To expound just a little, if the majority of Christians and especially the Catholics were more like Christ and less like Joseph Ratzinger, most other religions wouldn’t really be necessary.
Not even remotely relevant to my point. My point is that, regardless of what excommunication actually DOES mean (and I’m still a bit skeptical about the way Sarahfeena is describing it… I mean, if it’s just a recognition of a state that already exists, why would people view it as such a big deal?), what lots and lots of generally well-educated people THINK it means is a much simpler “you are doing something that bothers us so much that you can’t be Catholics any more, and now you’re going to hell”. And in that context, for the pope to de-excommunicate someone who holds a particular set of loathsome views can’t but be seen as tacet support for those views, particularly without any statement to the contrary.
It’s relevant to my premise that you may not know what you are talking about. You were wrong about one set of facts, you may well be about another.
If excommunication and “de-excommunication” are viewed as quasi-judicial proceedings, it’s highly relevant to know what they were excommunicated for. And as many here have made the point, it wasn’t, ever, for uninformed speculation about only 350,000 Jews dying at the hands of the Nazis (as the one Brit goober saw fit to hold forth on – and mind you, I don’t even know if he had manifested these views at the time of his excommunication). It was for schism associated with the internal politics of LeFebvre and the sedavacantist movement. Period (with the caveats Tom elaborated upon).
Your “can’t but be seen as tacet [sp.] support” has no logical basis. Let’s say you’re a Nazi jackass. I also find out that you’re raising money for your Nazi cause and not paying taxes on it. The IRS brings charges, and you’re convicted. Later you turn up with a no-action letter that the IRS had written you years before, showing that you had proper tax exempt status. Would you accept that the court’s reversal, on appeal, of your conviction for tax evasion was “necessarily tacet [sp.] support” for your beliefs? Of course you wouldn’t, because the two are completely unrelated.
The Pope is not responsible for what the general public (wrongly or rightly, in this case, wrongly) thinks about how internal Church procedure works.
Would have ETA on the “can’t but be seen as tacet [sp.] support” point:
If he supported it, why would it be “tacet?” Why not explicit? As he’s proving, there’s no appeals court to overrule him.
This theory is just dumb as to any German of his generation. The War was a relatively, uh, polarizing event. I would have to logically infer that a German who was a direct participant in those events would be either staunchly pro-Nazi or clearly convinced of the wrongness and magnitude of their misdeeds. Unless you posit and can otherwise establish that the Pope looks back on his conscripted days in the Hitler Youth with nostalgia and a revisionist view of just how misunderstood those nice old stormtroopers had been, as opposed to thinking the whole thing was a nightmare, to posit his giving “tacet” support to revisionist thinkers is a silly position.
My guess would be that it’s because they either don’t believe that they are outside the fold of the Church, and/or because they believe that the Church should change their stance to agree with them. For instance, I read recently somewhere about a priest who was threatened with excommunication because he was ordaining women priests. I don’t know what that particular priest’s opinion of the excommunication was, but he knew darn well that he wasn’t supposed to be ordaining women. He’s deliberately defying the Church because he doesn’t agree with this particular Church teaching…but I doubt that his goal is to be excommunicated. His goal is either to 1) do what he believes to be the right thing to do, despite what Rome says, and/or 2) get Rome to think about this issue and hopefully change their stance on it. That doesn’t mean that he no longer wants to be part of the Church…if he did, or if he didn’t care, he could easily leave and convert to another religion. He still wants to be part of the Church, and he still believes in the “Truth” of Catholicism, he just wants the Church to change on one issue, or believes that they hold a particluar position that is wrong.
See that’s exactly my point. You have one set of critical tools and you are misapplying them. Terms like, “Far right wing”, and “Conservative” are meaningless here. He’s CATHOLIC. He’s not subject to political categories in the way you are using them. So those terms just don’t apply. And I don’t think the Catholic church needs a lighter touch. It was becoming stagnant, there was no passion in it and people were leaving the fold. The Pope needs to do what is best for the Catholic church not what is best to fit within modern dialectical categories.
What the hell does this even mean? What is Joseph Ratzinger like? Please try and explain without using your modern dialectical political categories.
Who’s afraid of the Holy See
the Holy See,
the Holy See,
Who’s afraid of the Holy See
Na-na-na-na-na
Was it the Firesign Theater that had a routine involving this verse? I forget.
Nevermind. It was National Lampoon.
Or was it Al Franken? Boy, this is confusing.
Okee dokee. Pope Benedict is a big, fat meanie and a doo-doo head.
Right, that’s what I thought you meant.
There’s a good article that breaks down the basics of what’s going on in Newsweek.
In all seriousness, what it means is that the values and ideals that the Church has held for lo these many years face a coming change and that men like Ratzinger (which just now strikes me a particularly horrible flavor of Dolly Madison baked goods) who force those increasingly outmoded values and ideals on an ever-evolving populace will cause more harm than good. Build more schisms than bridges. If you wish, as the leader of the Catholics, indeed the leader of any large political, er, religious group to gather sheep for your flock, you should probably not go on a campaign against the existence of sheep.
It’s your assumption, and little more, that the “populace” is “evolving.” It’s the Church’s position that human and divine nature, both of which it concerns itself with, have been and will remain constants. Social and political trends and shifts, back and forth, hither and yon, have occurred during the past 2,000 years, and the Church has managed to persist, “outmoded values and ideals” and all.
So in essence, Benedict goes about healing the “wounds” in his own church by trying to bring it back to a more traditional, sorry, Traditional way and whilst so doing eschews modernity and basically gives a big-hatted finger to the jews and everyone else who doesn’t follow age-old hard line doctrine.
Way to be.
I still don’t see how that follows he’s attempting to bring the flock back together after a schism and this thread is lambasting him for it. What is he supposed to do?
Your posts are little more than a Pitting in disguise. And less fun or interesting.
Pope Benedict accepts traditionalists. He does not eschew modernists. Because no mater what you think or how you live, the Church does not change its positions. It changes its understanding a little, but the pruinciples remain. What was true yesterday is true today and wil be true tommorow. People with opinions strikingly similar to yours have always existed, and every one of them as certain that the Church was outmoded, a thing of last year. They are all dead. We remain.
The funny thing about modernism, is that next year it’s incorrect, and most people either romanticize themselves into having done things they never did or regret that they actualy did do them.
That article said nothing that would support this interpretation.
What it said was the guys he lifted the excommunication from are anti-modernists. He has not retracted any of the fundamental aspects of Vatican II like the edict against anti-semitism, nor does he endorse holocaust denial. The holocaust denial aspect is really a fringe view within a fringe view here. One that is being blown out of proportion because the Rabbis expect ideological purity in their favor but won’t give an inch in the other direction. The Holocaust denial is one bishop, and not even the archbishop.
The article also pointed out that neither John-Paul II nor Ratzinger are the faces of modernity, and that they tried very hard back in 1988 to keep this schism from happening.
The “Rabbis” won’t give an inch in the direction of accepting holocaust deniers? Well, I must say, I’m not so opposed to such “ideological purity” myself. 
OTOH, I had no problems with the new version of the prayer.
Is it my “assumption” that the human race has, by and large, “evolved” past the point of slavery? Is it only my assumption that we (Americans specifically in this example) no longer think of black people as inferior? Whatever the stated position or mission of the Church, the fact remains that it, like every other large scale organization, cannot and does not exist in a vacuum. Yes, they have persisted, but the casualty rate of thier persistance detracts from their mission and hurts their intent.
It’s one holocaust denier. One. That’s the salient point.