|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why was (is) Benedict XVI so unpopular?
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
It's a fairly simple question, and one that I've never really understood. Why was Benedict XVI so unpopular with so many non-Christians and lukewarm Catholics (I actually get the feeling he was more popular with devout non-Catholic Christians). I know he was seen as conservative, but then so was John Paul II. In fact, I thought the two men were very much of the same cloth theologically, although Benedict was the better theologian of the two. In fact, I don't really see that either of them moved the church vastly in either a more conservative or a more liberal direction from where it had been under Paul VI. In several important issues, I disagree(d) with both of them. But it seems bizarre to me that JPII was, generally although far from universally, beloved and BXVI so widely hated.
There were allegations about his alleged involvement in covering up cases of sex abuse, but nothing that could easily be pinned to him directly. And it's not as though John Paul II was never associated with groups that were worse than dubious in this regard (Legionaries of Christ, anyone?).
Then there was the instance of his membership in the Hitler Youth, but this is almost universally regarded as being a cheap shot.
Is there really nothing more to it than that people apparently find a Polish actor and an Argentine night club bouncer more approachable than a German academic? If so, what does that say about the current state of the Papacy as an institution?
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Is there really nothing more to it than that people apparently find a Polish actor and an Argentine night club bouncer more approachable than a German academic?
Honestly, I think that is part of it. John Paul could connect to huge crowds. Frances seems to have a way of phrasing the same ideas in terms that cause the western secular media to crush on him. Benedict is more of a quiet thinker / judger, which often gets you mistaken for a grump.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
When Benedict XVI was elected, I was wary of what we could expect, but I found myself rather fond of him. Once he didn't have to be anyone's "rottweiler", he proved himself to have a quiet gift of reaching out to others. Before his election to pope and continuing into his papacy he put the reins of the sexual scandal investigations into the hands of the Vatican and away from local dioceses as primary movers in cleaning up the mess thus taking the hens from the charge of the foxes. He even pulled down the head of the Legion of Christ, who had been protected by Pope JPII against investigation, investigation under Pope BXVI that revealed him to be an notable abuser. By the time Pope BXVI could really make a dent in the results of the widespread abuses, they were already a quagmire. He did what he could and persisted.
All in all, a good pope, if not one with gobs of personal magnetism.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
Pope Benedict is a profound theologian and I'm very glad for the "push" he gave for the liturgical "Reform of the Reform " which was much needed
Otherwise, I believe he would have been better remaining a theology professor at Tubingen. He obviously felt called to a different path (or in humility , accepted it )
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
marsupial.
Shipmate
# 12458
|
Posted
I suspect BXVI was seen by many people as essentially a JPII without the charisma. He had an oddly tin ear when it came to expressing himself to the wide world.
When Benedict was elected I thought of him as the conservative choice for a church that wanted a few more years (but not too many more years) of basically the same in a pope before they had to face issues about where the church was going and what to make of the legacy of JPII. I can't begrudge him that personally, but arguably it wasn't what the church needed at the time.
Posts: 653 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
It's a fairly simple question, and one that I've never really understood. Why was Benedict XVI so unpopular with so many non-Christians and lukewarm Catholics (I actually get the feeling he was more popular with devout non-Catholic Christians).
Right, so anyone who wasn't a fan must be lukewarm, not particularly devout or a non-believer.
Short answer is, the RCC needed reform. What it got was retrenchment. And that was to be expected from someone who had built his public reputation as head of the CftDotF. The continuing anti-Anglicanism (seriously, to illustrate a point about the authority of the church you decide to use as an example a document taking potshots at Anglicanism?), the rushed and frankly rude announcement of the ordinariate. The fussing around the edges of the sex abuse scandals rather than cleaning house. The continued farce over not even being able to convince even most Catholics over contraception, and continuing to drone on and on about this and other issues that Christ mentioned not even once in his teaching at the expense of dealing with the things he did. Then we can add the ongoing silencing of dissent about the church's attitude to women and to celibacy.
Whether you agree with the Pope on all of those issues or not it's hardly difficult to see why people found them objectionable.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Most people, including Roman Catholics, simply didn't get Benedict XVI. He was a theologian and I'd say somewhat of a mystic too, deeply Patristic and someone who, unlike his predecessor, didn't care for the limelight. In particular it was the latter which pissed much of the media off.
Even though I'm no longer a Roman Catholic I still have a very high opinion of him and especially his writings on the liturgy, which affected me very much. The Roman Catholic Church doesn't know what it's missing. Get ready for the cult of personality mark two.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus: I know he was seen as conservative, but then so was John Paul II. In fact, I thought the two men were very much of the same cloth theologically, although Benedict was the better theologian of the two.[…] But it seems bizarre to me that JPII was, generally although far from universally, beloved and BXVI so widely hated.
Well, JPII was cuddly, smiling, and he had great personal charm. BXVI is a quiet, shy, cerebral professor and *gasp* he is German. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
In particular it was the latter which pissed much of the media off.
Precisely.
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus: There were allegations about his alleged involvement in covering up cases of sex abuse, but nothing that could easily be pinned to him directly. And it's not as though John Paul II was never associated with groups that were worse than dubious in this regard (Legionaries of Christ, anyone?).
Benedict never covered up anything AFAIK, but it seems he was appalled at the coverings-up that were going on under JPII, without being able to do very much about it… until he became pope himself, upon which point he moved very swiftly.
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus: Is there really nothing more to it than that people apparently find a Polish actor and an Argentine night club bouncer more approachable than a German academic? If so, what does that say about the current state of the Papacy as an institution?
good question. I think what it says is that many (most?) people have a sort of fluffy conception of papacy itself, and see it all as one big popularity contest.
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan: Benedict is more of a quiet thinker / judger, which often gets you mistaken for a grump.
Precisely. If I may add, a priest (died recently, much missed ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) ) who was a good friend of my family was one of Ratzinger’s “Schülerkreis” , i.e. the circle of his former students who had kept in touch with him –and he with them- for decades, and into his papacy (he’d invite them to Castel Gandolfo). The picture we got from his reports and tales of earlier times in academe is one of a quiet and slightly shy, immensely learned and cultured man who has a very fine sense of humour and who was known for his gentle ways. Someone who likes to laugh and does so often, who likes good food and beer (he’s from Bavaria, after all), and someone who is a loyal friend; as Pope he would remember details of his students’ life; enquire after their families, remember someone’s parish issues etc. A man, in short, who cares, and to whom friendship is important.
I thought I’d add this to the general picture.
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
By the time Pope BXVI could really make a dent in the results of the widespread abuses, they were already a quagmire. He did what he could and persisted.
All in all, a good pope, if not one with gobs of personal magnetism.
Indeed. May I also add that Ratzinger never really asked for any role in the Vatican. He was asked by JP II. Refused once, preferring to stay in Munich as a Professor (I for one don’t blame him…). The second time, he was ordered (!). During the latter years of JPII’s papacy, with the Pope growing frail (and, with all respect, JPII losing the grip on things in the Vatican), Ratzinger saw from very close up (a) the physical decline of a Pope who refused to step down, and (b) the way the power vacuum was gobbled up by just the wrong people. I think this experience contributed very much to his decision to step down.
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Pope Benedict is a profound theologian and I'm very glad for the "push" he gave for the liturgical "Reform of the Reform " which was much needed Otherwise, I believe he would have been better remaining a theology professor at Tubingen. He obviously felt called to a different path (or in humility , accepted it )
.
The latter.
quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.: He had an oddly tin ear when it came to expressing himself to the wide world.
and he had the worst possible “advisers”. A total PR disaster. And PR is, unfortunately, all that counts in communication today.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem: Get ready for the cult of personality mark two.
I’m not sure it is always the most worthy of thinkers who get their personality cult in the RCC. I shudder to see a lot of cheap sentimentalist hysteria (“santo subito!” etc.) at work. But I guess religion is always walking along folklore.
May I also add a remark concerning BXVI/Ratzinger’s “conservatism”. I think one has to see this in biographical/ historical context. I try to explain: The young Ratzinger was actively participating in the Vatican II council, and that, as many people know, on the rather more “progressive” side. Then he went back to Tübingen, working at the university, when “1968” happened. This was nothing short of a cultural revolution. And young prelate Ratzinger saw the excesses of it. In other words: much as he had been, and still was, an advocate of “aggiornamento” during Vatican II, he now saw that what the masses understood by it was a tearing down of everything, to be replaced by the Great Cult of Total Relativism, total “Freedom” in everything. In other words, the pendulum had swung to the other extreme. And that scared him.
The Aggiornamento had been a middle way. Ratzinger saw that in an age of mass communication and –consumption, an age driven by convenience, the middle ways, the art of reflection, discernment, and intelligent adjustment, are doomed to oblivion. He understood this, but his middle way between the extreme conservatives-(e.g., he curtailed JPII’s beloved Opus Dei’s role in the Vatican) and the extreme libertarian anything-goes wing of the RCC , was just not heard in all that noise.
This, I think, was to become the bane of his later years.
Aggiornamento and Inculturation are one thing, dumbing-down to the Lowest Common Denominator quite another.
[ 04. December 2013, 07:35: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Very simple answer really - and this reflects the shallowness of the world, not my own opinion - he never seemed to smile (I know he DID but it's not the image that is widespread). His face seemed to be frozen in a permanently bemused 'what am I doing here?' expression and he couldn't walk very well and had no personality.
In a world where image is everything - hence the popularity of JPII and Francis, Benedict was a non-starter.
Plus the ongoing accusations that he was a Nazi ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
As an academic theologian Benedict was and is amongst the very best.
But as a leader, a figurehead, and the person who more than almost any other person is seen as representing Christ to the world he was poor. He lacked, for want of a better word, heart. He could give perfect analyses of RCC theology and explain in painstaking detail why some things are considered sinful, but he never once appeared to give a shit about the actual people who were affected by those pronouncements. He simply didn't strike me as Christlike.
There is a place for the academic theologians in the Church. But I don't think "Pope" is that place.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
He lacked, for want of a better word, heart.
He does not lack heart. To the contrary. As Pope, he was painfully aware of his own shortcomings as a Media Darling and Great Communicator, which prevented him from getting his message across. Outside himself, he was also painfully aware of the great absurd machine of the Curia and the totally inept "Media Relations" people of the Vatican.
He suffered from it. Precisely because he does have a heart.
Our postmodern world means a Pope must pander to the vox populi , and that is really a shame. Doesn't it strike anyone that the two media stars among recent Popes, JPII and Francis, who are loved and cheered because of their cuddliness, were on many important issues in quite different positions? Well, the people don't really care as long as the Pope's outer image is user friendly. They just want a good party.
I just hope that the very serious messages Pope Francis wants to get through will be heard through the noise. He's a Pope, and one with a couple of very important (and somewhat inconvenient) things to say. Not a Rock Star.
The fact that quiet voices like that of B XVI are silenced/ignored does not bode well for the future of intelligent (i.e., here: discerning and mature) Catholicism.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
I second what Desert Daughter wrote above, in both posts. Couldn't have said it better, really.
I would add however that BXVI's love of liturgy very much extended to the "extraordinary form" (the pre-VII "Latin" mass), which he de faco re-legalized (though the official line is that it was never forbidden). This also largely drove his own "reform of the reform" agenda for the "ordinary form". Finally, part and parcel of that was his attempt to re-integrate the SSPX (something he was involved with already in 1988). His inability to close that deal in my opinion also contributed mightily to his early retirement.
I think that in many parts of the RCC these activities were not popular at all. I also think that he will eventually be remembered precisely for them.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Actually, although not a Catholic, I did like Benedict quite a lot. I remember when he came to the UK, with my wife, I watched some of the broadcasts of him, and found him very moving. There was something quite simple and humble about him, despite his (obvious) great learning. Well, 'despite' is not the right word!
I get that he was a very shy person, but I suppose I also like that, although it's not really a theological virtue!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I second what Desert Daughter wrote above, in both posts. Couldn't have said it better, really.
I would add however that BXVI's love of liturgy very much extended to the "extraordinary form" (the pre-VII "Latin" mass), which he de faco re-legalized (though the official line is that it was never forbidden). This also largely drove his own "reform of the reform" agenda for the "ordinary form". Finally, part and parcel of that was his attempt to re-integrate the SSPX (something he was involved with already in 1988). His inability to close that deal in my opinion also contributed mightily to his early retirement.
I think that in many parts of the RCC these activities were not popular at all. I also think that he will eventually be remembered precisely for them.
Although given the extent to which SSPX have stuck the boot into the current Pope they seem to be delighted that they hadn't been reintegrated.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Benedict's Augustinian theology is more congenial to Protestant thinking than some of his policies would otherwise imply.
But, I don't think Benedict was really unpopular. He just looks so next to the current pope. Perhaps it's unseemly to say, but I am starting to feel put off by the current pope's ostentatious displays of humility, as much as the media loves it. Maybe I'm just a terrible person for thinking so.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I prefer Benedict to the present pope, although it's early days yet for the latter. I just haven't got a feel of him yet, whereas Benedict coming to the UK gave quite an impression of him, which I liked a lot.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Then we can add the ongoing silencing of dissent about the church's attitude to women
Yes, Francis is talking about allowing women to be in greater positions of authority, but when it comes to the Dead Horse issue of Women's Ordination, the silencing of dissent continues on the ground and I doubt it will relent at all.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
But the question asked in the OP is not, "Is B XVI a good pope?" but "Why is he so unpopular?" He isn't as popular as JP2 or Francis because he didn't come across as being as personable as they do. Is that hard to accept?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
A prophet is despised in his own land.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But the question asked in the OP is not, "Is B XVI a good pope?" but "Why is he so unpopular?" He isn't as popular as JP2 or Francis because he didn't come across as being as personable as they do. Is that hard to accept?
Agreed - although I'm not sure Pope Benedict XVI WAS that unpopular, just less popular than JPII or Francis. He wasn't on the radar for most non-Catholics, aside from uncreative comedians who wanted to make cheap shots at his being in the Hitler Youth. JPII had being Polish and standing up against the Soviets in Eastern Europe, any Pope would do less well after that.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
A prophet is despised in his own land.
Lots of people are despised. That doesn't make them prophets. Fallacy of the undistributed middle.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I think the main reason that young secular people saw Benedict XVI as the "Evil Nazi Pope" (and many of them actually called him something like that) was threefold:
I'm not arguing any side of any dead horse here, to be clear.
1. North America and Western Europe underwent a sea change of opinion on same-sex marriage during his pontificate. He may not have been the most mouth-frothingly vehement opponent of SSM as pope (but he was definitely opposed to it), but when the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or other Bishop's Conferences became hugely active in mobilizing people (and political donations) to oppose it, young secular people who saw SSM as a moral civil rights issue just like racial equality was earlier in the 20th century did not see things in terms of shades of gray. They saw it, rightly or wrongly, as evil. I'm not saying I agree with them.
2. Benedict realized how colossally evil the cover-up of the sexual abuse crisis was, but he did not fully comprehend how scandalized Western Catholicism (and indeed, the entire Western world) was by it. The Church not only needed to clean up shop and apologize, but it needed to address clericalism and secrecy head on. Francis has given lip service to this and seems to be trying to live it out individually - we'll see if he manages to make much of a difference in the dioceses. Benedict's insider status during the cover ups of the JPII papacy, his aloofness, and the unfortunate "Nazi" smear campaign against him made young secular types see him as the dark defender of privilege who cared little about the victims. Anyone who knows Benedict probably knew that he was just the opposite. But the idiocy and downright immorality of bishops throughout the West in dealing with the sexual abuse crisis that continued in his papacy made painting BXVI as the bad guy all too easy. Young secular people with little interest in the nuances of the Church and who disliked anything hierarchical to begin with bought easily into this characterization of him.
3. In the US at least, the alliance of the USCCB with the Religious Right (ie, the Republican Party and to some extent the Tea Party movement within it) turned off huge amounts of young progressives to the Catholic Church and to Pope BXVI. BXVI published Caritas in Veritate, which was pretty stridently anti-free market, but the news in the US was full of bishops comparing Obama to Hitler and saying that voting for him is a mortal sin. I understand that Catholic doctrine on abortion and same-sex marriage can lead many conservatives to the conclusion that if one party agrees with the Church on both and the other disagrees, and if all other issues are about war, capital punishment, taxing and spending and Catholic social doctrine, all of which are open to shades of gray and differences of opinion in Church teaching compared with abortion and SSM, then it IS a mortal sin to vote for the party in disagreement with the church on these issues. But for non-Catholic young progressives who really could care less about the nuances of Catholic teaching, the association of US bishops (some more than others) with the right wing made the Catholic Church, with all its rhetoric about helping the poor, and its Pope seem like the hypocritical enablers of plutocrats. Although Benedict XVI was not involved in this campaigning and opposed it at times, his aloofness, lack of charisma, problems with governing/managaing/PR, and unfortunate susceptibility to being unjustly linked to Nazism/fascism made it all too easy for young progressives in the US to grow to hate him.
I think the way that my young liberal friends talk about Benedict XVI is flat out shameful, but this at least provides some context for why they think this way.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I guess John Paul II had the advantage of being the first non Italian pope since the year dot, which was quite exciting at the time.
But I am one of those for whom Benedict was the most appealing of the three, although I am not Catholic or a religious conservative.
To me Pope Francis comes across as 'look how humble I am compared with those other nasty Catholics', which I find very unappealing but the media and lots of other people love it so he must be on the right track I suppose.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
stonespring
Further to your post, I think there was an upsurge of anti-Catholic hatred, at the time of the sex abuse revelations, or just after them, and Benedict caught quite a lot of the flak, although ironically, it seems that he was also disgusted by it, and set out to clean it up.
I was also a bit suspicious of some of the outrage as well, at least in the UK, since anti-Catholicism is to an extent in the British DNA, for various historical reasons.
Some anti-theists made hay with it, I suppose, although when you examined it closely, there was an awful lot of bluster and posturing.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quetzalcoatl
I think there also was a feeling, right or wrong, that B16 while in charge of the office of the inquisition tried to cover up sex scandals. Or "he was in in this position of authority so he should have caught it and made a big public stink about it" or something like that. It's probably not fair, but I think it did contribute to his unpopularity.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quetzalcoatl
I think there also was a feeling, right or wrong, that B16 while in charge of the office of the inquisition tried to cover up sex scandals. Or "he was in in this position of authority so he should have caught it and made a big public stink about it" or something like that. It's probably not fair, but I think it did contribute to his unpopularity.
Yes, there were all kinds of allegations like that. In fact, I bought Robertson's 'The Case of the Pope', which had been heavily hyped in the secular/anti-theist forums, but while it devoted reams to the Lateran Treaty, it was very thin on the ground in terms of actual evidence. The same old cases kept coming up about Benedict, some stuff in Germany, and then some stuff in the US. But so many of the critics kept confusing stuff, for example, laicization and prosecution. Laicization used to take years to go through, so the anti-theists could have headlines like 'Catholic Church delays punishing abusers', or stuff like that. And Robertson is a top QC.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
To me Pope Francis comes across as 'look how humble I am compared with those other nasty Catholics', which I find very unappealing but the media and lots of other people love it so he must be on the right track I suppose.
I would like to think that this is more of a reflection of the media's crush on Francis than his actual personality. Someone who understands, accepts, and lives out the Catholic faith is not going to "fit" into any of Western secular culture's boxes, but the media has to present them in one of those boxes. Benedict got placed in the "guys who want to enforce obscure and obsolete rules" box. Frances is being placed in the "guys who are nice to other people" box. What the media doesn't get (or doesn't present to the public) is the fact that the rules, the actions, and the theology are informed by each other, and that it does not make sense from a Catholic perspective to separate them.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Someone who understands, accepts, and lives out the Catholic faith is not going to "fit" into any of Western secular culture's boxes, but the media has to present them in one of those boxes. Benedict got placed in the "guys who want to enforce obscure and obsolete rules" box. Frances is being placed in the "guys who are nice to other people" box. What the media doesn't get (or doesn't present to the public) is the fact that the rules, the actions, and the theology are informed by each other, and that it does not make sense from a Catholic perspective to separate them.
Well said. And so true.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69
|
Posted
I'm a liberal ex-Catholic whose heart sank when Ratzinger's name was announced after the 2005 conclave. But the reality of Pope Benedict was far more nuanced. I don't think he understood the public desire for a very public approach to the discovery and punishment of clerical sex abuse, even though he pushed the process forward. The creation of the Ordinariate was a policy mistake which managed to annoy Anglicans and loyal Catholics, and then it failed to be a notable success (no major moves from Canterbury to Rome). The return of the Tridentine Rite was all of a piece with Benedict's approach, but was probably 20 years too late to be a meaningful reform. And as for relationships with other denominations (sorry, 'ecclesial communities') and faiths...
But he was always on a loser following John Paul, though the final 5-10 years of that pontificate were very difficult. He always seemed to be honest in his approach, even when he stepped into trouble. The tat-queen in me loved the return of red shoes and Santa capes. I despaired that we would ever see progress towards Christian unity but Benedict was a symptom of that, not the cause. In the same way as no elected Labour Prime Minister will bring in a socialist paradise, no one elected in the Sistine Chapel will bring about sudden change and a new direction in the Catholic Church.
Finally, any discomfort with Benedict was removed by his decision to resign because he could no longer carry on. The humility shown by this decision and the relief he displayed were touching. So no, I didn't hate Benedict and never did, and beyond the reflexive anti-Catholic brigade I don't think that many people did. In fact, I would say that JP2 had a great number of 'haters' than did Benedict.
--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor
At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken
Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
I'm a liberal ex-Catholic whose heart sank when Ratzinger's name was announced after the 2005 conclave. But the reality of Pope Benedict was far more nuanced. I don't think he understood the public desire for a very public approach to the discovery and punishment of clerical sex abuse, even though he pushed the process forward. The creation of the Ordinariate was a policy mistake which managed to annoy Anglicans and loyal Catholics, and then it failed to be a notable success (no major moves from Canterbury to Rome). The return of the Tridentine Rite was all of a piece with Benedict's approach, but was probably 20 years too late to be a meaningful reform. And as for relationships with other denominations (sorry, 'ecclesial communities') and faiths...
But he was always on a loser following John Paul, though the final 5-10 years of that pontificate were very difficult. He always seemed to be honest in his approach, even when he stepped into trouble. The tat-queen in me loved the return of red shoes and Santa capes. I despaired that we would ever see progress towards Christian unity but Benedict was a symptom of that, not the cause. In the same way as no elected Labour Prime Minister will bring in a socialist paradise, no one elected in the Sistine Chapel will bring about sudden change and a new direction in the Catholic Church.
Finally, any discomfort with Benedict was removed by his decision to resign because he could no longer carry on. The humility shown by this decision and the relief he displayed were touching. So no, I didn't hate Benedict and never did, and beyond the reflexive anti-Catholic brigade I don't think that many people did. In fact, I would say that JP2 had a great number of 'haters' than did Benedict.
In liberal circles in the US, who haven't been crazy about religion for a while but got along well traditionally with Catholics since they were oppressed here for quite some time and tended (historically) to vote Democrat, I noticed a huge increase in anti-Catholicism during the BXVI papacy. Saying "the Pope is a bigot" or "the Bishop/priest/Church is bigoted/hateful/evil" became frighteningly mainstream among liberal secular types, and among some progressive Christians as well. Progressive Catholics also kept calling him "God's Rottweiler" or "that Nazi," and quite a few refused to call him Benedict, calling him Ratzinger instead because that was a German name and they wanted point out that he was German like those evil Nazis (sigh). I'm more liberal than many of them but really did not like all the Pope and Church bashing that I heard all the time. Now many (but not all) of them are having a love affair with Pope Francis, but they still will call the Church or any individual bishop/priest they don't like bigoted/hateful/evil at the drop of a hat.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
stonespring wrote: quote:
I'm more liberal than many of them but really did not like all the Pope and Church bashing that I heard all the time. Now many (but not all) of them are having a love affair with Pope Francis, but they still will call the Church or any individual bishop/priest they don't like bigoted/hateful/evil at the drop of a hat.
I'm sure you are right, but isn't that more a comment on them than on BXVI ?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
It's barely worth posting this, but since you are asking why Benedict is unpopular with non-Catholics.
For a Cardinal and Pope to call Gays and Lesbians "intrinsically disordered and inclined toward evil" probably failed to impress most Gays, Lesbians and most of the younger straight generations with his sensitive deep theological prowess. It just came across as the same old, same old traditional homophobia as has been the active public stance in the United States against Same Sex marriage.
Benedict was seen as running the organization under JPII that allowed a number of the local bishops and cardinals cover up the sexual abuse by priests, and instead of publically corrected this instead there was a rewarding said bishops and cardinals with promotions. "Unable to pin it on him" may be adequate to avoid prison time. It is an insufficient reason to like him.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I'm not a Catholic, and I'm not a liberal in either the US sense or in the way the word is used here as a theological categorisation - those two uses of the same word have next to no semantic overlap. So what I think may not interest some fellow shipmates. Nevertheless, I'd say the following.
I've a great admiration for Pope Benedict. Spe Salvi is brilliant. His decision to retire rather than go on while he possibly withered into decrepitude or senility took high courage. I don't respect the media. I respect Geoffrey Robertson QC even less. But I do respect Pope Benedict.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Enoch: I'm not a liberal in either the US sense or in the way the word is used here as a theological categorisation - those two uses of the same word have next to no semantic overlap.
In continental Europe it means yet another thing.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
Also, while Benedict was pushing for dealing with clerical abuse through internal disciplinary processes, the standard MO in the rest of the Western church (mostly the Protestant churches) was to crib from the Government's Safe From Harm policy; the Baptist one was called Safe to Grow.
Effectively, the Protestants would institute mandatory reporting of abuse to police (more like the NHS and education), whereas the RCC was retaining the secrecy of the confessional - which was seen by the mainstream as "cover-up" or "collusion". Especially as clerical abuse was being uncovered, and all the Yewtree stuff was around the corner.
Over SSM - this riled everyone. Add in Ratzinger's apparent involvement with the Hitler Youth... was grist to the mill.
A lot of people like Peter Tatchell were calling for Ratzinger to be arrested for alleged conspiracy etc on arrival in the UK. Literally - him bundled off the plane, facedown on the tarmac while being cuffed, and taken to answer charges in the Hague of collusion, coverup etc etc. The ire and rage was that incandescent.
A LOT of the British press was carrying this stuff... whipped up massively by the Daily Mail IIRC.
There was also quite a lot of criticism over the what-seemed-sycophantic coverage of the services.
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I'm pretty sure plenty of Anglicans maintained the seal of the confessional. The RCC response to allegations of abuse went way beyond that into suppressing allegations and trying to silence victims while protecting abusers. You can debate exactly who was/is involved and what they knew when, but it's absurd to frame it as other churches abandoning confessional secrecy and the RCC maintaining it.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I've a theory on this:
As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he was admired and respected - perhaps feared - but maybe not loved, and Benedict XVI came across as someone who was reserved, possibly shy.
John Paul II, on the other hand, was a showman: he loved the theatrical and used gesture to great effect - remember all those tarmac kissings at airports around the world?
Similarly, Francis has made great play about why he chose the name he did, so linking himself to St Francis, who is a saint known and popular beyond the RCC. And since his election there have been plenty of people in Rome prepared to push the "modernity" of Francis.
So, maybe Benedict was less popular because he didn't have a ready-and-waiting fan base and his natural reserve stopped him hamming it up like his predecessor (and successor?).
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I rather think that it was a bit like Blair and Brown.
JPII and Benedict were partners in what one might loosely call the 'Orthodox Vatican II Project' OV2 for short. Just like Blair and Brown were partners in New Labour. OV2 had a commitment to maintaining the reforms of Vatican II, whilst ensuring things went thus far and no further. Now whilst this went on it had two aspects. The positive bits were mostly done by JPII (Apologising for anti-Semitism, praying with the ABC at Canterbury Cathedral, Rehabilitating Galileo, Sticking up for Solidarity) and so forth whilst Benedict got the blame for bashing Liberation Theology, banning Hans Kung and generally sticking it to uppity nuns. (This is actually the weakest part of the analogy because Brown did his best not to leave his fingerprints near the scene of the Iraq War and spent most of Blair's time at the Exchequer briefing to sympathetic journalists that whilst Tony was hobnobbing with Bush and Berlusconi, he, Brown, was ending child poverty and boom and bust. Benedict was never disloyal in the way that Brown was.)
These projects have a trajectory. JPII and Blair burst out of nowhere and achieved a spectacular ascendancy before decline set in. Stocks in John Paul were probably at their best around 1990 but still good valued by 1999. Stocks in Blair were probably at their height in 2001 but began to decline rapidly after 2003 - if the Tory Party had had the wit to elect Ken Clarke in 2001 and not Ian Duncan Smith the history of New Labour might have been quite different.
Now the thing is that as stocks in JPII and Blair went down, buyers remorse kicked in. On the other hand people were reluctant to acknowledge that they had invested in a dud (Actually a Great Actor Manager with an ambiguous historical legacy, in both cases but let that pass). To an extent, then, the buyers remorse was especially projected onto their successor. People who confessed to a certain sneaking regard for Blair or JPII found themselves really disliking Benedict and Brown. There seemed to be a period, for example, when it was obligatory for a Tabletista to complain that Benedict had all JPIIs faults and none of his virtues. This was unfair, just as is the equivalent phenomenon in Brown's case was fair but humanly understandable. Both had short honeymoon periods as well, mostly because they were already well known.
Then there were the great crises of their time in office. The Great Crash was not of Brown's making. The same can be said of the child abuse scandal. But being in situ when things kick off mean that you will get more than your fair share of the blame. Of course, Brown could hardly have been expected to micromanage the entire global banking system. Benedict was not personally responsible for the behaviour of every single Catholic Bishop, including the historic cases. But they nonetheless became scapegoats for a massive systemic failure.
Finally, neither man was much good at PR. Nowadays this is always a disadvantage. Following on from predecessors who were genuinely charismatic it was a disaster.
I suspect that both will be rehabilitated to a certain extent but it's not difficult to see why they only appealed to hard core fans.
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Mitchell
planked
# 17946
|
Posted
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. Which is the old name for Ratzinger's department.
--------------------
Faictz Ce Que Vouldras
Posts: 72 | From: Cheshire, England | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Frank Mitchell:
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. Which is the old name for Ratzinger's department.
No, it isn't. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith used to be known as the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition, or Roman Inquisition for short - precisely as distinct from the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions, which were essentially instituted and controlled by the monarchies of Spain and Portugal, respectively. Of course, these also had official papal blessings for their existence, but they were rather independent institutions.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
This outsider's observation: I think Benedict's introversion simply didn't play well in the media. And I also think he was perceived as a "company man," someone more interested in drawing protective wagons in a circle around the Church than in reform of the Church.
Our former ELCA Presiding Bishop (a cleric who could also be perceived as cerebral and nerdy and culturally distanced from rank and file, flyover-country laypeople) seemed to have an especially good relationship with Benedict. (It will be interesting to see if our new PB, Elizabeth Eaton, will have a similarly friendly relationship with Rome.)
The media doesn't get introverts. They just don't. And Americans as a people tend not to get introverts either. So I think quiet and reflective people in public life tend to be at a media disadvantage.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Seems to me he was unpopular in the media for two reasons that have nothing to do with what he said and did as pope.
One is the Nazi thing. The existence of Godwin's law bears witness to the extent that - for obvious historical reasons - Nazism has become an archetype of evil in western culture. And Germanic authoritarianism is what Nazism looks and sounds like. He didn't need to have any actual Nazi connection - a German accent and a role which required upholding rules and disciplining those who infringe them were enough.
The other is his previous Inquisitorial role. Freedom of speech is dear to the hearts of many, especially in the media. Playing the Vatican enforcer against media-friendly characters like Hans Kung would be enough to cast him as the bad guy in many people's minds.
And when he was elected pope - shock horror ! All that is evil in Roman Catholicism has come to power !
Reality is rather different. And it's worth separating this largely spurious media image from legitimate comments about what he did and didn't do as pope.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
This outsider's observation: I think Benedict's introversion simply didn't play well in the media. And I also think he was perceived as a "company man," someone more interested in drawing protective wagons in a circle around the Church than in reform of the Church.
Our former ELCA Presiding Bishop (a cleric who could also be perceived as cerebral and nerdy and culturally distanced from rank and file, flyover-country laypeople) seemed to have an especially good relationship with Benedict. (It will be interesting to see if our new PB, Elizabeth Eaton, will have a similarly friendly relationship with Rome.)
The media doesn't get introverts. They just don't. And Americans as a people tend not to get introverts either. So I think quiet and reflective people in public life tend to be at a media disadvantage.
I know there are many differences between Benedict XVI and President Obama, but I think they are similar in the way you describe. Obama might be good at delivering pre-written speaches about non-specific uplifting things. But he seems to be very introverted and annoyed at having to play the politics game. Although he seems willing to let his staff play as dirty as his political opponents, he seems to really dislike the whole hand-shaking and deal-breaking thing. At the same time, though, he feels (or at least used to feel) reaching consensus and being bipartisan is important, so he hesitates a bit too much on important issues (but as any conservative can point out, there are certain things he won't budge much on).
Benedict XVI didn't have to play the same game of politics because he was not operating in a democracy. But he and Obama both make me think of introverted intellectual idealists crushed by the realities of governing the most powerful institution in the world in their particular fields. (Note: I voted for Obama in both elections and don't regret it.)
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Frank Mitchell:
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. Which is the old name for Ratzinger's department.
No, it isn't. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith used to be known as the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition, or Roman Inquisition for short - precisely as distinct from the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions, which were essentially instituted and controlled by the monarchies of Spain and Portugal, respectively. Of course, these also had official papal blessings for their existence, but they were rather independent institutions.
But the question in the OP is why was he unpopular, not SHOULD he have been unpopular. The word "Inquisition" stirs up certain associations, whether or not they are valid. I think that word is a large part of why he was not nearly so popular as JP2 or Francis. So whether or not Frank Mitchell's connection is valid really doesn't matter to the question asked by the OP. If it's a mistake, it's a mistake millions of people made.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Frank Mitchell:
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. Which is the old name for Ratzinger's department.
No, it isn't. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith used to be known as the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition, or Roman Inquisition for short - precisely as distinct from the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions, which were essentially instituted and controlled by the monarchies of Spain and Portugal, respectively. Of course, these also had official papal blessings for their existence, but they were rather independent institutions.
You have a lot of work to do to convince people that the Roman Inquisition is different and better than the other Inquisisions, especially when you're apologizing for the Roman Inquisition making Galileo recant. From outside, it all looks like much of a muchness. "Not as bad as the Spanish Inquisition" is not likely to win hearts and minds.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You have a lot of work to do to convince people that the Roman Inquisition is different and better than the other Inquisisions, especially when you're apologizing for the Roman Inquisition making Galileo recant. From outside, it all looks like much of a muchness. "Not as bad as the Spanish Inquisition" is not likely to win hearts and minds.
That's 400 years ago. It's like letting one's impressions of Philip II decide how one sees Juan Carlos.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
He was the Pope when the gay rights movement was on the edge of coming into its own, so to speak. Had he been Pope while they were too disrespected to be considered credible, nobody would've cared about how they felt concerning his statements. Had he been Pope when they had established dominance, they wouldn't have been as threatened.
Far as the inquisition and such, as much as a Catholic may not think much of Galileo's history, Galileo is an early martyr for science and for many folks around here, science is closer to sacred than religion. Stories like his aren't forgotten, and find contemporary analogies in contemporary politics. To an outsider who hasn't bothered to get an education on Christian denominations, and one who has grown up in a culture where there's a marriage of convenience between conservative Evangelicals and Catholics, the difference between a fundamentalist and a conservative Catholic doesn't seem practically relevant. And fundamentalists are still trying to suppress scientific thought in this country. So even if it's not entirely accurate, the Galileo narrative has a lot of resonance.
Plus the sex abuse scandals continuing to break. And I know it's unfair to the man, but he is the man the figurative buck is supposed to stop with. If you're going to have a hierarchical model, one of its supposed strengths is accountability. And whatever else, there was a huge failure of accountability there.
And then to be seen as the Pope who has the unforgiving job of protecting all these harmful rationalizations in an institution with a history of putting down other people's insights, this also doesn't lend itself to an easy job as public representative. It would take considerable savvy to pull something like that off.
Personally? I never thought much of him while he was pontiff, but I think even then I thought people were unfair to him, especially with bringing up the Nazis. I've gotten more sympathetic with him since, though I'm not sure he was the best guy for the job. PR is shallow and the media is vicious, but if you're going to be at the top echelon of an organization, you're going to have to learn to deal with that, and likewise the inner politics of the Vatican.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If it's a mistake, it's a mistake millions of people made.
Probably. Of course, most people would have not made the connection of Ratzinger with the CDF and of the CDF with the Inquisition at all, without some helpful journalist prompting the association. At any rate, I wasn't particularly addressing the OP, but simply correcting Frank's mistake.
And yes, Palimpsest, the Spanish and the Roman Inquisition were not that much of a muchness and for that matter the story of what happened to Galileo is quite a bit more complicated than the usual story of scientific martyrdom lets on (see for example the article by Prof. Owen Gingerich in Scientific American (1982) 247: 132-143, abridged but free version here).
[ 10. January 2014, 01:47: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If it's a mistake, it's a mistake millions of people made.
Probably. Of course, most people would have not made the connection of Ratzinger with the CDF and of the CDF with the Inquisition at all, without some helpful journalist prompting the association. At any rate, I wasn't particularly addressing the OP, but simply correcting Frank's mistake.
And yes, Palimpsest, the Spanish and the Roman Inquisition were not that much of a muchness and for that matter the story of what happened to Galileo is quite a bit more complicated than the usual story of scientific martyrdom lets on (see for example the article by Prof. Owen Gingerich in Scientific American (1982) 247: 132-143, abridged but free version here).
Yes, The Roman Inquisition , they only executed a few notable people, and imprisoned a few more and banned some books and oh yes, removed a Jewish boy from his family because the nursemaid had baptized him. So much nicer than the Spanish Inquisition who killed and expelled many many more.
You may think saying Benedict was head of the organization that descended from the Roman Inquisition and not the Inquisition or the Spanish is a rousing defense. It is nitpicking to outsiders who lack your subtle theological insights. That's the hazard of not letting the church ban books and newspapers anymore so people can be protected from being informed of these links.
[ 10. January 2014, 04:16: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
