Close Topic Options

Pope Benedict XVI - Page 2

I was talking about the other people and organizations who are urging the Catholic church to change itself. What the members of the church, and the leadership of the church, have to say about it is what is important.

XVI Benedict Pope

VATICAN ON LOOKOUT FOR EAVESDROPPERS

From bugs to lasers to cell phones, the Vatican is on guard for high-tech eavesdropping ahead of Monday's opening of the conclave to elect a new pope to lead the Roman Catholic Church.
Ref. https://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/04/14/pope.spying/index.html

Pope Benedict XVI Catholicism Studies

PAPAL CONCLAVE IS SHAPING UP TO BE CONTENTIOUS

The next pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church could be a Brazilian cardinal who gave refuge to striking workers pursued by police helicopters. It could be a Nigerian whose parents worshipped African gods, a bookish Viennese who speaks five languages, an Italian who speaks only his home tongue, or an Argentine who rides a bus to work in his diocese.
Ref. https://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C...26953%2C00.html

Page 2 XVI Benedict Pope

White smoke and ringing bells signal selection of new pope.

Joseph Ratzingner from Germany elected new Pope. He will be known as Benedict 16th. He has already declared that the Church will not change against the secular values of the Western World.

Ref. BBC Live

XVI Benedict Pope

I have been browsing some blogs about the new pope. Some very interesting reading. Here is a great roundup:
https://theanchoressonline.com/2005/04/19/p...edict-round-up/

Now, I have been reading the Anchoress for a couple of weeks. I really like the way she writes. Read what she has to say, then follow the links. Great stuff.

What I really like about all this is that I agree 100% with some of the blog entries. Cardinal Ratzinger MUST be the right person for the job, just based on who is frothing at the mouth in hatred of him!

[:WICKED GRIN!:]

Pope Benedict XVI

The Same Values of Pope John Paul II

I followed a link from that blog to here:
https://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1113944330.shtml

It give a more clear understanding of why some are happy and some are not about the new Pope, but keep in mind - just like anything new - everyone has to get used to it:

"But the reaction was decidedly mixed when Cardinal Ratzinger's name was announced. Some slapped and shouted jubilantly. But an equal number stood by silently and listened. A small number of people wandered out of the square as he spoke."

Pope Benedict XVI - Page 2

Benedict the 16th has mixed reviews because he has been considered the Popes enforcer. When the Pope says something, it was his job to lay down the law. Electing him as Pope ensures that JP2's views and way of doing things is preserved because he held the same views.

Now I understand that a persons past is in the past. But the very fact that he was part of the Nazi party makes me against him. Of course he says that he was an unwilling participant, but so does everyone who gets found out. Even former guards that where held trial said it was against their will. The point is, we don't really know for sure, so why take a chance. Why take the chance that the new pope could even possibly agree with any sentiment of Nazi party beliefs? Most people disagree with me on this issue, but most people also dismiss my argument out of hand with out even thinking about it. Its easier to dismiss it than to think about the repercussions of me being right.

Pope Benedict XVI Studies Catholicism - Page 2

I have a very close friend from Germany. Her father fought in WWII. There really was no choice. If you were German, you were a Nazi. It was that or die, really.

I have no doubt he is not Nazi and doesn't have those sentiments. I believe how he has lived his life since the war is proof of that. He was fourteen, I believe, when he joined the party. Also, he deserted from the Army at the end, which would have meant certain death if he had been found out.

So, the fact that he lived in Germany as a citizen during WWII automatically means he had to join that party for all practical purposes. I agree to hold war criminals responsible for their crimes. However, simply being a part of a war where terrible things are done, and for which we decide historically that there was no good valid reason to have waged war, doesn't make that person a war criminal. I don't think it is fair that someone who defended their country during a war should be penalized because their country was on the wrong side of the issue. These people still needed to defend their country.

In fact, in this case it wasn't a matter of choosing to defend his country, for which I still wouldn't blame him, but more a matter that the government demanded participation from all males over a certain age, and towards the end of the war it was a very young age.

Edited: funbikerchick on 22nd Apr, 2005 - 9:40pm