Ratzinger says Catholics should never “live and let live” and should not accept that sovereign states have any status separate from Catholic doctrine. Good. Now we know where we stand. Catholic office-holders should be asked if they agree with their Pope. If they do, they should be driven from power. If they don’t, we can leave the Pope to deal with them.

This is disingenuous, insofar as (a) and (b) don’t address the issue.

The new Pope (the one who, we’re being told ceaslessly, is committed to “reconciliation” and “dialogue”) took less than 24 hours to condemn the vote in the Spanish parliament to allow gay couples to marry and adopt children as “iniquitous.” They did not argue that Catholics shouldn’t marry people of the same sex, they argued that NO ONE should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex. Do you understand the distinction?

When the Vatican is prepared to adopt its own form of option b—i.e., render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and keep its nose the fuck out of the internal political affairs of sovereign, democratic nations—I will be perfectly happy to “let Catholics get on with being Catholics.” Until that time, this “live and let live” stuff is ridiculous.

Non-Christians do not understand this, and think, incorrectly, that when Christians and Christian leaders do “right” by liberal secular standards, it is because they accept and act by those liberal standards. As a result, when the same Christians act in a way that is rejected by secular liberals (e.g. on homosexuality or women), they accuse Christians of being anti-egalitarian, anti-rights, anti-freedom or hypocritical. In fact, they are acting in accordance with different ethical-political values, which are separate from and in no way dependent on liberal values. Therefore, for Ratzinger the accusations that flow from secular liberals are attacks not on shared values of rights and freedoms, but on Christianity and God, and should be treated by Catholics accordingly.

As far as atheists and liberals are concerned, Ratzinger’s position leaves one free to (a) accept and respect it as a expression of religious doctrine; (b) leave it alone completely and let Catholics get on with being Catholics; (c) declare Catholics the enemy and set about them accordingly.

I have to say I find all of those positions attractive for one reason or another at different times, and tend to move between them rather. The only position that seems senseless to me is trying to judge Ratzinger and Catholics by values they do not adhere to, and excorating them for not being “liberal” enough as Catholics (or, horror of all horrors, using ecclesiastical authority to expel someone from the Church by telling them what they believe is not compatible with established doctrine – ie, excommunication).

I think having such an intellectually clear Pope will be enormously interesting. It would be as if Irving Kristol Sr became President of the USA.

I don’t know about expertise in Catholic doctrine, but it seems many people are claiming expertise in what God thinks. (Or what Nature thinks, for that matter.)

Troutsky: libertarianism never really existed in a “pure” form either, but unfortunately I’d like the Pope to address the very real menace of libertarianism and laissez-faire capitalism.

odd then, that only two people were excommunicated while Ratzinger was doing the “enforcing”, one of them for being too right wing! (The lefty one has since been re-communicated, or whatever one calls it). But, hey, your friend’s story sounds good, so stick to it.

Ian J (Not Catholic, but has a protestant wife from Munich…)

Both links are to pdfs.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/elezione/index_en.htm

Your choice of languages, Latin included!