Hints that Pope Benedict Would Resign

Perhaps Pope Benedict's resignation should not have shocked us after all.

He pointedly venerated a saintly pope who resigned:

Back on April 29, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI did something rather striking, but which went largely unnoticed.

He stopped off in Aquila, Italy, and visited the tomb of an obscure medieval Pope named St. Celestine V (1215-1296). After a brief prayer, he left his pallium, the symbol of his own episcopal authority as Bishop of Rome, on top of Celestine’s tomb!

Fifteen months later, on July 4, 2010, Benedict went out of his way again, this time to visit and pray in the cathedral of Sulmona, near Rome, before the relics of this same saint, Celestine V.

Then there was this from an interview:

From Light of the World, Benedict XVI’s 2010 interview with Peter Seewald:

Q:  Have you thought of resigning?

A: When the danger is great one must not run away. For that reason, now [2010] is certainly not the time to resign. Precisely at a time like this one must stand fast and endure the difficult situation. That is my view. One can resign at a peaceful moment or when one simply cannot go on. But one must not run away from the danger and say that someone else should do it.

Q: Is it possible then to imagine a situation in which you consider a resignation by the Pope appropriate?



A: Yes. If a Pope clearly recognizes that he is no longer physically, psychologically, and spiritually capable of handling the duties of his office, then he has the right and, under some circumstances, also an obligation to resign.

The Pope Resigns, or Bring in the “News” Clowns!

Nothing, like nothing, brings out noos media ignorance and prejudice like a major church event.  And Pope Benedict’s resignation is certainly no exception.  Knowledgeable faithful will now get the same feeling I’ve had for decades concerning political coverage:

When you actually know something about something and then read what journalists write about it, you can’t help wondering if they’re being just as ignorant and arrogant about everything else they write.

Michael Dougherty is not alone when he laments, “There is no way I’m prepared for the ignorance about to be on display in the media.”

And there is so much noos media buffoonery already on display, I hardly know where to begin.  Many stories use the resignation as a pretext for Catholic-bashing and Benedict-bashing, both overt and subtle, as if he were a one-man Illuminati personally responsible for Hitler and child abuse and every evil known to man, particularly that backward and unenlightened ancient faith, practice and even morals.  The nerve of some of those Catholics to not hurry up and be like the world!  That when the noos clowns aren’t busy getting their facts flat out wrong.

Probably the best source to monitor media fails in the coming days is the Get Religion blog.  And, yes, some of the fails will be amusing.  One of my favorites so far:

. . . the editors at the Associated Press have already fixed an awesome typo . . . that said the Pope Benedict XVI has, as is common among elderly men, experienced “some prostrate problems” in recent years.

But at least that typo has more than a little truth to it.

As for the rest of the noos media circus to come, I don’t know whether to brace or make popcorn.  Perhaps both.

Pope Benedict Resigns Effective Feb. 28th (UPDATED with video)

I was floored to flip on my computer after personal Morning Prayer and to see the news.

I feel I should note the momentous event, the first resignation of a pope in centuries.  But, to be honest, I do not think I have any edifying comment to make at this time.  I think very highly of Benedict, but you all probably already knew that.

So I will confine myself for now to saying I am praying for Pope Benedict and for the church.  Lord have mercy upon us . . .
---

UPDATE:

Here is a video of the Pope making his announcement to the Consistory of Cardinals:

Obama’s Chair Empty on Night of Benghazi Attack

Readers know my expectations of Obama were never high.  Still, I am floored by this:

The outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta revealed on Thursday that President Obama was absent the night of the lethal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya - despite being told that the attack was occurring.

Speaking in front of senators investigating the terror assault which saw four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens lose their lives, Panetta said that Mr. Obama did not call or communicate with his defense secretary that night either. . .

Panetta said to Senator Kelly Ayotte, that President Obama left operational details for Benghazi 'up to us' - implying that the situation was under the control of Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

'Did you have any further communications with him that night?' Senator Ayotte asked.

'No,' Panetta replied.

'Did you have any other further communications? Did he ever call you that night to say how are things going, what’s going on, where’s the consulate?' she followed-up with.

'No,' Panetta said in response . . .

In addition, Panetta admitted to Senator Ayotte that there was no communication with anyone at the White House and that no one from the White House called for an update on the situation.

Again, I am floored.  What can one say to such a lack of engagement from a President when one of our embassies is under attack?

No wonder the Obama regime stonewalled investigations into Benghazi before the election . . . after using a months-old youtube video maker as a scapegoat, of course.  I doubt even the relatively feckless electorate of 2012 would have tolerated a POTUS willfully sleeping through an attack on one of our embassies without even a phone call to get an update.  Can’t let that information get out before Election Day. 

Not that the snooze media would report on this much anyway.  They still are quiet on the subject.  Protecting their hero is far more important than informing the public.

Not-so-by-the-way, Clint Eastwood’s Empty Chair speech looks downright prophetic now.

In Defense of Church Hoppers

Christianity Today has posted a thoughtful article on the subject of church hoppers.  It concedes that church hoppers have a bad reputation as consumerist and often live down to said reputation.  But things are usually not so simple.  Many have baggage and experiences that make it hard for them to settle down in a congregation.

My church search of 1988, when I moved back to Texas, certainly reflects that.  I wrote on that here nine years ago.  I admittedly was a little picky.  But my experiences back then gave me good reason to be so.  My criteria at the time:

1. I required any new church to hold to inerrancy. My readings and church experiences had convinced me of the necessity of that.

2. Churches in mainline denominations were immediately ruled out. (See the 2-14-04 entry.) [I had grown weary of being alienated from my own denomination as had become the case in the mainline Presbyterian Church.]

2 1/2. Denominations not exercising adequate church discipline were ruled out. That’s important as that ruled out the Southern Baptist Convention for me at the time. I know that may shock some readers. But at that time, the SBC took no action against pastors and congregations I found very objectionable.…

I know -- I was a hard man. In any case, ruling out the SBC was important as there are more Baptist churches in Texas than there are people.  [With changes in the SBC since 1988, I no longer consider church discipline such a problem in that denomination.]

3. At the same time, I didn’t want a legalistic church. … Legalism has always been a turn-off for me.

4. I wanted a good teacher as pastor. I felt starved of good Bible teaching, and I knew I needed it.

5. I wanted a big singles group with plenty of women in their twenties. I felt starved of good . . . O.K., I know that sounds crass. But I was in my late twenties by now and didn’t want to be single much longer, to put it mildly. So this wasn’t anything predatory. I wanted an excellent Christian wife.

6. Although my new home was a ways north of Dallas, I wanted to be involved in the Dallas area. I grew up there, and my heart was there. So I wanted a church down there, but one that didn’t take too long to drive to.

Like I said, picky, but mostly with good reason I still think.  Predictably, my church search took a while and was frustrating at times.  My singleness was a sore spot for one thing.  And even in the churchy Dallas area, ruling out the SBC and mainline denominations reduced the field greatly. It took about four months of going to different churches just about each Sunday before I decided on a home church, only to find it not a good home five years later.

Since then my church stays have been about ten years, then moving and now nine years and still going strong.  So I have a record of commitment to a home church.  Yet back in 1988, I found myself church hopping anyway . . . because I was determined to find a church to which I could commit wholeheartedly.

So do not assume bad motives to church hoppers.  “Church hopping” may be actually a sign of determination to find a church to commit to rather than a sign of a lack of commitment to the church. 

And, yes, singleness, having no children, having special needs children, past bad church experiences and more can make finding a home church difficult.  So we should be much quicker to pray for church hoppers than to judge.

Obama: “Nobody should be barred” from Scouting

During the Super Bowl pre-game marathon yesterday, CBS interviewed The Dear Leader.  For some reason I cannot divine, I watched. 

And I was floored when Obama said, “Nobody should be barred” from scouting.  I rewound my DVR to make sure I heard him right.  And he really said that.  Now in case skeptical readers think I am quoting him out of context, here is a fuller quote:

“Next week, the board of the Boy Scouts of America is going to vote on whether to end their national ban on gays in scouting,” asked anchor Scott Pelley. “Should scouting be open to gays?”

“Yes,” President Obama said, because “my attitude is that gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity, the same way everybody else does, in every institution and walk of life. And, you know, the Scouts are a great institution, that are promoting young people and exposing them to opportunities and leadership that will serve people for the rest of their lives. And I think that nobody should be barred from that.”

Now I know that Obama was addressing gays in scouting, and, yes, he surely did not mean axe murders should not be barred. 

But he said what he said.  “Nobody should be barred” from scouting?

When it comes to organizations that work with kids and youth, you d#$n well better bar people!  You had better be vigilant to restrict who has access to kids, particularly for extended times on camp outs and the like.

No matter what he really meant, and no matter one’s views about gays in scouting, Obama’s statement is sloppy and irresponsible at best.

And though he, as POTUS, is the honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America, BSA is a private organization.  Obama should have respected that and minded his own business.

But Dear Leaders aren’t very good at minding their own business, don’tcha know.

Downfall V: Majority Thinks Feds Threaten Freedom

Obama has not been shy about trying to lessen personal freedom through Obamacare, higher taxes, gun control, etc.  And although he got away with that last November, his continuing in that vein could easily backfire on him.  Most Americans still like their freedom, and many still have enough backbone to defend it.

And now a Pew Poll finds most Americans see the federal government as a threat to their personal freedom for the first time in at least two decades.   And it’s not really close.  53% see the feds as a threat to their freedom; 43% don’t.  This is a very significant shift in public sentiment about the federal government.

With the American love for freedom and insistence on it, I think this poll indicates an environment ripe for an angry political uprising against Obama.  Although the numbers of those who are content with being slaves on the liberal plantation have sadly increased, I still think enough Americans demand freedom to bring down a regime that constantly undermines it.

“Don’t tread on me” is not just an old slogan.

-----

Downfall is an ongoing series anticipating and tracking what I expect will be the self-destruction of Obama.

The first post may be found here.  The series may be found here.