Standing Firm Is NOT Moving Backwards
Habemus Papum: We Have A Pope, They Have a ProblemAlthough I didn't say it here, I have opined elsewhere that I thought Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger would become the new pope, and yesterday he became Benedict XVI (that surprised me — I figured he'd take the name John Paul III).
I'm not really sure what to make of the selection. He's earned the reputation of being "Catholicism's Rottweiler" for his strict stance on things like homosexuality ("intrinsically disordered," according to one of his books I read while in college). And perhaps I'm just being cynical, but as dean of the College Of Cardinals, he had a unique influence on the outcome of the papal election. In his homily he railed against the "dictatorship of relativism", and the conclave obviously thought that his unapologetic defense of the faith meant he was the best man for the job — they only needed four votes to elect him.
When I watched video of John Paul II on the balcony for the first time, I saw a man humbled and overwhelmed by the sanctity of the moment. There was no way he could have expected to become pope. However, Benedict XVI seemed more like a winning politician on Election Night, soaking in the moment he was confident would occur.
Again: I'm probably just being cynical. I agree with Lileks, among others, that Ratzinger was a good choice precisely because it cheesed off all the right people. Benedict's firm stance and utter disinclination to "go with the flow" has convinced dummies like Andrew Sullivan and Derrick Z. Jackson that the Church is regressing (double bow to RCP).
Nothing could be further from the truth. There's a difference between standing firm and moving backwards. Churches are not democracies, they're not social clubs, and they're not intended to move with the times.
posted by Marsh @ 4:35 PM
<< Home