For a bit of balance on the whole Pope issue, try Hans K?ng’s Hoffnungskrise am Ende eines allzu langen Pontifikats. The article is hosted on the website of ‘we-are-church’ , a group that the new pope did not have much time for. Or rather, he had time to write two letters to the Austrian Bishops’ conference in 1997 about them, in which he says of the group “they propagate among believers an unacceptable democratic model of the church” (sie propagieren unter den Gläubigen ein unannehmbares demokratisches Kirchenmodell).
I have no anti-catholic axe to grind – but I do find it extraordinary the way that the British media, politicians & royalty are all clamouring round the vatican and trying to lather the public up into a vague religious frenzy, when the pope – and particularly Ratzinger -would be banned from working in almost any organization in Britain or Europe for the extremity of his views.
If Ratzinger was what the press describe as a ‘muslim cleric’, he’d be termed an extremist – but because he’s Western, he’s called “uncompromising”. Ironic, then, that Charles should have postponed the ‘royal wedding’ to go to the pope’s funeral, for as an article in the Los Angeles Times ( Royals, gays and the double standard)points out, under such uncompromising traditional values, Charles & Camilla would have had no more chance of getting married than a gay couple.
