Pope Benedict XVI will resign Feb. 28th, 2013

Post Reply New Topic

I suppose you could say he's an Ex-Benedict.

I hope he enjoys his trip to the old pope's home.

I'm livid at the negativity towards the Catholic faith on this forum. I'm sure there are Catholics on this forum that don't appreciate the personal attacks against the Pope. I never would think of personally attacking other faiths. It's just rude.

The Pope is largely criticized for his imcompetence and insensitivity. If the shoe fits, his Holiness should wear it. After all, the Pontiff walks in the shoes of the fisherman.

Also the historical record of the Roman Catholic Church is a grim and horrid tale. From burning heretics to inhibiting science and logic and to the Crusades, the effects of which we are ALL suffering today. It would have been better if the Roman Church had never existed.

ruveyn

You know the priests that the Pope personally protected from accusations of serial sexual abuses against hundreds of children?

You know the priests that the Pope personally sent to other regions so that they could abuse even more children?

I wonder if the children who were fondled are livid?

I wonder if they appreciated the personal attacks by the priests?

I wonder if some of the negativity toward the RC on this forum has solid reasons behind it?

Are you willing to consider these questions?

I wish you all the best.
Take care.

To be fair, though, not every Catholic or Catholic priest has done bad things. Far from it, many have committed their lives to loving their neighbor.
(Geez, who'd have believed that a Lutheran like me would defend the Catholic Church?!?! )
They just have put all the pedophile priests and their protectors into a canon (church canon ), and fire them into oblivion!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Are you saying that he will be re-Ratzingered?

ruveyn

Actually, he did. Unlike ordination as a priest or as a bishop, which status is inherent and for life, the status of Cardinal is a church office, specifically tied to a particular parish or suburbican diocese of Rome. While a Cardinal will traditionally retain that office for life, when a Cardinal Priest becomes a Cardinal Bishop, the parish office is vacacted; when a Cardinal is elected pope, the offices (whether parish or diocese) are similarly vacated.

When Paul VI created Joseph Ratzinger a cardinal, he was created Cardinal Priest of Santa Maria Consolatrice al Tiburtino. When he was promoted to Cardinal Bishop in 1993, he vacated that titular parish, which is now held by Ricardo Cardinal Gordo, and took up the suburbican diocese of Velletri-Segni. When he became Dean of the College, he took on the diocese of Ostia as is traditional. Those two diocese are now held by Francis Cardinal Arinze and Angelo Cardinal Sodano.

So with the Pope's resignation, he has no office to revert to, because they have already been filled by others. His successor would have to see fit to recreate him as a cardinal, and assign him to a new titular parish or suburbican diocese.

However, he will remain a bishop. In conventional practice, he would be "Bishop emeritus of Rome," although given the unusual nature of his resignation, that convention might not be followed.

So on to the next question - lol... will angels/aliens and giants show up to celebrate his retirement?

No.

While I don't normally bother to say anything in threads like these (I'm mostly a lurker anyways), it should be noted that cardinal Ratzinger was a main contributor to ending abuse coverups. He personally got into place rules that prohibit bishops from handling such cases "on their own" (which was a serious problem), and he made it easier to laicize priests who abused minors (the process of laicization is in most cases very complicated and long-winded; under his influence it was made easier if the reason is abuse). There are records of him fighting for these changes already in the 80ies (iirc), when virtually nobody cared, neither in secular society nor the church. It's interesting that most (but obviously not all - things like this will always happen, in any organization, not to speak of families) of the cases mentioned in media are from the sixties and seventies. As of today, the Catholic church has a more rigid (and strict) ruleset regarding reporting and handling abuse (and by that I mean weeding out the priests, not covering them up...) than virtually any other organization; largely because of Ratzinger's influence.

Of course there are plenty of other things of which the Pope can be criticized (though I'd often disagree with criticism - that's about opinion, not criminal allegations), but alleging that the pope was active in covering up abuse when he's been one of the main forces behind fighting it, borders to libel (or at least being misinformed by media, who if so are guilty of libel). It's usually better to be honest, and criticize people based on fact, not slander.

Also, regarding the condom thing: While I agree there are multiple viewpoints on this, claiming condoms won't solve the HIV epidemic on a macro level isn't unique to the Catholic church. No one (except some uneducated bishop a few years ago) claims a condom won't prevent HIV infection in singular cases - the Pope made his opinion on that pretty clear a few years ago (pretty much: If you practice random sex, by all means use a condom). But there are legitimate reasons to believe the condom strategy won't work on a big scale.

I don't have time writing a lengthy explanation about those arguments, but here are two short, non-Catholic articles explaining the reasoning behind it:

http://www.svd.se/opinion/ledarsidan/pa ... 922510.svd - in Swedish, sadly, but feel free to Google translate. The article points to a study done in the 90ies, which is summarized in this article:

http://mobile.theeastafrican.co.ke/News ... index.html

Sadly research can be as dogmatic as religion at times; this study has been hushed up since it's inconvenient for the ideologists behind the current strategy. As far as I know the research itself hasn't been discredited, it's just not convenient.

In addition to the findings in this study, it can be hypothesized that condom campaigns, due to the message that sex is harmless as long as you use a condom, leaves people with the idea that sex is harmless, while forgetting to use a condom. Given the extent of rape due to war and conflict, there's also reason to believe those rapists probably don't give a rat's buttock about spreading (or contracting, it seems) HIV. I very much doubt war criminals that ignore Catholic teaching on everything from violence to sex as such, suddenly abide by the church's view on contraceptives, which only concerns marital sex anyways...

So to conclude: While there are absolutely valid reasons to disagree (or agree) with the Pope on the condom thing, there's no reason to ridicule him or the people who agree with him. There's research which indicates that his view on condom campaigns may be correct, and there's little reason to believe the people who practice extramarital sex (which is, in the eyes of the church, viewed as much worse than non-abortive contraceptives), to care about what the church says about contraceptives. So the claims about the Pope being responsible for "millions of deaths due to AIDS" are just as close to libel as the allegations regarding abuse.

Were the pope's actions limited to his teachings, and his influence limited to the impact of those teachings on his listeners, then I agree, he could be dismissed as a fool.

But that is not the case. The Roman Catholic Church--for which he is ultimately responsible--has been actively engaged in opposing efforts to provide condoms and accurate sexual information in developing countries--particularly those in which the Church is actively growing, such as sub-Saharan Africa.

While rape is certainly a threat that will not be eliminated by more widely available condcoms and information, as a vector for the transmission of HIV, its impact will be mitigated, because every woman who is exposed to HIV through rape exposes every other man with whom she has intercourse once the virus reaches sufficient concentration. Even stopping these transmissions will have a significant impact.

There is every reason to hold the Roman Catholic Church, and its last two pontiffs, in deepest disdain. Not for their beliefs, but for their political interference.

Well, it's still a fact that the only country in Africa that has managed to turn the HIV tide until now (unless there are recent news I haven't seen yet), Uganda, did so through partner reduction, not condom campaigns. As I said, "no one" (at least not the Pope, nor other sane people) believes condoms won't have a positive effect in singular cases, it's about which strategy that will work on a nationwide, continental or even global level. The main problem now is that condoms have turned into an ideology, and contradicting that ideology has become a taboo; at best you're ridiculed, at worst you're accused of genocide.

To quote a non-Catholic researcher that knows more about this than any of us (probably; after all I don't know your qualifications):

-------
(...) a Harvard expert on AIDS prevention, Dr Edward C. Green, told MercatorNet bluntly: "the Pope is actually correct". Dr Green is no lightweight in the field of AIDS research. He is the author of five books and over 250 peer-reviewed articles -- and, he added, he is an agnostic, not a Catholic.

The not-enough-condoms explanation of the global HIV/AIDS epidemic is driven "not by evidence, but by ideology, stereotypes, and false assumptions," Dr Green wrote last year in the journal First Things. And myths kill: "they result in efforts that are at best ineffective and at worst harmful, while the AIDS epidemic continues to spread and exact a devastating toll in human lives".
-------

( http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/vie ... _the_myths )

So I stand with my original statement - there's no need for disdain, the Pope's view on the condom strategy is a valid one. I'm not saying it's necessarily right, but it's just as well founded as the other view. Both standpoints are catastrophic if wrong, so a little more humility and less demonizing of opponents from the pro-condom strategy crowd wouldn't hurt. While I see your point about political interference, it should also be noted that liberal, highly ideological organizations enjoy a much higher political influence than the church these days, especially in the countries who finance anti-AIDS campaigns. They're just as (if not even more) guilty of pushing their views on politicians as the church is, and on top of that they're masters of silencing any 'opponents' through ridicule, well assisted by media. That way, having a serious debate founded on facts (I don't care much about ideology or theology in this - I disagreed with the Pope until I saw those studies) gets impossible, due to established, secular 'dogma.' Just to be clear, I'd be a hypocrite if I said I was against dogma as such, there's just a certain irony in the fact that anti-dogmatic liberals tend to be extremely dogmatic at times.

But oh well, I wasn't really after starting a condom debate, I primarily wanted to point out the facts regarding Ratzinger's fight against abuse of minors, as I find the commonly repeated allegations to be especially disrespectful towards the man who actually got the church back on track when it comes to handling the creeps. Then my mind wandered, and I got started on condoms. It's just important to know that sometimes unpopular/different points of view are actually well founded, and not just wacky religious (or ideological) ideas. That doesn't mean they're necessarily right, but it means they should be respected. I point that out to Catholics and Protestants as much as Atheists and other non-religious groups.

No doubt you have solid evidence to back up this accusation. May I see it?

When the Pope refrains from meddling in secular affairs, then the Pope will be free from criticism from me.

A failure to cooperate with the civil authorities investigating allegations of crime is meddling in secular affairs. Using the pulpit to influence public policy making is meddling in secular affairs. Using religious freedoms as a means to evade laws of general application (particularly anti-discrimination laws and compulsory medical benefit programs) is meddling in secular affairs.

So long as the Pope and the Church confine themselves to the preaching of doctrine, and the celebration of worship services, I will not speak one word against them. But when they seek to impose belief through the manipulation of public policy; or when they fail to present themselves as accountable for the crimes that have taken place under their authority, then I don't particularly care if you don't appreciate the personal attacks, because your Church is harbouring criminals and seeking to impose its will on non-communicants.

if the church had a better catholic priest, we'd all be free from critiscism. it was obvious why he stepped down, because of the abuse scandal that was continuing on in his reign.
shame he didnt have the power to stand down due to pointless heretics and ramblings about the truth in our society of today. all we get is, i am too old. too old to live to old to give a ''''. this is how he came across to me and well to other fellow worshippers im sure, but to whoever wants to right his wrongdoing at a premature leave in this early stage in his retirement, i cant say he was entirely at fault.
all in all, would it matter now after torries have allowed an overall ruling to free people from civil partnerships and commit themselves in the eyes of the lord instead of saying yes to a past treaty for marriage between a man and a woman?