Even with my being a recovering Roman Catholic (or maybe because of that), I’ve been quietly curious about who the next pope would be. I don’t think my religious history was the stronger instigator of my interest, rather the recognition of what weight the leader of a major religion carries in the world today (note Jeremy’s latest post about the interference Ratzinger tried to run during the election). Since the announcement of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s election, I’ve been poking around on the web for honest reactions as I don’t know a thing about him (as opposed to the celebratory-for-the-sake-of-being-celebratory response that I’m sure has been dominating this last extension of the media’s pope-a-thon). I, like many others, was hoping for a return to the open-mindedness that was nowhere to be found under the reign of John Paul II.
Crusader against “Neo-liberalism”(?)
This morning as I was lying in my bed, refusing to get up and run as I originally intended, I was listening to a segment on the reactions to the news, vis-a-vis Latin America’s standing as the largest base of Roman Catholics. A lot of talk about hope and expectations of a Latin American pope, but the last interview of a Latin American man struck me just plain oddly: Despite his disappointment in not having one of his countrymen (regionmen?) elected, he was excited about Benedict XVI and was hoping that he would prove to be a strong opponent of the Iraq war (I can’t remember what he said specifically, but there was definite reference to the US’s warish ways) and neo-liberalism. There wasn’t much context given in the blurb and it was further complicated in that his statement was translated.
I don’t know about you, but I had never heard of neo-liberalism before (Wikipedia to the rescue) and mulled over being disappointed in what he had to say until I got into work and had the opportunity to look it up. Needless to say, I was surprised to find out that it had nothing to do with what I was expecting it to mean. As Wikipedia points out, it really should be called “neoclassical philosophy”, as a lot of what it involves goes very much against what Wiki’ refers to as “the overloaded term ‘liberal’” - in fact, a lot of what it encourages is the same as what neoconservatives support (”net gains for all under free trade and capitalism will outweigh the costs in all, or almost all, cases”).
So given this, it’s quite possible I’m in agreement with this guy (although I don’t have the optimism that it would actually happen). However, if you dig further in Wiki’, he could have meant the term in its most religious tendency, “a drive to deliberately modify the beliefs and practices of the church (especially evangelical) to conform to cultural post-modernism.” For those who also had limited exposure to major thoughts in philosophy, Wiki’s further definition of post-modernism cites that “(it) is also sometimes used to describe social changes which are held to be antithetical to traditional systems of morality, particularly by evangelical Christians.” So maybe I don’t agree with this guy. Honestly, my head was spinning in reading the rather dense & abstract definitions, but I’m guessing that all this came back to this guy thinking that modern reforms to the church was bad.
The Prophecy and the Meaning Behind the Name
After finally getting out of bed and ready for the day, I was chatting with Denise over breakfast and was surprised when she asked me what I thought about Ratzinger. I expressed my concern given what I’ve been hearing about his being a hard-line cardinal and the fact that he was responsible for disciplining dissidents.
In turn, she expressed optimism, also noting St. Malachi’s papal prophecies. Apparently Malachi was pretty good in his predictions, especially given Pope Paul I’s 33-day reign (reflecting Malachi’s predicted description of “Middle of the Moon”) and Pope John Paul II’s birth on a total eclipse (”Labor of the Sun”) - although one has to wonder about self-fulfillment in the latter (one can counter by noting that he died during a hybrid eclipse). Pope Benedict XVI’s predicted description is “Glory of the Olive”, which is being attributed as John Paul II’s successor to be a pope of peace (you know, olive branch and all?). She also mentioned that Ratzinger’s choice of the name Benedict also bodes well given the peaceful history of his namesake (for instance, Pope Benedict XV’s attempts at bringing an end to World War I). I had heard that the choice of Benedict was more a PR choice, trying to soften the reputation he had as a cardinal. You will also note that the previous link makes mention of the Order of St. Benedict is also known by the name “Olivetans”, which has led some people prior to the white smoke to hypothesize that John Paul II’s successor would be Dionigi Tettamanzi (but one can certainly consider this another possible act of self-fulfillment, choosing the name based on the prophecy).
One disturbing side-note about Malachi’s prophecy: He guessed that there would be only one more pope after the Glory of the Olive. As if we needed any more paranoid religious sects coming out of the woodwork proclaiming the end of the world is near…
Ratzinger: History & Potential
Of course, given the current political climate, Ratzinger’s history of being a traditionalist and his xenophobic crusade against Turkey being admitted into the EU given its muslim history, he might wind up betraying the basis of his name and adding fuel to the fire and hastening the end of the world. Then again, there’s always the possibility that he will surprise us all and soften his approach, and continue to build the bridges John Paul II started. One can only hope.
Make no mistake about it, Ratzinger the Disciplinarian is recognized as sharing all of his predecessor’s hard-line views with none of his charisma. The stories coming out of the woodwork are painting a very interesting picture of his history. One can only wonder if he will recognize the popularity slide of the Roman Catholic Church would be best reversed by not being a hardliner, further driving people from his church. For those of you who are interested in reading a little more about it, Salon’s got some interesting info:
« OK, I’m done
Agreed. Send them packing. It’s time we “real” Americans take charge and force Christmas trees and Santa hats into homes as God truly wanted.
Comment by Dan — 12/17/2005 @ 10:50 pm
Of course not; your views only count if they’re the “right” views
Comment by Elizabeth Green — 12/24/2005 @ 12:23 pm