World Forums

What's the deal with all this conflicting news from Italy concerning Pope.

I think it should be an easy answer. It is either "yes, he is dead" or "No, he is not dead". There is not that much room in between.

Eugene,

Do you want me to start to agree with mate and Leo about you

Only GOD really knows.

So give it a rest.

His condition worsens. Time...

Eugene,


I heard he has a feeding tube...

He also has a little beanie. Not unlike a yarmulke. So?

"This evening or this night, Christ opens the door to the pope," a high-ranking Vatican official tells a crowd in St. Peter's Square.

Grazie Papa Giovanni Paolo II

One thing that I, a godless atheist, respected about this Pope - the independence of thought. Not from religion - this would be too much to ask, but from the strong of this world. Nothing ever stopped him from berating the world leaders, no matter who they were.

I respect that. Even though I disagreed with him on about 97% of the issues

The Wall Street Journal

A Man for All Seasons
The very modern papacy of John Paul II.

Saturday, April 2, 2005

When the white smoke curled up from the Sistine Chapel on that October evening back in 1978, it signaled that a new Pope had been chosen. His name was Karol Wojtyla. He came, as he said, from a distant land, and as he looked upon the faithful who had gathered on St. Peter's Square he offered words that would sum up his pastoral mission: "Be not afraid."

Pope John Paul II died today. In the post-Berlin Wall world this man did so much to shape, it's difficult to recall the much different circumstances that obtained when he assumed the chair of St. Peter. Former Italian prime minister Aldo Moro had been kidnapped and executed by terrorists. In Iran bloody protests were brewing that would within months pull down the Shah and usher in the ayatollahs. In the Soviet Union the dissident Anatoly Shcharansky (now the Israeli Natan Sharansky) was dispatched to the gulag, while Afghanistan had already endured the leftist coup that would, in short order, lead to a full-fledged Soviet invasion.

Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were still in the future, and so was a workers' strike called by an unknown Pole named Lech Walesa. Everywhere one looked, the truth of the Brezhnev Doctrine seemed brutally self-evident: Once Communist, always Communist. Oh, yes: The Catholic Church which this first Slavic pope found himself bequeathed was thought by many to be hopelessly irrelevant to the crises of modern times.


The bishop from Krakow knew all this--better than his critics. For this was a man eminently comfortable with modernity--even while he refused to accept modernity's most shallow assumptions. Just as he offered his first public words as pope in Italian to make himself understood by those below his balcony, he held that ultimate truths about man and his relationship with his Creator are never outdated, however much they require constant expression in new languages and new circumstances. As he never ceased to declare, Communism's core failure was not economic. It was anthropological, stemming from its false understanding of human nature.

Karol Wojtyla did not learn this from textbooks. He was old enough to recall how the twin totalitarianisms of our age--fascism and communism--were each once lauded by intellectuals as the inevitable destination and promise of the future. In Poland he tasted them both, yet he remained unintimidated. This experience would shape his entire papacy, a testament to his conviction that moral truth has its own legions.

And so he set that splendid Polish jaw against all the prevailing winds and . . . well, we know the rest of the story. Ironically, better than even some of his allies, the Communists themselves grasped the threat posed by a man whose only power was to expose the moral hollowness at the core of their claim. When the leader of Communist Poland tried to explain to the leader of the Communist U.S.S.R. that, as a fellow Pole, he knew how best to handle this new pope, Leonid Brezhnev responded prophetically. If the church weren't dealt with, Brezhnev retorted, "sooner or later it would gag in our throats, it would suffocate us." It did.

From today's vantage, even that victory has quickly receded into history. In the years since the Berlin Wall was pulled down, the new take on the Bishop of Rome was to try to distinguish between two popes: The liberal Cold Warrior who took on totalitarianism and the social scold who would replace it with a Christian authoritarianism of his own.

We had our own disagreements with this pope, notably over America's efforts in Iraq in two wars. But even in disagreement we have always understood that this pope was no schizophrenic. It is possible, as many who otherwise admire him do, to disagree with Pope John Paul's teachings on marriage and homosexuality, on abortion, and so on. But it is impossible to understand him without conceding the coherency of his argument: that the attempt to liberate oneself from one's nature is the road to enslavement, not freedom.

In progressive circles in the West, religion in general and Christianity in particular tend to find themselves caricatured as a series of Thou Shalt Nots, particularly when they touch on human sexuality. But it is no coincidence that George Weigel entitled his biography of John Paul "Witness to Hope." For billions of people around the world--non-Catholics included--that's exactly what he was. Perhaps this explains why China, where only a tiny fraction of its people are Catholic, remained to the very end fearful of allowing a visit from this frail, physically suffering man, fearing what he might inspire.

We don't expect the secularalists who dominate our intelligentsia ever to understand how a man rooted in orthodox Christianity could ever reconcile himself with modernity, much less establish himself on the vanguard of world history. But many years ago, when the same question was put to France's Cardinal Lustiger by a reporter, he gave the answer. "You're confusing a modern man with an American liberal," the cardinal replied. It was a confusion that Pope John Paul II, may he rest in peace, never made.

Eugene, Leo

Thanks.

He was a man above our time. An example of the spirit of the whole human race especially for those who suffer. My words are useless.

St. Brigid's Prayer:

Lo, unbroken silence, I adore thee.
Forsake me not during my time of prayer.
Guardian angels, convene around me.

Lord, humbly my heart pleads solely to be
Safe by your side through eternity there.
Lo, unbroken silence, I adore thee.

Traveling onward, cloaked by a desert sea,
Into the sky but for a sign I stare.
Guardian angels, convene around me.

Utter stillness of the night, come free me.
Starlight, guide me across the sand so bare.
Lo, unbroken silence, I adore thee.

Dedicated to the Holy Trinity,
This fervent journey by moonlight I dare.
Guardian angels, convene around me.

Shimmering dreams foretell that I may see
The path God has chosen for me with such care.
Guardian angels, convene around me.
Lo, unbroken silence, I adore thee.

Jerusalem Post

Israel expresses 'deep sorrow' upon Pope's passing

Israel expressed "deep sorrow" at the passing of Pope John Paul II, who in 1986 referred to the Jewish people as "our elder brothers."

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom issued a statement saying that "Israel, the Jewish people and the entire world, lost today a great champion of reconciliation and brotherhood between the faiths."

"On behalf of the government and people of Israel, we extend our condolences to the Catholic Church and the flock of Pope John Paul II," Shalom said.

"This is a great loss, first and foremost for the Catholic Church and its hundreds of millions of believers, but also for humanity as a whole. I had the privilege of meeting with His Holiness twice, and I was deeply impressed by his insights and his unique humanity. The State of Israel joins all those who mourn his loss".

The statement praised Pope John Paul II for leading the Catholic Church towards closer relations with Israel and with the Jewish people. "Through his public and religious work, he promoted inter-faith understanding and dialogue, with a willingness to address the past, and a profound determination to build a future of understanding and brotherhood between all faiths," the statement read.

Shalom said that John Paul II was the first Pope in history to visit a synagogue when he did so in Rome in 1986 and referred to the Jewish people as "our elder brothers".

"On all his travels around the world he always made sure to meet with the Jewish community in every place. The Pope was committed to the fight against anti-Semitism, which he saw as a sin against God and against humanity.

"In the build-up to the millennium, Pope John Paul II called on the Catholic Church to conduct soul-searching regarding its relations with the Jewish people and all those who have suffered as a result of the Church's teachings. Prior to his historic visit to Israel in 2000, the Pope asked the Jewish people for forgiveness for the crimes that have been perpetrated against it in the name of the Church."

Shalom noted that the Pope's visit to Israel in March 2000, together with tens of thousands of pilgrims, also included a visit to Yad Vashem. He also said that the Pope "will be remembered for his courageous and visionary drive to establish full relations between Israel and the Holy See." These efforts culminated in the signing of the Foundation Agreement between the two parties on 30 December 1993.

RIP Holy Father. You were a great Pope and there will never be another one like you.

In Changing World, Church Faces Choice Over Pope's Role

By GABRIEL KAHN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
April 4, 2005

VATICAN CITY – In his 26 years as pope, John Paul II transformed the papacy like few of his 263 predecessors. His role in aiding the defeat of communism in Eastern Europe, his grueling trips around the world to bless mass audiences and his writings on topics ranging from war and ethics to his own life story granted him a moral authority few other world leaders could match.

But with the pontiff's death Saturday at the age of 84, the cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church face a wrenching choice: Even if they could find someone with similar star power to succeed John Paul II, would he be the right sort of man to lead the church into the third millennium?

For all his success redefining the papacy in an age of television and jet travel, the pope by his own admission was sometimes a lax manager of the immense institution he led. His decision to emphasize his trips and writing over nuts-and-bolts organizational issues energized much of the flock and boosted the church's standing in the world. But it also leaves a legacy of internal problems within the Vatican that his successor must now confront.

Most strikingly, John Paul II halted the momentum for institutional reform that came out of the Second Vatican Council, which, among other changes, strove to create a more approachable and responsive church. Even many close allies of John Paul say it is time for an organizational housecleaning to get officials focused on the church's top challenges -- among them, a shortage of priests, the spread of a more assertive Islam and tensions created by the growing weight of Latin America and Africa in world Catholicism.

Steering an organization of the Catholic Church's size would test the most seasoned executive or general. Catholicism counts some 1.08 billion faithful around the globe. The Vatican itself employs around 4,000 people, and there are close to 1.2 million priests, monks and nuns around the world. The budgets of the Vatican city-state and its political entity, the Holy See, add up to less than $500 million, but world-wide spending including local churches is far larger. The total expenses for all the parishes in the U.S. alone were $6.6 billion in 2000, and that doesn't include the country's 230 Catholic colleges and universities, 8,500 schools and 585 hospitals.

Like the head of any large organization, the pope has to choose his battles carefully and delegate. However, some issues are important enough to benefit from leadership by the top.

On both fronts, the Vatican has had some stumbles in recent years. Bishops as far away as Japan have complained of the Vatican's tendency to meddle sporadically in local affairs. In some cases Rome has overridden local initiatives to preach the gospel more effectively, for example by controlling translations of church liturgy.


In other cases, critical problems have been exacerbated, some say, by sluggishness at the Vatican. The church in North America continues to grapple with suspicions about its leaders and financial woes after the failure both by American leaders and the Vatican to quickly address a sexual-abuse scandal involving hundreds of priests. The church has had little success in stemming its waning influence in its traditional stronghold of Europe or persuading more young men to become priests.

Since John Paul was elected in 1978, the Catholic world has undergone a demographic transformation that has tipped the balance of its population from the Northern Hemisphere to the South. More than 60% of the world's Catholics now live in Latin America, Africa and Asia.

While John Paul II burnished the Vatican's moral authority, the church's future relevance on the global stage is by no means secure. The rise of nations such as China and India is creating new world powers with whom the Vatican has scant influence.

Teacher and Leader

Many Catholics say Pope John Paul II's focus on his role as teacher and spiritual leader at the expense of other tasks was the right call. His inspiration of the faithful brought the church rewards that few previous popes achieved. A decade ago, he went to Manila for World Youth Day and drew a crowd estimated at four million, a turnout no rock star could match. He took his message to places where few Catholics lived, visiting Kazakhstan in 2001 and Azerbaijan in 2002.

John Paul II's charisma more than compensated for his hands-off managerial style, say his many supporters. "Which is the bigger job: reforming the institutions and the structure of the church, or offering the world the charismatic witness the way he has done?" says Andrea Riccardi, the founder of an influential left-leaning lay Catholic group called the Community of Sant'Egidio, and author of "Charismatic Government," a book on John Paul II's papal legacy.

Rather than depend on the Vatican bureaucracy, the pope undertook grand symbolic acts to achieve his goals. His visit to Jerusalem in 2000, during which he prayed at the Western Wall, did more to repair Catholic-Jewish relations than years of official diplomacy. His books, including a volume of poems, contained intimate reflections that helped bring faith home personally to legions of people. In his last years, supporters say, he was able to turn his very public suffering into a testament to the dignity of old age and the value of persevering in the face of pain.

Those very successes of personal leadership make choosing his successor all the more daunting. "Charisma doesn't come with the keys to St. Peter's. The church's problems do," says Mr. Riccardi.

The election of John Paul's successor will take place in the conclave, the sealed sanctum held in the Sistine Chapel. A total of 117 cardinals have voting power, all but three of them appointed by John Paul himself. The ideal candidate will have the ability to inspire the faithful and enhance the church's prestige as John Paul did, while managing the affairs of the Vatican and its nearly 6,600 dioceses in a way that he didn't.

One man considered among the leading candidates for the papacy, Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels, indicated in a recent interview that the public might have to accept someone who brings a different character to the job. John Paul's successor "will not necessarily have that same natural charisma," Cardinal Danneels said in his book-lined offices in the town of Mechelen, outside Brussels. "Every pope has the right to be himself and shouldn't be a copy of his predecessor. We don't expect the same type of pope every time."

One option for the cardinals would be to postpone the tough calls by choosing an aged insider such as the influential German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. For more than 20 years, Cardinal Ratzinger has headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican's powerful theological authority. That has bound him ideologically to John Paul perhaps more than any other cardinal. As a long-serving official in Rome, he has forged close ties with many cardinals. And at 77, Cardinal Ratzinger is old enough that his term would likely be brief, something many in the church are eager for after more than 26 years under the same boss.

The choice of someone like Cardinal Danneels, on the other hand, might signify that the church is ready to usher in a period of reform. Cardinal Danneels, while no liberal on doctrine, has called for a greater role for women in curial offices. He also acknowledges the growing pressure on Rome to reduce its meddling in diocesan affairs, although he says change needs to be managed delicately. "The relationship between the church and the periphery is evolving," he said in the interview. "You can't have a revolution."

A pope from the Third World, meanwhile, would signal that the church hierarchy is willing to align itself with the changing makeup of its flock. It wasn't long ago that the College of Cardinals and the Vatican bureaucracy was largely an Italian club. John Paul, the first non-Italian pope in 455 years, promoted a record number of non-European cardinals. Now, 59 of the voting cardinals are from outside Europe -- just over half of the total.

A Third World pope could exacerbate a split among the world's Catholics. Most believers from developing countries are more conservative on issues of doctrine than their brethren in North America and Europe. Issues such as poverty dominate the social agenda among Catholics in Latin America, Africa and parts of Asia. The challenges that the church faces in Europe -- creeping secularization, marginalization and empty pews -- hardly register in these regions.

"The Catholic Church is becoming increasingly polarized," says Father Keith Pecklers, a Jesuit priest and professor of theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. "That's unfortunate because we lose credibility. How can we be witnesses of the Christian faith to the world if we are a house divided?"

Among the frequently mentioned Southern Hemisphere candidates is Nigerian Cardinal Francis Arinze. He is the head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the curial office which deals with liturgical matters. Cardinal Arinze, 72, has the advantage of having been in Rome so long that he is well-known among his colleagues and knows how the Vatican ticks. Another non-European candidate is Brazilian Cardinal Claudio Hummes, 70, who has involved himself in social issues such as landlessness, indigenous peoples' rights and poverty.

Relentless Schedule

The new pope will take on one of the world's more grueling jobs. Even in his enfeebled last years, John Paul kept up a relentless schedule of engagements. He rose around 5:30 a.m. and immediately delved into prayer, mass and church work -- approving bishop nominations, addressing theological questions and outlining the sermons he intended to give in the coming days. That was all before 11 a.m. Then he would begin private audiences, often with heads of state, members of religious groups and campaigners for social causes. The routine would run till evening.

Amid the crush of meetings and religious duties, John Paul himself acknowledged that his attention to management issues sometimes fell by the wayside. "There is always a problem of finding the proper equilibrium between authority and service," he wrote last year in his fourth book, "Rise, Let Us Be on Our Way." "Perhaps I should reproach myself for not having tried to do enough to command."

The most glaring recent example of the Vatican's stumbles was the slow response to the latest sexual-abuse crisis among priests in the U.S. The scandal, which burst into the open in 2002, has cost the U.S. church $500 million in settlement payments to victims and has resulted so far in the removal of 700 priests accused of molesting parishioners, many of whom were minors. After decades of trying to cover up the problem, the American church hierarchy was stirred to action by popular outrage. But even then, as church officials admit, the Vatican was slow to respond. It resisted some of the reforms the American bishops wanted to institute, such as a no-tolerance policy for priests accused of sexual misconduct, because it was concerned about protecting the rights of accused clergy.

While John Paul had an unparalleled grasp of the power of media to carry his message across the globe, Vatican officials have had a more uneasy relationship with the media and public opinion. Unlike a government or a corporation that sells consumer products, the Vatican doesn't feel obliged to adapt to ephemeral shifts in what the public wants because it sees itself as a purveyor of timeless religious truths. Its decision-making apparatus remains secretive and its rulings can come under fire as insensitive.

To some Catholic clergy, the Vatican is too unpredictable -- keeping a hands-off posture on local issues only to interfere suddenly when an initiative gets its attention. The International Commission on English in the Liturgy, sponsored by 11 English-speaking bishops' conferences, labored for years to bring several linguistic changes into the liturgy. Many of the changes were intended to promote more inclusive language. In 2003, however, the Vatican granted itself veto power over the commission's work, enraging many bishops on the commission.

Father Thomas Reese, a Jesuit priest and author of the book "Inside the Vatican," says such decisions underscore that the Vatican has lost touch with the day-to-day workings of dioceses. "What is upsetting is that these decisions are being made by a German-speaking cardinal in Rome," he said, referring to Cardinal Ratzinger and his powerful office that has authority over doctrine. "If English-speaking bishops can't be trusted to decide what words to use in translating the scripture then the accusation is that you are treating them like McDonald's franchises, where in fact our theology says that they are vicars of Christ in their dioceses."

Some senior figures feel frustrated as well. Under John Paul, the Vatican has been rolling back local churches' authority to translate church doctrine from Latin, the Church's official language. "We have never obtained this," says Cardinal Stephen Fumio Hamao of Japan, who heads the curial office that deals with migrants and people uprooted from their homes. "This issue comes up at almost every synod with many bishops from Africa, Asia and the Middle East, because no one can read their language [in Rome]. There's no other Japanese but me here. All the tribal languages in Africa nobody understands here."

For some in Africa, where the church has undergone explosive growth in recent decades, Rome's directives can come off as condescending. "One of the main difficulties is that in Rome, they don't think that we have anything to bring, to say to the old church," says Father Jean Ilboudo, a native of Burkina Faso and the assistant for Africa for the Jesuits in Rome.

Whereas his colleagues in Europe complain about dwindling numbers, "we have to open new parishes. There is an explosion," says Father Ilboudo. "In Montreal, we had a library with 100,000 books that were not used," he says. But his efforts to transfer some volumes to Africa were rebuffed.

Many Vatican offices still operate as they have for centuries. The main Vatican administrative offices close at 2 p.m. The pope met infrequently with the heads of many of the top bureaucracies, and refused to referee many of the jurisdictional disputes that arose. That is in stark contrast to the way some of his predecessors governed. Pius XII, for example, was always at his desk, and would even change commas in routine memos before they went out.

The pope's decision to stay aloof from such minutiae had a huge upside: It freed him to focus on God and the faithful. John Paul's papacy was a success, many Vatican watchers say, because his charisma enabled him to smooth over many of the ideological, geographical and organizational problems within the church. If the church can't find a successor with equal magnetism, these differences could re-emerge with greater force. In that case it would take a skillful chief administrator to put things right.

On his visit to Jerusalem's Western Wall the Pope, as tradition dictates, placed a note between the centuries old stones of the Wall. The text of the note was later made public. This is what he wrote:

God of our fathers, you chose Abraham and his descendants to bring your name to the nations: We are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness, we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.

In Vatican City, A Cardinal Works To Balance Budget

By GABRIEL KAHN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
April 7, 2005

VATICAN CITY -- The late Pope John Paul II earned praise for his role in facing down communism. One of Cardinal Edmund Szoka's contributions to the Roman Catholic Church has been an injection of capitalism.

The 77-year-old former archbishop of Detroit is president of the Governatorate of Vatican City, the closest thing this tiny city-state has to a mayor. Two years ago, Cardinal Szoka moved the Vatican's department store out of a glum basement and into the former train station, a spacious, refurbished stone building behind St. Peter's Basilica. New merchandise was added: high-end perfumes, $3,000 Longines watches and flat-screen TVs from Panasonic.


On a recent day, two women in fur coats got makeup advice from a young clerk while Brazilian pop music played in the background. Nearby, shoppers snatched up cartons of tax-free cigarettes, sold for 30% less than they fetch just outside the walls of Vatican City in Italy.

"The store is doing pretty well," the cardinal says, though he notes there has been a drop-off since year-end sales ended. "Before Christmas, it's fantastic."

In an enclave where prayer and theological study dominate, Cardinal Szoka (pronounced "show-ka") tackles traffic snarls, parking problems and especially finance. "My job is basically to run this country," he says. "My biggest problem is maintaining a balanced budget." (See related article.)

Since being assigned to his current post in 2001, he has boosted the Vatican's retailing operations, which now account for 53% of the city-state's annual budget of about $190 million. Revenue from the Vatican Museums, including admissions and gift-shop sales, makes up an additional 19%, while odds and ends such as the sale of stamps and coins issued by the post office provide the rest. Without that cash, the Vatican wouldn't be able to pay its electricity bill or the salaries of its 1,500 employees, including 63 full-time gardeners.

"Everything else," says Cardinal Szoka, "is all costs." By comparison, the budget of all Catholic parishes in the U.S. amounted to $6.6 billion in 2000, the most recent year for which figures are available.

The Vatican's struggle to make ends meet dashes one of the enduring myths about the Church -- its tremendous wealth. Certainly, the Vatican is stuffed with mind-boggling treasures. Its museums are filled with Michelangelos, Leonardos and Raphaels. The value of St. Peter's Basilica alone is astronomical. But the Vatican has no intention of ever selling its masterpieces. In fact, it lists all its priceless works of art, including the Sistine Chapel, on its books at a nominal value of €1 each, as a way of indicating it prizes their religious and artistic significance over their financial worth. One outside financial adviser says he has urged the conservative Church leadership to invest more aggressively, but to no avail.

Paying the bills wasn't always so difficult for the Catholic Church. The construction of St. Peter's in the 16th century was financed in part by the sale of indulgences -- or allowing people to buy forgiveness for their sins -- a practice considered so corrupt that it helped spark the Reformation. Through the middle of the 19th century, the Papal States extended over much of what is present-day central Italy, providing a steady stream of tax income.

That ended in 1870, when armies of the newly united Italy wrested Rome from Pius IX. The Vatican was reduced to its current 108-acre estate in the middle of Rome. That pope refused to recognize Italy and spent the rest of his days holed up inside.

The loss of taxes left the city-state with a cash-flow problem. With a population made up primarily of priests, nuns and church workers, it didn't have much of a tax base. But the Vatican eventually realized it could leverage its tax-free status.

Today, one of the Vatican's most lucrative sources of income is a two-pump gasoline station located about 50 yards south of St. Peter's. A steady stream of cars pull up to fill their tanks with gas that costs up to 30% less than it does in Italy because it isn't taxed.

The cheap gas is so sought after that the Vatican allows only people with special residence or work permits to fill up. Otherwise, it could risk causing friction with Italy, which loses tax revenue every time an Italian buys gas inside the Vatican. "If we didn't have that restriction, I wouldn't have any financial problems at all," says Cardinal Szoka.

In fact, shopping inside the Vatican is so desirable that it is considered one of the major perks of working there. The Vatican sets an allotment on certain items, to make sure the goods are used for personal consumption and not resold in Italy. Tim Janz, an archivist at the Vatican Library, buys his maximum allotment of five cartons of cigarettes a month. "They're cheaper by about 50 euro cents [64 U.S. cents] per pack. I buy Chesterfields," says Mr. Janz, who specializes in Greek manuscripts.

Duty-free shopping is one of the few economic benefits the Vatican can offer its 1,500 employees. Another 2,500 people who work at the Roman Curia, the bureaucracy that does the business of the Catholic Church, also have access to the Vatican's shops. Salaries at both are low compared with pay scales in Italy. A new middle manager earns a net monthly salary of about $1,880, plus an annual bonus equal to a month's pay.

Still, a steady job at the Vatican is considered prestigious in Rome. Each year, more than 4,000 applicants shoot for a handful of empty spots. Few ever quit their jobs, and firings are extremely rare. "It's not like the auto industry," says the cardinal, a native of Michigan.

While tourists can shop in the Vatican Museum gift store, access to most Vatican stores is primarily limited to those who live or work there. Still, many outsiders still manage to get in, including embassy employees, delivery people or others who have business in the city-state. Some use a family connection. On a recent afternoon, Michelangelo Rossi scouted for a parking space near the Vatican supermarket. Though he doesn't work at the Vatican, he has been coming here most of his life, using a pass provided by his father, a longtime employee. "The prices and quality of everything from the pasta to the meat are better than what you find elsewhere," he says.

This doesn't bother Cardinal Szoka. "Let me put it this way: If you can legally get into Vatican City State, it's like any other place. It's like France. You can buy anything you want."

The city-state is actually home to two cash-strapped entities. The term Vatican refers only to the small physical territory owned by the Church inside Italy. The political entity of the Catholic Church is known as the Holy See, and operates under a separate budget that is only a little bit larger than the Vatican's. The local Catholic Church of each country usually owns and administers all church property there, but the Vatican has no direct control over those assets.

Both the Holy See and the Vatican have endowments that are invested very conservatively and generate modest returns, say advisers to the Church. The Holy See's budget is handled by an office called the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See, known by its Italian acronym, Apsa.

The office doesn't publish financial figures. But according to a person with knowledge of its operations, Apsa's total budget is roughly $250 million, a sum which must cover the salaries of 2,500 employees of the Roman Curia. Most of that money comes from the return on its investments, from several hundred apartments it rents out in Rome, many at a below-market rate, and from contributions from local bishop's conferences. The American bishops kick in about $8 million a year, for example.

The finances of Church hierarchy were mismanaged for years, presided over by clerics with scant understanding of accounting or commerce, according to people familiar with the situation. Apsa ran a deficit for 23 consecutive years. The shortfall had to be made up with donations. It returned to the black in 1994.

A turning point came when the Istituto per Opere Religiose, known as the Vatican bank, got mixed up in the collapse of the Italian bank Banco Ambrosiano. The Vatican bank held a small stake in Ambrosiano, and Italian magistrates said the Vatican bank was partially responsible for Ambrosiano's $1.5 billion in bad debts. The Holy See didn't acknowledge liability in connection with Ambrosiano's collapse, but later paid a fine of more than $244 million to Italian authorities investigating the matter.

Ambrosiano's president, Roberto Calvi, was later found hanging from Blackfriar's Bridge in London in 1982, in what United Kingdom authorities say was murder. Mr. Calvi's murder was never solved.

Cardinal Szoka was first called to the Vatican in 1990 to help straighten out finances. In Detroit, he had developed a reputation for openness and had been an effective cost-cutter. He closed or consolidated 30 parishes in order to keep his diocese running at a time when jobs in the local auto industry were disappearing.

Pope John Paul II appointed him president of the Prefecture for Economic Affairs of the Holy See, the office which does the bookkeeping at the Vatican and the Holy See. There were no computers in the office at the time, so Cardinal Szoka persuaded a foundation to donate some. He brought in Ernst & Young to modernize the bookkeeping. Then he helped launch a broad cost-reduction program at all the curial offices that included cutting overtime and travel.

When he was appointed to head up the Vatican City State in 2001, he found another headache awaited: traffic. "It was a mess here with all those cars," he recalls. Though there are only a few streets in the hilly Vatican enclave, they were often clogged. Some people were simply taking a shortcut through the Vatican in order to avoid the Roman gridlock outside, which enraged the cardinal. He tightened up traffic laws and oversaw the construction of two underground garages to ease congestion.

Though fewer than 500 people live inside the Vatican, Cardinal Szoka still must supervise all the functions of a microstate. That includes managing the Vatican's efficient post office, issuing passports and dealing with a state pension system that he describes as "underfunded." "We're going to have to add a good chunk of money to it," he says.

That's not a job that Cardinal Szoka is likely to complete. Vatican employees are subject to mandatory retirement at age 75. He submitted his resignation to the Pope upon reaching that mark two years ago, but was asked to stay on. Now, as the leadership of the Church changes, there will be a new opportunity to re-evaluate the Church's conservative approach to investing.

One of the effects of that strategy has been to stash most of its money in dollar-denominated assets, even though the Vatican and the Holy See keep their books in euros. The Vatican doesn't like to quickly move its money in and out of investments, preferring instead a system of stable, steady returns. The depreciation of the dollar against the euro has hit the Church hard, the cardinal says.

An outside financial adviser to the Vatican says he has urged the Church to be bolder with its investments and its assets. Mortgages could be taken out on many Church buildings to raise cash, he says, and artworks could be used to back bonds. That is an approach the current hierarchy has steadfastly resisted. Cardinal Szoka says he feels it is improper for the Church to leverage its assets that way.

"It's not my money; it's the money of the Holy See. And because of that responsibility, I feel that I have to deal with it in a very conservative manner," he says. "If it were my own money, personally I would be much more aggressive."

The Wall Street Journal

James Taranto

Mysteries of the Times

Roger Cohen of the New York Times' Paris edition tells a moving story about how the young man who was to become Pope John Paul II saved the life of Edith Zierer, who became Cohen's grandmother-in-law, in 1945 after Edith, then 13, had been liberated from a Nazi camp in Poland:

In a corner of the [train] station, she sat. Nobody looked at her, a girl in the striped and numbered uniform of a prisoner, late in a terrible war. Unable to move, Edith waited.

Death was approaching, but a young man approached first, "very good looking," as she recalled, and vigorous. He wore a long robe and appeared to the girl to be a priest. "Why are you here?" he asked. "What are you doing?"

Edith said she was trying to get to Krakow to find her parents.

The man disappeared. He came back with a cup of tea. Edith drank. He said he could help her get to Krakow. Again, the mysterious benefactor went away, returning with bread and cheese. . . .

"Try to stand," the man said. Edith tried--and failed. The man carried her to another village, where he put her in the cattle car of a train bound for Krakow. Another family was there. The man got in beside Edith, covered her with his cloak, and set about making a small fire.

His name, he told Edith, was Karol Wojtyla. . . .

I do not know what moved this young seminarian to save the life of a lost Jewish girl.

When the New York Times proper republished Cohen's story, it changed that last sentence: "What moved this young seminarian to save the life of a lost Jewish girl cannot be known".

Hmm, could it have been his religious faith?

The Conservative Philosopher

Capitalism, Conservatism, and Catholicism

Since the death of Pope John Paul II, much nonsense has been spoken about the nature of his teachings, both by his detractors and his admirers. It has become a cliché among the former to hold that his body of doctrine was “contradictory” or “paradoxical,” insofar as he was “conservative” where theology and sexual morality are concerned but “liberal” on economics and capital punishment. The standard retort of his defenders, which seems to be hardening into something of a counter-cliché, is that the consistency of his views can be seen when one understands that they transcended the liberal/conservative divide. In my view, both sides are mistaken. While some elements of the pope’s teaching might give at least a superficial appearance of liberalism, the core of what he taught neither straddled nor transcended the liberal/conservative divide. It was simply and undeniably conservative, and consistently so.

The first thing to understand about the pope – be he this pope or any other pope – is that the core of his teaching is never really “his” in the first place, but is simply the official and traditional teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, which it is his duty to preserve and propagate. Every single pope from St. Peter onward has believed and taught exactly what John Paul II did about abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, contraception, divorce, premarital sex, and all the other “controversial” but entirely unoriginal elements of the pope’s presentation of Catholic theology and sexual morality. Journalists who discuss these matters as if they were merely John Paul II’s personal “views” are either ignorant or dishonest. What such people fail to appreciate is that at the very heart of the Catholic understanding of the papacy is that it has as its raison d’etre the preservation of the moral and theological doctrines passed down from the Apostles. The papacy, that is to say, is an inherently conservative institution.

This is one reason why it is fatuous to pretend that the pope’s teaching was “neither conservative nor liberal.” Another reason has to do with the nature of conservatism and liberalism themselves. Conservatism as an articulated moral and political philosophy arose precisely in reaction against various Enlightenment-era attempts to undermine the Christian moral heritage of Western civilization, rooted in the Bible and in natural law. Liberalism, by contrast, has always been concerned with overthrowing traditional institutions and thereby “liberating” individuals from the moral and social constraints of the past. Conservatism, then, has always largely been about what the papacy itself is about, while liberalism has always largely been about something close to the opposite.

Of course, that is not to say that all conservatives agree with every element of Catholic moral teaching or that all liberals disagree with every element of it. Nor is it to say that all conservatives are or must be personally religious or that all liberals are or must be irreligious. The point is rather that conservatism is, at least in a general way, essentially sympathetic to the content of traditional Christian moral teaching and to the project of conserving it, while liberalism is, in a general way, essentially suspicious both of the specific content of the Christian moral tradition and of traditionalism as a mindset. Conservatism and Catholicism are basically “on the same page” while liberalism and Catholicism basically are not.

What, then, of the pope’s teaching on capital punishment, capitalism, and the like? Here we need to keep in mind a long-standing Catholic theological distinction journalists and “dissenting” Catholics of the Ted Kennedy or John Kerry stripe like to ignore, between fundamental and unchanging moral principles (concerning which the Catholic Church claims that a pope is infallible) and contingent applications of those principles to concrete circumstances, often referred to as prudential judgments (with reference to which the Church does not claim papal infallibility). When one considers some of John Paul II’s particular prudential judgments, they can seem at least superficially to match the views of liberals and to be inconsistent with the more obviously conservative elements of his teaching. But when one examines the principles on which those judgments are based, one will see that there is no genuine inconsistency and that they are not at all liberal.

Capital punishment provides a good example. It is often said, without qualification, that John Paul II was “equally against both abortion and capital punishment.” But this is an oversimplification at best and a falsehood at worst. The Catholic Church has always taught that abortion is intrinsically evil, but it has also always taught that capital punishment is not intrinsically evil. This did not change with John Paul II – he neither had nor claimed the authority to change the Church’s teaching that capital punishment can in principle be justified, and even explicitly reaffirmed that the Church has always taught this and still teaches it. What the pope did hold was that contemporary circumstances make the application of capital punishment problematic, and therefore that even though the death penalty is not intrinsically unjust, it ought rarely if ever to be used. Moreover, his basic reasons for opposing the contemporary use of capital punishment had nothing to do with the standard liberal reasons. He did not claim that murderers do not deserve the death penalty or that it would be unjust to kill them. Indeed, he could hardly have claimed this, upholding as he did the traditional Catholic teaching on hell, according to which unrepentant murderers (like all unrepentant sinners) deserve and will suffer a fate far worse than death.

(If anything, it is arguably only a belief in hell that could provide a very strong reason to oppose capital punishment from a traditional Catholic point of view, the idea being that the soul of an impenitent murderer is in such grave danger of eternal damnation that we ought out of mercy to try everything possible to get him to repent while there is still time to do so. I do not claim to know whether this was exactly John Paul’s reasoning, but it is surely closer to it than are the usual arguments against the death penalty offered by liberals. Two helpful discussions of this issue, by Cardinal Avery Dulles and J. Budziszewski respectively, have appeared in recent years in First Things.)

Regarding capitalism, it is important to remember that even Pius XI, who was perhaps more critical of existing capitalist societies than any other pope, said in Quadragesimo Anno both that the capitalist system “is not to be condemned in itself” and that “no one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true socialist.” Leo XIII, who in Rerum Novarum inaugurated modern Catholic social teaching, also excoriated socialism as intrinsically unjust, defended a natural right to private property on the basis of arguments that echo those of John Locke, condemned high levels of taxation as a violation of private property rights, rejected equality per se as incompatible with the natural order, and expressed reservations about governmental action as a means of remedying the plight of impoverished workers. And John Paul II, in Centesimus Annus, went farther than any of his predecessors in acknowledging the superiority of the free market as a means of generating wealth, the legitimacy of profits, and the dangers inherent in the welfare state.

Moreover, the Catholic Church has consistently taught that social problems ought always to be dealt with primarily by those institutions closest to the individuals in need of help: the family first and foremost, then the Church, private associations, and local governments, with more central governments intervening only as a last resort. This is the famous principle of subsidiarity, and its aim is to preserve the stability and independence of the family. The primary threats to the kind of social order Catholic social teaching hopes to realize are excessive statism, which seeks to absorb the functions of the family into centralized bureaucracies, and excessive individualism, which seeks through easy divorce, extramarital sex, pornography, same-sex marriage, and other components of “sexual liberation” to undermine the normative status of the traditional family unit. Of course, both excessive statism and excessive individualism are key components of liberalism, and they have always been opposed by conservatism.

It is preposterous, then, to suggest that Catholic social teaching in general or Pope John Paul II’s teaching on these matters in particular is “liberal” (in the American sense of that term). The general principles that guide the Church’s thinking on these matters are not very different from the Burkean principles that guide conservatives. It is true, of course, that the Church does not favor an absolutely unfettered laissez-faire economy. But what this shows is, not that Catholic teaching is incompatible with conservative views about economics, but only that it is incompatible with the standard silly liberal caricature of conservative views about economics. Indeed, not even all those usually described as libertarians believe in an absolutely unfettered laissez-faire economy: Hayek, who was in the view of many the greatest of so-called libertarian thinkers, certainly did not (though he was, to be sure, also not keen on the label “libertarian”).

It is true too that the popes have long taught the doctrine of the “just wage,” according to which a just economic system ought to make it possible for every man to be able to support himself and his family with his wages. But the Church has also always held that faithful Catholics can legitimately disagree about which particular policy proposals for realizing this goal, and for realizing the other aims of Catholic social teaching, ought to be implemented. And Leo XIII explicitly recommended against putting too much emphasis on state action as a way to guarantee a just wage, given how greatly the needs of workers and the circumstances of employers vary from time to time and place to place. It must also be kept in mind that it is, quite specifically, a wage that will allow for the support of a family that the popes have in mind here: as always, what matters most is guaranteeing the health and stability of the family unit, not satiating the desires of the autonomous individual self of liberal ideology.

At the end of the day, then, the teaching of the Catholic Church on economic matters is essentially conservative, and even when the popes in their prudential judgments about such matters have seemed to be endorsing “liberal” policies, those judgments have not rested on liberal principles, have not been presented as infallible, and have not bound Catholics to support any specific legislative measures.

The bottom line is that it is simply false to suggest, as is so often done, that conservative Catholics “dissent” from the Church’s teaching as often as liberals do. A faithful Catholic can legitimately hold that capital punishment is justifiable in some circumstances or that a raise in the minimum wage is a bad idea; but a Catholic faithful to the binding teaching of the Church can never hold that abortion or euthanasia can justifiably be legalized or that there can possibly be such a thing as “same-sex marriage” (since, on the Catholic natural law understanding of marriage, marriage is inherently procreative and thus heterosexual as a matter of conceptual necessity). A liberal who takes the latter positions is necessarily at odds with 2,000 years of Catholic tradition. A conservative who takes the former positions is not necessarily at odds with the Church at all. There simply is no parity whatsoever.

A recent statement of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on the role of Catholics in public life confirms this judgment – and, we might note, applies it also to the case of papal prudential judgments concerning war. Ratzinger, who is Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (i.e. the Church’s official spokesman on matters of doctrine and morality) writes: “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” (emphasis mine)

There is simply no way to avoid the conclusion that at least in a general way, there is a harmony between conservatism and Catholicism that does not exist between liberalism and Catholicism. And given that the Catholic Church is the oldest and most distinguished institutional defender of the values all conservatives hold dear, even non-Catholic conservatives have an interest in the health of the Church and of the papacy. Likewise, Catholics have an interest in the health of conservatism and of conservative political parties – and in ensuring that such parties remain true to conservative principles.

BENEDICTO XVI

Professor Bainbridge

Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum. Habemus Papam

Reuters' "gracious" announcement reads:

German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the strict defender of Catholic orthodoxy for the past 23 years, was elected Pope on Tuesday despite a widespread assumption he was too old and divisive to win election.

Widespread among whom? The left-liberal elites that Reuters reporters hang out with?

He took the name Benedict XVI, a cardinal announced to crowds in St. Peter's Square after white smoke from the Vatican's Sistine Chapel chimney and the pealing of bells from St. Peter's Basilica announced that a new pope had been chosen.

I had guessed that Ratzinger would take the name Boniface if chosen, since as the first German pope in almost a millennium he might want to honor the Apostle to the Germans. In any case, the media are already speculating as to the signal the new Holy Father intended to send by his choice of names; e.g., ABC:

... it could be interpreted as a bid to soften his image as the Vatican's doctrinal hard-liner. Benedict XV, who reigned from 1914 to 1922, was a moderate following Pius X, who had implemented a sharp crackdown against doctrinal "modernism."

Captain's Quarters

Ratzinger Transforms To Benedict XVI

The conclave of cardinals at the Vatican has determined the successor to John Paul II -- Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who has taken the name Benedict XVI. Ratzinger, who has a reputation for hard-line insistence on traditional Catholic dogma, had worked with John Paul II for many years, and had been considered the inside bet for elevation to the Papacy. His first remarks to the crowds gathered in St. Peter's Square, however, reflected his humility and care:

"Dear brothers and sisters, after our great pope, John Paul II, the cardinals have elected me, a simple, humble worker in God's vineyard," according to a translation of remarks he made in Italian. "I am consoled by the fact that the Lord knows how to work and how to act, even with insufficient tools, and I especially trust in your prayers.
"In the joy of the resurrected Lord, trustful of his permanent help, we go ahead, sure that God will help. And Mary, his most beloved mother, stands on our side."


For both Catholics and outsiders, the selection of Ratzinger should be easily recognized as an endorsement of John Paul II's direction and a strong desire to continue in their current path. Two old sayings about the selection of popes would have counseled against Ratzinger's elevation. The first proverb is that a fat Pope follows a skinny pope, meaning that either the conclave (if you don't believe in Catholicism) or the Holy Spirit (if you do) uses the election of a new Pope to balance out the perceived issues of the last. The other, that one who goes into the conclave a Pope comes out a Cardinal, refers to the usual obscurity of purpose to papal selection.

Neither of these applied this time. Ratzinger had long been seen as a successor in every manner to John Paul II. Even though his age will likely preclude the lengthy Papacy of his predecessor, whatever term he serves will in all likelihood serve as an extension of the previous pontificate. His elevation gives a stunningly clear endorsement of the work of John Paul II -- and for those of us who believe in Roman Catholocism, that endorsement comes from the Holy Spirit and should serve as a lesson to all of us.

Overall, Benedict XVI's elevation pleases me. I believe that Benedict's previous strong stands against moral relativism holds a special lesson in today's world. It means the Church will take stands on what we see as eternal truths, even if those positions cause others to complain about old-fashioned values in a modern world. As he said as Cardinal Ratzinger, "[Relativism] is letting oneself be 'swept along by every wind of teaching.' (It) looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today's standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism, which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires."

An impressive Cardinal has become an impressive Pope. I will pray for his health and success, and ask all of you to join me.

UPDATE: Some people at the usual places have reacted with their foul-mouth, hate-filled rants, claiming that Benedict XVI was a Nazi even though the Jerusalem Post rebuts any such thinking. If you want more intelligent commentary, you could go anywhere else on the Internet -- but you'll be better off visiting one my favorites, The Anchoress.

Jerusalem Post

Ratzinger a Nazi? Don't believe it
By SAM SER


London's Sunday Times would have us believe that one of the leading contenders for the papacy is a closet Nazi. In if-only-they-knew tones, the newspaper informs readers that German-born Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was a member of the Hitler Youth during World War II and suggests that, because of this, the "panzer cardinal" would be quite a contrast to his predecessor, John Paul II.

The article also classifies Ratzinger as a "theological anti-Semite" for believing in Jesus so strongly that – gasp! – he thinks that everyone, even Jews, should accept him as the messiah.

To all this we should say, "This is news?!"

As the Sunday Times article admits, Ratzinger's membership in the Hitler Youth was not voluntary but compulsory; also admitted are the facts that the cardinal – only a teenager during the period in question – was the son of an anti-Nazi policeman, that he was given a dispensation from Hitler Youth activities because of his religious studies, and that he deserted the German army.

Ratzinger has several times gone on record on his supposedly "problematic" past. In the 1997 book Salt of the Earth, Ratzinger is asked whether he was ever in the Hitler Youth.

"At first we weren't," he says, speaking of himself and his older brother, "but when the compulsory Hitler Youth was introduced in 1941, my brother was obliged to join. I was still too young, but later as a seminarian, I was registered in the Hitler Youth. As soon as I was out of the seminary, I never went back. And that was difficult because the tuition reduction, which I really needed, was tied to proof of attendance at the Hitler Youth.

"Thank goodness there was a very understanding mathematics professor. He himself was a Nazi, but an honest man, and said to me, 'Just go once to get the document so we have it...' When he saw that I simply didn't want to, he said, 'I understand, I'll take care of it' and so I was able to stay free of it."

Ratzinger says this again in his own memoirs, printed in 1998. In his 2002 biography of the cardinal, John Allen, Jr. of the National Catholic Reporter wrote in detail about those events.

The only significant complaint that the Times makes against Ratzinger's wartime conduct is that he resisted quietly and passively, rather than having done something drastic enough to earn him a trip to a concentration camp. Of course, whenever it is said that a German failed the exceptional-resistance-to-the-Nazis test, it would behoove us all to recognize that too many Jews failed it, as well.

If he were truly a Nazi sympathizer, then it would undoubtedly have become evident during the past 60 years. Yet throughout his service in the church, Ratzinger has distinguished himself in the field of Jewish-Catholic relations.

As prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger played an instrumental role in the Vatican's revolutionary reconciliation with the Jews under John Paul II. He personally prepared Memory and Reconciliation, the 2000 document outlining the church's historical "errors" in its treatment of Jews. And as president of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Ratzinger oversaw the preparation of The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, a milestone theological explanation for the Jews' rejection of Jesus.

If that's theological anti-Semitism, then we should only be so lucky to "suffer" more of the same.

As for the Hitler Youth issue, not even Yad Vashem has considered it worthy of further investigation. Why should we?

--Roman Catholic Blog points to stererotypes about Ratzinger in the mainstream media:"If I had a dollar for every time I heard the words "polarizing," "divisive," "strict," "ultraconservative," etc. on CNN today, I'd have enough money...to buy CNN!"


--Relapsed Catholic:"Went in a Pope, came out a Pope. A German cardinal is now Pope Benedict XVI. Ratzinger's election will annoy all the right people. As I've said before, I hope his resemblance to Mr. Burns and Nosferatu, along with his Stalag 13 name, won't turn everyone off at once. I prefer him to Arinze, who made veiled "America asked for it" remarks after 9/11."


--Oxblog's Patrick Belton:" Personally I was hoping for a cuddly Italian liberal. But a conservative German with the nickname 'the enforcer' was probably my second choice."


--Daily Kos' CT warns some on the left to cool their anti-Pope rhetoric:


There are many reasons to criticize the election of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI, like his stances on women and gays in the church, social issues, his work in crushing liberation theology, his comments in regards to the priest sexual abuse scandals, and his generally conservative views. Calling him a Nazi, however, is unfounded and unfair, and only serves to demean us...Unfounded accusations are unfair, and will only serve to give the wingers more ammunition. Call him conservative, call him reactionary, call him old, call him surly, call him the wrong choice. Just don't call him a Nazi.



--David Shraub:"I must say, I'm at least somewhat surprised by the profoundly negative reaction by American liberals (and in Sullivan's case, non-liberals too). I, for one, am willing to give Ratzinger a chance. I think it is telling that the Vatican has elected two straight bona fide intellectuals now, which to me is always a good thing...I won't shy from being critical of the new Pope. But I won't rush to judgment either. He has some large shoes to fill, but he may very well be up to it."


--Lean Left:"They elected another Pope. It’s Ratzinger - the Goebbels of the Vatican. Un...believable, even for an organization as self-destructively oblivious as this one. Well, for Catholics and the dwindling number of Westerners who still take Catholicism seriously, it’s time to kiss the Dark Ages hello again...The medieval wing of an organization that just barely got over Galileo has now claimed the right to declare itself “infallible” (the irony of which they never seem to get). If you thought John Paul II was bad, wait till you get a load of Pope Torquemada Jr."


--Seminary hopeful Tom Crowe has a GREAT MUST READ POST which reads in part:


First and foremost, he has been a strong defender of the Truth. No mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy, “let’s dialogue.” There are places for dialogue. Dialogue can happen on the way to best promote the Truth. But not on whether something is TRUE or “subject to interpretation.” The “Spirit of Vatican II” cannot resemble Blackmun’s “emanations from penumbra.” Ratzinger didn’t – and Benedict XVI likely won’t – let “dialogue” cloud Truth. But also, he was John Paul II’s most trusted theological adviser..

So, as long as God doesn’t pull another Albino Luciani (John Paul I and his 32-day papacy) on us, this should be a new flowering of orthodoxy in the Church. If I get to seminary, I shall be happy to study under a man with a mind like Benedict XVI’s. God Willing, I shall meet him some day and kiss his fisherman’s ring.


--Hugh Hewitt:"As a protestant, I am deeply relieved that the conclave chose to endorse with their quick action the ideas of absolute truth and moral certainty that are in the person of Jesus Christ. The world, no less than the Church, could not afford a relativist in the Throne of St. Peter in these times."


--The Anchoress:"Basically the press seems to be saying, “Oh, no! They elected a CATHOLIC! Liberals are doomed! DOOMED!” I wonder if this election will not hasten an exodus of progressives from the church - to bring into reality and focus the schism which has been bubbling under the surface for a while. Pray for Benedict XVI. It is no easy thing to have so much hatred and malice being directed toward you. He will need our prayers."

New Pope Condemns Liberalism; LYMEC Condemns New Pope

LYMEC - European Liberal Youth cannot welcome the election of Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI following his recent speech that compared Liberalism to Communism and denounced the level of freedom obtained by individuals in the 20th Century.

The LYMEC Bureau said: "Liberals are deeply concerned at the election of such a conservative figure. Let us all hope that he moderates his social authoritarianism or at the very least learns something about political philosophy. Comparing liberalism with communism is offensive both to liberals and to his predecessor, John Paul II, who fought so hard to bring freedom to those who suffered for so long under the communist regimes"

http://www.lymec.org/modules.php?op=mod ... =0&thold=0