As a Catholic woman and church history professor who is deeply concerned with many of the Church's moral teachings (e.g.,priestly celibacy, women's ordination, divorce, issues of sexuality, and stem cell research), I am deeply distressed at the selection of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI. In the wake of the abuse scandal in the United States and elsewhere, priest shortages and dwindling vocations in North America and Europe, and the need for a universal Church to embrace and understand all of its constituents throughout the world, I feel the choice fails to recognize the importance of dialogue and diversity of opinions that exist in today's Church. Obviously, the Church has never been a democracy; neither, however, has it been unchanging through the centuries. Vatican II in the sixties showed the potential for change because of the Catholic tradition and the powerful role of a pope. Ideas that were unheard of or heretical in the Middle Ages -- a vernacular mass, the cup for the laity, women eucharistic ministers -- became the norm as a result of the Vatican II Council. The Church in Europe already has among the lowest attendance rates in the world, especially in countries where the majority religion is Roman Catholicism (i.e. Italy and France). Ireland has among the lowest priestly vocations in the world. Although regular attendance at mass and in church activities is greater in North America than in Western Europe, polls and behaviors have suggested for some time that American Catholics disagree with many of the moral teachings of the Church -- whether it be forbidding even discussion of the ordination of women or refusing to allow birth control, even when this is necessary to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. Conservatives have dismissed such people as "cafeteria Catholics." The Curia can look down on 'Cafeteria Catholics', but if it does not address the issues that have led to so many adopting such a position, it cannot remain a universal church.

Cardinal Ratzinger, in his position as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (the Inquisition in premodern times) has led the increasingly conservative wing of the Catholic Church in recent years in this role and in his theological writings and discouragement of dissent in any form. Even in medieval times, in universities scholars (who were in holy orders) could discuss any theological subject within the confines of the university. The idea that an idea may not even be discussed by a Catholic priest or theologian (such as women's ordination) is at the very least offensive and at most a great disservice to a Church that is in need of all who believe in what the Church has been at its best and can be for so many.

We are at a crossroads in the modern world, when interfaith dialogue, pastoral care, attention to the poor and needy, and concern with the value of all men and women needs to be a major concern of the Church. I fear that the cardinals have appointed instead a theologian whose condemnation of 'moral relativism' at the opening of the conclave shows himself unwilling even to consider the changing role of the Church in the 21st century in response to real crises.

Only time will tell. Popes in the past who have been labeled at the time of their election have proven themselves open to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, however it led them. I can only hope that will be the case in the pontificate of Benedict XVI.

@44 - r u Catholic? If not, why do you even care?

...be comfortable with sex outside of marriage...