I watched tearfully as the announced our new pope yesterday. How exciting. As a young person and a fairly recent convert to Catholicism, this has all been quite an experience. I do get frustrated watching the coverage at times. Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, gets so much criticism for his conservative stance on church doctrine (though I know some ultra-conservatives who think he is too liberal--they just don't have the voice in the media). They are always interviewing a "Catholic" who thinks the church should allow this or that. My question is this, why do they care? They obviously aren't trying to follow church teaching in their life choices right now. Why are they even Catholic? There are plenty of religions/sects/denominations that will "allow" them to act as they wish, why not join one of those? As I joyfully watch our new Pope, these types of comments from other "Catholics" are something that truly boggle my mind!

Many conservatives are saddened and outraged by his being picked. Andrew Sullivan is a good example.

Me, personally; since I have no stake in Catholicism, and since from a strategic perspective, he seems about the worst pick possible... Meh.

He clearly believes the Church is invincible; few other positions could explain his actions.

There's a great piece from the National Review on why, ultimately, he will lose:

http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200504071043.asp

Hi Joe!

Many conservatives? Andrew Sullivan? A non-Catholic from NR? You? Joe, before you embarass yourself anymore, go to www.ignatius.com and consider reading one fo the 25 or so books Ratzinger has written before you allow those with axes to grind pervert your understanding of the Church or him any further. The overwhelming majority of Catholics worldwide, and yes Joe here in the USA, are overjoyed to see a Pope who is once again, merely presenting Catholic doctrine. It is not cnservative or liberlal to espouse this Tradition, it is Catholic. The fact that pro-choice, homosexual or any other hyphenated Catholics take issue with Church teaching reveals primarily their own moral and spiritual problems, not defects in the Church. It is not that they have "tried" Catholicism and found it lacking. Instead their identities and agendas, shaped and confirmed by a world that has lost its way, are threatened. Benedict will lose? Are you aware how absurd this statement is? The Church will once again bury her undertakers.

Waygood Ellis

Benedict XVI represents Roman Catholic orthodoxy and that is why so many people are disheartened by his elevation. The Wall Street Journal is full of articles on this subject and I highly recommend them. Peggy Noonan’s two most recent columns are heart-warming. She recalls The Glass Menagerie’s haunting lines, “when the world is lit by lightning,” and reinforces the importance of the Holy Father’s task in our postmodern world, devoid of truth and moral absolutes. The unity of the Catholic (i.e. universal) Church depends upon the strict adherence to centuries of tradition—something most conservatives understand—and the order which is the natural product of such a patrimony.

The spiritual leader of 1.1 billion Catholics must not yield in his fight against the secular impulses of our debilitating culture. Benedict XVI knows his mission is to fortify the Church against the temptations of social self-gratification—the Holy Church is not the American electorate and does not look to pander to public sentiment. There are things of greater importance than temporal comfort found in the dehumanizing acts of modernity, and the Holy Father is keenly aware of this. It is not his job to bow to popular political and cultural pressures.

The successes and failures of the Holy Roman Church cannot be measured in the number of followers it attracts. Pope John Paul II’s insistence on strict orthodoxy is not attractive to many so-called “moderate” or “liberal” Catholics because it insists on a lifestyle that is often incompatible with our culture. Benedict’s mission is not to water down Catholicism to the point of meaninglessness to attract high numbers, but to clearly articulate a defense of traditional orthodoxy so that persons can come to the light of Christ and reject sin. A pope who refuses to defend the faith, and all of those moral issues which are inextricably linked to it, fails his flock. A weak pope would destroy the fabric of Catholicism and leave the Church “a heap of broken images.”

Media resistance to Benedict’s papacy is a response riddled with fear. If the humble John Paul II could lead the charge against communism (“simply step out fearlessly knowing that I am with you”), another humble servant of God could lead the Church to reject those things which have become the idolatrous gods of modernity. The effects of John Paul’s orthodox reign are easily felt in the growing traditionalism of the Church. Another staunch defender of the faith risks showing the world the ways of Christ are worth following. This makes the Holy See’s opponents shake with fear. It is almost Tolkienesque.

Benedict XVI does not think the Church is invincible in the way Mr. McReynolds asserts. The Holy See has a responsibility to uphold its own traditions in the face of immense external pressure. The Pope clearly understands his responsibility to preserve the Church’s traditionalism so that rogue bishops (as in the American Episcopal Church’s Gene Robinson) do not shatter its sacred teachings and importance to the world. Furthermore, his insistence on orthodox teachings serves to remind Catholics around the world that their responsibility to the faith extends beyond the church doors. Catholics participate in one faith, guided by one church, with one message, with one orthodoxy, and are led by one voice. The Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ, the successor to St. Peter, and the supreme leader of the Holy Church. As such, there is no room for him to compromise on issues of faith and morality. The Church has a responsibility to the faithful to do what is right, no matter how unpopular, so that truth guides our lives. Dark forces lay siege on Benedict because his Church is the last unified, unwavering stand against the perils of modernity. Benedict’s inner strength, which is seemingly robust, will lead to a reign marked by intense cultural battles and finally, on another dark day, triumph with the ascension of another able successor. Ultimate victory is not found in this life, but the perpetuation of a long struggle against evil and moral corruption is a sign of its tangibility. Benedict XVI is not the worst person who could have been chosen pope: he is the best and his opponents know it.

quote:

Media resistance to Benedict’s papacy is a response riddled with fear...This makes the Holy See’s opponents shake with fear.

Benedict XVI is not the worst person who could have been chosen pope: he is the best and his opponents know it.

I think it is true that opponents of the Holy See say what they do in fear. I believe we as humans tend to fear what we do not understand--especially when that something is as big and powerful as the Catholic church. This whole thing reminds me of high school when peers try to pressure a person into doing things they know they shouldn't insisting it will make them popular. Many think if the church would just let go of its outdated teachings it would be popular again. If that is the case, than why is church attendance also down in the Epicopal/Lutheran/Protestant churches, too?

I guess none of this really addresses my OP, though. I understand why the liberal media and "cafeteria" Catholics aren't pleased with the cardinals' choice. What I don't understand is why they care so much.

For instance, why does someone who thinks the church's teaching on birth control is wrong, chooses to use it, continues to receive communion not believing they are commiting mortal sin, and possibly don't even believe in the real presence in the Eucharist (as 50% of self-proclaimed Catholics don't)...why does it worry these people what the church actually teaches since they obviously think nothing of the Church's authority in such matters and ignore its present teaching anyway?

Or even more boggling, why does someone who isn't Catholic at all care?