So much harm has been done in the name of “dialogue.” People aren’t willing to understand the church’s point of view yet demand it understand and accept their own.
Agreed, in part. Individuals of similar mind and persuasion as Ratzinger have had quite an impact upon the perspective, responses, and regard for the Church - one need only to look at the pews! Catholics attending mass have responded to this type of rhetoric and leadership!
Matthew Fox understood the Church's point of view, but we had a hierarchy who was more preoccupied on eradicating "liberation theology" when they should've been doing something about the sexual abusers in the church. When one tightens the chains to minimalize dissension and create a hierarchy of "yes men" ass kissers, that is a recipe for favoritism and corruption. Debate and disagreement are healthy for organizations, without them one cultivates an environment of abuse. Benedict had redeeming qualities as an intellectual, but make no doubt about the irreparable harm that was done to the institution by silencing debate and discourse.
Atheism is not "debate." Atheism is not limited to rejecting the existence of God. Since truth is synonomous with the understanding that it is exclusively the reflection of the mind of God, to reject the immutable unchangability of truth is to implicitly deny God, consciously or unconsciously.
It has been quite a struggle to acknowledge positive perspectives from the influences of Ratzinger and his drive to direct the Church. Ratzinger's legacy will be a most interesting narrative.
Yes, Cardinal Ratzinger, who was a liberal at the time of V2, was shocked to see how far all of you were taking it all. He wanted to ground the Church in the actual teachings of Vatican II, not allow it to run free. I think Bishop Barron nailed it in his Farewell video. People should watch that for a better understanding of this holy man.
@@frankdadams3566 then you don’t know his history. He was pushing for reform, but after the reform, there became a spirit of revolution and he was not for that. He was for grounding us in the teachings of Vatican II, not in the “spirit” of it. So, after Vatican II did it’s work, he wanted to hold the Church to its teachings. The Church taught very clearly about the things he wanted to hold to. The complaint about dialogue is just a complaint that he was against re-opening debate on thousands of years of definitive teaching of God’s revelation.
@@frankdadams3566 His 1968 book on the council rejected the labels of conservative verses progressive/liberal. Rather, he said there were divisions between those who wanted to continue the direction of the immediate past and those who wanted to reach back to the Christian origins to be informed about changes needed+. In this sense, I think he was a "liberal". However, he subsequently insisted that there should be reform of - and not rupture with - the immediate past. He used this as a subterfuge to resist more thoroughgoing (and in my view, needed) reform, even if the reform would be consistent with early Christian practice. For example, allowing priests to marry remained forbidden in the Roman rite. Instead of allowing for debate as in early Christianity (eg Paul's arguments in favour of about gentile conversion) there was a drift towards conflating papal/CDF positions with immutable teachings somehow linked to papal infallibility (even though that doctrine, narrowly defining papal infallibility, was itself only defined in the 1850s at Vatican I). The net result is that we now have many so-called "teachings" that are considered immutable, but that result in practices that Jesus would surely reject -- eg practices in reference to contraception, homosexuality, communion for remarried divorcees, liturgical rigidity, "excommunication" of certain people (women who have abortions, or who undergo ordination) etc etc. Poor old Francis has to struggle to mitigate the results of many of Ratzinger's harsh teachings embedded in his "Catechism of the Catholic Church" approved of by JPII.
Agreed. Karol Wotyla and Joseph Ratzenger were in the Second Vatican Council and watched how far things had gone fast, wrong and was derailing the church. The moment he became Pope he wanted Ratzinger by his side to rein things in. We still know what we believe because of Ratzinger. Otherwise things would have gone haywire and instead of reaching.1.7billion Catholics the Church might have been close to collapse.
You have articulated exactly my own view of Benedict -- including that Teilhardian comment in his Easter sermon: The resurrection is the next step in evolution. This summarises all the writings of Teilhard de Chardin, and it remains a tragedy that the Vatican's monitum on his work has never been lifted.
Evolution is a fake science. There is no evidence that any species evolved from one species into another. Most mutations are negative and involve a loss of genetic information. The actual science points to the Bible being literal -- God created the different species as they are. And according to various scholars de Chardin is a satanist or occultist -- so no loss to bury his garbage.
@@rccyberwarrior2267 Wow, it is quite a claim that "various scholars" have made about de Chardin. These "various scholars" clearly belong on the fringes since even conservative scholars who strongly disagree with Teilhard's theology do not venture to such depths of calumny. His personal writings depict a prayerful man, deeply hurt by the Church's attempts to silence him. Writings of those who knew him suggest a modest, reflective, genuine, impressive and compassionate personality. But I guess one can always discover some stick in some corner with which to beat him if you sufficiently despise his views. You can always build a theory about all his alleged positive qualities merely being a satanic ruse to cover his deeper satanic devotion. Ultimately, there is no way in which to dispute such claims of these "various scholars". Though I prefer to follow the views of the overwhelming majority of biological scientists about evolution, Teilhard's central thesis does not collapse, even under your views. His central thesis is this: that, over time, matter on earth has become increasingly complex and eventually manifests in consciousness. I presume that you and I can agree that this empirically verifiable claim. I presume that we can also agree that the change over time is brought about by God the Father and under influence of the Holy Spirit, even if we disagree about precisely how God brings about these changes. Teilhard suggests that the direction of change is consistent with the Christian calling to work towards bringing about God's reign of love on earth. Benedict's Easter sermon that the resurrection marks a sharp focusing of humanity that direction is surely also not controversial. These are hardly satanic ideas and aspirations.
@@DK-tk1nu de Chardin was involved in academic fraud (Piltdown man false discovery (1912-1915) of a link between man and primate - discovery debunked in 1954) and the Peking man fraud. Evolution is a satanic theory designed to move people away from God. Moreover, the new age movement (occult/pagan) considers de Chardin to be the "father of the new age" -- the Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs states: "Teilhard has had a profound influence on the New Age movements and has been described as 'perhaps the man most responsible for the spiritualization of evolution in a global and cosmic context". He believed in the idea of a "universal Christ" who would "satisfy the needs of all". Pride goeth before the fall.
@@rccyberwarrior2267 Hi. Your basic facts are correct, but the conclusions you draw are not: 1. Teilhard was indeed "involved" in the Piltdown scandal, but it was a good faith involvement, as the involvement of many other scientists at the time. There is no evidence whatsoever that Teilhard colluded with the hoaxer, thought to be someone called Charles Dawson. See Wikipedia. 2. The term "New Age movement" arose in the 1970s to describe a diffuse group of beliefs ranging over a wide spectrum from zany to esoteric to trendy to superstitious to just plain nuts. I have known many who are open to various subsets ofsuch beliefs. Even though almost all reject traditional Christianity, few would reject Jesus himself. In fact most would regard Jesus as being in their tradition --- eg that he got his ideas from his travels to India, etc. Their misguided belief is hardly a reason to condemn Jesus! It may be that some in this diffuse group agree with a subset if Teilhard's views. They would, however, most certainly reject almost everything else in which Teilhard passionately believed and for which he often suffered: the celibate life of a Catholic priest, the authority of the Catholic Church, the Mass and Eucharist, the Trinity, etc. If you chastise Teilhard because of what New Agers think about him, you might as well chastise Jesus for the same reason. 3. I do not see what is controversial about Teilhard's notion of the "Universal Christ". It pretty much corresponds to St Paul's view of the risen Christ, who is "all in all" (Colossians 3:11), who sustains all things, loves all of creation, who will come again, and for whom "all creation is groaning". (Romans 8:22) 4. Because I am not a domain specialist in the biological sciences, I cannot adjudicate the claims of creationists. I am content to accept St Pope John Paul II's view of evolution -- that it is "more than a hypothesis".
@@DK-tk1nu The Peking man bones went missing conveniently so full analysis of the scam bones could not be completed. People need to focus on Christ's words found in the four Gospels and not on the self-important ramblings of a modernist.
"Did Pope Benedict XVI suppress debate in the Catholic Church?" You probably just read "America" issues from time of Benedict XVI and see for yourself how much censored and oppresed they were. I guess the answer is: not at all.
It's one thing having "diverse" opinions, but in a Catholic publication there shouldn't be the promotion of opinions that are contrary to the Catholic faith. "America" was a ghastly rag when Thomas Reese SJ was editor in chief and hasn't exactly improved since then.
Except he restricted debate on the non-fallible magisterium so no, not “settled” issues at all. You don’t see Jesuits going after dogmas like the Immaculate Conception. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Silencing debate and disagreement creates an environment without accountability and one ripe with favoritism and cover ups. Hard disagree. That kind of thinking has done irreparable harm to the church. That thinking is exactly what led to the sexual abuse crisis and you need to be told it.
Not in the Catholic Church. Conservatives have remained faithful to Jesus, the Bible and the Magisterium.And no one can destroy the Church thar Jesus has founded.😎
You wanted to dialogue away Catholic teaching? In a supposedly Catholic magazine? I guess Benedict was nice to you guys since many your articles enjoy a particular bent into heterodoxy
I graduated at a Jesuit High School in Guadalajara, Jalisco, México 🏬🇲🇽 I married a very conservative Tridentine Catholic lady many, many, years ago! She died of Cancer back in 2007 AD😢 I have tried to read one of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI 🫢 beautiful books📚 but it was difficult reading 📖 💤 difficult to stay awake, and such to a simple mind like mine! Pope Francis is my hero! I sure hope he is not the last pope as some people prophesied… ✨💒🇻🇦✨ I live in Vancouver, Canada 🇨🇦 now and want to marry a beautiful Philippine 🇵🇭 lady and make ✨Jesus✨ our partner in marriage 🎊 Proud to be Laity ✨💖✝️✨ Pray for my beautiful daughters that did NOT marry in the church 👋😢 I love the name Bishop Barron gives to God the Father ✨….“Being ….Supreme, Ineffable ” ….Lover of humanity ❤✨
“ Did Pope Benedict XVI suppress debate in the Catholic Church?” Yes, probably, and that’s a good thing. Total freedom of expression is not a principle that the Catholic Church has ever abided by because that’s not how this works.
The suppression of debate is completely related to the rampant sexual abuse cover ups. When you rid dissension and create an entire hierarchy of "yes men", that is a recipe for favoritism and nepotism where corruption and abuse can run amok.
@@MaxRamos8 how the hell does suppression of debate suppress sexual abuse? It is the opposite. When you rid the church of disagreement, you minimalize accountability and create an environment of favoritism.
Ratzinger was unfair to Reese. He certainly was intolerant and unilateral as Prefect of CDF but somehow changed when he became Pope. He knew he was not just the doctrinal watchdog but the Pope of all Catholics and somehow he had to be more embracing, more open, less divisive. In other words, point of communion.
I agree, in part. Ratzinger was an ultra-conservative who had great difficulty with points of view other than his own. As pope, he was less open to dialog and much more restrictive!
@@frankdadams3566 This is a typical small-minded comment. Ratzinger had a better knowledge and understanding of the opinions with which he disagreed because he took the time and effort to consider them. He had no "great difficulty with points of view other than his own." He knew them inside out. He was not, however, willing to accept (and because of his position as Prefect of the CDF and then as Pope he had a duty NOT to accept) as valid positions that were contrary to the Catholic faith. God restricts our actions in order that we will embrace Him fully. Perhaps you could say which "points of view" you think he had "difficulty" with and the areas in which he was wrongly "restrictive"?
@@cdm1003 "Perhaps you could say which "points of view" you think he had "difficulty" with and the areas in which he was wrongly "restrictive"?" Sure. When he took Matthew Fox out of the priesthood for advocating too much in favor of the poor, women and LGBTQ people. When he spent more time eradicating "liberation theology" instead of prioritizing stamping out sexual abusers in the church.
@@rypoelk997 Your reply is hilarious. Matthew Fox advocated views which are incompatible with Catholicism, and it's no surprised that he is now in the Episcopal church, the tenuous beliefs of which align with his unCatholic beliefs. Ratzinger rightly rejected "liberation theology" which espoused a theory of liberation closer to Marxism than Christianity. And he did more than anyone at the time to address the serious problem of sexual abusers in the Church.
@@patrickdtx3638 Jesuits are to serve the reigning Pope, not try to tell the Pope what to do. And Francis isn't a valid Pope, as Jesuits are not allowed to become Pope according to their Rule.
Debate in Catholic doctrine and teaching is heresy and apostasy. The Pope and bishops are there to preserve the perennial teachings flowing from Christ the King.
@@rccyberwarrior2267except this is false. Catholic teachings and doctrines has long been subject of change through synods and councils. Of course balance should always be maintained to make sure we don't fall victim to the culture and there are indeed doctrinal faith that would require a lot to change but to say that Catholic faith discourages debate is completely false. Catholicism is not anti-intellectual. It has long been about intellectuals grasping, estimating the nature of one absolute not-changing God. Catholicism has change all throughout the millenia. Many of Church Fathers were once treated liberals and even labeled heretics before prelates were convinced of their intellect.
@@rccyberwarrior2267 This is just lazy. Church teachings have always been subjects of reform. The Church we have now is totally unrecognizable from the Church of the 3rd century. The Church teachings you dearly hold, whatever they might be, how conservative they might be in today's culture, are products of innovations and reforms throughout millennia. God gave us grace and intellect for divinely-inspired discernment, not absolute fanaticism.
Typical dissenting Catholic nonsense. He welcomed discussion and debate on questions that were open to debate. But he rightly defended the faith and didn't not indulge debate when it was promoted as a means of undermining faith and morals.
@@KrazyKryptonian Unless you are @andyzar1177 who are you to say that? Let him say for himself: does he support the Church's teaching on hot button issues such as sexual ethics and women's ordination? Let him explain on what subjects he wishes to have "discussion and debate" and you'll discover where he dissents from the Church's teaching.
Pope Benedict XVI did not suppress debate in the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict XVI fueled debate in the Catholic Church after a long despair from the one trick pony show of his predecessor.
@@mcb5795 I personally sent my complaints to JP II and my letter was delivered to him by Bishop Joseph T. O'Keefe of Syracuse, NY and the Pope, JP II, did not find it 'disrespectful', but rather thanked me and suggested I continue to 'tell the truth'. So, if it is YOU who feel dis'ed, that would be more your problem than mine.
@@abrahamemerzson6915 Yes. Your first sentence is true. And your second sentence is true....except your spelling is off "ya"? "you". Telling the truth is not disrespect. It is the height of respect. The 'issue' is not your opinion. The issue is "Did Pope Benedict XVI suppress debate in the Catholic Church"? My statement is that Benedict XVI inspired debate while JP II suppressed debate.
He was great pope who helped preserve the teachings of church.
So much harm has been done in the name of “dialogue.” People aren’t willing to understand the church’s point of view yet demand it understand and accept their own.
Agreed, in part. Individuals of similar mind and persuasion as Ratzinger have had quite an impact upon the perspective, responses, and regard for the Church - one need only to look at the pews! Catholics attending mass have responded to this type of rhetoric and leadership!
Matthew Fox understood the Church's point of view, but we had a hierarchy who was more preoccupied on eradicating "liberation theology" when they should've been doing something about the sexual abusers in the church. When one tightens the chains to minimalize dissension and create a hierarchy of "yes men" ass kissers, that is a recipe for favoritism and corruption. Debate and disagreement are healthy for organizations, without them one cultivates an environment of abuse. Benedict had redeeming qualities as an intellectual, but make no doubt about the irreparable harm that was done to the institution by silencing debate and discourse.
Atheism is not "debate." Atheism is not limited to rejecting the existence of God. Since truth is synonomous with the understanding that it is exclusively the reflection of the mind of God, to reject the immutable unchangability of truth is to implicitly deny God, consciously or unconsciously.
Thank you, much more realistic than so much hagiographical material on Ratzinger. This is very balanced, to the extent that it risks sounding harsh.
It has been quite a struggle to acknowledge positive perspectives from the influences of Ratzinger and his drive to direct the Church. Ratzinger's legacy will be a most interesting narrative.
@@frankdadams3566 It will be fascinating
Pope Benedict XVI was too Catholic for the CIA sponsored mockingbird media and apostate Catholics, so the reviews will be harsh.
@@rccyberwarrior2267 And that’s what I liked about this review, it had harsh judgements but was also appreciative for Ratzinger’s many good qualities.
Yes, Cardinal Ratzinger, who was a liberal at the time of V2, was shocked to see how far all of you were taking it all. He wanted to ground the Church in the actual teachings of Vatican II, not allow it to run free. I think Bishop Barron nailed it in his Farewell video. People should watch that for a better understanding of this holy man.
Amen.
I would have great difficulty accepting Ratzinger as a "liberal!" His comments, behavior and writings reflect his ultra-conservative perspective.
@@frankdadams3566 then you don’t know his history. He was pushing for reform, but after the reform, there became a spirit of revolution and he was not for that. He was for grounding us in the teachings of Vatican II, not in the “spirit” of it. So, after Vatican II did it’s work, he wanted to hold the Church to its teachings. The Church taught very clearly about the things he wanted to hold to. The complaint about dialogue is just a complaint that he was against re-opening debate on thousands of years of definitive teaching of God’s revelation.
@@frankdadams3566 His 1968 book on the council rejected the labels of conservative verses progressive/liberal. Rather, he said there were divisions between those who wanted to continue the direction of the immediate past and those who wanted to reach back to the Christian origins to be informed about changes needed+. In this sense, I think he was a "liberal".
However, he subsequently insisted that there should be reform of - and not rupture with - the immediate past. He used this as a subterfuge to resist more thoroughgoing (and in my view, needed) reform, even if the reform would be consistent with early Christian practice. For example, allowing priests to marry remained forbidden in the Roman rite. Instead of allowing for debate as in early Christianity (eg Paul's arguments in favour of about gentile conversion) there was a drift towards conflating papal/CDF positions with immutable teachings somehow linked to papal infallibility (even though that doctrine, narrowly defining papal infallibility, was itself only defined in the 1850s at Vatican I). The net result is that we now have many so-called "teachings" that are considered immutable, but that result in practices that Jesus would surely reject -- eg practices in reference to contraception, homosexuality, communion for remarried divorcees, liturgical rigidity, "excommunication" of certain people (women who have abortions, or who undergo ordination) etc etc. Poor old Francis has to struggle to mitigate the results of many of Ratzinger's harsh teachings embedded in his "Catechism of the Catholic Church" approved of by JPII.
Agreed. Karol Wotyla and Joseph Ratzenger were in the Second Vatican Council and watched how far things had gone fast, wrong and was derailing the church. The moment he became Pope he wanted Ratzinger by his side to rein things in. We still know what we believe because of Ratzinger. Otherwise things would have gone haywire and instead of reaching.1.7billion Catholics the Church might have been close to collapse.
Stellar interview! It’s always great to hear from Fr. Reese. I very much enjoyed America Magazine during his tenure as editor-in-chief.
You have articulated exactly my own view of Benedict -- including that Teilhardian comment in his Easter sermon: The resurrection is the next step in evolution. This summarises all the writings of Teilhard de Chardin, and it remains a tragedy that the Vatican's monitum on his work has never been lifted.
Evolution is a fake science. There is no evidence that any species evolved from one species into another. Most mutations are negative and involve a loss of genetic information. The actual science points to the Bible being literal -- God created the different species as they are. And according to various scholars de Chardin is a satanist or occultist -- so no loss to bury his garbage.
@@rccyberwarrior2267 Wow, it is quite a claim that "various scholars" have made about de Chardin. These "various scholars" clearly belong on the fringes since even conservative scholars who strongly disagree with Teilhard's theology do not venture to such depths of calumny. His personal writings depict a prayerful man, deeply hurt by the Church's attempts to silence him. Writings of those who knew him suggest a modest, reflective, genuine, impressive and compassionate personality. But I guess one can always discover some stick in some corner with which to beat him if you sufficiently despise his views. You can always build a theory about all his alleged positive qualities merely being a satanic ruse to cover his deeper satanic devotion. Ultimately, there is no way in which to dispute such claims of these "various scholars".
Though I prefer to follow the views of the overwhelming majority of biological scientists about evolution, Teilhard's central thesis does not collapse, even under your views. His central thesis is this: that, over time, matter on earth has become increasingly complex and eventually manifests in consciousness. I presume that you and I can agree that this empirically verifiable claim. I presume that we can also agree that the change over time is brought about by God the Father and under influence of the Holy Spirit, even if we disagree about precisely how God brings about these changes. Teilhard suggests that the direction of change is consistent with the Christian calling to work towards bringing about God's reign of love on earth. Benedict's Easter sermon that the resurrection marks a sharp focusing of humanity that direction is surely also not controversial. These are hardly satanic ideas and aspirations.
@@DK-tk1nu de Chardin was involved in academic fraud (Piltdown man false discovery (1912-1915) of a link between man and primate - discovery debunked in 1954) and the Peking man fraud. Evolution is a satanic theory designed to move people away from God.
Moreover, the new age movement (occult/pagan) considers de Chardin to be the "father of the new age" -- the Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs states: "Teilhard has had a profound influence on the New Age movements and has been described as 'perhaps the man most responsible for the spiritualization of evolution in a global and cosmic context". He believed in the idea of a "universal Christ" who would "satisfy the needs of all".
Pride goeth before the fall.
@@rccyberwarrior2267 Hi. Your basic facts are correct, but the conclusions you draw are not:
1. Teilhard was indeed "involved" in the Piltdown scandal, but it was a good faith involvement, as the involvement of many other scientists at the time. There is no evidence whatsoever that Teilhard colluded with the hoaxer, thought to be someone called Charles Dawson. See Wikipedia.
2. The term "New Age movement" arose in the 1970s to describe a diffuse group of beliefs ranging over a wide spectrum from zany to esoteric to trendy to superstitious to just plain nuts. I have known many who are open to various subsets ofsuch beliefs. Even though almost all reject traditional Christianity, few would reject Jesus himself. In fact most would regard Jesus as being in their tradition --- eg that he got his ideas from his travels to India, etc. Their misguided belief is hardly a reason to condemn Jesus! It may be that some in this diffuse group agree with a subset if Teilhard's views. They would, however, most certainly reject almost everything else in which Teilhard passionately believed and for which he often suffered: the celibate life of a Catholic priest, the authority of the Catholic Church, the Mass and Eucharist, the Trinity, etc. If you chastise Teilhard because of what New Agers think about him, you might as well chastise Jesus for the same reason.
3. I do not see what is controversial about Teilhard's notion of the "Universal Christ". It pretty much corresponds to St Paul's view of the risen Christ, who is "all in all" (Colossians 3:11), who sustains all things, loves all of creation, who will come again, and for whom "all creation is groaning". (Romans 8:22)
4. Because I am not a domain specialist in the biological sciences, I cannot adjudicate the claims of creationists. I am content to accept St Pope John Paul II's view of evolution -- that it is "more than a hypothesis".
@@DK-tk1nu The Peking man bones went missing conveniently so full analysis of the scam bones could not be completed. People need to focus on Christ's words found in the four Gospels and not on the self-important ramblings of a modernist.
BENEDYKT XVI TO WIELKI DOKTOR KOŚCIOŁA JAKO NIEUSTRASZONY OBROŃCA PRAWDY I GENIALNY TEOLOG. ZASŁUGUJE NA "SUBITO SANTO".
"Did Pope Benedict XVI suppress debate in the Catholic Church?" You probably just read "America" issues from time of Benedict XVI and see for yourself how much censored and oppresed they were. I guess the answer is: not at all.
Pope Benedict is blessed and his legacy will live forever through his writings and his holy life. A future Doctor of the Church.
Is America Magazine a Catholic magazine?
😄😆😂🤣
😀
No
It's one thing having "diverse" opinions, but in a Catholic publication there shouldn't be the promotion of opinions that are contrary to the Catholic faith. "America" was a ghastly rag when Thomas Reese SJ was editor in chief and hasn't exactly improved since then.
For those things that are settled teaching , he was right to restrict debate about those things. Reese is just parroting the modern Jesuit line
Except he restricted debate on the non-fallible magisterium so no, not “settled” issues at all. You don’t see Jesuits going after dogmas like the Immaculate Conception. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
I would disagree. Fr. Reese did a masterful job addressing some of the most critical issues facing the "modern" Catholic Church.
@@frankdadams3566 Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies - Pope St. Pius X.
Agreed. Absolutely right
Silencing debate and disagreement creates an environment without accountability and one ripe with favoritism and cover ups. Hard disagree. That kind of thinking has done irreparable harm to the church. That thinking is exactly what led to the sexual abuse crisis and you need to be told it.
He was humble great POPE I was proud of all He did for the Church.
I do believe that he was Chosen by God
My personal experience is that conservatives eventually destroy what they say they are trying to save.
Leftists steal and destroy what others have built with their blood, sweat and tears -- in my experience.
Not in the Catholic Church. Conservatives have remained faithful to Jesus, the Bible and the Magisterium.And no one can destroy the Church thar Jesus has founded.😎
I am fairly certain that in "Introduction to Christianity", he does talk a little bit more on the Resurrection and Teilhard de Chardin.
Who cares what the pagan de Chardin said, what matters is what Jesus said.
Have you come across his 'Divine project'...a great read.
RIP😭😭😭♥️♥️♥️🙏🙏🙏✝️✝️✝️
You wanted to dialogue away Catholic teaching? In a supposedly Catholic magazine?
I guess Benedict was nice to you guys since many your articles enjoy a particular bent into heterodoxy
Jesus loves all bro it's okay to no be heterosexual. Just don't misuse intimacy
I graduated at a Jesuit High School in Guadalajara, Jalisco, México 🏬🇲🇽
I married a very conservative Tridentine Catholic lady many, many, years ago! She died of Cancer back in 2007 AD😢
I have tried to read one of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI 🫢 beautiful books📚 but it was difficult reading 📖 💤 difficult to stay awake, and such to a simple mind like mine!
Pope Francis is my hero! I sure hope he is not the last pope as some people prophesied… ✨💒🇻🇦✨
I live in Vancouver, Canada 🇨🇦 now and want to marry a beautiful Philippine 🇵🇭 lady and make ✨Jesus✨ our partner in marriage 🎊
Proud to be Laity ✨💖✝️✨
Pray for my beautiful daughters that did NOT marry in the church 👋😢
I love the name Bishop Barron gives to God the Father ✨….“Being ….Supreme, Ineffable ” ….Lover of humanity ❤✨
You are a modernist and modernism is destroying the faith of Catholics. Pope Francis is a heretic not a hero.
Thank you for your beautiful comment! I am so sorry for your loss and will pray for you and your daughters. God bless!
Try reading the first volume of Jesus of Nazareth by Ratzinger.
@@penelopecarterdougherty8575 I found the book 📕 in my shelves ! I will read more of its beautiful pages! Thank you 🙏
@@joaquincue9807 He writes beautifully about Jesus. Glad you found the book!
“ Did Pope Benedict XVI suppress debate in the Catholic Church?”
Yes, probably, and that’s a good thing. Total freedom of expression is not a principle that the Catholic Church has ever abided by because that’s not how this works.
Also suppresses all the sexual abuse
The suppression of debate is completely related to the rampant sexual abuse cover ups. When you rid dissension and create an entire hierarchy of "yes men", that is a recipe for favoritism and nepotism where corruption and abuse can run amok.
@@MaxRamos8 how the hell does suppression of debate suppress sexual abuse? It is the opposite. When you rid the church of disagreement, you minimalize accountability and create an environment of favoritism.
Look at what he did to Matthew Fox
This old queen never gives up ya gotta give him that.😂😂😂😂😂😂
Ratzinger was unfair to Reese. He certainly was intolerant and unilateral as Prefect of CDF but somehow changed when he became Pope. He knew he was not just the doctrinal watchdog but the Pope of all Catholics and somehow he had to be more embracing, more open, less divisive. In other words, point of communion.
I agree, in part. Ratzinger was an ultra-conservative who had great difficulty with points of view other than his own. As pope, he was less open to dialog and much more restrictive!
@@frankdadams3566 This is a typical small-minded comment. Ratzinger had a better knowledge and understanding of the opinions with which he disagreed because he took the time and effort to consider them. He had no "great difficulty with points of view other than his own." He knew them inside out. He was not, however, willing to accept (and because of his position as Prefect of the CDF and then as Pope he had a duty NOT to accept) as valid positions that were contrary to the Catholic faith. God restricts our actions in order that we will embrace Him fully. Perhaps you could say which "points of view" you think he had "difficulty" with and the areas in which he was wrongly "restrictive"?
@@cdm1003 "Perhaps you could say which "points of view" you think he had "difficulty" with and the areas in which he was wrongly "restrictive"?"
Sure. When he took Matthew Fox out of the priesthood for advocating too much in favor of the poor, women and LGBTQ people. When he spent more time eradicating "liberation theology" instead of prioritizing stamping out sexual abusers in the church.
@@rypoelk997 Your reply is hilarious. Matthew Fox advocated views which are incompatible with Catholicism, and it's no surprised that he is now in the Episcopal church, the tenuous beliefs of which align with his unCatholic beliefs. Ratzinger rightly rejected "liberation theology" which espoused a theory of liberation closer to Marxism than Christianity. And he did more than anyone at the time to address the serious problem of sexual abusers in the Church.
Suppressing debate is Jesuit-speak for losing the intellectual argument.
Now I know why Jesuits had to be suppressed centuries ago! Veering towards liberal views.
We need to hammer on the truth not complacency
You talk like that about Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI because you aren’t a good Jesuit.
Modernist Jesuit
They said a great many positive things. Is that what you're angry about?
@@patrickdtx3638they said very few positive things about him. It was a terrible discussion and a great example of speaking ill of the dead.
@@stooch66 😄
@@patrickdtx3638 Jesuits are to serve the reigning Pope, not try to tell the Pope what to do. And Francis isn't a valid Pope, as Jesuits are not allowed to become Pope according to their Rule.
He suppressed debate like it was an altar boy.
Debate in Catholic doctrine and teaching is heresy and apostasy. The Pope and bishops are there to preserve the perennial teachings flowing from Christ the King.
@@rccyberwarrior2267except this is false. Catholic teachings and doctrines has long been subject of change through synods and councils. Of course balance should always be maintained to make sure we don't fall victim to the culture and there are indeed doctrinal faith that would require a lot to change but to say that Catholic faith discourages debate is completely false. Catholicism is not anti-intellectual. It has long been about intellectuals grasping, estimating the nature of one absolute not-changing God. Catholicism has change all throughout the millenia. Many of Church Fathers were once treated liberals and even labeled heretics before prelates were convinced of their intellect.
@@kimlamberthmatic6720 !Viva Cristo Rey! The innovations of man are false teachings.
@@rccyberwarrior2267 This is just lazy. Church teachings have always been subjects of reform. The Church we have now is totally unrecognizable from the Church of the 3rd century. The Church teachings you dearly hold, whatever they might be, how conservative they might be in today's culture, are products of innovations and reforms throughout millennia. God gave us grace and intellect for divinely-inspired discernment, not absolute fanaticism.
@@kimlamberthmatic6720 well said
Like many other Popes in past centuries he was under pressure to resign
“Like many popes” .. he was one of two
@@thomasmurphy9429 Incorrect.
He was threatened with murder if he did not resign within a year and one of his secretaries was coincidentally killed in a car crash.
As great as Ratzinger was, he did have a blind spot about discussion and debate.
What blind spot? To degrade and damage the church and drive it far from truths and suggest that the church needs to change according to times.
Typical dissenting Catholic nonsense. He welcomed discussion and debate on questions that were open to debate. But he rightly defended the faith and didn't not indulge debate when it was promoted as a means of undermining faith and morals.
@@cdm1003 exactly. These stupid Jesuits always want something new.
@@cdm1003 “Typical dissenting Catholic nonsense”? Uh, no. Not at all.
@@KrazyKryptonian Unless you are @andyzar1177 who are you to say that? Let him say for himself: does he support the Church's teaching on hot button issues such as sexual ethics and women's ordination? Let him explain on what subjects he wishes to have "discussion and debate" and you'll discover where he dissents from the Church's teaching.
Pope Benedict XVI did not suppress debate in the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict XVI fueled debate in the Catholic Church after a long despair from the one trick pony show of his predecessor.
“one trick pony show” - I find the way you talk about a saint and one of the best popes of the last centuries deeply disrespectful.
@@mcb5795 I personally sent my complaints to JP II and my letter was delivered to him by Bishop Joseph T. O'Keefe of Syracuse, NY and the Pope, JP II, did not find it 'disrespectful', but rather thanked me and suggested I continue to 'tell the truth'. So, if it is YOU who feel dis'ed, that would be more your problem than mine.
@@abrahamemerzson6915 Yes. Your first sentence is true. And your second sentence is true....except your spelling is off "ya"? "you". Telling the truth is not disrespect. It is the height of respect. The 'issue' is not your opinion. The issue is "Did Pope Benedict XVI suppress debate in the Catholic Church"? My statement is that Benedict XVI inspired debate while JP II suppressed debate.
I would respectfully disagree.
What whining. Geez.
Maybe I like Paul Benedict as a national socialist?, Yes.