Pope Benedict XVI aka Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger aka Heir Ratzinger
He was Pope John Paul II’s sidekick, his confidante and his enforcer. However, when the fading Polish prelate meets his maker in the not-too-distant future, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger may also be next in line to become the world’s top Roman Catholic, the corporal representative of God’s word on Earth. Moreover, that should give us all pause, Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
Formerly the suave, white-haired German Cardinal runs the Church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This august organization is occasionally referred to as the Holy Office but it is perhaps best known by an older name – the Inquisition. You history buffs will remember the Inquisition: those Catholic zealots who in the Middle Ages could not abide apostates and doubters of the “One True Faith”. They perfected the use of thumbscrews and the rack to force Jews, Muslims and other dissenters to adopt the Vatican’s more ‘accurate’ understanding of Christianity.
Though he is occupying St Peter’s throne, Joe Ratzinger is no spring chicken. He was born in Bavaria in 1927 (the year Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs) so is only six years younger than the late John Paul II. However, he shows few signs of slowing down. He has been the Vatican’s top doctrinal officer since 1981 and is an obscure intellectual, fluent in four languages. His intellectual searching began as a seminarian in Nazi Germany where he rounded out the experience with a brief fling in the Hitler Youth, though he was never a member of the Nazi Party. He was later conscripted into the German Army from which he eventually deserted before ending the war as an American POW.
After completing his doctorate on St Augustine in 1953, he made the rounds as a professor of ‘systematic theology’ before ascending to the position of Archbishop of Munich in 1977. From there John Paul II invited him to Rome, where he took up residence in 1981.
Once settled he was quick to make a mark with his old-fashioned dogmatism and conservative values. He was particularly upset by what he saw as destructive, liberalizing influences unleashed at the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). These ‘wild excesses’ extended to the introduction of a non-Latin Mass (oooo Radical) after Vatican II which Ratzinger characterized as a ‘tragic breach’ in tradition. Nevertheless, the Cardinal’s discomfort with modern life and yearning for the good old days (the Middle Ages???) also extended to the social realm, especially into the areas of gay rights and women.
In 1986, Ratzinger issued a letter to the Catholic Bishops in which he wrote that homosexuality was a ‘tendency’ towards an ‘intrinsic moral evil’. A few years later, in 1992, he rejected the notion of human rights for gays, stressing that their civil liberties could be ‘legitimately limited’. He followed up by remarking that ‘neither the church nor society should be surprised’ if ‘irrational and violent reactions increase’ when gays demand civil rights. Not a man to mince his words, Ratzinger urgently set to work to ferret out gay-sensitive clergy.
The good Cardinal also extended the Papal principle of ‘infallibility’ by declaring that the ordination of women was impossible because John Paul II said it was so. Ditto for the use of the word ‘priest’ by the Anglican Church: not on, said Joe, because Leo XIII in 1896 said it was not allowed.
The Cardinal is also not happy mixing religion and politics – at least not the kind of politics which suggests the Church has an obligation to assist the poor in their fight for justice. Therefore, he set out to muzzle outspoken ‘liberation’ theologians including Brazil’s charismatic Leonardo Boff. He also replaced the now-deceased Archbishop of Recife, Dom Helder Camara, with Monsignor José Cardosa – a conservative right-winger – and warned the ex-Bishop of Chiapas in Mexico, Samuel Ruiz, to preach the Gospel ‘in its integrity without Marxist interpretations’.
As if that were not enough, the ever-busy Cardinal has used his privileged take on the Truth to set back inter-faith tolerance and religious pluralism a few decades. In 1997, Ratzinger annoyed Buddhists by calling their religion an ‘autoerotic spirituality’ that offers ‘transcendence without imposing concrete religious obligations’. In addition, Hinduism, he said, offers ‘false hope’; it guarantees ‘purification’ based on a ‘morally cruel’ concept of reincarnation resembling ‘a continuous circle of hell’. The Cardinal predicted Buddhism would replace Marxism as the Catholic Church’s main enemy this century.
The Cardinal has defended Catholic missionaries who have been attacked as imperialists for subverting local cultures. ‘Mistakes were certainly made,’ he says. But you need a balanced view. After all, says Ratzinger, the first Christian missionaries 2,000 years ago insisted that ancient Europeans abandon their local gods, too.
Ratzinger helped put together The Church and the Mistakes of the Past, a stirring apology for 2,000 years of violence and persecution by the Catholic Church, which the Pope John Paul II released last March. ‘Even men [sic] of the church, in the name of faith and morals, have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospel,’ said Ratzinger. Homosexuals were noticeably absent from the 50-page text. Does that mean they are going to hell???
Sources:
Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club, http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/ratzinger/ ;
National Catholic Reporter, April 19, 1999;
The Statesman, April 26, 1977;
OutRage London, www.outrage.cygnet.co.uk/catholic.htm

We will survive him.

Pope Benedict 16th

Earlier, white smoke rose from the Vatican's Sistine Chapel and the bells of St Peter's Basilica rang out, signalling the Cardinals had elected a pope to succeed John Paul II. And yes, the new pope of the Roman Catholic Church has been chosen. Cardin...

Scusate, non conosco l'inglese.
Sono italiano residente a Genova. Dopo aver vissuto tre giorni nel terrore a causa dei no-global che hanno saccheggiato la mia città, imploro il Signore che al prossimo conclave NON VENGA ELETTO papa il cardinale Tettamnzi, ex arcivescovo di Genova. Egli ha benedetto i "no-global", gettando fango sulla Chiesa. A Genova egli è inviso a tutta la cittadinanza. Nel luglio 2001, consegnò quattro chiese ai no-global, e ne sposò le loro tesi. Che Dio risparmi le sciagure di Genova, a tutti i cristiani.

"Eric, cruelty happened, yes. But none of it was condoned by the Catholic Church."
Then who? The Buddhists?
Don't be rediculous. These abuses went on for centuries, and people knew damn well about it. Maybe you can't blame the reigning Popes, but certainly some of the Irish CATHOLIC hierarchy.

Can "fundamentalism" - i.e., "literalism" - be accepted by Catholics? Can creationism? Well, have a look at Fides et Ratio, which is certainly a Magisterial document. (Please recall also that in approving the PBC's document, Ratzinger was acting qua CDF prefect - i.e., qua Magisterium - even though the PBC isn't per se a Magisterial body.)

This secondary discussion is really a red herring. None of these abuses regardless of their validity were or could be justified by the majesterium, the ultimate authority in the Church. A reasonable argument could be made that some of the excesses of the Crusades were justified by the majesterium.
The Bible on the other hand can't defend itself. Authority over what is and isn't authentic doctrine is left ultimately to the individual. The doctrine can be poorly reasoned, but the Bible because of its inanimate nature cannot refute it. Others can argue against the faulty doctrine, but the individual can still be convicted in their belief of faulty doctrine.

Also, those "Catholics" in the Philippines who crucify themselves are renegades and schismatics, not "Catholics" in the fullest and proper sense of the word. Filipino bishops annually condemn the self-crucifixions, to no avail.

Although Ratzinger signed off on that PBC document on Bible interpretation which included a condemnation of "fundamentalism" without bothering to define it, it's important to remember that PBC documents are not magisterial -- though they are always useful and well worth reading. I had the impression that the late Fr. Raymond Brown was primarily responsible for that document's screed on fundamentalism.

Eric, cruelty happened, yes. But none of it was condoned by the Catholic Church. That was my point, guised in a pithy remark. Perhaps too pithy. But if one if looking at the Madgalene laundries situation with a historical eye, one can not lay sole blame at the hands of the sisters. But don't believe me. Read this very even-handed & thoughtful review:
http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id...
And thanks for the reminder, Mr Akin.

The last thing we need in the next papacy are more toothless lions like Arinze and Ratzinger, who'll keep issuing document after document, rather than get off their hynies and begin separating the wheat from the chaff!
"As for the bit about the Magdalenes . . . well, perhaps you have been watching too many movies with agendas? If you are referring to that film, there was quite a lot of debunking of it when it came out. Jimmy may even have something in his archive."
If "The Magdalene Sister" is lacking in historical accuracy, it's because conditions were in fact FAR WORSE than how the movie dared depict them to a public audience. There has, in fact, been no debunking of the movie, just baseless charges of anti-Catholicism, many of it from people who had never seen the movie.
Mullan is an ex-Catholic, naturally not very friendly toward her. But truth is truth, no matter who it comes from. As I've already mentioned, former victims of the Launderies have come forward to praise the movie, and at the same time insist that conditions were far, far worse than what was depicted.

Okay, guys, settle. It's getting a little defensive on different fronts in here. Debate = good. Defensiveness = bad. (Also, fire = bad!)
I think we can acknoweldge that the statement about Fundamentalism (which Ratzinger didn't author) is not intended in all its parts to apply to all conservative Protestants. That's not what it's doing. (In fact, it's not even clear how much some of it is meant to apply to Protestants as other groups may be in mind--e.g., Christian Identity people who use a Fundamentalist hermeneutic but who are not themselves part of Protestant Fundamentalism.)
We can also acknowledge that the statement is a little heavy handed and that one must not be too quick to dismiss historic Christian positions on the interpretation of Scripture and one must not reflexively lable those who hold them as "Fundamentalists."
We further can acknowledge that both Catholics and Protestants do screwy things sometimes.
Hope that's helpful.

Steve, the practice of those folks in the Phillipines who crucify themselves has been repeatedly denounced by the Catholic Church & yet you make it seem as if it's supported, condoned. And that's the problem with your *interpretation* of the statement re: the misuse of scriptue. I'm simply not sure how you can get "if you are a conservative protestant, you are a racist dolt" from that brief statement. In fact, I've seen what's described in that statement at work in many Protestants. Seems to me the article is pointing out the dangers of such a worldview & isn't meant to be in any way all-inclusive or ad hominem. There is real truth to what's being said in that tiny snippet from a quite substantial article. Perhaps the rest of the piece makes good points as well? And I'll be it expands on what you quote, too.
As for the bit about the Magdalenes . . . well, perhaps you have been watching too many movies with agendas? If you are referring to that film, there was quite a lot of debunking of it when it came out. Jimmy may even have something in his archive.

Steve,
Of course he's not conservative. He's not liberal either. He's Catholic.

Mr. Jackson,
I was simply noting that the statement was defensible. I have considered the Sourthern Baptist Convention to be a conservative group. I'll assume you are familiar with many arguments in the next section, so I'll summarize. As Catholics, we are required to submit to the Magisterium. Often there are disagreements on certain issues before there is magisterial teaching, but once the Magisterium has spoken, the argument is over. With Bible alone folks, the ending is "we'll agree to disagree."
Speculation on my part, but I would guess that the racism portion of Ratzinger's remarks were based historically on Hitler and his defenders. He could have easily picked any number of groups. This debate reminds me of remarks on Scalia's dissent in the Texas sodomy case. Many objected to Scalia saying that the reasoning that allowed the right provided in the majority's opinion could be used to prove a right for polygamy among other things. Many thought Scalia was unfair for lumping them with those that wanted polygamy.
In other words the same method you use to justify your dissent from Catholicism is the same method others use to justify racism. This does not mean that you are justifying racism.

Jason,
I didn't say Cardinal Ratzinger was unorthodox. I just said he isn't an "ultra conservative." I imagine Cardinal Ratzinger would agree with me on that.

Steve,
Please, spare us your lofty words on what the Catholic Church should or should not do, and who is and isn't orthodox. Worry about your own Church.

Mr. Forrest,
But the Southern Baptists and the "Left Behind" series don't constitute conservative protestantism as a whole. Are Catholics who are creationists and reject higher criticism racists?
As far as slavery is concerned, the Catholic Church hasn't been great on this issue either. In fact, until recently, the Catholic Church in Ireland was involved in the practical enslavement of women in the "Magdeline Laundries." Or, what about those Catholics in the Phillipines who get themselves crucified? If I said: "see, this is what happens when you reject justification by faith alone" it would be a bit simplisitic.

I like limericks.
I also like Arinze and Ratzinger.

The pope-watchers list them by rote.
Each expert his wish-list does quote.
But fear not, the papacy's
more than a race, you see.
And "Vaticanisti" can't vote!

I'm still waiting for a Pope Peter II...or maybe Pope Kepha?

Though a probable death knell for the canidate, I have always been a big fan of Cardinal Arinze. I would prefer a pope outside of Europe or America. The only possible benefit that I see with a European pope would be the very real possibility of reunity with our Eastern Orthodox brethern. I believe that benefit, which could still be achieved with a non-European bishop, is outwayed by the necessity for a strong leader evangelizing parts of the world that are ripe for conversion. The New Testament is clear that we should leave behind those that are obstinate in their opposition to the church; this would include most of Protestantism which is the largest issue in Europe and America.
In regard to Mr. Jackson's comments, I find Ratzinger's comments easily defensible. Though you may not share communion with them, the Southern Baptist Convention held for a long time that blacks were intended to be slaves. They have since apologized for this, but their justification at the time was the bible. Particularily among the nonclergy, many fundamentalists when questioned will prudentially go to their pastor and not the bible when figuring out moral questions. The reason for this is that the bible isn't the most ready source in the world, particularily if you haven't studied it consistently.
Though again this may not be included in your communion, the 'Left Behind' theology is justified by the Bible. The counterargument to this theology is not in some pithy saying or rejoinder, but a rather drawn out argument. One could also go into the rather recent phenomena of completely removing sin (past, present, and future) from conversion to Christ. It is one thing to read Paul outside the context of the Gospels (which is what a lot of Protestantism does); it is another to throw out the Gospels and seek comfort in Pauline verses, which is what a lot of the modern Evangelical movement does.

Cardinal Ratzinger is reported to have twice handed in his resignation as Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, "only to be asked by the Pope to stay on" (source). I can't lay claim to inside sources from the Vatican, but I suspect that if the Cardinal had his druthers, he'd like to retire in peace, spending his waning years writing theology texts, playing the piano (one of his joys), enjoying the solitude of the Bavarian Alps.
But if called to serve the Church in yet another capacity, I'm sure he'll be up to the task.
I'm sure Jimmy is aware that the Cardinal had previously given his preference that the next Pope "be from Africa", which was interpreted as a support for Cardinal Arinze. Who, I agree, would also be ideal given his firsthand experience dealing with Islam, the liturgy (he currently heads Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments) and interreligious relations (former head of Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue) -- good experience especially in this era.
So, I'm personally delighted by the prospect of either Ratzinger or Arinze as Pope -- but I trust the Holy Spirit to guide the choice of our Cardinals when the time comes.
[Ratzinger Fan Club Boy] ;-)

Stories like this from the media make me wonder if you can trust the press to report anything accurately when it comes to religion.
Cardinal Ratzinger is described as an "arch-conservative." Has he ever described himself thusly? If he had been a cardinal prior to Vatican II (which Ratzinger attened in a suit and tie), his ideology probably would not have been noticed (at least not for his conservatism).
And, as far as his conservatism is concerned, this is the same Ratzinger who approved of this document which attacked Bible-believers and creationists:
"The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations."
"Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices—racism, for example—quite contrary to the Christian Gospel."
If you are a conservative protestant, you are a racist dolt according to people Cardinal Ratzinger hob-nobs with. Has he ever met a protestant who is more conservative than Pannenberg?
You will note that this article never speaks as critically about feminist and "liberationist" theologies. Some "arch-conservative."
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM
In my opinion as a non-Catholic, wouldn't an obscure cardinal from Italy be a better choice? Such a person could undo some of the harm that Vatican II caused more effectively by working "behind the scenes." As far as Arinze is concerned, he's a big time ecumenical. I wish I saved the article in which Arinze was reported as having "laughed" when asked if people could get to heaven without believing in Jesus.

Maybe a Pope Francis from Nigeria could negotiate a reunification with Anglican Primate of Nigeria Peter Akinola.
I hear that bishop Akinola is about to break-away from the Anglican Communion.
Apparently, the Anglican Church in Nigeria is expecting massive growth from 18 million to 38 million in the next 3 years.