That reactionary, narrow-minded old crank will do no good for the Catholic Church or for anyone else in the world.
Dogma, hatred, and self-righteousness will continue to overshadow compassion, charity, and reason.
He has, since 1981, been a prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith- the office formerly know as the Holy Inquisition.
He has driven out priests and dissidents of all stripes whenever he had the chance.
He silenced liberation theologian Father Leonardo Boff, the most prominent proponent of efforts to put the church on the side of the Latin American workers and farmers who were seeking a fairer distribution of the region's resources, a fuller democracy and a brighter future for their children.
He has carried out similar campaigns against any Catholic leader brave enough to defy Church doctrine on the rights of women, gays, and the use of birth control.
Clearly, he either doesn't trust Catholics to keep the faith or he doesn't trust himself to do the same, and so he has to avoid even hearing opinions he disagrees with.
The ONLY test of a good leader is whether he leads the fight against poverty, hatred, oppression and hopelessness and for greater freedom, dignity, and truth. In this capacity, Ratzinger has been a resounding failure.
Hopefully, his reign will be short-lived.
This is where you're headed, Kardinal.
21 comments:
How delightfully tactful of you. Your well-articulated argument has made clear to me why Ratzinger is bad for humanity.
Oh, and wishing ill upon someone who disagrees with you is a wonderful characteristic to have.
I'm sure you're fine with those who wished that Kerry would drop dead.
This is a shameful and distasteful post, and I expect better.
Apparently you've forgotten the grand Catholic tradition of cursing and belittling the Pope at every opportunity. If you're not going to do it, someone has to.
I don't wish Benedict XVI dead, and if I did, it wouldn't be because he disagrees with me. His whole purpose in life has been to clamp down on those who disagree with him. They don't call him 'the Panzer Cardinal' for nothing.
I'd have to second A Wiser Man Than I on your lack of tact.
Yes, I too have a problem with some of Ratzinger's stances on important issues like women's and gay rights, birth control, and modernizing the Church. Liberation theology, however, was a dangerous trend in Latin America that preyed on the ignorance and religious fervency of the poorer members of the population. I'm not surprised it was opposed by Ratzinger and many other clerics in the Catholic Church.
For other views on Ratzinger:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1113877273376 - this is an AP article
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1113877273080
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1113704370906 - written before his "election"; a response to the "Panzer cardinal" accusations
Chill, LA
'He has carried out similar campaigns against any Catholic leader brave enough to defy Church doctrine on the rights of women, gays, and the use of birth control.'
So he defends church doctrine, how horrible. You should be a Unitarian if you don't like Catholocism.
There's a difference between defending your faith and eliminating your critics.
And one might point out that Catholic doctrine is ever-changing.
Sorry, what was said by loyal achates was true, may not have been well articulated but it was true.
Someone had to say it.
Ratzinger will be the end of the Catholic Church.
Can't say I worry too much about who the pope is, being a Jewish atheist with precious little interest in religiosity in my life. I like your choice of imagery though - love that Dore!
I also like your comments at Neo-neocon where you post frequently. Your latest, "It's not always about you," nicely fingered the essence of what usually passes for thinking there: self-absorbed ranting based on their own 'feelings'.
Bravo!
self-absorbed ranting based on their own 'feelings'
umm...Unless I'm missing the sarcasm, isn't that what a personal blog is supposed to be?
Smiling Neocon:
I don't know that a blog is "supposed" to be anything in particular. People used to keep diaries - the ones that were just "self-absorbed ranting" aren't read anymore. Some of the others are considered great literature. Why not aim high? There's enough garbage in the world already - no need to add to the pile.
M'heh. The Catholic church ain't going anywhere, Jinx.
Hate to break it to you.
"The Catholic church ain't going anywhere"
That's the problem right there.
Attacking "relativism" he stresses the need for absolutism, for an "eclesiastic totalitarianism", his words.Is it just me ,or is anybody else here tired of being tossed violently from starboard to port, like loose cargo slammed against the side of a ship in the storm of history? (that has a nice ring to it)
I suppose further this means Sartres' cannonization is unlikely.
Smiling Neocon said:
"Liberation theology, however, was a dangerous trend in Latin America that preyed on the ignorance and religious fervency of the poorer members of the population."
Whooaa! Dangerous to whom? Murderous oligarchs ruling countries as their personal fiefdom? To establishment church fathers who don't like disruption?
"Preyed on their ignorance?" Of what? Economics as told by Milton Friedman?
Maybe they were a little too learned. They read the Bible (Is that okay for Catholics? It didn't used to be okay - I honestly don't know, though I should.) and took the lessons of Jesus to heart, and ran with it. Churchmen and women who opposed established orthodoxy were often reviled and condemned as dangerous in the Middle Ages, and sometimes declared saints by later generations.
"Dogma, hatred, and self-righteousness will continue to overshadow compassion, charity, and reason."
Why is dogma inherently incompatible with reason? Is dogma by definition coupled with hatred and self-righteousness?
Oops. Excuse me, I meant to ask "Is dogma inherently incompatible with reason?"
"Is dogma inherently incompatible with reason?"
By definition, yes. Dogma is the declaration of a certain belief or set of actions as always and inarguably true in spite of all countervailing evidence. Dogma is anti-reason.
Loyal, I believe you added your own qualifier in there: "in spite of all countervailing evidence." Dogma can be good or bad--good if it's true, bad if it's not. You're simply describing bad dogma. Dogma, when created and used correctly, comes about exactly because of reason.
Surely there are things you refuse to budge on? That you know you will never change your mind about. Why is that? Because (I assume) you are completely convinced of their veracity. Are those not dogmas?
I cannot think of anything I believe which I cannot also think of a piece of evidence that would change my mind.
Benedict XVI believes in many, many things which have been disproved a million times over, but he refuses to budge. That's dogma.
"I cannot think of anything I believe which I cannot also think of a piece of evidence that would change my mind."
Then how can you have convictions about anything? Is there anything you are sure of? What is life like for you?
I can believe things perfectly well without having to invest my entire world-view and sense of place in them. Perhaps there is a 'gut' element involved, but at the moment I don't know of any particular belief or fact that I would fall apart on finding out was wrong.
Well, let me amend that: I am sure I exist. beyond that, I stand open to all arguments.
Post a Comment