For Catholics interested in their faith this article is a good lesson. It articulates points about this pope that are telling and I think welcome. The only real issue I take with this author who has an apparent liberal Catholic lean is that I think his words paint the strongly right Catholics to be a little more intolerant or uncharitable than they are. They are not a primary reason that a frightful number of the clergy or the congregants are experiencing a faith crisis or wavering from many core Catholic teachings.

William Donohue, the eccentric, right-wing president of the Catholic League, said of Catholic liberals, "We expect that the weeping and gnashing of teeth will begin soon."

Donohue may not very polished or pastoral in his comments and it also likely hurts his cause, but his points are often valid. And he is about the only voice allowed in the media to air the complaints of the traditional Catholic voice. Maybe because he often comes off as caustic is the only reason the media is glad to give him a pulpit.

But Benedict has defied them in his appointments, in his views on capitalism and the war in Iraq, and even in his approach to other faiths.

The author portrays Benedict as pastoral (which he has become) and non-confrontational (which he mostly has preferred) but he is also clear and uncompromising on what must be. Hence, his approach to other Christian faiths was anything but enthusiastic endorsement. This brought condemnation from many circles, yet admiration of courage from many others.

In his book Jesus of Nazareth, he warned against "capitalism that degrades man to the level of merchandise." He has consistently spoken out against the Iraq war.

His attack against the sins of unbridled capitalism was eloquent and incriminating.

Yet he has been adept at making profound interreligious gestures, meeting with Muslim diplomats at the Vatican to soothe relations after an unfortunate remark in a speech,

Many observers would not consider what Benedict said at Regensburg to be “an unfortunate remak.” Given how learned and understanding Benedict is of the importance of words, one has to believe he knew exactly what he was doing. I suggest he wanted to raise the fears of Islam more than he wanted to avoid any confrontation with this current global threat so he put forth his remarks in an indirect message by quoting someone from the 14th century. It was risky and had its ramifications, and my only criticism of the pope was his apology didn’t sound right to me. No matter, I am glad he took the risk.

The sermons are always exquisite…. His writings are accessible and profound,

In my opinion, I agree with the author, Benedict is a brilliant theologian and communicator to all levels of understanding. I watched a long interview of him by EWTN when he was still cardinal. I was amazed by the intelligence of almost all his responses. He is just the pope this Church greatly needs.

I thought the article was quite well done and very insightful. People have a tendency to think of positions like that of the Pope or the Justices on the Supreme Court as being there to fulfill a political ideology, when instead they are there to maintain the systems entrusted to their care. In the end, I think that Benedict has shown that he is at least as tolerant and careful as his predecessor and that he has done a reasonable job in the task at hand. I may have some concerns about Catholicism generally, but I can't argue that this Pope has done a good job with that system.

I know that my Catholic friends, many of whom were quite concerned when he was named Pope, have so far been pleasantly surprised with him so far.

"They are not a primary reason that a frightful number of the clergy or the congregants are experiencing a faith crisis or wavering from many core Catholic teachings. "

Well actually Im afraid they are. Pro-Choice does not insist on abortions. It leaves the matter up to the individual and that means your choice can be (and often is) to have the child. Yet many of the catholic clergy and serious right wing parishinors have been aggessively campaigning against candidates who are pro-choice but in all other respects are far more tolerant and far more christian than their conservative counterparts.

Any catholic who truly believes knows that Jesus wouldnt support the intolerant and unforgiving ways of the neo-conservative movement. Yet this movement has expected and even insisted that to not join their ranks is to be anti-God. What better way to shake ones faith than to say you should deny communion to pro choice candidates even as you give it to dictators and war mongers, and ultra greedy corporate types, and people who support going to war on lies? You cannot ask the good catholic to be violently opposed to one group of sinners while asking them to embrace the others in your shared anger about a single issue.

RML purports to speak for Catholics?

Where did I say I speak for all Catholics? Since I am half Catholic I can offer an opinion as could anyone I think-even non catholics I would hope.

But I will say that many neo cons have called liberals Godless when nothing could be further from the truth. Christ believed in tolerance and forgiveness-and he wasnt exactly the revenge and smiting type now was he?

So no, I dont speak for all Catholics. Just the ones who believe in Christs message.

The Real RML:

So no, I dont speak for all Catholics. Just the ones who believe in Christs message.

That would be quite a few.

Well Hellz Im glad quite a few would want to forgive sinners rather than burn them at the stake. Nice to see the words of Jesus are not lost on all catholics-just the conservative ones.

Well, the Pope supports theological positions on a number of topics which appear to be reasonably political. Abortion, capital punishment, the Iraq War, and the like.

I think the thing is that there is an idea that the Pope is there to say things like "life is sacred" and take over this element of the Roman magisteria. The Pope is not there to meddle in the politics of nations other than to expound on Catholic philosophy.

Also I would note that if you ever spend much time in Catholic countries, it is fairly clear that most of these ideas are enshrined in law, but again it is based on the fact that this is how the people see their world. I know when I was in Ecuador last, abortion rights were a complicated subject which was seen as both difficult as issues go (largely due to the impact of the ban on abortion on suicide rates of women who find themselves pregnant) and controversial (in the sense that even though most people are struggling with the issue there is not a clear understanding of what the right public policy should be).

Well, there's always going to be homo-hatin' jerks of all stripes, but they don't get to decide who gets dropkicked through the Pearly Uprights.

Just because someone's "conservative" doesn't mean they're not "understanding."

"Just because someone's "conservative" doesn't mean they're not "understanding."

Well yes Hellz it does mean just that these days. Liberal means tolerant. Conservative means intolerant. Look at the agenda politically and thats pretty clear and look at the religious agenda and it makes it clear too.

Jesus didnt spend a whole lot of time trying to judge others-in fact "judge not" was a big part of his message few conservatives choose to remember.

How "understanding" is "with us or against us"? How understanding is "the definition of marriage IS one man and one woman"? How understanding is "I am the decider"? How understanding is pre-emptive war? All these things are based on the supposition that there is only black and white-no shade of grey. In other words-intolerant.

"Religious agenda?" Which one's?

RML, I think you want to rest your case on easy stereotypes. Catholics, for one, do not support this kind of reasoning. Yes, they tend to be more "socially conservative" yet more liberal when it comes to social justice, for example. I know plenty of self-described conservatives who do not "condone" gay behavior, but are certainly "tolerant" of homosexuals. Some even favor civil unions for gays (as does George Bush, believe it or not) but not gay marriage, since, yes, marriage has traditionally been defined as between a man and a woman.

The ones who don't support civil unions are the ones I would consider "intolerant" of homosexuals. So. if you care about shades of grey you have to "tolerate" those shades in all distinctions.

"Judge not" was the part of Christ's message maybe some conservatives aren't too keen on emphasizing. But the "I come not to bring peace, but a sword" is maybe the part liberals don't want to talk about.

"Judge not" was the part of Christ's message maybe some conservatives aren't too keen on emphasizing. But the "I come not to bring peace, but a sword" is maybe the part liberals don't want to talk about."

Outside of what this clearly metaphorical statement what evidence do you have that Jesus was suggesting militancy or violence or intolerance? It goes completely against his actions and his words. Declaring a war of peace is comparable. Jesus was certainly not telling people to take up swords-in fact quite the opposite-and this may well be why his own people were such a big part of getting him crucified.

Note that the NT isnt a part of the Jewish religion-never has been. Jesus is seen as a minor character and NOT as the promised savior.

The majority of conservative Chrisitian stands are built around a very OT view of the world including their militant positions against gays. One would think from some of their words that they had never seen the NT. The "sword" may well have been the tool he used to separate the OT from the NT people. "Blessed are the peacemakers" clearly states Christs view of conflict and "turning the other cheek" confirms he didnt mean those who achieve peace via violence. Not a single word of Christ justifies war or violence or intolerance. Repeatedly questions are brought to Christ about who to exclude from society and repeatedly Christ refuses no one. Ironically, those who face hurdles seem to be those most likely to be doing the judging-the rich, the pontificators, etc. It is always interesting to take the Sermon on the mount and consider the mirrored statement-example, "Blessed are the meek" opposite=cursed are the prideful.

Well personally I agree with close to all of what you say there. But I think that passage can be interpreted not about militarism but perhaps in terms of what you call "intolerance." The point is, this sword "divides" believer from non-believer. At some point, you have to choose which way you are going, which means judging right from wrong. Christ indeed spoke of, and represented, a new covenant, but he also adjured his followers to follow Scripture, and as you know he, himself, was a practicing Jew. So you can't take the OT out of the NT so easily.

But then Christ also said "Render unto Caesar..." which helped quite a bit toward our handy separation of Church and State....

Yeah, whenever the conservatives gripe about paying taxes and seeing those taxes used to help those less fortunate, I get to remind them of both Caeser getting what is his and about doing the least for your brother. Double whammy in support of liberalism.