Monday, April 7, 2008

A Couple Things to Make Benedict's Trip Meaningful

Upon further reflection, Benedict's trip could be truly meaningful if he used it as an opportunity to apologize for the sexual abuse scandal and announce that he was removing Cardinal Law from his prestigious post as rector of St. John Lateran in Rome. That will never happen, although it is at least in the realm of possibility.

The trip could also be meaningful, if he used this opportunity to state that it is up to the individual bishop if he wants to ordain women and married priests, that the laity in a diocese will have a choice in choosing their bishops, that Charles Curran should be given an open welcome to teach at Catholic University of America if he so chooses, etc., etc. These of course are the things that will never happen, but it's good to have dreams.

A Faithful Catholic

9 comments:

Dad29 said...

They would be 'meaningful' alright.

First Pope to apostatize on American soil.

hugomar said...

will have comment tomorrow. Frank

young catholic said...

Not really into 'parsing' the popes, I am curious as to your preference for B16 over JPII. I first really became familiar with Ratzinger from his report on Fatima. It kind of stunned me in that it seemed to me he put little stock in these apparitions, which is my position. JPII , of course was a 'fatima fan'.

But on the negative side he seems to have pulled back a little by allowing Schonborn's to be used by the creationists and by his own "pulling"back on evolution. Also his taking away the authority of bishops to allow/permit the Latin mass is distressing.

But again on the positive his somewhat gentler treatment of theological dissent has promise.

Furthermore his love of cats and Mozart appleals to me.

Might you discuss the two a little further.

Btw, if you get confused I am John of the liberal catholic sports music blog. hugomar is our 'son.' Jack

young catholic said...

Comment from young catholic and hugomar are from John of Liberal Catholic Sports Music. The titles are our 'son's' Jack

young catholic said...

Terrible on computer!!!Until I figure it out hugomar and young catholic are Jack of John's Liberal Catholic Sports Music. Jack

BTW should be period after "son's" in previous post. I am Jack.

hugomar said...

Still trying. Jack

Notebooks said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Faithful Catholic said...

Jack, other than the reasons you mentioned, I just think that Ratzinger's whole demeanor towards other ways of thinking is much friendlier than JPII's. As mentioned in one of my earlier posts (http://faithfulmilwaukeecatholic.blogspot.com/2008/01/dutch-domincans-say-eucharist-most.html), when the Dominicans in the Netherlands distributed a pamphlet to every church in the country saying that the people should choose their own priests, whether gay, married, woman, etc, Benedict only asked the order to distribute a separate Vatican approved counter-pamphlet. Nothing happened to the Dominican Order there or to the priests/theologians who authored it. JPII would have silenced or expelled them.

Also, soon after being elected pope, Ratzinger met with Hans Kung. This is something that JPII never have did, denying Kung's requests to meet for over two decades. In a similar vein, when the bishops met for their world synod, he set aside the first day for them to voice whatever concerns they wanted (and they voiced such things as a desire for married priests and offering communion to remarried Catholics). Again, JPII put such a noose on the synod gatherings, that discussions like that were never allowed to happen.

So, while Benedict may be conservative, he seems to be fine with open and honest discussion. A true scholar. I can admire that.

Jack said...

Faitful Catholic, I appreciate your response. I 'see' your points; I believe you see mine. One additional thought. You saw my discussion with "anonynous" about the role of the laity. To me the principal struggle in the Church today is over the role of the laity. I believe many prefer the Tridentine Mass because it minimizes the role off the laity. Our diocesan paper two weeks ago carried a statement approved by our bishop that the laity had no function in the mass. Now I realize what he is saying:that the laity have no role in the actual transsubstaniation of the elements, but such statements come very close to implying the laity are unnecessary; that they are there as mere spectators to the liturgy and it is not important they understand anything that is being said because they will receive the benefit of the Eucharist anyway.The monsignor who made this statement at the request of the bishop is no doubt learned, but it clearly implies that the Church in its glory would be just the same if by some "miracle" the whole laity was eliminated. Jack BTW I don't know how this will be identified as I have been getting a blog for my son; but this is Jack of Liberal Catholic Sports Music.