Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Which Benedict?
A great deal of discussion has gone on since Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI and chose the name Benedict. It would appear that the reason why he chose the name is his attachment to the original St. Benedict. This will come as a schock to the liberals and realtivists who remain nominal Catholics since the original Benedict withdrew from the world in order to save it.
One of the auxilary bishops of Los Angeles, Bishop Zavala, who is also a member of Pax Christi (the leftist "Catholic" organization) had this to say upon the elevation of Ratzinger to the papacy: "In taking the name Pope Benedict XVI, this Pope is acknowledging the role of his predecessors, particularly Benedict XV, in promoting reconciliation and justice as a priority in the global Catholic Church."
He is very wrong.
The moral decay of the church in Europe, the historical seat of Christendom is the real focus of our new pope. Fr. Neuhas of First Things recently wrote:
"I very much doubt that Pope Benedict is going to engage in wholesale excommunications, but I have no doubt he will encourage people to ponder anew what is entailed in being in communion with the Church. He has over the years made evident that he believes we are engaged in a great battle for the soul of Western Civilization and, indeed, the soul of the world. The choice of the name is important. He is not John Paul III. That might have invited invidious comparisons with his illustrious and inimitable predecessor, John Paul the Great, now entombed close by St. Peter. It might also have suggested that the curtain has not fallen on the dramatization of the mythology of 'the spirit of Vatican II.' The first round of commentaries proposed that the choice of a name is an allusion is Benedict XV, an early twentieth-century pope of limited distinction apart from his failed effort to stop World War I. I am rather confident, however, that the proper allusion is to the original St. Benedict, the father of western monasticism. In a time of deep shadows, the Benedictine movement sparked the spiritual, cultural, and moral rejuvenation of Europe."
Pope Benededict's last public homily as a cardinal decried the moral relativism of much of the "first world" especially that of Europe. He has also decried the onslaught of Mass abuse which can be seen as an answer to appeal to the relativists of the world. This new pope is more likely to re-introduce and require heavy medicinal doses of latin; and he will undoubtedly challenge the cafeteria catholics to pick the single dish of the Holy Roman Cathlolic Faith or kindly leave.
-------------------------------
And this from Mark Steyn:
"I'll bet Pope Benedict XVI is glad that his conclave doesn't include either Cardinal Biden or Cardinal Voinovich, or his church would be pontiff-less indefinitely while they 'investigated' last-minute rumors that he'd been off-hand to some guy in seminary 55 years ago. I had no strong views about the new pope one way or another, but I'd have voted for him just for the pleasure of seeing him drive the U.S. media bananas. Apparently, the New York Times was stunned that their short list of Cardinal Gloria Steinem, Cardinal Rupert Everett and Cardinal Rosie O'Donnell were defeated at the last moment by some guy who came out of left field and isn't even gay or female but instead belongs to the discredited 'Catholic' faction of the Catholic Church.
Unlike the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the conclave of cardinals takes its job seriously. They understand the demands of the New York Times: women priests, gay sex, condoms for all. But, as befits an ancient institution, they take the long view: They think that radical secularism is weak and that the consequences of its weakness will prove dangerous and possibly fatal for the Western world. Therefore, there's no point accommodating it - and, after all, those churches that do (the Episcopalians, for example) are already in steep decline. You can disagree with this, particularly if you're as shrill and parochial as Pope Benedict's American critics. But the conclave at least addressed the big issues.
One of the auxilary bishops of Los Angeles, Bishop Zavala, who is also a member of Pax Christi (the leftist "Catholic" organization) had this to say upon the elevation of Ratzinger to the papacy: "In taking the name Pope Benedict XVI, this Pope is acknowledging the role of his predecessors, particularly Benedict XV, in promoting reconciliation and justice as a priority in the global Catholic Church."
He is very wrong.
The moral decay of the church in Europe, the historical seat of Christendom is the real focus of our new pope. Fr. Neuhas of First Things recently wrote:
"I very much doubt that Pope Benedict is going to engage in wholesale excommunications, but I have no doubt he will encourage people to ponder anew what is entailed in being in communion with the Church. He has over the years made evident that he believes we are engaged in a great battle for the soul of Western Civilization and, indeed, the soul of the world. The choice of the name is important. He is not John Paul III. That might have invited invidious comparisons with his illustrious and inimitable predecessor, John Paul the Great, now entombed close by St. Peter. It might also have suggested that the curtain has not fallen on the dramatization of the mythology of 'the spirit of Vatican II.' The first round of commentaries proposed that the choice of a name is an allusion is Benedict XV, an early twentieth-century pope of limited distinction apart from his failed effort to stop World War I. I am rather confident, however, that the proper allusion is to the original St. Benedict, the father of western monasticism. In a time of deep shadows, the Benedictine movement sparked the spiritual, cultural, and moral rejuvenation of Europe."
Pope Benededict's last public homily as a cardinal decried the moral relativism of much of the "first world" especially that of Europe. He has also decried the onslaught of Mass abuse which can be seen as an answer to appeal to the relativists of the world. This new pope is more likely to re-introduce and require heavy medicinal doses of latin; and he will undoubtedly challenge the cafeteria catholics to pick the single dish of the Holy Roman Cathlolic Faith or kindly leave.
-------------------------------
And this from Mark Steyn:
"I'll bet Pope Benedict XVI is glad that his conclave doesn't include either Cardinal Biden or Cardinal Voinovich, or his church would be pontiff-less indefinitely while they 'investigated' last-minute rumors that he'd been off-hand to some guy in seminary 55 years ago. I had no strong views about the new pope one way or another, but I'd have voted for him just for the pleasure of seeing him drive the U.S. media bananas. Apparently, the New York Times was stunned that their short list of Cardinal Gloria Steinem, Cardinal Rupert Everett and Cardinal Rosie O'Donnell were defeated at the last moment by some guy who came out of left field and isn't even gay or female but instead belongs to the discredited 'Catholic' faction of the Catholic Church.
Unlike the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the conclave of cardinals takes its job seriously. They understand the demands of the New York Times: women priests, gay sex, condoms for all. But, as befits an ancient institution, they take the long view: They think that radical secularism is weak and that the consequences of its weakness will prove dangerous and possibly fatal for the Western world. Therefore, there's no point accommodating it - and, after all, those churches that do (the Episcopalians, for example) are already in steep decline. You can disagree with this, particularly if you're as shrill and parochial as Pope Benedict's American critics. But the conclave at least addressed the big issues.
