Paul, you are so right. Benedict will not get a honeymoon. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Benedict receives the same vitriol that President Bush got once he announced he was running for president. There won't be a honeymoon.

C'mon Paul, you know you can always count on DU to be on the cutting edge of Leftwing Moonbattery.

What gets me is that one wonders why anybody would think that a non-orthodox guy would be chosen Pope. Even the most "liberal" of the cardinals would be too orthodox for most of these people. It's like complaining why can't the Catholics be like the Episcopalians... if we wanted to be Episcopalians, we would already have joined the ECUSA.

If it had been Cardinal Arinze who had been chosen, there would have been a "honeymoon" in that none of the MSM would dare be the first to attack a black African Pope. But they would have found out that Arinze is even harsher than our current Pope, and eventually their heads would explode.

In any case, this is going to be fun to watch to see which media person will be the most anti-Catholic.

Paul,

You are correct. I am predicting that Chris Matthews will be doing a peice on "Is this the end of the Catholic Church". The MSM has had to cover religion for 3 straight weeks without a good negative story. It must be killing them.

After all remember that Cardinal Ratzinger Agreed with U.S. Bishops in Debating On Withholding Eucharist from Pro-Abort Politicians

C'mon Paul. You know that the only Pope that would make the inmates at DU happy would be an athiest, non-white transgendered transvestite anarcho-socialsit.
That, or Dworkin's corpse. Assuming they haven't turned her skull into a bong already.

The question that you put in your blockquote isn't crazy. He will turn the church back - - as he is more a hardliner than John Paul II was. And, he was a member of the Nazi party in his youth.

You can claim that is "bashing", but there isn't anything in the person's statement that is not fact.

As for the "lost opportunity"... making a joke out of honest and sincere complaints from people within the Catholic faith doesn't really make you sound better. None of the Cardinals would have opened up the "opportunities" you sarcastically enumerate, but there were that could have given the Church a more loving and less dictator like reach.

Here's a news flash for you Bill.....

The Catholic church selected a pope that was (gasp) Catholic.

Why exactly should we be shocked???

But thanks for making sure your side was represented.

And Bill knows from personal experience that Pope Ratzinger is not a loving man, no doubt.

The Catholic Faith is not a political party. It is not run by politicians who care to "broaden its base" and thereby become a more formidable presence.

Pope John II was as loving and benevolent a leader as the Church has ever had, but he did not waiver in closely hewing to the orthodoxy. Neither should Ratzinger.

If American Catholics want something else, they're free to go. The Church will be no less strong without them.

I am going to go out on a ledge and say all the Cardinals are Catholic. Call me crazy. So, I would have only been "shocked" had they elected somebody that wasn't present in the Sistine Chapel.

You shouldn't be shocked, you should be disappointed. There was an opportunity for the Church to select someone that not only bleed Catholicism, and stood by the words of their God, but also reached out to others of the world in a respectful instead of totalitarion manner.

You can act outraged and point fingers at me being left of center on social issues - - but attacking statements that aren't infactual so you can feel better about yourself isn't the way to go.

Benedict XVI isn't a contiuation of John Paul II, he reversion back to an even far more stricter Church. Regardless of the complaints against John Paul, it was clear he was a humanitarian that opened his arms to everyone, even if he disagreed with them. Benedict's resume makes one believe that to disagree is to be unworthy of his open arms.

For a church battling image problems lately, save the last three weeks, it is a bit strange that they selected the person they did.

You don't always have to vehemently and angrily disagree with everything somebody says just because they don't say exactly what you want Paul. I am hoping nobody has told you that before and that is the reason you leave rational thought at the door and only bring cult like support into everything you talk about.

As a Catholic I know to be true; if a Pope that a liberal or Andrew Sullivan would approve, who would back their agenda, where to somehow ger elected, it would the beggining of a third great schism. As the conservative churches in Africa and Latin America would never accept anything like gay marriage or abortion. This is something that I have not seen noted on by the press.

Paul, you're right. I've always been amused by people who are amazed that the Pope would actually believe in Catholic doctrine, and beyond that, would insist on Catholic doctrine.

It's churches that abandon their doctrine in order to be relevant (as opposed to timeless) that are really in trouble, i.e., the Episcopal Church.

I love how it is all about abortion and gay marriage. Nobody is asking for the church to put at its head a person that would agree with those two things. That would do nothing but lead to two Catholic churches.

What was hoped for in some circles was a Pope that didn't outwardly view people with questions about their religion to be dissenters that were only worthy of excommunication.

Bill

Are you being serious or is this satire???

"There was an opportunity..."

You can't be saying this with a straight face.

Note to Liberals - This is not your day. Can you guys ever be happy about anything that has nothing to do with you? Stick to saving the earth and bush bashing cause that's all your good at. Geez, Ratzinger is selected and you act like it's the end of the world. Get a life or STFU.

Bill K,

I was raised as a Catholic and I think the problem most looking for a more "liberal" or "open" Church have is the assumption the Church has a fundamental problem and needs to reach out to a broader audience.

That isn't the mindset of a large portion of the Church. If anything, their view is the liberal part of the world has a fundamental problem and they are missing an opportunity to "return to the fold".

Vatican II was not universally accepted by the world's Catholics.

The world has changed quite a bit in 2000 years. Governments, philosphies, liberalism, conservatism, left wing and right wing have all come and gone while the Church hasn't changed much and is still functioning. They simply won't change their beliefs because a fickle world wants them too. They've seen it all before....

BTW Bill- reread my reply and yours.... I'm not the angry one.

OMFG, they didn't elect a Pope who would please the American liberal lefty non-Catholics!

Are these people really that stupid?

But, to quote Coumo,"the conservatives write their message in crayon while liberals use a fine quill".

Anyone who still uses a quill can't be that smart -- it's a pain in the ass.

Absinthe drinkin MF's.

diclaimer --- this post is a tribute to skynet, skymart, skybird or whatever that guys name is.

(the views remain my own)

Nice, don't actually respond just make fun.

So anything your President or Church does should be met with absolute devotion? No questions. No debate. No discussion.

Because in no way have I said the Church was insane for doing this, just that I thought it was a bit strange. In no way did I say this would be the downfall of the Church.

That being said there WAS an opportunity to choose a leader who was more inviting than a former Nazi and current doctrinal watchdog.

It is incredible how any opinion different from yours, even if slight, is always met with outrage.

I think they had to make their decision today, because you know the shit would hit the fan if they picked a German pope on Hitlers birthday.

Paul, your whole post is about outrage that somebody dare question the selection.

When the white smoke came from the chimney, you knew a new pope was elected.

When the white smoke came from Sullivan's ears, you knew it was Ratzinger.

Just as Rall has his Geralissimo Bush delusions, Sullivan will spend his declining years demonizing Ratzinger/Bennie the 16th.

Your right Faith + 1 the Church has always only been okay with homosexual sex if it is between a priest and an underage boy. They obviously haven't changed at all.

>So anything your President or Church does should be met with absolute devotion?

Do you really not understand the difference between a government and a church?

besides I'm speaking of beliefs not actions.

Your = you're

Paul, your whole post is about outrage that somebody dare question the selection.

WRONG WRONG WRONG

My whole post was about the fact someone would be outraged NO MATTER the selection.

Which BTW your posts prove. thanks.

OOOOH now Bill just gets ugly.

Nice.

When did I say I would have been outraged about any selection? When did I say I was outraged by this selection?

I am frustrated that you can't go five minutes without ripping on people that say something that differs from your opinion, regardless of how slight.

It is as if questions offend you.

Funny that you ask me if I understand the difference between a government and a church - - seeing as how I am the one that is trying to combine them, right?

I consider that to be unnecessarily sarcastic not ugly :-)

>>When did I say I would have been outraged about any selection? When did I say I was outraged by this selection?

reread what I wrote.

>I am frustrated that you can't go five minutes without ripping on people that say something that differs from your opinion, regardless of how slight.
Bill you are the ripping people, not me.

>>It is as if questions offend you.
No, but lack of common sense does.

>>Funny that you ask me if I understand the difference between a government and a church - - seeing as how I am the one that is trying to combine them, right?

Well, yes you did. "So anything your President or Church does should be met with absolute devotion?"

All I know about this guy so far is the homily quoted at Hugh Hewitt's (http://www.hughhewitt.com/#postid1553). I'm not a Catholic, but that ain't bad.

As for being a Nazi youth -- isn't the Church all about redemption? Saul of Tarsus was one mean SOB, and look how Paul turned out!

Research is called for *before* offering opinions, so I'm still reserving mine.

Bill maybe you don't get the point everyone else manages to get....

NO MATTER who they selected (short of Al Franken) they were going to be bashed by people like you.

You couldn't make 6 posts before the obligatory pedophile priest remark.

Despite your best efforts you proved I was right all along.

Calm down, Ranten. I'm about to nail Bill K's balls to the wall. Bill, in your very first post, you told this whopper:

And, he was a member of the Nazi party in his youth.

Bill, he was 18 when WWII ended. Want to explain how he could have been a Nazi party member in grade school? True, he was enrolled in the Hitler Youth as a teenager -- just like every other teenage boy in Nazi Germany. It wasn't optional. That is a far, far cry from being "a member of the Nazi party."

Now go blow, you disgusting pig. We don't need liars like you here.

Saying you never disagree with two people does mean I think the two people are the same entities. I make it a point to not disagree with my girlfriend or mom - - I would NEVER confuse those relationships.

My point was that you have an inability to disagree with leaders of your party regardless of their positions. Even if those opinions are not stagnate.

As for ripping people, besides you, who am I ripping on? All I said was that there was an opportunity for a different selection.

As for common sense, where am I lacking it? Oh, yeah, I forgot, I am SHOCKED that a Catholic was elected Pope. Hmm, actually, perhaps suggesting people are shocked because a Catholic Pope was elected is, in and of itself, a demonstration of lack of common sense.

Here's the question, Bill K, are you Catholic? And by that, I mean do you go to church every Sunday?

And if you are a Catholic, then why haven't you moved on already? No one is holding you to that faith.

Oh, whatever, Dave, I purposely didn't mention his Nazi Youth term, because I personally don't think it matters. You are right, it was mandatory.

My point when I stated what you quoted, is that it was a fact that he was in the Nazi Youth, so for Paul to use that as an example of "bashing" the newly elected Pope was off base. Because, ya know, it is true.

This isn't like a random protester saying Bush is a Nazi, or the right saying everybody who disagrees with them is a Communist or Anti-American. The guy, for whatever the reason, was a member of the German Nazi army. It is a fact, not bashing.

Save your keystrokes, Bill. I'm not interested in anything you have to say.

Bill... Bill... Bill....

From your VERY FIRST post: "And, he was a member of the Nazi party in his youth"

Now you say: "I purposely didn't mention his Nazi Youth term, because I personally don't think it matters."

What drugs are you smoking?

Cousin Dave: Calm down? I am the soul of serenity!

Bill K.: Watch thy words carefully. Did you just accuse the new Pope of having been in the Nazi army? Was he? If so, was it by choice, or was he conscripted? Does being conscripted by your evil government preclude you from becoming a Pope 50+ years later? Are those who were conscripted to go to Viet Nam now off the list of possible future Popes? See -- This kind of thing can get out of hand.

Let us all choose our words calmly (and for believeres, with Christian love, in honor of the Catholics having chosen a new Pope).

PAX be upon you.

Bill, your hand-wringing is just as convincing as girls who want into the boy scouts. There is a CHOICE for those who don't agree with Catholic doctrine. Just as girls can join the girl scouts, anyone can join a different church more in tune with their personal philosophy. That is easy, and they don't even go to hell for doing it. What do you care what this private group chooses as matters of faith and tradition?

Oh...my...god, Paul. I didn't mention anything about it, or rip on him for it, or say anything about it except mention that it was a fact. The only reason I even did that much is because you used it in your original post making it out to be some form of bashing. All I was saying is that the truth isn't bashing. Did you not just read my post?

As for my religion. So, I am not allowed to be Catholic if I disagree, in any way, with the selection of Pope? Is that what you are saying Mike?

Thanks Bill I'm done.

You've made my original point in Technicolor with surround sound.

Anything I would say now would dilute my own point.

Ranten: There was a post on Fox News this morning about it. According to the article, he was drafted in 1941; as I figure it he would have been 14 or 15 at the time. He served for a while in an anti-aircraft battery, but he deserted before the end of the war and escaped to Switzerland. (It didn't say when this took place.) By the end of the war, the Nazis had conscripted boys as young as 12 for front-line duty

Bill K says:
"You don't always have to vehemently and angrily disagree with everything somebody says just because they don't say exactly what you want Paul."

Bill, I don't know if anyone has mentioned this to you , but "you don't always have to vehemently and angrily disagree with everything somebody says" just because that somebody happens to be Paul either.

How do you get through airport security carrying all of that baggage? Let it go, you'll feel better.

Just to clear something up, Ratzinger was never a supporter of the NAZIs nor a member of the NAZI party. However by 1939 membership in the Hitler Youth became compulsory for all boys over the age of 13. In 1941, at the age of 14, then Cardinal Ratzinger was forced to join the Hitlerjugend. In 1943 he was 16 and like many of his fellows he found himself drafted into the Wehrmacht as a member of the Flak corps. His career in the Wehrmacht didn't last as by 1944 he'd deserted from the Heer (German Army) while stationed in Hungary.

He was never a NAZI. He was a 16 year old boy who was forced to take up arms and deserted the first chance he got. I'm sorry if that ruins the fun of a few self righteous anti-Catholic bigots, but it's true. To call this man a former NAZI is not only wrong, it is to display a callous disregard for the truth, and shows a total lack of understanding and compassion for someone placed in circumstances we cannot begin to imagine.

OT -- McCain: The Boy Scouts now have a co-ed program called Venturing. Cool stuff!

Bill K:

You can act outraged and point fingers at me being left of center on social issues - - but attacking statements that aren't infactual so you can feel better about yourself isn't the way to go.

How about attacking stupid statements that are, actually, infactual? Like this statement some dumbass made earlier:

And, he was a member of the Nazi party in his youth.

Oh wait - you made that statement. Maybe put the Kool-Aid down long enough to digest this.

Joseph Ratzinger was never a member of the Nazi party. Let me repeat that for the slow people: Joseph Ratzinger was NEVER a member of the Nazi party.

Was he a member of the Hitler Youth? Unfortunately, yes. Kind of makes you wonder why, doesn't it? The answer is: he became a member at age 14 when membership was mandatory. Duh.

So yes, Bill K., when you repeat lies like some kind of mental midget, you will be ridiculed. And deservedly so.

Jeez Bill, I wanna know now too ---- are you Catholic?

I consider that to be unnecessarily sarcastic not ugly :-)

No. That was ugly. Sarcastic would be something like, "We should all listen to Bill K's thoughts, he has so much insight to share."

And for the record, Paul is ridiculing vitriol and lies being spewed about the new Pope, not people with simple "disagreements" as to practices and beliefs. If you equate calling the Pope a Nazi with questioning whether priests should be allowed to marry, you are one gigantic idiot.

This was the comment Paul put in his post:

I dont know much or anything about him BUT that he was a Nazi or a member of the Nazi party. How does he stand on issues and how far back will he turn the church.

Now, this was used to demonstrate the "stupidity of some on the left" and the "bashing" of the new Pope. My statement in regard to that was:

The question that you put in your blockquote isn't crazy. He will turn the church back - - as he is more a hardliner than John Paul II was. And, he was a member of the Nazi party in his youth.

Can people disagree with that? Regardless of reasoning, which I have made clear was not of his own choosing, he was a member of the Nazi Army. Also, are there people here that believe he is not a more hard lining pope that John Paul II? If not, then are you disagreeing that the Church was more strict in the past?

All my original post was trying to point out was that Paul was trying to create anger towards the left by trying to demonize a quote that was nothing but factual.

The rest just turned into stupidity as I tried to defend myself from a barrage of misinterpretations.

That being said, I am still interested to knowing if I am welcome in the Catholic Faith if I live by their teachings but have some question about the selection of Pope. Because, based on some statements, I would have to believe I am not.

I am not getting this desire for a Pope that is liberal in areas like who gets ordained and their pro life position.

Yeah, I am not Catholic, but I like the fact that JPII stood firm on matters of the church, and didn't choose to wittle away at those things. He didn't consider the political correctness something for the church to aspire to.

There are a lot of people who aren't going to like this new Pope, I have already seen nasty comments about him, but I think at least in regards to the churches central beliefs, this man will stand firm.

OK everybody quit picking on Bill...

We call it a TKO and stop the bleeding now.

Kudos Paul, you predicted that people on the internet would oppose/disagree/complain about something not long after it happened. What's next, predicting that next election people will disagree with the outcome? That people will say the next version of windows to be released sucks? That the sun will rise in the morning? Enlighten us, oh seer of much that is unseen!

And btw, is this is so offensive to you, please tell us what topics people can complain about on the internet, and what length waiting period should be observed. 24 hours for religious matters, or longer? If I want to complain about the Mormon church, do I wait for less time or more than if I want to complain about the Catholic church? How bout druids?

One thing in this guys excuse regarding the Nazi party, German youth were required to join the Hitler Youth, and while some 14 year olds may have had the ability to stand against it, I think that is a huge responsibility to expect of most of them.

I would like to seem he address the issue of the Holocaust, Germany and the Catholic Church, something I think JPII did a good job on, but his anti Nazi history made that easier I think.

I think liberals can probably find other things to complain about (his staunch conservatism for one thing-I don't see any women or gays or even married men being approved for ordination by this man or any changes in the churches pro life stances) than what the man did during WWII.

Okay Bill. You've shown again what a mental midget you are. Let's recap:

First, you said:

And, he was a member of the Nazi party in his youth.

Then, you said:

Regardless of reasoning, which I have made clear was not of his own choosing, he was a member of the Nazi Army.

Now, you whine that:

The rest just turned into stupidity as I tried to defend myself from a barrage of misinterpretations.

Where is the misinterpretation? You said he was a member of the Nazi Party, not the Nazi Army. Can you see the difference? Let me spell it out for you:

A member of the Nazi Party would be a supporter of the beliefs, practices, and goals of the Nazis and Hitler. A (conscripted) member of the Nazi Army who deserted his post would be the opposite of that, i.e. a person who did not support the beliefes, practices, or goals of the Nazis and Hitler.

You have been properly taken apart for your insistence that the vitriol quoted by Paul in his post is a fact. It is not. Hopefully you are no longer confused.

As for the question in the post, that you cannot see it for what it is - it is not a well meaning question regarding the direction of the Church - is more evidence that you need to leave this subject alone and quietly fade into the background before you embarrass your self any more.

Bill is dead:

Time of rhetorical death: 3:13 PM

[i]Your right Faith + 1 the Church has always only been okay with homosexual sex if it is between a priest and an underage boy. They obviously haven't changed at all.[/i]

Oh please. What an immature response. Not even well thought out. You seemed better than that...apparently not.

BTW, I was raised Catholic--no longer am--in reality I'd best be described as "born again agnostic". The Faith+1 is not a religious reference but one mocking established religions based on a South Park episode.

So, I wouldn't describe myself as a fan of the Catholic Church. I have a lot of problems with it including the one you mentioned.

Even with all that I am not surprised by their choice at all. I understand the mindset completely. It is apparent you don't. It isn't a "lost opportunity" to reach out in their eyes because they don't accept your premise they should be any different at all.

To even think the Church would bother one second over what the left side of the world thought about their selection just shows to what level you are ignorant of the Church and the way it operates. To be surprised by their choice is simply stemming from an ill-informed, ignornant understanind of their religion.

To offer a comparison...it would be like me claiming to be shocked the Democratic National Party wouldn't select Jub Bush as their next candidate in order to reach out to the majority of Americans who voted for his brother.

Hey Mantis,

Maybe its stuff like: "Pope Ratfucker".

Just a guess.

Well Paul that quote you put up is definitely out of line, but it was merely a comment. The main post on the site read:

Today has seen the third papal election in my lifetime. There are many reasons to criticize the election of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI, like his stances on women and gays in the church, social issues, his work in crushing liberation theology, his comments in regards to the priest sexual abuse scandals, and his generally conservative views.

Calling him a Nazi, however, is unfounded and unfair, and only serves to demean us.

The man is 78 years old. He was 18 when the war ended. He is of the right age group where you were required by law to join the Hilter Youth. Membership in the Hitler Youth by no means made you grow up to be a confirmed Nazi, although that was certainly the intent. Belonging to a Luftwaffe AA battery is also not a sign that he was a Nazi; had he been a fanatical Nazi, not only would he have volunteered for the Waffen SS, but he wouldn't have deserted in 1944. That desertion in itself is not an unremarkable act. They still shot deserters at that time. Being in the German Army does not mean that you were a Nazi.

There are plenty of reasons to criticize this pope and the policies he's likely to enact. Unfounded accusations are unfair, and will only serve to give the wingers more ammunition.

Call him conservative, call him reactionary, call him old, call him surly, call him the wrong choice. Just don't call him a Nazi.

If you think it is fair to criticize a party based on the absolute nuts, then fine, but I hardly think it is impressive.

ummm, make that "Jeb Bush"...fat fingers...

Sorry, the italics didn't come out right. The whole post is from the first italic to the last use of the word Nazi. Or:

Today has seen the third papal election in my lifetime. There are many reasons to criticize the election of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI, like his stances on women and gays in the church, social issues, his work in crushing liberation theology, his comments in regards to the priest sexual abuse scandals, and his generally conservative views.

Calling him a Nazi, however, is unfounded and unfair, and only serves to demean us.

The man is 78 years old. He was 18 when the war ended. He is of the right age group where you were required by law to join the Hilter Youth. Membership in the Hitler Youth by no means made you grow up to be a confirmed Nazi, although that was certainly the intent. Belonging to a Luftwaffe AA battery is also not a sign that he was a Nazi; had he been a fanatical Nazi, not only would he have volunteered for the Waffen SS, but he wouldn't have deserted in 1944. That desertion in itself is not an unremarkable act. They still shot deserters at that time. Being in the German Army does not mean that you were a Nazi.

There are plenty of reasons to criticize this pope and the policies he's likely to enact. Unfounded accusations are unfair, and will only serve to give the wingers more ammunition.

Call him conservative, call him reactionary, call him old, call him surly, call him the wrong choice. Just don't call him a Nazi.

Now that the crew is finsihed humiliating Bill...
(not that he didn't do most of the heavy lifting himself)
So: What do you guys think of him? Ratzinger, I mean.
For me, between the increasing politicization of the Western church and the Charismatic movement in the South American dioceses, a good dose of Germanic discipline may be just the thing. First step: Inform the Jesuits that the words "seminary", and "gay bars" do NOT go together...

BTW, Paul, there have been many absolutely ridiculous comments that support radical right positions made on this website. I don't think just because they were put on a major rightwing website that they stand for the views of you or the party.

Calling him a Nazi, however, is unfounded and unfair, and only serves to demean us.

Then why did you do it Bill?

If you think it is fair to criticize a party based on the absolute nuts, then fine, but I hardly think it is impressive.

Who was it that said they "own" the Democratic party now?

Couldn't have been the nuts at MoveOn.org could it?

Thanks, clueless. I didn't mean to call him a Nazi as in one who supported the Nazi beliefs. Only that he was drafted into the Nazi army - - sorry for the confusion. I used Nazi party and army as the same, and that was my mistake. It wasn't breed from a misunderstanding though. And, as others have requoted me, I corrected the mistake in subsequent posts.

If Paul had a quote similar to that of the one he gleaned from Kos that was made by a MoveOn.org email he would have a legitimate post to write.

I would put the chances of a quote like that coming out though right at about the chances of the 49ers winning last year's Super Bowl.

One part of current culture will never be the same again with the revelation that some in the Papal staff have referring to the new Pope as:

PAPA RATZI

Ba-da-boom! Seriously, as for what the Church needs to be working on: I'm not Catholic, but here are my observations:

(1) Get to the bottom of the sex abuse scandal. Sorry to say, this is one area where the critics have been largely in the right. The Pope has got to initiate an investigation to pin down who was involved and what their roles are. And, issue an edict that the Vatican is absolutely not a hideout for lawbreakers.

(2) Figure out just what the Church's position re the Iraq war really is. Of course, the Church is going to express regret whenever war occurs; to not do so would be inconsistent with its teachings. However, some of the things coming out of the Vatican over the last two years could have come right out of DU: America is the enemy, Saddam wasn't a bad guy, Americans are intolerant, etc. Pope JPII never really laid out a position, and left the field wide open to loose cannons of all stripes to speak on this issue on behalf of the whole Church. Quite a few Catholics were deeply offended by some of the Vatican's pronouncements concerning the USA's role in the world last year.

(3) Related to the above point, Pope Benedict needs to work to purge all traces of "liberation theology" from the Chuch. So-called liberation theology is nothing more than Marxism in a Biblical guise. Some priests and cardinals in certain areas of the world, particularly South America, have pushed this philosophy and effectively put the Church in unholy alliance with some of the world's worst dictators. Fortunately, most of them are gone now, but the philosophy remains. Note that this isn't a matter of liberal-vs-conservative, of women priests or any of the other issues that we tend to argue about; it's a matter of the Church getting in bed with out-and-out thugs. The Church could improve its credibility instantly by showing liberation theology, and its advocates, the door.

Bill K,

It figures you would assume my intentions when I asked the question of your religion. I just want to know where you are coming from because it gives a little perspective to your arguments. If you are not Catholic than your opinions really don't matter. That's all.

So how long are we going to hear about his being a former nazi from all the libbies? (when it was compulsory and in his youth).

How about your beloved Senator Byrd who was a klansman - (and a leader in the klan) in his adulthood and totally by choice.

Catholics picked a pope who will (gasp) uphold traditional Catholic teachings. Oh my god! Alert the media! (oh wait -- they are the ones complaining)

Sigh.

To clarify, your opinions wouldn't matter when it applies to Catholic Religious Doctrine, i.e. the choosing of the new Pope and that Pope's beliefs.

BillK
"select someone that not only bleed Catholicism, and stood by the words of their God, but also reached out to others of the world in a respectful instead of totalitarion manner."

Yeah, that's why the ADL is praising him for just that very thing - idiot.

Am I the only one who noticed the uncanny resembelance to Emperor Palpatine/Darth Sidious?

http://www.thegreatsatan.com/palp.jpg

Sorry Dan, haven't been able to read every news release about the guy. Almost everything else paints him as one who doesn't like to be questioned.

I'm going to comment simply because it is fun to speculate on this topic and my words will have no lasting value anyway. The newly elected Pope is a much older gentleman and a conservative idealogue who is a long standing Vatican insider. I think he was elected because he is familiar, his ideology is clear, he will have a short term with little chance of a major impact. He is just the man to serve as Pope while the world still absorbs the impact of the charismatic John Paul II. My understanding is that JP II was a great evangelist with little talent for the day to day adminstrative duties of the Vatican. Maybe it is necessary to take a breather and see where the chips fall after John Paul II's tenure before so quickly electing another rather young, energetic man to compete with a legacy the impact of which is still evolving.

Cousin Dave,
1. from the perspective of faith, I am quite well satisified that we are at the bottom of the scandal. time to focus on the unreported sexual abuse scandal in your own church.

2. the Catholic church's position is quite clear - it opposed the Iraq war.

3. it depends on what you mean by "liberation theology." if you are talking specifically about its application in central america, I suspect the church will continue to distance itself from Marxist ideology. if you are talking about the general idea that the church will work for social justice through reforming governments, that isn't going to change. it is a core belief among catholics that works are required, and the moral justification for John Paul's opposition to communism.

Pope JPII never really laid out a position, and left the field wide open to loose cannons of all stripes to speak on this issue on behalf of the whole Church.

Anyone who knows anything about the Catholic Church (should) know that just because someone is "stationed" at the Vatican, it does not mean they speak "on behalf of the whole Church" about anything.

From what I understand, Pope Benedict XV worked to unify the different factions within the church into one cohesive unit. His choice of Benedict XVI is an interesting one. The fact that Pope Benedict XVI was a close friend and confidant of JPII will definitely help him if he wishes to also help to unify the church factions who want the church to split one way or the other, especially attempting to unify all the western non-attending Catholics from the eastern/latin Catholics who have more conservative and staunch views.

All "bashing" aside, I think he is a good choice for the next Pope.

here's a short biography of Benedict XV (1914-1922)

Not only that, Pius X, the Pope who predecessed Benedict XV, was a staunch anti-modernist. Benedict XV was more of a modernist. It makes me wonder why Ratzinger chose that name...anyway...

Oh and by the way, when you say "Pope" and call him by name, please use the name he chose as Pope, not his given or family name, please

It's Pope Benedict XVI, not Pope Ratzinger (wavemaker)

Thank you, Henry, for calling that oversight specifically to my attention.

All this liberal shaking with anger about the Pope, and I never wrote a thing here. Amazing.

And, (while) Cardinal Ratzinger has always been my hope and prayerful preference for Pope to follow Pope John Paul. It now is clear that he's been the favorite to many others, also. I am exceedingly pleased and grateful for Pope Benedict XVI. Right man for the right reasons at the right time. Wonderfully academic, among other great qualities. I'm exceedingly grateful this day.

The core of this entire issue is being missed, danced around, ignored, whatever:

Catholics believe that within the conclave, during all that prayer and reflection, the Holy Spirit leads the cardinals to elect the man whom the Lord has already chosen to lead the Church.

For crying out loud, give the man a chance! A very short conclave like this is exceedingly rare...a fact that suggests to me that the Lord wasn't going to take no for an answer. I don't particularly care what the liberals, left, MSM, American "cafeteria Catholics," etc think about Benedict's election...Josef Cardinal Ratzinger IS the Pope now, and God willing, he will be for years to come. If you're a Catholic, you believe with all your being that God has a plan, that He IS in charge. If you're not, that's your loss and frankly what you think about Benedict doesn't matter.

So there.

Well put. The choice is a divinely inspired choice. Our very human feelings about the man, whether con or even pro, are quite secondary to the fact. He is the Pope and that is therefore good.

Ratzinger looks like a man in good health, despite his advancing years. god willing, he can continue to shepherd his flock for many more.

wavemaker, I'm not sure if you are mocking me or are sincere...I'll err on the side of sincerity...you're welcome.

I'm sure your probably not the only person to call him Pope Ratzinger, you were just the first I saw.

McCain: I'm not a Catholic basher, and if my last post came out sounding that way, I apologize. I'll admit I'm not up on the latest on the sex abuse scandal. My comment was based on seeing a report (you tell me if it's correct or not) that there is a priest, wanted for questioning in the U.S., who is evading subpoena by remaining in the Vatican.

My comment on the church's stance on the Iraq war was not based on the fact that they opposed it; it was based on the reasons behind that opposition. As I said before, I can understand the Church's opposition to war in general. My concern is based on some statements that came from a certain cardinal saying words to the effect that Saddam should have been left alone and America was an evil, bigoted nation that was attacking Iraq solely due to religious differences. My overall perception was that the Church was responding reflexively: they opposed it, but they couldn't explain why.

As for my church: As far as I know, there is no sex abuse scandal, ongoing or otherwise, in the United Methodist Church. (Scandals involving the UMC's support for every leftist group under the sun are another matter.)

Cousin Dave, the Catholic Church in America for sure ISN'T the only church to have had priests who sexually abused their flock. I bet it happens in other churchs too, but for some reason, in sue-happy America, it's the only one to get caught, and then the only one to get WIDESPREAD MEDIA COVERAGE.

Dave, I'm not disrespecting your church, but there may be a few ministers who have done it, it's just not public info.

Not that I'm condoning it in any way, nor am I condoning some of the shuffling around that happened to hide it...