Pray for Pope Benedict XVI’s Recovery
July 17, 2009
On holiday in the Alps, Pope Benedict fell, apparently in his room, and broke his right wrist in the process. Thankfully, that appears to be the extent of the harm done.
14 Comments
Comments are closed.
I will pray for the pope. He’s a better pope than I thought he’d be. I can ignore some of his weirdness about human sexuality because of the obvious “whole cloth” approach to the sacredness of life exemplified in his latest encyclical.
I will pray for something else, however, as well.
The pope’s brother said, at the time of his election, that Benedict XVI Ratzinger’s pontificate would doubtless be a very short one, on account of his age and frailty. Meanwhile, however, he seems to be appointing too many bishops and curialists that are adherents of his rather narrow interpretation of the Second Vatican Council. I think even popes need to surround themselves with independent thinkers who will oppose their ideas now and then.
The next papal election will be absolutely crucial, historically, for the Roman Catholic Church, which needs a breath of fresh air now just as much as it did when John XXIII Roncalli was elected. I don’t say that the Church needs to go in a diametrically opposite direction to that in which the last two pontiffs have been directing it, but it definitely does have to rethink its relationships with the laity, with women, with “same-sex-attracted” people and with the peoples of the Third World. It also needs to renew the Vatican II promise of a different form of church governance, in which the exercise of the Petrine office does not prevent collegiality of all bishops. Paul VI admitted that the modern papacy was the chief remaining stumbling-block in the way of Christian unity, and he suggested that there might come to be a perceived need to reinterpret the definition of “papal infallability.”
Under the last few popes the Church has become far too centralised in its governance, relying too much upon a veritable “cult” of papal personality, and making too many pronouncements about things that are not in the realm of “infallibility” I am not talking about abortion; instead, I’m talking about too many highly political canonizations and such things as John Paul II’s near-heretical statement that he could not envisage any successor being able to deviate from his position regarding either a celibate clergy or the exclusion of women from sacerdotal roles. Since these things are historically “developed” Church teachings that are in the discretion of the Magisterium, there is no reason they couldn’t be “un-developed.”
And I will be praying especially for a pope from the Hispanic or African Third World. The papacy needs to become more independent of both Europe and America.
I think your second prayer is in tension with your first one. As I understand it, the Church in the Third World exhibits much more of a unified stance on sexual ethics than does the Church in Europe. So I have a hard time believing an African Pope would take the Church in the direction you’d like it to go. (I would love to see an African Pope, though.)
“Sexual ethics” are not my main concern. I do worry about the demonization of homosexuals by this pope and the previous one, but it’s not my main concern, and I don’t think that the empowerment of women in the Church has much to do with “sexual ethics.” Our women seem to me to be, if anything, more traditional in their approach to “sexual ethics” than the men.
And so I still would wish for an African or Hispanic pope. An African or a Hispanic pope, no matter how “traditional” regarding “sexual ethics,” would have a lot more to say about social and economic justice than even Pope Benedict, and would be far less friendly to Presidential violators of “just war” teachings.
Talking about how you’d like a shorter pontificate for this pope after the pope has to have surgery is wildly inappropriate.
OK, then, I’m “wildly inappropriate”; I don’t mind being–but then, so was the pope’s brother, just after he’d been elected!
Oh, and I didn’t say I “wanted” one; I said one was likely–again, just as his brother did.
“Sexual ethics” are not my main concern.
No, of course not.
An African or a Hispanic pope … would be far less friendly to Presidential violators of “just war” teachings.
I don’t recall John Paul II or Benedict XVI being particularly “friendly” to Bush, at least not any friendlier than Benedict XVI has been with Obama. Like Obama, Bush isn’t a Catholic, so why would he have accepted the Church’s teaching on just war any more than Obama accepts the Church’s teaching on the sanctity of life in the womb?
Like Obama, Bush isn’t a Catholic, so why would he have accepted the Church’s teaching on just war any more than Obama accepts the Church’s teaching on the sanctity of life in the womb?
Because he wanted a LOT of Catholic votes.
I don’t know if you recall that at the time of Bush’s last visit with John Paul II, there was a great deal of fear on the part of the White House party that John Paul II would launch into a public scolding of the President for ignoring his nuncio’s plea that he reconsider “Operation Just Cause.” So the nasty but canny American President started his initial remarks by referring, obliquely, to the problems of the “priest scandals” in America, as if to say, “Don’t talk about my problems here and I won’t talk about yours.” Of course, John Paul ignored Bush’s veiled threat and talked about the injustice of “preventive wars” anyway.
How was this reported in America? MSN’s headline on my computer screen that morning was “Pope Agrees With Bush About Abortion.” Fortunately, I read The Guardian, L’Osservatore Romano, and Le Monde, all of who reported that meeting quite differently. You folks in America don’t have a clue as to how much brainwashing you undergo on a daily basis!
Well the Pope did agree with Bush about abortion didn’t he? I can’t speak for anyone else but it wasn’t exactly a secret that the Pope DID NOT agree with the Iraq war. I go to Mass in SUV-driving, Fox News-watching, suburbia and everybody knew. Similarly we know the Pope doesn’t agree with Obama about abortion and we don’t need to be reminded in every homily of the fact.
Digby you read Le Monde and the Guardian and you’re intelligent, surely you must know that those papers propogandize just as much as all US papers do. They all have a point of view and they spin from that angle.
It’s like the raving nationalist Americans who watch Fox not so much to be informed but to have all their pre-conceived notions about the “evil Islamist threat!!!!!” confirmed for them. And I am fairly sure you (maybe unconsciously) selected Le Monde etc. for your reading because its editoral viewpoint is very comfortable to you, and doesn’t challenge you.
And that’s natural but to truly be informed and grow intellectually one can’t just accept one’s assumptions as truth. You have to be willing to engage the arguments of people who disagree with you, and I don’t mean just condescending to them or mocking them. Usually this means reading their media, and it’s worth occasionally getting hot under the collar to have the opportunity to see where they are coming from.
I decided to do this when I was a fairly conventional Republican conservative and it has enriched my view of the Church and the world immensely (why do you think I read Vox Nova? Because a lot of it is directly opposite to my knee-jerk reaction to the world).
Oh, for the sake of the suffering and crucifed Christ, can’t we all just offer sincere prayers for the Pope? What a bunch of self-regarding chatter.
Magdalena, ever heard of The Telegraph? It’s BOOKMARKED on my livejournal account. Ever heard of the Taki’s Top Drawer blog? It’s about as right-wing–paleoconservative-style–as anything you’ve ever heard of, and it, too, is bookmarked on my livejournal account. Ever heard of the libertarian blog Lew Rockwell? It, too, is bookmarked there.
Believe me, I read the right-wing press–or, at least the intellectually stimulating part of it–and I often agree with them, in fact. I’m not the jerk-knee left-winger you’re taking me for.
digbydolben,
It’s the confusing double-standard. On the one hand, Benedict XVI is praised for not confronting Obama publicly, noisily over his support for an intrinsic evil, abortion. On the other hand, JPII and Benedict are implicitly criticized for not having publicly, noisily confronted Bush over his support for an intrinsic evil, his unjust war (“far less friendly to Presidential violators of “just war” teachings.”).
The difference in standards is accounted for either by unreasoning personal devotion to the current President, which would be a form of idolatry; or by a relative indifference toward the intrinsic evil of abortion as opposed to the intrinsic evil of unjust war, in which case your moral formation is flawed. In any case, you can expect Morning’s Minion to condemn your lack of consistency in short order.
Digby, you really read the Telegraph!? Seriously you just made my day!
Mark Gordon, I think that Benedict XVI DID confront Obama tactfully over abortion, by handing him the tract he gave him, and I think that John Paul II DID confront Bush, by sending a nuncio to attempt tactfully to deter him from pursuing “preventive war.” I salute both pontiffs for doing what they did, but just wish that they had been more public and forthright IN BOTH CASES, so that the American Catholic community could better understand that you can’t be anti-abortion and violate “just war” teachings, and that you can’t be in favour of “just war” theology and be an ADVOCATE for legalized abortion. (Notice, I said “an advocate,” rather than “not be a militant resister of…”)