James Lileks (above), Gerard Baker (see here) and Mark Steyn all are completely content with the fact that Pope Benedict XVI is a Catholic.
Lileks said this: "I am always amazed by people who want the church to accommodate their thoughts, their new beliefs, their precarious and ingenious rationales, instead of ripping themselves from its bosom and seeking a congregation that doesn't make them feel like a heretic banging their head on the doors of St. Peter's."
Baker's pithiness is summed thusly: "If you, as the papacy does, claim direct authority, through your 264 predecessors from the ministry of St Peter, who, the Gospels tell us was inaugurated into that ministry by the Son of God while he was present on earth, is it really possible to take anything other than a bit of a traditionalist view when it comes to doctrinal matters?"
And Steyn in an interview with Hugh Hewitt (thanks to Radioblogger for transcribing these -- a fine public service if ever there was) noted: "no one needs a religion that merely licenses your appetites. And this is what the guys like Frank Griswold [Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church who consecrated an openly gay reverend] and the Episcopal Church don't seem to realize. You know, the churches that are complaining about this fellow [the Pope], are the churches that the New York Times want the Catholic Churches to be like. These are the churches in decline, and frankly, I think a lot of these critics have made themselves look actually rather ridiculous in being unable to see it like this. If you want a gay, abortionist church, found one of your own. There's nothing in Catholic theology of the last 2,000 years to suggest that they'd be cool with that."