, I now do not attend any kind of church at all. Lately this is starting to bother me, but I also realize that I'm not a true "catholic", I just can't believe in the rest of it. I'm searching for something that fits me, but I don't know what it is. All I know is that I'm not cut out to be the "radical" type of Christian.

Robin, you made the comment that they are many other churches who believe the same things without the hierachy/leadership. Would anyone be willing to share what those religions/churches are, or what they're like? I'd appreciate it. I just want to do research right now, see where that takes me.

[Kathy B]

Erin,

I belong to the United Methodist Church. Right now they are using the motto "Open hearts, open minds, open doors." The church welcomes everyone, and even as a faith community, we do not all agree on the specifics of the doctrine. There are some areas that are debated heatedly on a regular basis, but though we don't all agree, we can still be part of the church. I think it's great that there IS a forum for debating the doctrine and the potential for change and growth.

My dad was a Methodist pastor. When my older brother (who had joined a very fundamental group outside the Methodist church) discussed his beliefs with my dad, I have always remembered his response. My dad said, "A big difference I see between what you believe and what I believe, is that you could believe what you do and still be welcome in the Methodist church."

It's not that the church doesn't have a strong set of social principles and doctrine, but the church acknowledges the fact that just because someone doesn't agree with everything doesn't mean they are not a valued member with much to offer the life of the church.

[Jen]

Originally posted by HejazSunKat
I also do happen to think that there is very little room for discussion on certain issues: The ordination of women or marriage of priests for example - both of which would provide badly needed clergy to parishes that are going without, both of which would utilize talents and abilities that are not serving the church now, both of which might serve to get people who've turned away from their religion back to the church. We've suffered alot of church closings around here lately and I do mean suffered. It's been extremely painful for the people whose home parishes are closing. The Archdiocese can't support all of the poorly attended parishes anymore (and why are they poorly attended I wonder?) that they were carrying before they had to pay out big settlements in the abuse cases. That makes people mad, that makes people less trusting of the church heirarchy. I think it is much different than having to abide by civil laws: If we don't like a law or a lawmaker we have recourse. In the church we have none.
I've had this discussion with my parents several times - I am a convert to Catholicism and my parents are non-practicing (but I think still believing) Protestants. The thing many people don't understand about Catholicism (not necessarily you Linda, but many 'outsiders'), is that the Church doesn't do anything unless they believe it's the right thing to do, regardless of how they are perceived by the outside world. They know there is a crisis in recruitment of new priests, and obviously allowing ordination of women and/or marriage of priests would go a long way toward fixing that. But the Church believes that Jesus himself set these "rules"...hence the explanation that these are rigid, unchangeable rules of the Church. They can't go against what they believe were Jesus' explicit instructions.

Of course, there are different ways of looking at these issues too, but the current "old guard" (including Benediict XVI) is not willing to consider those perspectives.

(Just to clarify...the reason the Church doesn't allow marriage of priests or ordination of women is that Jesus chose only male disciples, and was not married himself.)

[sneezles]

Originally posted by ClaraB
I also don't think the Church asks for blind adherence to its teachings, otherwise we wouldn't be encouraged to read the Bible or the Catechism (or encyclicals, for that matter), so we can understand the "why" of Church beliefs. Is it really much different than the American government making laws and expecting us to obey them?

I'm beginning to think that I attended a different Roman Catholic Church than you and Robyncz. The Church I was raised in did ask for blind adherence/blind faith. We weren't allowed to read the Bible, weren't allowed to attend other religious services and when I was in 3rd grade I wasn't allowed to attend a Bible study that all my friends were going to...to this day I can still remember how embarrassed I was when the girl's mother called my mother to make sure it was OK and found out I had to leave!! (this was when we lived in Oklahoma and there was no parish school-there was no parish we attended Mass at Ft Sill).
The nuns and priests I was schooled by never encouraged outside readings...just memorize the Baltimore Cathechism and parrot back the answers.
I do realize that some things have changed, the pastor of our parish is a divorced convert who became a priest at the age of 55 and he has grandkids!!!
I don't think we'll see any major changes with this new Pope (he's against Catholics who divorce and remarry, even with an annulment, receiving Communion...that alone would empty out half the parishes in the country).
Why don't I change religions? I accept the fact that I can never live up to all the expectations of the Church but I can't see running to another just to suit my own personnal needs (pretty much how all those other religions came to be...). I accept my faults but try to live the life that I have been taught by the teachings of the Church. I'm actually not a practicing Catholic, I was excommunicated when I married my DH (he had been married before to a Catholic and got divorced but no annulment) but I did raise my 3 children in the Catholic religion. I do on occasion attend Mass but I do not receive Communion. I have considered going to the priest and asking about an annulment for DH's first marriage but quite frankly I don't think I"ve done anything wrong and I can't see paying the Church to forgive the "sin"...

Sorry for the vent!

[sneezles]

Originally posted by Jen

But the Church believes that Jesus himself set these "rules"...hence the explanation that these are rigid, unchangeable rules of the Church. They can't go against what they believe were Jesus' explicit instructions.


Sorry but priests were allowed to be married under the 1200's

[leebee]

In all of the conversation about "what it means to be Catholic," don't forget some basic beliefs of Catholicism, like transubstantiation, or True Presence--that the bread & wine not only become the actual body & blood but are infused w/ the soul of Jesus Christ. Hard to wrap your mind around, but a really big deal in the doctrine of the church. It's not just a matter of what rules from the church leaders someone agrees with--it's the fundamental belief of the whole enchilada. I am not terribly familiar w/ many other religions, but I know learning about the annunciation, transubstantiation, holy spirit--all if it isn't "representative," it's actual, mysteries of faith & so forth.

[Blissful_in_TX]

Originally posted by ChristieinMB
My sincere question to you Catholics, if you do not like the leadership of the Pope, why do you stay in the church, why not leave it, or do you want to stay and try to change it. I do not understand you belonging to a religion to which you do not agree?
Christie

DH and I both left the church because we simply didn’t agree with many of the teachings, and after A LOT of research and reading we realized there were many other religions out there that more closely matched our beliefs. (Interestingly when I took a religion selector quiz for fun at http://selectsmart.com/RELIGION/ , Catholicism was one of the very bottom on my list!) But we really didn’t decide to do anything about it until I became pregnant, and we agreed it wouldn’t be right to raise our children with beliefs that we personally didn’t believe in.

But to answer your question, one reason why some people stay in the Church when they otherwise might not is because of family pressures. We didn’t baptize our son in the Catholic Church and there is no way my grandmother would ever be able to understand that, so we just blatantly lied to her. Otherwise she would be absolutely crushed, and it’s just not worth telling her the truth. She pretty much disowned my one cousin who married someone who wasn’t a Catholic and wouldn’t convert. :( Likewise, before I was married, whenever I was dating someone, the first question out of my other grandparent’s mouth was “Is he Catholic?” If he wasn’t, that’s all they needed to hear, and they would tell me I needed to end it.

Another reason some people (who do not agree with the Church) might stay is because there is something comforting and familiar about the rituals and routines of Catholic masses that you’ve done over and over since you were a little kid. Even as we’ve been trying to find a new church, DH sometimes feels very uncomfortable since they are so different, and he occasionally mentions going back to the Church because he’s “used to it”.

[ChristieinMB]

Is it a Catholic teaching that the election of the Pope was by divine guidance, inspired directly from God. So God really elected the Pope. That was my understanding and that the Pope is infallible. Is that taught? I'm trying to understand the religion.
Christie

[leebee]

Originally posted by ChristieinMB
Is it a Catholic teaching that the election of the Pope was by divine guidance, inspired directly from God. So God really elected the Pope. That was my understanding and that the Pope is infallible. Is that taught? I'm trying to understand the religion.
Christie

Doctrinal decisions, when issued by the pope formally, are considered infallible because infallibility was promised to Peter & is passed down to the other heads of the Church. This infallibility does not apply to any papal council decisions, even if the pope approves them, unless they are announced as formal doctrinal decisions from the pope himself. Is that clear as mud?

[zwieback]

Originally posted by leebee
In all of the conversation about "what it means to be Catholic," don't forget some basic beliefs of Catholicism, like transubstantiation, or True Presence--that the bread & wine not only become the actual body & blood but are infused w/ the soul of Jesus Christ.

This is something I've always had a problem digesting, so to speak. I was raised Catholic and no longer believe but, I've always wondered why eating the bread & wine (body & blood) at church wasn't considered cannabolism.

I question everything, hence I don't believe in god anymore. I grew up catholic and in a parish where 3 priests were pedophiles. I was nearly kicked out of school on a couple of occassions because my family didn't give money to the church. I also wasn't confirmed because we didn't give money to the church. The bishop at that time would have FORCED the priest to allow me into the confirmation class, if I had wanted him to. Gee, I wouldn't want to force anyone to do something he didn't want to. So, I sat in the library everytime my class did something involving confirmation. We were always taught in school that the church wasn't a building but the people who gathered to celebrate. So, why was the building such a grand one with gold chandeliers, big, fancy statues, etc.? The money given to the "church" wasn't used for the poor. One of the priests during my years in school had a Cadillac with vanity license plates. He had a boat in his garage, a boat he wasn't supposed to have because he had been transferred from a different parish because he was under suspision of taking boys out on that boat. There was a coke machine in the garage as well.

A friend of mine once stayed at a seminary for Jesuits. She and a couple of her friends were friends with one of the guys at the school. She told me that each room had a tv & dvd player, there was a room with a full, stocked bar, the men had huge trays of food for their taking throughout the day. They also had a small parking lot full of cars that they could use. I was told once that there was money available for the taking, too. Oh, did I mention that Jesuits take a vow of poverty?

These reasons are just the tip of the iceberg that caused me to stop believing. There's just something inherently wrong with what I mentioned above.

[jmarie]

I took a religion selector quiz for fun at http://selectsmart.com/RELIGION

This was an interesting quiz. At the top of my list was the Morman Faith with the Mainline Conservative Christian faith a close second.
I practice the 2nd.

Thanks for the link. Now, back to the regularly scheduled thread!:D
Joyce

[JenniferJJ]

Not being a Catholic but rather an Evangelical Christian, I don't see the need for a pope anyway. Why should he be able to change something? Why cannot people just read the Bible? If it's in the Bible, adhere to it. If it's not, don't. It makes me sad when I hear people say they are doing/not doing something because the Catholic church says they should/should not. People should be looking to God's word as the authority.

[ErinM]

As I read the posts made after my last one, I see so many individuals who've expressed what I've been feeling to a T.

I don't remember ever learning ANYTHING in religion class. Mass to me was always something where you just gave the responses because "you were supposed to". It's only recently, when I went to church for a friend's baby's baptism, that I really started to think about what I was saying and what I thought about that. That was never encouraged when I was growning up. Now, I don't think my church was as strict as Sneezle's was, but I also don't remember anything that was done to make it more "meaningful". Except vacation Bible school, which I always thought was a good time. If church/religion classes had been more like that, I would have enjoyed it a lot more.

I also agree with the feeling of "comfort" with the rituals/mass. Yeah, I've been doing it all of my life, and I do feel comfortable with it. It's nice to be able to go to church and automatically know what I'm supposed to do. It's also this comfort level that has made be hesitant to find something I might agree with/like even more. I also agree with the family pressures. I have an aunt who's a nun, and I found out from another aunt, who is the nun's sister, that she doesn't approve of my second aunt and her family attending a Lutheran Church. She'd rather that my aunt attend no church at all rather than one of another faith. Luckily for me, I don't think I'd face the same thing from my immediate family.

I also understand what Zwieback is saying about money and the Church. This is another reason my parents have stopped going, they got tired of being constantly "hit up" for money and thing of a financial nature. At the church I grew up in, once a new priest came in, he actually bypassed fixing up the church in favor of fixing up the rectory with "designer" furniture. For them, that was one thing too many.

[Laura]

Originally posted by JenniferJJ
Not being a Catholic but rather an Evangelical Christian, I don't see the need for a pope anyway. Why should he be able to change something? Why cannot people just read the Bible? If it's in the Bible, adhere to it. If it's not, don't. It makes me sad when I hear people say they are doing/not doing something because the Catholic church says they should/should not. People should be looking to God's word as the authority.

While I don't think this was intended this way, I would hate for this thread to start turning into an attack on the Catholic Church.

[Kathy B]

Originally posted by jmarie


This was an interesting quiz. At the top of my list was the Morman Faith with the Mainline Conservative Christian faith a close second.
I practice the 2nd.

Thanks for the link. Now, back to the regularly scheduled thread!:D
Joyce

I agree it was interesting. A lot of the answers didn't fit exactly, but ultimately it said I was "Liberal Christian Protestant" which includes my own Methodist Church! :)

[leebee]

I would just like to say that the pope's job is to communicate God's authority. I would feel entirely inadequate, given the many apparent contradictions in the bible, interpreting his word all by myself. This isn't unique to Catholicism. Many people trust their ministers, priests, rabbis, etc., to help them interpret God's word to help them with situations in their lives. While he is the Bishop of Rome, etc, the pope is not "one man." Once elected & speaking "ex cathedra," basically officially from the Church, he is speaking as the authority on interpreting God's word. This "Catholic law" is, in all hopefulness, what God intends, based on scripture. While this is troubling to many, the way others see it is that by having a papal authority, we are not allowing the loose interpretation of things to suit an individual's needs. If we are to believe in something important enough to be considered "law," then we should all believe it. That's why so many people have trouble w/ the Catholic church. If we are told that birth control is wrong & why, we are expected to comply, even if we feel differently individually. Why? Because there has been study, and history, and thought on this topic, and the consensus is that when interpreting God's word from scripture, this is the right way. They are not arbitrary "rules" that change from man to man.

[jellyben]

Originally posted by JenniferJJ
Not being a Catholic but rather an Evangelical Christian, I don't see the need for a pope anyway. Why should he be able to change something? Why cannot people just read the Bible? If it's in the Bible, adhere to it. If it's not, don't. It makes me sad when I hear people say they are doing/not doing something because the Catholic church says they should/should not. People should be looking to God's word as the authority.

Of course as a non-Catholic, you do not see the need for a pope, but I suspect that many of the world's billion Catholics look to him for guidance and take comfort in his presence.
I think you oversimplify many people's adherence to Catholic doctrine. I know many who follow most Catholic teachings not because the church says so, but because they have been taught and have come to believe that it is the right thing.

[ClaraB]

Originally posted by JenniferJJ
Not being a Catholic but rather an Evangelical Christian, I don't see the need for a pope anyway. Why should he be able to change something? Why cannot people just read the Bible? If it's in the Bible, adhere to it. If it's not, don't. It makes me sad when I hear people say they are doing/not doing something because the Catholic church says they should/should not. People should be looking to God's word as the authority. This is actually a valid question. First of all, the Church existed before the New Testament did - most of the books of the New Testament were not written until 30-50 years after the Resurrection. It was also the early Church that decided which Gospels and letters became the New Testament (there were dozens that were left out). How could it have been able to do that without divine guidance? The Catholic Church believes that that same divine presence continues to guide the Church today, and that authority rests in both the Church and Scripture.

Also, if the Bible were so easy to understand, why are there so darn many contradictory interpretations of it :o ? We need guidance to see the truth that's in the Bible, and my belief is that the Catholic Church provides that guidance.

As far as the Pope's infallibility, that only occurs when the Pope speaks ex cathedra on some matter of doctrine, which happens very infrequently, and not without extensive consultation with theologians. Popes are just as capable of making mistakes as the rest of us :) .

[Jessica]

I just wanted to say that I've enjoyed reading this discussion. I don't have much to add because I am not Catholic.

Originally posted by sneezles
Why don't I change religions? I accept the fact that I can never live up to all the expectations of the Church but I can't see running to another just to suit my own personnal needs (pretty much how all those other religions came to be...).

Other Christian religions may stem from people who left the Catholic faith, but there are non-Christian religions. I am Jewish and we did not leave the Catholic church; we preceded it. I just wanted to clarify.

[newtricks]

Originally posted by ErinM
Robin, you made the comment that they are many other churches who believe the same things without the hierachy/leadership. Would anyone be willing to share what those religions/churches are, or what they're like? I'd appreciate it. I just want to do research right now, see where that takes me.

Erin, I think I actually made that comment so I'll take a stab. I'm Episcopalian and we use the Apostles creed for our baptismal covenant and say the Nicene creed every Sunday. As I understand it, the beliefs expressed in the Nicene Creed are what you "need" to believe if you're episcopalian. As a church, we can disagree on a lot of things as long as we can come to church, pray together, take communion together, etc. For example, you'll find episcopalians who believe in transubstantiation, some who don't, and some who are pondering. But for all of them, taking communion is a profound experience.

[ClaraB]

I don't think the Catholic Church expects Catholics to follow all its teachings - if we could do that, we wouldn't be sinners :o. I personally struggle with the Church's position on birth control, because I can't for the life of me see the difference between NFP and artificial contraception. (But that's probably a topic for another thread.)

I also think that it's easy to form a negative impression of the Church based on what happens in one's own parish. I've certainly had experience with that myself - before I moved to North Dakota, I was ready to quit the Church and become Baptist :o, because my previous parish had done nothing for my faith life, and I had nothing but a poor impression of it. I have since found a parish that is open and encourages growth in faith, and I'm part of a Bible study group (yes, Catholics do study the Bible) that has increased my faith tremendously. What I'm saying is that parishes and dioceses within the Church can vary tremendously in what they offer people. If you don't like what you've seen, remember it's not necessarily indicative of the Church as a whole.

[sneezles]

Originally posted by Jessica
I just wanted to clarify.

You're correct and I should have qualified my statement, I apologize.

[Jessica]

Originally posted by sneezles


You're correct and I should have qualified my statement, I apologize.

No need for an apology. :)

[tamawrite]

I took the quiz, too, and it came out pretty accurate:

Your Results:

1. Mainline - Conservative Christian Protestant (100%)

2. Eastern Orthodox (95%)

3. Roman Catholic (95%)


I think the only answer that seperated my Conservative Christian Protestant diagnosis from the Roman Catholic category was the one regarding whether we need to confess sins through a cleric.

I don't agree with what I understand to be the mainstream Cahtolic view that a priest is necessary to complete one's communication link to God, nor that a Pope is necessary to complete God's communication link to me.

That said, however, I realize & respect that the Pope is an influential and, to many, very important figure. What little I know about Benedict XVI seems positive to me -- personally, I'm glad he seems to be doctrinally (and morally?) conservative.

[badunnin]

I was reading in the German news today about the election of this pope. One article quoted a Brasilian who said that it will be difficult to love this pope. From what little I've seen, he doesn't seem as charismatic, as warm, as charming, and as ... sympatisch as JPII.

[stefania4]

Originally posted by sneezles
I accept the fact that I can never live up to all the expectations of the Church but I can't see running to another just to suit my own personnal needs (pretty much how all those other religions came to be...). I believe you're oversimplifying in discussing how "other religions" came to be. While I'm sure your assessment is true for some, Martin Luther split from the Catholic church not on a whim or because he didn't want any more children, but because he felt the Catholic church's selling of papal indulgences was an affront to God and an abuse of His church. He felt he was addressing God's intent, not his own. The founders of the Presbyterian (John Calvin) and Methodist (John Wesley) churches, and presumably other founders, were working to address the fulfillment of the Christian experience and God's will as they interpreted it from the Bible.

As for the original topic, I don't really have any thoughts about the new Pope because, as a Methodist, my faith and worship are completely unaffected by who holds the office.

[Angelina]

Cool quiz! I am 100% Neo Pagan, 85% Mahayana Buddhist and it goes on to New Age, Hinduist, Taoist, Sikh...Not bad for a born and raised Catholic. ;)

Funny though, even with my "heretic" beliefs, I still love the Catholic Church. I guess I am a cafeteria Catholic, who loved John Paul II even though I didn't agree with him. I really don't think Jesus' teachings were rigid and meant to be carved in stone for eternity. You might say "Who are you to know what was His intent?", and you would be right, I don't. But I could turn the question right back at you and say "How do YOU know?". Fact is, none of us knows and we can not presume to know without being downright sacrilegious. In Italy, all schools are Catholic and all schools at all levels have religion classes (make that Roman Catholic classes). In high school, our priest/teacher taught us to question things...not to take the accepted version of the facts at face value. How shocking, freedom of speech exists in other countries too. :rolleyes:

Anyway, this is just a small glimpse in my complicated spirituality. Feel free to ignore it. :D

Angela

[Escher]

My top 5 religions, according to that site:

1. Jainism (100%)
2. Bahá'í Faith (99%)
3. Unitarian Universalism (94%)
4. Neo-Pagan (93%)
5. Orthodox Judaism (92%)

huh. Go figure.

[hlao23]

We're similar on a couple Escher

1.Bahá'í Faith (100%)
2.Liberal Quakers (98%)
3.Reform Judaism (96%)
4.Unitarian Universalism (92%)
5.Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (89%)

#5 is what I mainly claim/attend and it's how I was raised. I do attend Bahai firesides and UU services on occasion.

[Jessica]

Ok, I did this quiz and I came up 100 percent for Reform Judaism, which is my religion. I guess that makes sense, either that or I am a blind adherent :).

The rest of my top five:

Unitarian
Quaker
Bahai
Sikh

[Andrea_2]

I took the quiz out of curiosity just to see what it would say since I am an atheist.

#1 for me was Secular Humanism. Never heard of that, is that another term for atheist?

The next two were Unitarian Universalism and Non-theist. I got 7% for Roman Catholic. I'm surprised it wasn't 0%.

[sneezles]

Originally posted by stefania4
I believe you're oversimplifying in discussing how "other religions" came to be.

No kidding!:rolleyes:

[Julia1Pin]

Interesting Religion quiz. My top 5 (I practice the 1st one):


1. Reform Judaism (100%)
2. Orthodox Judaism (85%)
3. Unitarian Universalism (84%)
4. Liberal Quakers (82%)
5. Islam (80%)

[ErinM]

I don't remember what my top 5 were, but I know the first one was "Mainline/Liberal Protestantism", which included Lutheran, Episcopalian, Methodist and I think I few others. I was then able to take a more specialized quiz which said my top match was Episcopal/Anglican. It also offered me the chance to guess what my top choice would be and it turned out I was right.

I may have to explore this further...

[RobinC]

My religion test results...

# 1. Secular Humanism (100%)
# 2. Unitarian Universalism (92%)
# 3. Non-theist (87%)
# 4. Liberal Quakers (75%)
# 5. Theravada Buddhism (74%)

This is pretty close to my beliefs...
# Secular Humanism Belief in Deity: Not considered important. Most Humanists are atheists or agnostics.
# Incarnations: Same as above.
# Origins of universe/life: The scientific method is most respected as the means for revealing the mysteries of the origins of the universe and life.
# After death: An afterlife or spiritual existence after death is not recognized.
# Why evil? No concept of “evil.” Reasons for wrongdoing are explored through scientific methods, e.g. through study of sociology, psychology, criminology, etc.
# Salvation: No concept of afterlife or spiritual liberation or salvation. Realizing ones personal potential and working for the betterment of humanity through ethical consciousness and social works are considered paramount, but from a naturalistic rather than supernatural standpoint.
# Undeserved suffering: No spiritual reasons, but rather a matter of human vulnerability to misfortune, illness, and victimization.
# Contemporary Issues: The American Humanist Association endorses elective abortion. Other contemporary views include working for equality for homosexuals, gender equality, a secular approach to divorce and remarriage, working to end poverty, promoting peace and non-violence, and environmental protection.

[newtricks]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by stefania4
I believe you're oversimplifying in discussing how "other religions" came to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No kidding!



Well, fwiw, you weren't oversimplifying how my church (episcopal) came to be. :D :D You know, Henry VIII and his personal needs and all. But seriously, some have the perception that all protestant churches evolved from that break. So kudos to Stephanie for being able to clarify in one paragraph! Nothing wrong in my book with pointing out that Martin Luther wasn't just changing history to suit his personal needs. Now about Henry..... ;)