It's hard to blog when there are so many others who have already written what I've been thinking, and written it better than I ever could have. As always, James Lileks:
The selection of Ratzinger was initially heartening, simply because he made the right people apoplectic. I’m still astonished that some can see a conservative elevated to the papacy and think: a man of tradition? As Pope? How could this be?
And I particularly like this insight from "The Anchoress":
As long as the obstinate Church refuses to get on board with the times, the progressive agenda cannot go forward without examination and debate. That is unpleasant to people who simply don’t like hearing the word “NO” unless it is coming from their own lips.
I don’t believe the progressives really expected a pope who would be markedly different from John Paul the Great on matters of doctrine and morality. They couldn’t be that naive. They had to know that the next pope, whoever he was, would still not please them.
No, I think most of this is just a temper tantrum against the church-that-won’t-go-away. These folks are fuming because they saw that JPII stood against their agendas, and that they were quite, quite powerless against him because….well, because he was so BELOVED.
Ergo. Make Pope Benedict easy to hate. He (and the Church) will be much easier to move against if the pope is hated, rather than loved.
But the best comment I have heard comes from a poster on fark.com named "palad":
Before the pope died I had no idea how the Catholic church worked. I got curious, and researched it a bit. Now I do.
Catholicism makes every other church on earth look absolutely amateur. Especially the dinky little baptist ones in the US.
Heh.