« What did you hear? | Main | A plan? »
April 25, 2005
Compare and contrast
UK Times' columnist Ruth Gedhill's words on 4/20
Cardinal Ratzinger has been hard on theologians, and the traditional bond between theologians and bishops has been seriously damaged. He is so closely associated with the papacy of John Paul II and its centralising tendencies that it is hard to see how he can lead the healing process now required — but perhaps he was simply following the Pope’s lead.
It is also conceivable, seeing the way that the white smoke was blowing, that Cardinal Ratzinger simply adopted the persona of a ruthless conservative in order to rise to the top, and will now use his new power and freedom to usher in an era of enlightenment.
Then again, maybe not. After all, is the Pope a Catholic?
TO THOSE not personally acquainted with the new Pope, it is becoming possible to see why an overwhelming majority of the 115 cardinals in the conclave elected him.
Those close to Benedict XVI have insisted that they do not recognise the warm, spiritual man that they know in the media’s portrait of a ruthless reactionary all too ready in his previous role as doctrinal enforcer to stamp out dissent.
...
If his command of language is any guide, this Pope has the power to transcend nationalities, faiths and conflicts to give a spiritual lead to a world desperately in need of one.
The gift of tongues is, after all, one of the most significant listed by St Paul.
hat tip reader Paul
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
Ruth had a bad day on 4/20. Happens to everyone.
Posted by: Dan Crawford at Apr 25, 2005 8:00:40 AM
I wish I could say that I am suprised. So many media outlets have only two choices: Either change what they say about Benedict (and forget about what they previously said) or not report on him at all. They built up this huge firework that was supposed to go off, but now that it didn't, they're stuck. I must say, it is telling about each media outlet, to see if they are willing to report the real Benedict or not.
Posted by: NHG at Apr 25, 2005 8:02:41 AM
Can only imagine the freezeout she's getting from newsroom colleagues and others in her personal world- by giving Benedict the benefit of the doubt. After last week's collective Nazi/Hitler Youth screamfest in the British press. Too bad- the American media's stil stuck on that template, in many circles. What a trend. Might be bad for Ruth's career, however. Keep her in your prayers for job security, if not future invitations to swanky London cocktail parties.
Posted by: Gerard E. at Apr 25, 2005 8:10:09 AM
The first two paragraphs are simply another example of the ignorance of the secular media.
Healing needed after JPII? Ratzinger as power politician? Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
God bless Benedict XVI, and may his reign be long and successful!
Posted by: stephen m. bauer at Apr 25, 2005 8:25:13 AM
It goes to show that one has to be very careful to believe in the "image" of a person as confected by the media. Probably any medium. But for sure, the secular media.
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson at Apr 25, 2005 8:29:45 AM
Michael Valpy, the Globe and Mail's religion reporter, did a similar about-face (or semi-about-face). On Wednesday he led with:
"The German intellectual branded by Roman Catholic liberals as too theologically rigid and divisive to lead his church stepped almost effortlessly into the papacy yesterday..."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050420/POPEMAIN20/TPInternational/?query=valpy
By Saturday, he was writing:
"What emerges with hindsight's wisdom is not only a rational choice but, as University of Toronto church scholar Giulio Silano sees it, a courageous choice by the cardinals."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050422.wpope23/BNStory/International/?query=valpy
Valpy's a senior and well connected figure at the Globe, so this is good news.
Posted by: Chris Burd at Apr 25, 2005 8:56:21 AM
"The gift of tongues is, after all, one of the most significant listed by St Paul."
Aw, geez. All this time I thought "tongues" was unintelligible babble that one gets if he receives the magical 8th Sacrament of "Baptism in the Holy Spirit." Somebody better clue the new Holy Father on this . . .
Posted by: Eric Giunta at Apr 25, 2005 9:05:39 AM
"The gift of tongues is, after all, one of the most significant listed by St Paul."
Aw, geez. All this time I thought "tongues" was unintelligible babble that one gets if he receives the magical 8th Sacrament of "Baptism in the Holy Spirit." Somebody better clue the new Holy Father on this . . .
Posted by: Eric Giunta at Apr 25, 2005 9:06:56 AM
Tangentially related...
Washington Post did a poll with ABC, and found something surprising (if not to me, then for sure to the Post!): American Catholics overwhelmingly (more than 8 in 10) approve of the choice of Ratzinger, most enthusiastically (more than 7 in 10).
What's noteworthy is the obligatory reference -- this time oblique -- to how American Catholics disagree with the party line, blah blah blah... and yet -- they want Benedict!
One might infer they don't realize who he is. But the Post answered that question: "Eight in 10 expect him to maintain traditional church policies..." -- this, despite the poll finding roughly half want "modernization."
Sounds to me like a lot of folks who clamor for change, are like adolescents: in their heart of hearts are awfully glad papa and mama (Church) smile and keep going as they'd planned.
Posted by: Septimus at Apr 25, 2005 9:11:51 AM
Tangentially related...
Washington Post did a poll with ABC, and found something surprising (if not to me, then for sure to the Post!): American Catholics overwhelmingly (more than 8 in 10) approve of the choice of Ratzinger, most enthusiastically (more than 7 in 10).
What's noteworthy is the obligatory reference -- this time oblique -- to how American Catholics disagree with the party line, blah blah blah... and yet -- they want Benedict!
One might infer they don't realize who he is. But the Post answered that question: "Eight in 10 expect him to maintain traditional church policies..." -- this, despite the poll finding roughly half want "modernization."
Sounds to me like a lot of folks who clamor for change, are like adolescents: in their heart of hearts are awfully glad papa and mama (Church) smile and keep going as they'd planned.
Posted by: Septimus at Apr 25, 2005 9:13:51 AM
She still had to put in that comment about the "smug smile". (Smug? More like astonished and joyful, I'd say.) But on the whole, a really nice change.
Posted by: Maureen at Apr 25, 2005 9:15:36 AM
She still had to put in that comment about the "smug smile". (Smug? More like astonished and joyful, I'd say.) But on the whole, a really nice change.
Posted by: Maureen at Apr 25, 2005 9:25:02 AM
Ruth Gledhill has written about her own struggle between her liberal and evangelical instincts. I assume taht she resolved it by letting her inner liberal write her column last week, and her inner evangelical today.
Posted by: Mark C. at Apr 25, 2005 9:40:35 AM
The new Pope’s defenders — thin on the ground until now, and dominated by a predictable clique of white men, middle-aged or older
How does he know this? Has he traveled to Africa to see how the parishes there are reacting? To Latin America? To Asia?
Posted by: Jason at Apr 25, 2005 9:46:38 AM
Septimus,
Did the polls ask the respondents if they knew much about Benedict before his election? The people in my young adult group only vaguely knew about him before, because their hero Scott Hahn had praised him. No doubt the older Catholics I know recognize him better, but I don't think they're very representative of the faithful, since they're mostly theology junkies.
Posted by: Kevin Jones at Apr 25, 2005 1:13:20 PM
