Some Positive Newspaper Editorial Responses to Benedict XVI

Although our bishop is a liberal clone of Cardinal Roger Mahoney, one of the beneifts of living in Orange County is having a major daily newspaper that doesn't insult our intelligence and values on a daily basis. Here is the reaction to Benedict XVI's election from the Orange County Register editorial page, plus some observations on the newspaper's blog from the keen mind of OCR editorial writer Steve Greenhut, who isn't even Catholic:

Catholicism and Islam
On a morning talk show today, one caller echoed a common thought: the way for the church to win new converts, especially in Europe with its large Muslim populations, is to further liberalize its teachings. That doesn't make sense. The large Muslim populations in Europe are extremely conservative, so liberalization won't appeal to them. Likewise, people want truth not mushy liberalism. In those dioceses that preach a traditional doctrine, there are many candidates wanting to join the priesthood. In the liberal dioceses, few men want to become priests. Those Christian denominations that are the most liberal are the ones where the pews are empty, but those denominations that are conservative are the ones that are growing. Again, people are drawn to real ideas and real theology rather than mush. If the church embraces mush, then it will create a downward spiral.

Complaints About Divisiveness
Media coverage of the pope today has included references to Benedict XVI's supposed divisiveness. Liberals claim to hate divisiveness, even as they pursue the most divisive policies in politics and theology. Actually, divisiveness can be quite good, especially in a pope. Christ, we recall, was an extremely divisive figure. That happens when one promotes a truth that is at odds with prevalent lies. Christ was so divisive that his enemies crucified him. On a much lesser political level, it's true that the only policies that can offer important change will be divisive because they attack interest groups vested in the current corrupt system. That doesn't mean every thing that is divisive is good, but divisiveness certainly isn't a sign that something necessarily is bad.

What's Wrong With Dialogue?
The Catholic Left has been amazingly dishonest in its response to the election of Joseph Ratzinger as pope. Liberals who want to change church teaching insist that they aren't asking for change but for "dialogue." Yet the dialogue is always designed to produce the desired result: more church liberalization. These dialogue supporters want to talk only about the areas in which they think the church is deficient. They want to dialogue about celibacy, about sexuality, about gay marriage, etc. The obvious intent of a dialogue of this sort is to move the pendulum in the direction of the social change they are seeking. They don't want dialogue about, say, expanding the Tridentine Mass, or ridding the church of liberation theologians, or any of the things conservatives would like to talk about.

Here's a sample of this dishonesty from Andrew Sullivan, who I referred to in a previous post:

"What many of us are asking for is simply the ability for lay Catholics and indeed priests and theologians to be able to debate respectfully such pressing issues as mandatory celibacy for the priesthood, a less rigid biological understanding of the rights and dignity of women, and a real dialogue with gay Catholics about how we can practically live lives that reflect our human dignity and our profound human need for intimacy and sexual expression."

The Hysterics Continue
Liberal critics of the Catholic Church's teaching are practically hysterical now after the election of conservative Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as pope. That's a good sign. Here's the funniest thing I've read, which is from Andrew Sullivan's blog:

"I expect an imminent ban on all gay seminarians, celibate or otherwise. And I expect the Church's immersion in the culture wars in the West - on every imaginable issue. For American Catholics, I foresee an accelerating exodus. But that, remember, is the plan. The Ratzingerians want to empty the pews in America and start over. They will, in that sense, be successful."

Talk about conspiracy theorizing. Sullivan believes church conservatives really have a plan to empty the pews on purpose so they can replace parishioners with ... what? Stepford Wives Catholics who will do as they are told? This is insane, but a telling insight into the conspiratorial beliefs of lefties (Sullivan has been called a conservative, which is a stretch, but on church issues he is on the far left).

The Battler Against Relativism
I'm not a Catholic, but I nevertheless felt a certain joy as the conclave named Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger the new pope. He has taken the name Pope Benedict XVI. The world desperately needs the church's moral voice, and yet the battle within Catholicism has softened that voice. Liberals, such as Archbishop Mahony of LA and Bishop Brown of Orange, have attacked and belittled traditionalism, and they have tried to soften the church's position on issues relating to sexuality, even as they were grossly negligent in their handling of the sex-abuse crisis. Remember when Bishop Brown first came to OC? One of his big issues was the canonization of Martin Luther King Jr., which shows the degree to which these modernist bishops embrace trendy politics rather than faith.

The liberals must be weeping and gnashing their teeth, given that the new pope is solidly conservative. In his homily yesterday, he wisely stated: "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism, whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along by every wind of teaching, looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's standards."

I laughed at the liberal theologians on the TV programs who said they only wanted the new pope to enter into "dialogue" about their pet issues: women clergy, married clergy, gay clergy, gay marriage, etc. They should be honest and say they are trying to change church teaching. Saying they only want dialogue is dishonest. They want a dialogue that paves the way for their views. Note that now that liberals are in power throughout many US dioceses, the last thing they want is dialogue. Bishop Brown and his administration have been unduly harsh, downright cruel even, to the traditionalists who want to continue the Tridentine Mass. It's their way or the highway, and they are intolerant toward anyone who is traditional in their beliefs, yet extremely tolerant to those on the Left.

The church of Mahony and Brown is the PC church, which is so much like the world that it has no power to transform it. It cannot stand up to relativism because it is not even clear on its own true beliefs. It is wimpy Catholicism, and no wonder the Left is so upset at a pope who offers a more muscular faith.

Check out this great column on National Review online by Catholic theologian Michael Novak: "In today's liberal democracies, Ratzinger has observed, the move to atheism is not, as it was in the 19th century, a move toward the objective world of the scientific rationalist. That was the 'modern' way, and it is now being rejected, in favor of a new 'post-modern' way. The new way is not toward objectivity, but toward subjectivism; not toward truth as its criterion, but toward power. This, Ratzinger fears, is a move back toward the justification of murder in the name of 'tolerance' and subjective choice.

"Along with that move, he has observed (haven't we all?), comes a dictatorial impulse, to treat anyone who has a different view as 'intolerant.' For instance, those (on the 'religious right') who hold that there are truths worth dying for, and objective goods to be pursued and objective evils to be avoided, are now held to be 'intolerant' fundamentalists, guilty of 'discrimination.'"

The pinhead elites in Manhattan don't know what they're missing.

Comments

[ereynol]

Great article. How nice to see someone publish from behind the Orange Curtain. I'm sorry that the Diocese of Orange has become liberal - I was confirmed (before the diocese was even formed) by Bishop Johnson, who later became the first Bishop of Orange way back in, well, never mind. Orange County was conservative back then, and we resisted any connection with those people up the Freeway. Similarly, the Diocese of Orange was more conservative than that of Los Angeles. Now it seems our church and even baseball are pushing the two together. The Register was always a more conservative paper than the LAT, but then again, that's not saying much...

Go Anaheim Angels!

[Voracious Reader]

Nice article. Some Jewish websites and media have also been defending Pope Bendict XVI's papacy as well.