Why Joseph Ratzinger?
Of all the available candidates, the newly-elected Pope Benedict XVI was most likely to hold the line against "modernizing" tendencies within the Church. That is why he was elected.
In an exclusive — and prescient — interview with Phil Brennan, posted yesterday to NewsMax.com, former U.S. ambassador to the Holy See Ray Flynn predicted that, "Cardinal Ratzinger is the odds on favorite."
Flynn based this judgment partly on the fact that the cardinals knew they could rely upon Ratzinger to continue the policies of John Paul II.
Also, Flynn noted that the public reaction to the late Pope's death stunned church leaders, many of whom had failed to appreciate the magnitude of John Paul's popularity — and, by implication, the popularity of the conservative course he steered. Flynn told NewsMax:
"[T]he cardinals… witnessed this extraordinary demonstration of respect for John Paul II just before and after he died and at the funeral. According to the chief of police here in Rome there were 8 million people here who came from all over the world. The cardinals saw all this and they say ‘well, what's wrong with the Church? Here we've seen that the Pope left this church in the highest respect .'"We at Moonbat Central extend our sincerest good wishes and congratulations to Pope Benedict XVI.
30 Comments:
Pope Benedict XVI will be a an amazing Pope...I do believe he will contiue the leadership JPII had set.
And thank God he's a Conservative.
What I'm looking for mostly is all the Liberal editorials to go nuts...It will be even more fun to watch than when President Bush was re-elected.
Regular Ron
RegularRon.blogspot.com
I too, congratulate the Church on its choice of pope. The previous captain, having set a course directly towards an iceberg is followed by a commander whose first order will be "Full Speed Ahead"
Americans have fled the Catholic Church at approximately the same rate at which it's ranks are replenished by illegal aliens. (Without immigration the Catholic Church would have shrunk faster than it's Protestant counterparts which have declined from 63% to 52% of the population in the last ten years).
The number of priestless parishes tripled under JP II and figures to increase even faster under Benedict.
I must confess however, that my first choice for pope wasn't Ratzinger, it was Cardinal Law. But Law shouldn't feel too bad, in thirty years or so he will, no doubt, be beatified on his way to becoming "Saint Bernard, the Protector of Children."
Comment 1: A prediction that liberals will be driven to apoplexy by Pope Benedict XVI.
Comment 2: An apoplectic liberal, already foaming at the mouth.
Isn't logic a beautiful thing?
If we are best judged by those who line up against us, then Benedict's reign should be just what the doctor ordered.
Viva il papa!
Erm *coughs*
You can't really call Meyer a liberal. : )
But then, there are people here who think Pat Buchanan's a Leftist, so...
Anyway, I'm Pagan so it doesn't matter to me, in my immediacy, who is Pope. But I hope this one will continue JP II's work in bridging the gap between faiths and promoting freedom and open dialogue.
J
When is the last time anyone has heard these facts about the state of the Church in America!
Catholic Education
Catholic schools have been an important part of the U.S. educational system since the early 1800s. Today in the United States, there are about 7,000 Catholic elementary schools educating more than 2 million students annually.
There are about 1,300 Catholic high schools educating more than 650,000 students, and 238 Catholic colleges and universities with a total enrollment of more than 700,000 students.
The U.S. Catholic educational system employs some 175,000 educators, including 164,000 lay teachers.
Social Services
Catholic hospitals and health care centers are an integral part of the U.S. health care system. There are 597 Catholic hospitals that treat more than 82 million patients each year. In addition, there are 483 Church-operated health care centers that provide care and treatment to more than 5 million patients annually in the United States.
Catholic social service agencies help millions in the United States each year by providing services ranging from food and clothing to housing and disaster assistance. Catholic agencies provide services to about 25 million people a year through soup kitchens, food banks and other programs.
Millions of others in the nation receive help ranging from pregnancy care, adoption services and foster care to drug and alcohol awareness and prevention services through programs operated by the Catholic Church in every state.
THE CATHOLIC RELIGION IS GROWING, IT'S AMERICA'S LOSS IF IT DOES NOT GROW IN AMERICA!
What have the 1.3 million atheists in North America, as a group, contributed to mankind?
Other than the destructive contributions made by the atheism of suspicion, founded and promoted by Marx and Freud, and carried on by the likes of are own Bob Meyer!--NOT MUCH!
You would think that Bob Meyer would know this fact, and as Thoreau often said, "tend to one's own garden."
The Church has been through rougher times than these in over two thousand years, and I suspect, America, because of fools like Bob Meyer, could be long gone, and it will still be attending to the word of Christ.
Trying to explain the raw power, the staying power, and the steadying effect of faith to an atheist, is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It never seems to get anywhere and it only serves to irritate the pig.
ALAS, HOW PITIABLE!
This post has been removed by the author.
What have atheists contributed? Poll the Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry and medicine and find out how many believe your fairy tales and then get back to me.
The Catholic Church opposes embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning today just as it opposed anesthesia and vaccination in the 19th century.
Anesthesia was wrong, especially for women in childbirth because the Bible said "in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children". Vaccination protected people against smallpox but smallpox was God's punishment of the wicked so any attempt to avoid disease was an affront to God.
The Church has always been the enemy of science because with every scientific discovery God was forced farther and farther away from the lives of men. Science showed that diseases were not sent by God, the planets were not moved by God and animal life was not created by God. Under continuous assault by science, God has retreated into a spirit world of secular irrelevance.
It is science that has extended life and has made life on earth a potential paradise. It is religion, in particular, Catholicism that has fought those advances tooth and nail.
It is advances in genetic engineering that has increased crop yields and fed the starving masses, not the few bowls of food brought by missionaries. The church, of course, opposed genetic engineering as "tampering with God's order".
Go ahead, play your insane medieval games invoking supernatural beings but be aware that religion is dying. Every year there are fewer American Christians than there were the year before. The Catholic Church has shown itself as the protector of child molesters and the persecutor of scientists.
By their values you shall know them and Americans are becoming more and more aware of the values of Christianity. That is why "none" is the fastest growing religion in America.
Let's not make the Nobel Prize recipient list the gold standard of humanity, shall we?
Ugliness will ensue.
I'm afraid I don't understand why you're so angry and bitter toward religion, Bob. How about a little of that "live and let live" stuff?
I have always been in favor of live and let live. I do not want the state to enforce my views or pass laws compelling my enemies to support me.
Can that be said for religion?
Public funding of faith based initiatives, bans on therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell research and continued verbal assaults on non-believers (GHW Bush said atheists should not be considered to be citizens) say that tolerance is not their strong suit.
In the history of this country I can point to only one religious individual, who, having the power of the state at his command, did not compel obedience to his views. That was Roger Williams, by far the noblest Christian that I know of.
It was Williams who coined the phrase "wall of separation" (not Jefferson as is commonly believed) and who practiced what he preached in relation to tolerance and goodwill. Of course, that got him expelled from Massachusetts with a death penalty to be invoked if he were to return. Massachusetts, ever the most deranged state in the Union, did rescind his death warrant in 1923, three hundred years after William's death.
If the religious right were composed of Roger Williams clones I would count them as my friends, not my enemies. Unfortunately, they have far more in common with Cotton Mather than Roger Williams.
If it is not the great scientists that have provided mankind with the comforts, wonders and joys of life on earth, then who has? Scientists and entrepreneurs have made life not merely tolerable, but magnificent and have opened new worlds for those whom religion could only offer pity like the poor and the handicapped.
As yourself who did more for mankind, Mother Teresa or Louis Pasteur? Pius XII or Thomas Edison?
Warning: You will reveal your true beliefs if you attack Pasteur's or Edison's motives as being selfish.
"Warning: You will reveal your true beliefs if you attack Pasteur's or Edison's motives as being selfish."
Why on earth would I say that? Pretty wild leap to assume that to be my position.
I would like to see the quote from Bush that you mentioned. Can you post the link?
Here is the interview:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#bush
I don't know the relevance of a statement made by the President's father, nor do I necessarily put much faith (pun intended) in the objectivity of the atheist activist who quoted the senior Bush.
It all still seems like a very angry anti-religion crusade (another pun intended).
It's a fallacy to believe that all scientists are atheists. I am an astrophysicist, and I am also a proud Catholic. (And I haven't been any prouder than I've been these past couple of weeks.) Moreover, I personally know many scientists who believe in God. None of us have won any Nobel Prizes, however. Yet.
By the way, I'd venture to say that the vast majority of Nobel-prize winning scientists have done zero to improve the lives of their fellow man. I mean, how much has your life been affected by the discovery of the tau neutrino, or the compilation of quantum field theory?
I'll take John Paul II any day. That dastardly believer played the most important role in freeing tens of millions of people from the communist hell of Eastern Europe. But you probably don't want to be reminded of those atheistic totalitarians.
Tremlett:
You can't really call Meyer a liberal. : )
But then, there are people here who think Pat Buchanan's a Leftist, so...
Wasn't it my turn to be class clown today? Damn.
I wouldn't call Meyer a liberal (leftist.) I'd call him an ongoing case of being bitterly resistant to rationality, which isn't necessarily always the same thing, despite liberal (leftist) efforts to convince otherwise.
And as for Moonbat Pat, let's compromise. Let's call him a psuedo-conservative until he decides what he is.
You don't understand the relevance of a vice President's quote?
Suppose he had said that Catholics should not be considered citizens? Would that be irrelevant too? Would you casually deny the significance then?
But anything can be said about atheists, absolutely anything. Call them communists, totalitarians, Nazis, traitors or murderers and not a word will be said in their defense.
For years the lie has been spread that "There are no atheists in foxholes!"
Imagine the outrage if the statement were made that there are no Jews in foxholes, yet there have been at least twice as many atheists as Jews in the armed services.
Anger? Say to any Jew or Catholic one tenth of what I hear on this website alone, then compare their reactions to mine and tell me who is angry or overly sensitive.
Want more proof? I have no problem praising religious individuals of extraordinary accomplishments like Roger Williams or Bartolomeo de Las Casas. Go ahead, praise an atheist, any atheist and prove me wrong.
Once again, Bob, you're making fantastic leaps in logic with your angry dares and double dares. Why would assume that I could not praise someone who doesn't believe in God?
By the way, there is a huge difference between an atheist and an anti-theist. The latter is the one I don't quite understand.
Redbeard wisely states,
"By the way, there is a huge difference between an atheist and an anti-theist. The latter is the one I don't quite understand."
I do!
It is a "FAITH" based religion, that is one of the most aggressive, hateful, and destructive religions on earth!
And as for Moonbat Pat, let's compromise. Let's call him a psuedo-conservative until he decides what he is.
Psuedo as in 'false'?
How about we just call him "a tribe of his own"? Schizophrenia may indeed explain his many mood/position swings.
J
Redbeard:
If anger bothered you to the extent that you claim then your primary target would be "rightminded" who repeatedly insults those with whom he disagrees.
When you demanded proof of Bush's statement, I provided it. Your answer to the proof I provided was to attack the integrity of someone you don't know simply because he is an atheist.
You refused to address the question of atheists/Jews in foxholes. You refused to address the question of Catholics not being considered to be citizens. Your replies are always questions of my character and motives.
ad hominem:
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.
Come back when you are prepared to present a real argument.
No, Bob, I see no point in continuing this. No point at all. I'm an agnostic, which means I can't really comprehend zealotry of any sort, be it religious cultism or anti-theism. So, knowing my limitations, I'll leave this thread alone.
Pat Buchanan is from the part of the Conservative movement that is closest to Libertarian, and therefore out of favor among NEO-conservative socialists.
Bob Meyer states,
"For years the lie has been spread that "There are no atheists in foxholes!"
My God Bob, you really do, march to a different drumer!
That saying has nothing to do with the number of atheists in the armed services.
It has to do with the fear generated by warfare, and the turning to God to mitigate it when one has little else.
WOW!
Bob Meyer states,
"For years the lie has been spread that "There are no atheists in foxholes!"
My God Bob, you really do, march to a different drumer!
That saying has nothing to do with the number of atheists in the armed services.
It has to do with the fear generated by warfare, and the turning to God to mitigate it when one has little else.
WOW!
Hey Meyer,
"Among the bitterest enemies of fascism were the communists. This was ironic, since their equally totalitarian, ruthless philosophy also owed a great deal to the surge of materialism/atheism resulting from Darwin’s teachings."
Your atheist brethren were, and are still, some of the finest soldiers for the dark side.
They have killed hundreds of millions of people, therefore keep your chin up.
ATHEISTS ARE FINE SOLDIERS!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/mussolini.asp
P.S. Would you have any figures on atheist child molesters?
I figure it's got to be higher than 800 out of 50,000.
You know, all that porn, and no concept of divine retribution!
Did you know that some atheists, trust believers more then fellow aetheists?
There are very few studies of crime committed by religion (it is too hot politically) but the few that there are show atheists among the most under-represented groups.
The only major study that I heard of is with murderers and there are very, very few murders committed by atheists. I am not sure of the date but in the late 90's there were no, repeat no, atheists on death row in the United States.
By comparison, 65% of murders are attributed to nominal Catholics making them the most over-represented religious group among killers (only 25% of the country is Catholic). To be honest, however, I don't place much confidence in these studies because the numbers involved are small and the methodology is usually not named.
As for child molestation, the evidence is only anecdotal but I have never heard of an atheist being convicted of child molestation and given the inordinate hatred of atheists, I am sure that if one were convicted the internet would be ablaze with the story.
I don't know whether the Hollywood director, Roman Polanski, who fled the US after being convicted of statutory rape was an atheist or not.
However, the biggest problem with these studies is that atheists tend to be wealthier, have higher IQs and more education than theists (facts are facts) and all of these have high negative correlations with criminal acts. A proper study would require controls for income, intelligence and education and as far as I am concerned I have not seen any study sufficiently well controlled to give a statistically valid answer.
Without the controls the chances of an atheist committing any crime is at least one order of magnitude less than that of a theist. I would estimate that with the controls that figure would probably drop to 5 to 1 less likely to commit a crime.
Want more proof? I have no problem praising religious individuals of extraordinary accomplishments like Roger Williams or Bartolomeo de Las Casas. Go ahead, praise an atheist, any atheist and prove me wrong.
Madalyn Murray O'Hair was quite a scam artist.
;-P
Pat Buchanan is from the part of the Conservative movement that is closest to Libertarian, and therefore out of favor among NEO-conservative socialists
Moonbat Pat is a Libertarian? Neoconservatives are socialists?
Methinks your poli sci textbook is upside-down.
Pat Buchanan is a psuedo-conservative.
"And as for Moonbat Pat, let's compromise. Let's call him a psuedo-conservative until he decides what he is."
Psuedo as in 'false'?
How about we just call him "a tribe of his own"? Schizophrenia may indeed explain his many mood/position swings.
I say psuedo-conservative because paleo-conservative implies that there was once a time that Pat Buchanan was not goofy.
Moonbat Pat is a Libertarian? Neoconservatives are socialists?
Methinks your poli sci textbook is upside-down.
Pat Buchanan is a psuedo-conservative.
I said "part of the conservative movement closest to libertarian", not that he was libertarian. He is still a paleo-conservative.
And yes, Neocons are Socialists. They occupy the same quadrant of the Nolan Chart, and not the one occupied by conservatives.
Post a Comment
<< Home