Pope Benedict resigning? D:
#21
(03-28-2010, 05:33 PM)Satori Wrote:
(03-28-2010, 05:30 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(03-28-2010, 05:26 PM)Satori Wrote: I don't understand, though. People have known for seven years that there had been a great deal of abuse in the Church. Why is the media going after him now?

They smell blood.

Quote: And maybe this is a naive question, but I don't understand why JPII didn't have to take any of the flak for it.


The short answer is because he's "The Great" of course - it won't even effect his canonization.  The long answer, eh, well, that would be three pages of ranting on my part.

Well, if you feel like venting, I, for one, would be interested in your three-page answer.

I would too...that's a good point.
Reply
#22
(03-28-2010, 05:26 PM)Satori Wrote: I don't understand, though. People have known for seven years that there had been a great deal of abuse in the Church. Why is the media going after him now? And maybe this is a naive question, but I don't understand why JPII didn't have to take any of the flak for it.

Two reasons: Summorum (sp?) Pontificum, and the lifting of the excommunications of the SSPX.
Reply
#23
(03-28-2010, 10:17 PM)LRThunder Wrote:
(03-28-2010, 05:26 PM)Satori Wrote: I don't understand, though. People have known for seven years that there had been a great deal of abuse in the Church. Why is the media going after him now? And maybe this is a naive question, but I don't understand why JPII didn't have to take any of the flak for it.

Two reasons: Summorum (sp?) Pontificum, and the lifting of the excommunications of the SSPX.

Seriously.  People have varying opinions on his papacy and I understand that, but he certainly isn't Paul VI or John Paul II. 
Reply
#24
the reason it is happening now is that the war against the Faith has pedictable stages and the tactics go with the stage. We all know for example that pedophiles gravitate towads youth jobs and the stats in secular services are no different than among priests for that, and we also know that in past years it was NOT easy to get charges handeld in the courts and many people in all persuasions thought counseling and pivate punishment like emoving to anothe assignment was the ight waqy to handle it.

This is like chaging someone with medical neglect for not having procedures of today in place 20 yeas ago.

The media over-estimates the level to which people pay attentipon to it and unde-estimates tyhe level to which we think for ourselves and use media only as guidepost to what they are up to now.
Reply
#25
I think there is a better chance of Obama resigning than the Pope.

Reply
#26
I hope so
Reply
#27
Maybe The Holy Spirit is letting the evil forces of the global media attack the Church over pedophilia, so that JP2 does not get canonized and become the patron saint of paedos.

After all he was more to blame for this mess (by horrendous omission) than B16.  And please don't give me that crap that he didn't know about it at the time.  The buck stops at the top and a fish rots from the head.  If the Holy Spirit makes him the Pope then he gives sufficient graces for him to be a good Pope and understand the problems that are affecting the Church.

These clerics have done bugger all to pursue the course of holiness for the last 50 years, they've suppressed everything that is holy and good and wholesome and allowed the putrid and stupid and irreverant to FLOURISH under their watch.  So, frankly, if nothing else, at least this is an object lesson( for anyone who hasn't got it through their thick skull yet) that the "new springtime" was an abject failure of historically unprecedented proportions.

Massive loss of faith and the sexual abuse of children are about the most rotten fruits one could wish to have.  How much clearer do you need it?

Reply
#28
ggreg, they won't ascribe anything negative to JP2.  Not the Neo-Catholics, not the Zionists, not the Freemasons, nor the Liberals and Modernists.  He was "their Pope" albeit in different ways.  He was also the Pope of Vatican 2 in a very real sense (Paul didn't have time to do much with the implementation).  If he failed, the Council failed.  There are many that will not let that happen: the Liberals and Modernists, and the Neo-Catholics (for opposite reasons).

B16 is the one who is going to, unjustly, take the hit for this stuff even though he did more than anyone to try and stop it - at least so far - by keeping homosexuals out of the seminaries, writing that letter to Ireland, getting bishops to resign, etc.  And people who don't like him for his orthodoxy are going to pile on.  And others who don't like him as he undoes some of the V2 damage are going to go after him as well.

That said, these evil men were doing stuff long before JP2 got there - however, JP2 was Pope when it came out, so he should have done something, IMO.
Reply
#29
(03-29-2010, 03:46 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: ggreg, they won't ascribe anything negative to JP2.  Not the Neo-Catholics, not the Zionists, not the Freemasons, nor the Liberals and Modernists.  He was "their Pope" albeit in different ways.  He was also the Pope of Vatican 2 in a very real sense (Paul didn't have time to do much with the implementation).  If he failed, the Council failed.  There are many that will not let that happen: the Liberals and Modernists, and the Neo-Catholics (for opposite reasons).

Really? I think that's the case with "neo-Catholics" (that means conservative Catholics right?), but the liberals and modernists hated him as a dictator, anti-woman, anti-thought (for upholding Catholic doctrine on abortion, euthanasia, and contraception), for opposing the spirit of the Council, etc. Bl. John XXIII was their guy (although I really don't know why) and to a lesser extent Paul VI. Sure, when he died, the media was all over it--but that was self-serving, not any real admiration. Earlier they had called for his resignation too, although they had a different pretext.

I think this editorial from the New York Times was more representative:

Quote:Paul VI, though painfully cautious, allowed the appointment of bishops (and especially archbishops and cardinals) who were the opposite of yes men, outspoken champions of the poor and oppressed and truly representative of the parts of the world they came from, like Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, who tried so hard at the end of his life to find common ground within a church rent by division. In contrast, Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston rebuked the dying Cardinal Bernardin for this effort because, as Cardinal Law insisted, the church knows the truth and is therefore exempt from anything as undignified as dialogue. Cardinal Law, who had to resign after revelations that he had repeatedly allowed priests accused of sexual abuse to remain in the ministry while failing to inform either law enforcement officials or parishioners, must stand as the characteristic representative of John Paul II, protective of the church but often dismissive of the moral requirement to protect and cherish human beings.

John Paul II has been almost the polar opposite of John XXIII, who dragged Catholicism to confront 20th-century realities after the regressive policies of Pius IX, who imposed the peculiar doctrine of papal infallibility on the First Vatican Council in 1870, and after the reign of terror inflicted by Pius X on Catholic theologians in the opening decades of the 20th century. Unfortunately, this pope was much closer to the traditions of Pius IX and Pius X than to his namesakes. Instead of mitigating the absurdities of Vatican I's novel declaration of papal infallibility, a declaration that stemmed almost wholly from Pius IX's paranoia about the evils ranged against him in the modern world, John Paul II tried to further it. In seeking to impose conformity of thought, he summoned prominent theologians like Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx and Leonardo Boff to star chamber inquiries and had his grand inquisitor, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, issue condemnations of their work.

But John Paul II's most lasting legacy to Catholicism will come from the episcopal appointments he made. In order to have been named a bishop, a priest must have been seen to be absolutely opposed to masturbation, premarital sex, birth control (including condoms used to prevent the spread of AIDS), abortion, divorce, homosexual relations, married priests, female priests and any hint of Marxism. It is nearly impossible to find men who subscribe wholeheartedly to this entire catalogue of certitudes; as a result the ranks of the episcopate are filled with mindless sycophants and intellectual incompetents. The good priests have been passed over; and not a few, in their growing frustration as the pontificate of John Paul II stretched on, left the priesthood to seek fulfillment elsewhere


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/opinio...wanted=all
Reply
#30
First, I'll have to agree a bit with SaintSebastian.  My recollection is that for liberal Catholics, JPII was way too conservative.  I personally felt that JPII was quite "traditional" until I found out more about Tradition.  For traditional Catholics, JPII was way, way too liberal.  I am now firmly in the latter camp.  But, since his death, JPII has been held up as a benchmark of a good Pope.  The liberals now seem to miss him, so I guess I agree with Quis as well.  JPII walked a line a little left of center, and left a legacy of ambiguity.  With Benedict XVI, we have been steering slowly back over toward the right, but goodness, we need to pray that Benedict XVI is ready to make a radical shift.  Anyone not hanging on tight can just fly off as far as I'm concerned.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)