Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Archive > Archive > Benedict XVI: 2005
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

 
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old Apr 26, '05, 12:00 am
GloriaPatri4 GloriaPatri4 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2005
Posts: 754
Religion: Catholic
Exclamation Behind the rage at Benedict XVI by Patrick J. Buchanan

Behind the rage at Benedict XVI

by Patrick J. Buchanan


Posted: April 25, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern



"Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you."

Hearing Jesus' words in the synagogue at Capharnum, many of his disciples said, "'This is a hard saying, who can hear it?' ... From that time many ... walked no more with him."

This episode from the Gospel of St. John is instructive. For today, scores of millions do not believe that John Paul II taught infallibly when he condemned abortion, contraception, homosexuality and the idea of women-priests. They cannot accept church teaching as settled and final, and want it changed to reflect their own beliefs. Yet, all the modern popes, and now Benedict XVI, refuse to change doctrine to accommodate them.

Thus, the rage, resentment and frustration that the conclave chose Cardinal Ratzinger as pope. They are like children who have been told by a stern but loving father that their tantrums are to no avail and they are not going to get their way, though they have been used to getting their way for most of their pampered lives.

And so the new pope is denounced as "God's rottweiler," "der PanzerKardinal," John Paul II's enforcer and the chief inquisitor who cruelly silenced the voices of dissent after Vatican II. What the hostility of the liberal media to the selection of Cardinal Ratzinger tells us is that the conclave got it right.

The secular world, too, hoped the church would alter its doctrines to conform to a moral relativism that teaches there is no law above manmade law, and that what is right and wrong is decided by each generation. The notion that there is a higher law – God's law, permanent law – to which all manmade law and human conduct must conform is anathema.

But, still, why do they fulminate so? Why are so many journalists and cafeteria Catholics making fools of themselves denouncing Benedict XVI? The pope has no authority to force anyone to abide by church teachings. The church cannot interfere with the lifestyles of the rich and famous who wish to live together outside of matrimony, or enter into homosexual relationships, or have abortions, or throw over their wives. The church cannot punish anyone in this world. If they are punished in the next, it will not be Benedict XVI who sends them to Hell.

But if they do not believe in Hell, what are they worried about? What are they whining about? Why do they not simply say: "The church is wrong, the church is out of touch, the church is yesterday. I'm gone."

Answer: Deep in their hearts, they fear the church is right. They are unsettled because they fear that when the church says it has been given by Christ custody of the truths about how men must live to reach eternal life, it is right. When liberal Catholics say people have been "hurt" by Catholic teachings, what they are saying is that their consciences are hurting.

To modern man, freedom means the inalienable right to live one's life in conformity with one's desires. Many Americans buy into that idea of freedom. In Catholicism, true freedom is the freedom to live one's life in conformity with the Gospels and church teachings, as this is the only certain way to eternal life.

What the world wants the church to do is to stop claiming it is the custodian of moral truth. Because the church refuses, it is hated. As an earlier pope would not bless the new marriage of Henry VIII, this pope will not accede to the world's demands. And so Benedict XVI must and will be relentlessly attacked.



In a sense, there are only two kinds of people in the world: those who create their own moral code to conform to how they wish to live – such as Hugh Hefner, who created his own Playboy philosophy – and those who try to conform their lives to a moral code that exists outside and above themselves, like Benedict XVI.

Completing the episode in the Gospel of St. John, when the other disciples rejected his words and departed, "Jesus said unto twelve: Will you also go away?

"Then Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life." What Benedict XVI is telling the world and dissident Catholics is: It is not Christ's church that must change its teaching, it is you who must change your hearts. Like Christ himself, Benedict XVI will be reviled because he has said no to the world, the flesh and the Devil.



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43966
  #2  
Old Apr 26, '05, 12:05 am
Max Kolbe Max Kolbe is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2005
Posts: 105
Religion: Roman Catholic
Thumbs up Re: Behind the rage at Benedict XVI by Patrick J. Buchanan

Quote:
Originally Posted by GloriaPatri4
Behind the rage at Benedict XVI

by Patrick J. Buchanan


Posted: April 25, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern



"Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you."

Hearing Jesus' words in the synagogue at Capharnum, many of his disciples said, "'This is a hard saying, who can hear it?' ... From that time many ... walked no more with him."

This episode from the Gospel of St. John is instructive. For today, scores of millions do not believe that John Paul II taught infallibly when he condemned abortion, contraception, homosexuality and the idea of women-priests. They cannot accept church teaching as settled and final, and want it changed to reflect their own beliefs. Yet, all the modern popes, and now Benedict XVI, refuse to change doctrine to accommodate them.

Thus, the rage, resentment and frustration that the conclave chose Cardinal Ratzinger as pope. They are like children who have been told by a stern but loving father that their tantrums are to no avail and they are not going to get their way, though they have been used to getting their way for most of their pampered lives.

And so the new pope is denounced as "God's rottweiler," "der PanzerKardinal," John Paul II's enforcer and the chief inquisitor who cruelly silenced the voices of dissent after Vatican II. What the hostility of the liberal media to the selection of Cardinal Ratzinger tells us is that the conclave got it right.

The secular world, too, hoped the church would alter its doctrines to conform to a moral relativism that teaches there is no law above manmade law, and that what is right and wrong is decided by each generation. The notion that there is a higher law – God's law, permanent law – to which all manmade law and human conduct must conform is anathema.

But, still, why do they fulminate so? Why are so many journalists and cafeteria Catholics making fools of themselves denouncing Benedict XVI? The pope has no authority to force anyone to abide by church teachings. The church cannot interfere with the lifestyles of the rich and famous who wish to live together outside of matrimony, or enter into homosexual relationships, or have abortions, or throw over their wives. The church cannot punish anyone in this world. If they are punished in the next, it will not be Benedict XVI who sends them to Hell.

But if they do not believe in Hell, what are they worried about? What are they whining about? Why do they not simply say: "The church is wrong, the church is out of touch, the church is yesterday. I'm gone."

Answer: Deep in their hearts, they fear the church is right. They are unsettled because they fear that when the church says it has been given by Christ custody of the truths about how men must live to reach eternal life, it is right. When liberal Catholics say people have been "hurt" by Catholic teachings, what they are saying is that their consciences are hurting.

To modern man, freedom means the inalienable right to live one's life in conformity with one's desires. Many Americans buy into that idea of freedom. In Catholicism, true freedom is the freedom to live one's life in conformity with the Gospels and church teachings, as this is the only certain way to eternal life.

What the world wants the church to do is to stop claiming it is the custodian of moral truth. Because the church refuses, it is hated. As an earlier pope would not bless the new marriage of Henry VIII, this pope will not accede to the world's demands. And so Benedict XVI must and will be relentlessly attacked.



In a sense, there are only two kinds of people in the world: those who create their own moral code to conform to how they wish to live – such as Hugh Hefner, who created his own Playboy philosophy – and those who try to conform their lives to a moral code that exists outside and above themselves, like Benedict XVI.

Completing the episode in the Gospel of St. John, when the other disciples rejected his words and departed, "Jesus said unto twelve: Will you also go away?

"Then Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life." What Benedict XVI is telling the world and dissident Catholics is: It is not Christ's church that must change its teaching, it is you who must change your hearts. Like Christ himself, Benedict XVI will be reviled because he has said no to the world, the flesh and the Devil.



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=43966
AMEN!
  #3  
Old Apr 26, '05, 12:05 am
Franze Franze is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: November 22, 2004
Posts: 1,946
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Behind the rage at Benedict XVI by Patrick J. Buchanan

Very agree with this, good article
  #4  
Old Apr 26, '05, 12:26 am
rjs1 rjs1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 12, 2005
Posts: 362
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Behind the rage at Benedict XVI by Patrick J. Buchanan

Brilliant!!!!
  #5  
Old Apr 26, '05, 1:49 am
Milliardo's Avatar
Milliardo Milliardo is offline
Greeter
Prayer Warrior
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Posts: 3,087
Religion: Orthodox
Send a message via AIM to Milliardo Send a message via Yahoo to Milliardo
Default Re: Behind the rage at Benedict XVI by Patrick J. Buchanan

Pat Buchanan isn't exactly liked for his conservative views, but he stands by the Church's teachings as a good Catholic, and that makes him good in my book.
__________________
If a person truly wants to live, he can make any place he wants a heaven.--Yui Ikari, Neon Genesis Evangelion


  #6  
Old Apr 26, '05, 3:19 am
Michael T. Michael T. is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: April 21, 2005
Posts: 65
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Behind the rage at Benedict XVI by Patrick J. Buchanan

I can't help but feel frustrated when people attack the Church's teachings when I can see plain as day that they don't understand the Church's teaching and also don't care enough to put the intellectual effort forward to understand why the Church teaches as it does.

The problem is that Catholicism is an intelligent religion that requires an open heart and mind, time, and some study to understand. Understanding the faith is like building a skyscraper. One needs a good foundation (an open heart that honestly loves goodness and seeks truth) and sturdy building materials (Sacred Scripture, Tradition, the Catechism, the writings and lives of the saints) and time to absorb all of these things. Tearing at this skyscraper to attack it is easy. It is always easier to tear something down than to build it. Those who attack Catholicism for their own reasons don't really hurt the Church (it's been around for 2,000 years and will last until the end of time), but I fear that they influence others who might have come to the truth to listen to the siren song of relativism (without absolutes) and lead countless people astray. I am very sad for those who lead others away from God. I can only hope that they don't know what they are doing so they won't be judged responsible when they meet God.

It is insulting to insist that the Catholic Church must change the 2000 year old teachings transmitted from Christ and the apostles to the present day just because lots of people in the world refuse to understand why the Church teaches as it does.

Church teaching does not and cannot change on matters of faith and morals - ever. That's a belief of the Catholic faith. To reject Church teaching on matters of faith and morals is to cease to be Catholic.

It's like asking the Jews to accept Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, and the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. If a Jewish person does this, they cease to be Jewish (by religion, not by race). It would be considered appalling for media outlets and individual Christians to publicly insult the Jews by constantly ridiculing them for not accepting Jesus as God. Yet people think nothing of mocking and insulting the faith of over a billion people in the world and demanding constantly that these people reject their faith and accept a watered down counterfeit that is pleasing to the present age in its stead.

People who want the Pope to change Catholic doctrine essentially want the Pope to abandon the Catholic faith.

Maybe people who call for these changes don't understand that they are asking for the impossible. Maybe they don't realize how hurtful and insulting such demands for change are to faithful Catholics. I hope so.

Nobody is forcing anyone to believe anything or do anything. If people don't want to be Catholic, they can join a religion that suits them (or remain in the religion that suits them if they aren't Catholic to begin with).

I encourage people to try to learn what the Church teaches and why Catholics believe as they do with an open mind and heart instead of dismissing Church teaching out of hand because of personal prejudice.

I also wish people would stop insisting that my faith is wrong by mocking its tenets and calling for “liberalization” (i.e., rejection and abandonment) of its teachings. Maybe they don't realize that their insistance on liberalization is really an invitation to Catholics to reject their faith. Maybe they don't know that they are attempting to pressure Catholics to leave the Church (in their hearts if not outright). Maybe they don't realize that they are attempting to ask Catholics to abandon what they believe to be the Church Christ founded in exchange for human respect. But they are doing all of these things.

There is nothing wrong with asking questions to try and understand, but it is unbelievably inappropriate to simply insist that people reject the Catholic faith just because you don’t like what they believe. Evangelization is one thing, but attempting to bully and goad people into rejecting their faith in exchange for moral relativism is a poor exchange.
  #7  
Old Apr 26, '05, 3:20 am
Michael T. Michael T. is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: April 21, 2005
Posts: 65
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Behind the rage at Benedict XVI by Patrick J. Buchanan

What is more puzzling is when people insist on rebelling against God's law, and then use their "right" to rebellion as an excuse for further rebellion. That is the case with the argument for condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS. AIDS is hard for people who treat sex the way God intended it to be treated to catch. Chastity until marriage and monogamy in marriage take care of any need for condoms. People who observe God's laws in the area of sexuality will most likely never be at risk for any sexually transmitted disease. They might get AIDS another way, but a condom wouldn't have prevented it. And I'm not saying people who get AIDS deserve it. I'm just stating the fact that God's law and Church teaching don't leave people without protection from sexually transmitted disease, as those who insist on handing out condoms as our only hope against AIDS and other STD's imply. The Church's teaching in these areas is actually safer and more effective than a condom. Those who claim the teaching is "unrealistic" seem to think human beings can't control themselves. What they are really against is any kind of discipline and self-restraint. They seek freedom without responsibility or consequences, and nobody in this world can have that. Not even the British Royalty, despite all their wealth, power, and privilege. Yet people keep insisting that it is better to do what is wrong and then add sin upon sin to avoid the consequences instead of avoiding all that unpleasantness by doing the right thing in the first place.

It is my contention that those who live by the Church's teachings will actually be safer, happier, and free of the accusations of a guilty conscience.

Nobody is saying anybody has to follow the Church's teaching or God's law without their own free consent. Those who disregard Church teaching on sexual morality will probably use condoms too. Why would they follow Church teaching about condoms if they were already violating Church teaching by placing themselves in a situation where they would "need" condoms?

It seems the only real reason to call for the Church to change its teachings is that these teachings bother people's consciences. Otherwise, people would live their own lives and not bother trying to encourage Catholics to compromise their fidelity to Christ.
  #8  
Old Apr 26, '05, 5:12 am
Ani Ibi's Avatar
Ani Ibi Ani Ibi is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: October 30, 2004
Posts: 15,285
Religion: Unreformed
Default Re: Behind the rage at Benedict XVI by Patrick J. Buchanan

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael T.
I can't help but feel frustrated when people attack the Church's teachings when I can see plain as day that they don't understand the Church's teaching and also don't care enough to put the intellectual effort forward to understand why the Church teaches as it does.
Well spoken. I breath a sigh of recognition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael T.
There is nothing wrong with asking questions to try and understand, but it is unbelievably inappropriate to simply insist that people reject the Catholic faith just because you don’t like what they believe. Evangelization is one thing, but attempting to bully and goad people into rejecting their faith in exchange for moral relativism is a poor exchange.
Secular humanists have all sorts of Newspeak for what they believe. Basically what they believe, however, is 'bullyism.' Pure and simple.
__________________
a song for you: O come, o come, Emmanuel
  #9  
Old Apr 26, '05, 5:58 am
fix fix is offline
 
Join Date: June 2, 2004
Posts: 18,519
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Behind the rage at Benedict XVI by Patrick J. Buchanan

Buchanan is right on the money. This is an excellent summary of the state of things today. So simple, so clear and so very accurate.
  #10  
Old Apr 26, '05, 6:46 am
javelin javelin is offline
Regular Member
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: July 12, 2004
Posts: 626
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Behind the rage at Benedict XVI by Patrick J. Buchanan

Great Article! Thanks fix!
  #11  
Old Apr 26, '05, 7:45 am
jmv jmv is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2005
Posts: 134
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Behind the rage at Benedict XVI by Patrick J. Buchanan

Bingo, Pat!
  #12  
Old Apr 26, '05, 9:00 am
sweetchuck sweetchuck is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2004
Posts: 1,199
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Behind the rage at Benedict XVI by Patrick J. Buchanan

What an article! Buchanan/Bush in 08!
__________________
"He who has seen me has seen the Father" Jn 14:9.


When they got out on land, they saw a charcoal fire there ...
  #13  
Old Apr 26, '05, 9:21 am
Isilzha Isilzha is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Posts: 188
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Behind the rage at Benedict XVI by Patrick J. Buchanan

I am not usually a fan of Pat, but he was right on the money with this one.
  #14  
Old Apr 26, '05, 2:20 pm
PASCENDI PASCENDI is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 1, 2004
Posts: 181
Religion: Ultramontane
Default Re: Behind the rage at Benedict XVI by Patrick J. Buchanan

Should see if White Dove could post my pics with with Pat as well as Benedict.
Anyhow, it looks like the pope has read Pat's Death of the West

WND
__________________
Quod Scripsi, Scripsi
 

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Archive > Archive > Benedict XVI: 2005

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8476Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: speedyg
5153CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: Vim71
4429Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: daughterstm
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3863SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2
3762Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: daughterstm
3330Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3286Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3225Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: 4elise
3114For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: Weejee



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:31 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.