Post by Gerrit Stolte
Ratzinger was the advisor of Kardinal Frings during Vatican 2. He changed
his opinions afterwards. What makes you think he won't adjust now that he
has become Pope?
That quick option in favour or Ratzinger seems to demonstrate, another
time, that in the current goverment of the Catholic Church is more
important the defense of the Catholic identity than the actual dialogue
with today's world. Ratzinger represents an scared Church that defends
itself attacking. The worse thing of all is that two thirds of today's
cardinals share Ratzinger's pessimism. This posture, accompanied to
certain populism in countries belonging to the third world, is keeping
Catholicism away for many of the debates that worry most western
societies, like the USA and, mostly, Europe. We had to suffer the
doctrinal replacement during the second half of the XXth century a
doctrinal withdrawal from the advances (at least in my opinion) of the
On Monday Ratzinger was judging, in a very pessimistic tone, the
current culture, when referring to the dictatorship of relativism. That
expression may satisfy sectors worried about the new religiosity and
the New Age movement, but that would hardly satisfy anyone worried
about the actual problems regarding the increase of fundamentalist
beliefs over the current culture of emptiness. That has nothing to do
with dicatorships or with relativisms. No, I wouldn't think that
Ratzinger is the person to go back to the Vatican II, regardless what
he did then.
Post by Gerrit Stolte Post by Josep Vilanova
My accusation of narrow-mindness was due to you having taken in face value a post that
was not intended to be taken that way. Is it that more clear now?
No. And and since you continued to discuss the topic of quitting the
Church, it's pretty obvious that it wasn't an ironic but a serious post. As
I said, not the balls to stick to your way.
The bit about leaving the Church was serious and the bit about the
reason wasn't. Would that be more clear now?