The only good thing about the election of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI is that it will put an end to the interminable prattling on current affairs programs, where a motley collection of logacious loquacious priests and self-appointed Vatican experts discuss a Papal election process about which by definition they have no useful knowledge, while vacuous comperes tell us for the hundredth time about black smoke and white smoke.
God's Rottweiler is now the Pope, and God help us all. The Catholic Church, which I joined full of hope and incomplete piety in the mid-1980s, will continue to be predominantly a force for evil despite the good and selfless works of millions of priests and lay Catholics throughout the world. Good works at grass roots level are largely negated by Papal opposition to birth control, effective anti-HIV programs, IVF, stem cell research, and voluntary euthanasia, not to mention the Church's hateful attitude towards gay and lesbian people and its mysogenistic mysogynistic opposition to women priests.
One would have been naive to expect or even hope for a Pope who would take a forthright liberal approach to just about any of these issues. After all, JPII had stacked the ranks of cardinals with ultra-conservatives in his own image. But I confess I hoped for someone who might at least soften the harsh edges of the Church's current ultra-conservative doctrinal approach, a Pope whose humanity would truly prevail over his innate conservatism and admit rays of compassion and enlightenment to the darker reaches of the Vatican.
Instead we've ended up with the man who silenced Hans Kung and a host of other thoughtful priests and theologians, including Australia's Paul Collins. It will continue to be impermissible for Catholics in any official Church institution or forum to be stimulated by imaginative, challenging thinking about the nature of the universe and God and our relationship with them.
Many Catholics (including this armadillo) will continue walking away from the Church, leaving shrinking congregations of ageing, intolerant, unimaginative and fearful people. I, like many people, feel a need for the comfort of certainty and eternal truths, but that isn't what Ratzinger and his ilk deliver. Their message has little to do with either truth or Christ's teachings and everything to do with preserving a dying, ossified creed that has grown up through the accretion of thousands of stupid, small-minded and life-denying edicts imposed by St Paul and like-minded successors, narrow-minded men with impoverished spirits. Such a man is now Pope.
Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.
Nice piece Ken, not that us pagans give a stuff.
we are moved from our apathy now into a great angry depression
the degree of JP11's conservatism is evident in this college of cardinals
RATZINGER! i didn't think they'd actually choose him.
the church is building a fortress againt thinking, sentient humanity.
wouldn't you think they'd want better for the world?
why does the church feel so beseiged?
He's 78 though, maybe he can be 'called to God' before he makes too much of an impact.
"The Catholic Church, which I joined full of hope and incomplete piety in the mid-1980s, will continue to be predominantly a force for evil..."
Because it does not support rampant shagging with contraception? Because it says kids who are alive now should be adopted instead of fakely making new babies? Because killing yourself is not the greatest thing to do in the world?
Sheesh, Ken. The only 'depressing' thing is that you are law lecturer (ie a bright guy) and you think you're a Catholic.
You're not. You don't have the beliefs.
Yeah, because having billions starving and infected with HIV is so what Jesus wants, W.
anything that will hasten the demise of religion is fine with me
Graham,
Yep, drag out that old chestnut. If African men actually only shagged their wife or wives rather than every comely lass that says yes, perhaps AIDS wouldn't be so rampant. Would you shag someone with full-blown AIDS (even while wearing a condom)? Condoms do not provide 100% protection.
I am an atheist and even I can see that fidelity within marriage, and being very cautious who you shag pre marriage is the only sure way to prevent catching AIDS. If you cannot afford to test your partner keep you willie in your pocket.
You mean if men only paid attention to what their church told them? Yeah, I can see that working...
We preach safe driving, including not driving after consuming alcohol. But we know a significant minority will fail to heed this advice, so we also legislate to make vehicles safer in collision situations, and design roads with armco fences and other features to minimise the incidence of and damage arising from collisions caused by negligent drivers.
There is nothing either immoral or illogical about preaching abstinence outside marriage, but also accepting that we are all miserable sinners and that some will inevitably fail in their marital vows (and always have done), and therefore simultaneously facilitating harm minimisation strategies like condom use. Is it really any part of Christ's teaching to insist that the many who break their marriage vows at some time must be condemned to a painful death from AIDS through being denied access to condoms and information about their safe use? Did Christ teach that it's God's will that the faithful wives of unfaithful husbands (and occasionally vice versa) must also die because their errant partners negligently infected them as well?
I used the word "evil" advisedly.
I also take issue with 'every comely lass that says yes'. Unfortunately there is a myth in some parts of Africa that raping a virgin cures AIDS. If safe sex education were allowed, then this myth could be dispelled, allowing virgins to escape both the horrors of AIDS and rape.
I don't know why so many are hard of hearing. When doctrines can't be changed the church says so. So move on. Do whose who are unhappy with the temporal church and it's officials understand that they must develop their spiritual side to be really part of the church. It is primarily as spiritual movement. There is no requirement for the disaffected to remain in the church after all they have free will.
Ken,
"St Paul and like-minded successors, narrow-minded men with impoverished spirits". That's a big call. Are you saying St Peaul is a narrow-minded man with an impoverished spirit? Please expand.
I'm in agreement, Ken, as I've just said at my joint:
http://larvatusprodeo.redrag.net/2005/04/20/habemus-papam/
"The big worry for me (aside from Ratzinger's hardline on women priests, homosexuality, "culture of life"
Maybe the Pope would respond to both Ken and Mark by saying that he himself (ex-Cardinal R) doesn't have a line: only He does; so the lesser he has no choice but to toe it.
Ken,
As you've walked away from the church, have you had any luck fitting into a church that teaches what you want it to?
As you say Ken, at least the whole annoying media obsession with the election of the new pope is over. And no, it isn't democratic. Unless you think that your average cardinal is representative of Roman Catholics at large.
Maybe our federal government should look at installing some smoke stacks on parliament house... it bloody well seems like you need something like a novel election process to get the media and your average punter interested in the outcome.
Very nice post Ken.
Church as "force of evil"....headed by Benny the Rat....name for a gangster if I've ever heard one.
smh.com.au has a picture of the new Pope. To me his half smile suggests that he's thinking "Transitional pope, ha! I'll show them I'm going to live to 95!"
Rob, probably, but I'd draw attention to this quote from a profile of (the then) Cardinal Ratzinger in the National Catholic Reporter (which is well worth reading for an outline of his views):
"At the most basic level, many Catholics cannot escape the sense that Ratzinger's exercise of ecclesial power is not what Jesus had in mind."
Amen to that.
http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/conclave/pt041905e.htm
How is the Anglican Church going in Australia? Significant parts of that are very liberal, like Ken. I heard that Kenist churches aren't overly popular with the punters either and in fact it is the harder line churches that are gaining parishiners (no pun inteneded).
Mindy, another Pope elected as a transitional figure - Leo XIII - reigned til he was 93.
I've heard the same from Catholic friends of mine - in fact, that it is the harder-line, traditional services that are particularly appealing to young people.
Of course the progressives in the Church aren't going to like Ratzinger, Mark. Personally, I think the cardinals knew exactly what they were doing. I suspect they believe that there is a great reservoir of religious feeling out there which is not satisfied by the pallid rituals of the post-Vatican II church, and is looking for something tougher, less compromising, more demanding, less accommodating to secular political fashions.
If the extraordinary success of Mel Gibson's film, The Passion, is anything to go by, they could just be on to something.
Yes, Rob, to a small proportion of young people. Most who are raised Catholic don't practice after they leave school. If you want to go down the Pope Benedict way, you end up with a smaller, more orthodox church. But didn't Christ say something about lost sheep?
"....you end up with a smaller, more orthodox church. "
That's probably right, at least in the first world. I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing, either. I think it would do the Chruch no harm to shrink in on itself a little, recognsiing that the discipline it imposes on its devotees is very demanding and difficult for people accustomed - and to an extent conditioned - to consult only their own wishes and desires.
How it plays in Africa and Asia may well be different. Third World catholics seem to much less difficulty with the Papacy's position on abortion, contraception and homosexuality than western believers do.
Usually when it says forbidden to me, I am actually banned... :)
Ken, why would you want to be a Catholic, when it appears you disagree on fundamental doctrinal issues?
The emphasis has been all wrong when speculating about the Church's future health under the leadership of Benedict XVI. The health of the church is measured by the quality of its theological understanding, not the quantity of parishioners at pews. A congregation of one hundred well informed Catholics who hear the truth from Rome is better than a group of ten thousand who won't listen and feel ashamed of their own church.
Join the Episcopelians, they don't seem to think too many things are essential to the Christian faith. You and Gene Robinson could discuss Jesus' sexual ambiguity.
Rob, I think that Jesus' mission was to save everyone not to create a doctrinally pure citadel.
anything that will hasten the demise of religion is fine with me
Been tried. It was called the Soviet Union.
There are plenty of other Christian churches, Mark, that don't make the same demands. The Catholic monopoly terminated in October 1517.
It isn't the Pope's job to render the Church's teachings acceptable to secular humanists, something forgotten by many of the commenters at Prof Quiggin's.
In lieu of a trackback: http://commentariat.redrag.net/2005/04/20/the-papal-is-political/
Rob, our new Pope Benedict was very explicit in stating in Dominum Jesum in 2000 that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church and that to claim that other religions had elements of truth in them was heretical.
He doesn't agree with you, in other words.
Tempted as I sometimes am, to go off to a nice tolerant High Anglican church, it's my church, and Ken's church as much as it is the Pope's.
Jesus certainly didn't intend to set up a rigid and doctrinaire hierarchy.
"Jesus certainly didn't intend to set up a rigid and doctrinaire hierarchy."
Indeed, I seem to recall that he had some rather harsh words for Pharisees.
If you believe (with Benny the Rat) that Catholic orthodoxy is the only way to avoid hellfire then wishing for a smaller, more cohesive, church is wishing for more people to suffer hellfire - is that what you mean, Marcel and Rob?
And Jason, hastening the end of the religion racket is indeed a good thing - but this way of doing it will cause an awful lot of suffering in the meantime.
Rob's said before he's not religious, dd. Just like the folks at Tim Blair's comments thread, there seems to be a right-wing theme of heaping praise on conservative Catholic pontiffs. Funny how they never mention JP2's opposition to the War on Iraq or his praise of trade unions:
http://larvatusprodeo.redrag.net/2005/04/13/laborem-exercens/
The Mormons say the same thing, don't they, and there's about as much reason to think that they're right. Well, less, probably.
I can see you're in a bit of a quandary there, but why should you expect the Pope to sort it out for you? Me, I'd be quite happy to settle for being a heretic.
Vatican II said "no one can assent to the Gospel teaching in the way necessary for salvation without the illumination of the Holy Spirit".
If people don't have faith, then it is because the Divine has decided to withhold it from them.
"I've heard the same from Catholic friends of mine - in fact, that it is the harder-line, traditional services that are particularly appealing to young people."
Is this actually true?
I strongly suspect that it only applies to a tiny minority of young people.
Only what I've been told, Ken. I've only been to post-V II services myself, and found the guitar-strumming Peter, Paul and Mary look-alikes vaguely embarassing. I atttended without the benefit of faith, however.
Type "ratzinger" (with a lower case r) into Alta Vista Babelfish with German to English translation and it comes up with "more ratzinger"!!!
"I think it would do the Chruch no harm to shrink in on itself a little, recognsiing that the discipline it imposes on its devotees is very demanding and difficult for people accustomed - and to an extent conditioned - to consult only their own wishes and desires."
I dimly recall, from a course I attended many years ago, that the Albigensians recognised two categories of believers to deal with this problem. Perhaps the Catholic Church could go for that option?
Rob
"Guitar-strumming Peter, Paul and Mary look-alikes" and a post Vatican II liturgy are not synonymous. In this regard, Vatican II mostly stood for abandonment of the Latin Mass, with local vernacular being preferred (not least because people can then understand what is being said). AFAIK, V II didn't dictate moving away from traditional church music etc (although it did generally encourage making worship more popularly accessible and understandable).
Before I became alienated from the Church in the wake of priestly sexual abuse scandals and the church's consistent failure to deal with them in a loving or honest manner, we used to attend the local Catholic Cathedral just about every Sunday, largely because it mostly adhered to the more traditional style of Mass, with sung liturgy, more traditional hymns, organ, choir etc rather than "guitar-strumming Peter, Paul and Mary look-alikes".
I've read material (including, I think from Michael Carden), that suggests that churches that are experiencing rapidly increasing attendances are mostly the Pentecostal Protestant ones and, to a lesser extent, evangelical mainstream ones like the Anglican diocese of Sydney under the Jensens. It's argued that they attract adherents as much because of the overt love and sense of joy and community these congregations foster, as with the rigid, authoritarian, conservative brand of theology their pastors/priests mostly seem to espouse.
I remain to be convinced that rigid, authoritarian conservativism is deeply attractive in itself to large numbers of young people (or large numbers of people generally). Certainty of faith and emphasis on eternal truths may well form part of the overall feeling of warmth, security and belonging that I believe are at the heart of the attraction of these "successful" churches, but that doesn't necessarily imply the sort of rigid authoritarian conservatism/illiberalism that mostly characterises both the Pentecostals and Evangelicals (and for that matter conservative Catholics like Cardinal Pell).
I also reject the implicit assumption of several commenters that conservatism and authoritarianism are of the essence of Roman Catholicism, and that liberal Catholics (like me) are not entitled to call ourselves Catholics at all because we don't subscribe to "core" Catholic beliefs. That's rather like John Howard arguing that classical liberals aren't entitled to call themselves "Liberals" because Howard and his conservative supporters currently have the numbers and are able to define the boundaries of acceptable political belief in that political party.
I accept the authority of an authoritarian, conservative Pope only in a similar sense that I accept the authority of the High Court of Australia. I'm forced to accept that both the Catgholic Church and the Australian court system are hierarchical structures (although how much devolution ought to exist is another question) and that the Pope, like the High Court, is the ultimate "court of appeal". That doesn't mean it's impermissible to strongly express the view that some High Court decisions, and some Papal doctrines, are wrong and misguided and ought to be reconsidered and reversed. Some readers may recall that this is essentially what I argue in relation to the High Couert's approach to federalism, although I don't expect it to happen any time soon, any more than I expect the new Pope Benedict to do review his unloving ultra-conservatism.
However, I also accept that I'm not free to completely ignore the Church's teachings if I wish to remain an active part of it (although most Catholics do in fact do this in relation to birth control at least). Because I have concluded, especially from the appalling evidence of persistent priestly sexual abuse, that quite a few of the Church's teachings, especially about sex and related issues, are profoundly morally wrong, socially destructive and downright evil, I cannot in conscience remain a practising Catholic. Moreover, my broken marriage and impending divorce will mean that I wont be able to receive communion, or remarry in the Church, even if I wished to do so. But that doesn't stop me believing that these doctrines are wrong and misguided, or from hoping that one day a Pope will realise how wrong these teaching have been and will move to reform them.
NB I'm not meaning to suggest with my final remarks that I advocate the Church taking a similarly lax/liberal view of the sanctity of marriage and divorce as the civil law in Australia (12 months separation irrespective of fault). However, I DO think it should accept that there may come a point where a marriage has irretrievably broken down to a point where insisting on the parties remaining married to each other on pain of exclusion from communion is just plain wrong.
fair point, DD, I was being facetious. My main point was that if the Church keeps this up, it can expect an ever dwindling number of adherents from the 'core' and a vast majority from the 'periphery' of the world economy. that will obviously have implications for its own geopolitical power.
Once again, IO agree with Ken's remarks in his comment above.
Rob - the trend in liturgy has been away from the "folk mass" style thing that you criticise and towards a more traditional service.
I was just recounting my own experiences (which may coincidentally have been unlucky or atypical).
Ken, You cannot get a leftwinger as a pope...Or a poofter...or a lesbian...( there was a female pope in the past...) or a lawyer !!! they all are in hell as I know ! Just get drunk tonight and forget about it. Cheers
Phil, how do you know that a poofter - or several poofters - haven't already been Pope(s). I'd suggest that there's probably been dozens. Cheers!
all Ken and Mark want is a church that expressess their leftwing social agenda. That is fine except for the problem of tearing up the bible. Or the other thing people don't like liberal churches because they stand for nothing.
I meant no disrespect, Ken, but it does seem to me that the Catholic Church puts disssenters from its doctrine in a very difficult position. The Church does not - correct me if I'm wrong - allow the individual the luxury of finding is or her own way to God. That's what the reformed church set out to do 500 years. For Catholics, it must be through the Church. You are also expected to submit to the will of God, as determined by his priests (ultimately the Pope), confess to what the Church determines to be sin, and repent. The upside of that is there is no sin, however grave, that - if there is repentance - escapes the universality of Christ's forgiveness (quoting Cardinal Pell from memory, there).
As I said before, that seems a very difficult and demanding regime by which to live (if I am not completely mis-categorising it).
Even getting a liberal Pope wouldn't solve the problem, because then all the non-progressives will be as agitated as the progressives are now.
If I err here it's out of ignorance, not malice.
Surely you mean 'loquacious'? What is logacious? Enlighten me please Ken, not even the Oxford has that term...
Given you came to the Church in the 80's, I'm not surprised you're leaving it in the new millennium. The period from 1968 to around the early 90's is an aberration on the face of Church history. Sex abuse, priest shortages, heresies, guitars, carpet, femmo-nazi nuns and Catholic 'lite'. I can't imagine why energetic young Catholics firmly rejected the limpid faith you prefer.
We almost let Hans Kung and Karl Rahner hijack an ecumenical council. The Pope is not a conservative, he is a Catholic.
Maybe you'd feel better with the Anglicans? They stand for nothing and allow everything, surely a solid foundation for human flourishing!
jeez - ken - you were a volunteeer - "you don't see many of them around thse days"
Some of us were conscripts.
Rob, I don't think you grasp two things:
(a) Catholics are required to believe in things dogmatically (ie infallibly) taught by the Church - such as its divine foundation and the virginity of Mary. Within those limits, there's room for interpretation and outside the body of dogma, a range of opinions can legitimately be held. This is at the heart of the resistance to Ratzinger's actions in silencing theologians during his term as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
(b)Yes salvation must be through the Church but every baptised person is part of the royal priesthood of the risen Christ. The People of God are the Church, the hierarchy its servants. Infallible teaching is only such as long as it is received by the whole Church.
Homer's quite wrong.
Dreaddie's comment is snarky, and perhaps readers of this blog who are unfamiliar with his work might like to visit his site to get some sense of the Papolatry that is his antidote to the "limpid faith" of which he speaks (an interesting metaphor). Aficionados of pictures of near naked men will also find reason to visit DREADNOUGHT, the self-proclaimed voice of "conservative homosex".
Pope Benedict of course in his previous incarnation described homosexuality as "gravely disordered", "objectively evil", etc etc. If you want to see how Dreaddie resolves the evident contradictions between the teaching which he professes to uphold and his sexuality, I'd encourage you to pay him a visit.
Ratzingers appointment sends out a strong message, "we will not be swayed"
In the face of umpteen soviet inspired and funded libertarian freedom movements, and that chinese mass of unreligiosity (remember the suppression of Falan Gong?) the Church has remained a resolute defender of life.
So whats so bad about that?
That should read "that OTHER mass of anti-religion, the chinese"
Trackback replacement:
http://52nd.blogspot.com/2005/04/we-have-new-pope.html
It's been a good year for for rottweillers - firstly the Heir Apparent's - Camilla, and now God's - Ratzinger. Not good for the average mongrel.
Funny, I missed the bit in the Gospels where Jesus urged his followers to be smug, sanctimonious, heartless bastards. It must be there, I suppose, coz that's what rog, dreadnought, blank, Marcel White, Homer and others seem to be, and they keep telling us what faithful followers they are.
What you don't realise, probably, Warbo, is that we're all diabolical according to Dreddie:
"::Speaking the Truth in Love::
These voices are troublingly shrill for a group who have for the most part rejected Christ and certainly Catholic teaching. It has come time to state openly that any man who supports euthanasia or any woman who encourages abortion, any person indeed who publicly and unrepentently rejects the fundamental tenets of the Catholic faith is simply no longer a Catholic. Not a 'liberal' or a 'progressive' Catholic, but not any kind of Catholic at all. The views of such people, properly called apostates, heretics and perhaps diabolical, are just not worthy of our consideration. Indeed, it does them no good to go on pretending they are in any way faithful. Only by pointing out error, as the Holy Father has said, can we come at last to full fraternal communio, can we begin to speak as one in love."
Love?
"Benedict XVI is not an aberration, not a freak choice and certainly not an error. He represents two thousand years of Christian wisdom, he owns an intimidating intellect and he's characterised by a profound holiness. These things cannot but frighten hedonists, heretics and homoactivists from 'Frisco to Sydney. John Paul the Great was a saint and he placed Benedict XVI at his right hand for decades. As we prepare to learn from this new Pope, let us contemplate the actions of the late Pope. Rather than accepting unquestioningly the understandable objections of Christ-haters, we could do worse than to learn from someone on our side and in the know."
I could quote more - but it's really much more about hate than love. Best to read it and judge for yourself:
http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2005/04/do-liberals-dream-of-condom-popes.html
And I also seem to recall that Jesus said bugger all about abortion, contraception, homosexuality, women priests and married priests.
On the other hand, he said quite lot about love, charity and about selfishness, corruption, venality and authouritian abuses of faith and power and asked some very awkward questions, for which the Ratzingers of the day nailed up the bloody dissident.
Not that I have a personal stake in the issue. Mind you, I am amused by all the godbotherers getting all hot and bothered in one way or another 'cos their marching orders are now coming from a different old geezer in a dress.
God only knows what God thinks about all this. Still, since he created the star-nosed mole, we know he's got a sense of humour so I'd like to think he's having a good chuckle at the moment, and telling a disgusted Jesus to cheer up, it's still only a beta release.
Nabs - like Rafe with Popper you always have to relate everything to the Star Nosed Mole. Vanity will be your downfall.
Yeah well I'd like see Popper eat an earthworm in 230 milliseconds.
Rob, I really enjoyed your article.
I am also disturbed by those comments from Ratzinger's supporters that are so filled with hate and intolerance. What bible have you been reading? The words and actions of Jesus are filled with love and compassion, and complete disregard for rigid rules and doctrine whenever they interfered with assisting humanity - particularly the most vulnerable. Most of all, Jesus preached inclusivity - a concept that appears alien to those of you shouting 'toe the line or get lost'.
Since when did compassion and concern for the most vulnerable (such as women and young girls who contract HIV from unwanted sexual intercourse, or are forced to carry babies from rape) become a sign of weakness? It was exactly this compassion that made Jesus so strong.
I am not a Catholic, but the political power of the Pope means that his appointment impacts us all (like the election of a US president), and am a very disapointed in the choice of such a hardline conservative.
Ken asks: 'Is it really any part of Christ's teaching to insist that the many who break their marriage vows at some time must be condemned to a painful death from AIDS through being denied access to condoms and information about their safe use?'
Yes, well, there's that. But let's not forget that condoms have another use apart from preventing transmission of HIV. And one might also ask: is it really part of Christ's teaching to insist that that the many who break their marriage vows must produce unwanted bastard children as the wages of their sin, and never mind what sort of life the aforementioned unwanted bastard children are condemned to, as what really matters is that their parents be brought to account.
I find a lot of puzzles are explained if you keep in mind the Roman Catholic Church is descended more from Constantine than Jesus.
Cristy, actually the post was by Ken.
I agree with your comment!
I was born a Catholic and that's the religion I know the most about. It has most definitely influenced who I am now. Yes I am a Catholic who is waiting for the church to be admirable in every way. As I see it, JP11 defined the Catholic Church clearly and positioned it in relation to other churches in a positive way. Having elected Ratzinger the Church is making it very obvious that is not yet confident enough about it's identity (what it stands for) to devolve any decision making to its members or allow the full participation of it's members in the liturgy. For example, Why can't women be priests?
Christy, you made a small error;
"I am also disturbed by those comments from Ratzinger's DETRACTORS that are so filled with hate and intolerance."
PS I am not a Catholic
Sorry Ken! It was a typographical error rather than an issue of false attribution.
Christy, you made a small error;
"I am also disturbed by those comments from Ratzinger's DETRACTORS that are so filled with hate and intolerance."
Rog's trick is a neat if spurious one, often performed by RWDBs. To see the fallacy, just substitute "Ayatollah Khomeini" for "Ratzinger".
Is it hateful and intolerant for liberals to oppose authoritarian hatred and intolerance with passion? Should everyone simply acquiesce obediently?
Of course, Ratzinger never issued a fatwah urging believers to murder heretics, and the Inquisition he headed had long ago been stripped of the secular power to impose the sorts of horrific punishment that Khomeini deployed for breach of their respective extremist versions of religious lore. But their mentalities and actions would otherwise seem quite comparable. I wonder whether Rog would feel equally relaxed and comfortable about performing his neat rhetorical trick with the Ayatollah?
In lieu of a trackback" http://larvatusprodeo.redrag.net/2005/04/21/benedict-xvi/ - yet another post on Benedict XVI.
Imagine that! A CATHOLIC Pope having CATHOLIC beliefs and actually promoting them!
Who would have thought this could happen!
This whole business is overblown, at least in Western countries. The Pope will say this, the Pope will say that, but nothing will change. As a society, we'll still have sex and cohabit outside marriage; we'll still be using contraceptives in and out of marriage; we'll still be downloading internet porn by the hard drive full; abortions will still be freely available (though maybe not in the US, but if so, that will be due to the Baptist and Methodist fundamentalists rather than the Catholics); we'll still be making babies in vitro; we'll still be researching stem cells; we'll still be engrossed in Desperate Housewives and other examples of frivolous decadence; we'll still fulfill our lives with the acquisition of consumer goods, not through prayer; etc etc etc.
In short: I don't give a stuff who the Pope is or what he believes.
"To me his half smile suggests that he's thinking "Transitional pope, ha! I'll show them I'm going to live to 95!"
Yes, Mindy, there mightn't be too much joy in the hope that he won't last too long. As Mark B pointed out, one held on until 93. And I seem to remember that the Borgias' dynasty dominance started with his election as a compromise candidate, being old and doddery.
I keep thinking of the Max Gillies portrayal of 20 years back (John Paul), "I give it to you straight! No more Nooky! If you don't cut it out, you'll all go blind!"
Don, one'd hope there wouldn't be too much joy in Ratzinger's age whether he lives to 93 or not. We're talking textbook goulishness here, and I for one consider that a rather Bad Thing.
"Okay, so the new Pope doesn't look like being a very nice bloke. But don't worry, he'll be dead soon! Then we can rejoice!" Um, *no*.
mark, I apologise I am guilty of what you suggest. But I was also commenting that the selection of a so called 'transitional Pope' could blow up in the faces of the Cardinals if the Pope lives longer than they seem to expect.
I find little to discern this cretin's opening salvo, in which he warns against the church bending to almost every development in thought and philosophy, from the church's position in the dark ages (clayton's trackback).
Damn... http://northcoteknob.blogspot.com/2005/04/celebrating-dark-ages.html
according to Papa Ratizi 'free market liberalism' is also an enemy. I wonder why the RWDBs are wetting themselves to defend this guy. It is perhaps they care less about free markets than Culture Wars?
"It is perhaps they care less about free markets than Culture Wars?"
Jason, this is a question that cries out for the classic response,
"is the Pope a Catholic?"
A number of people have asked "if you don't like the Church's current flirtation with returning to conservatism, then how can you call yourself a Catholic?" The list, rather amusingly, includes Homer, who has previously stated that Catholics pay no heed to the Bible and cannot be considered Christian.
I've posted about why liberal Catholics might well be unhappy about fashionable conservatism (but not necessarily enough to pretend we're not Catholic). In lieu of trackback: http://lemming.donotuselifts.net/2005/04/21/the-next-pope/
Geoff, you make a good point about the possibility of their being homosexual Popes in the past. I've heard no evidence that there were any, but there have been a number of great people in the past who just happened to be gay (not that you'd hear a modern conservative admit it); Richard the Lionheart springs to mind.
As long as the Left gets crushed, it's all to the good.
wishful thinking EP. It will just make more of us. cue evil laughter.
Mark, I have never said The Catholic denomination pays no attention to the bible just not enough which is why they have popes, cardinals etal.
you Ken and others want the Catholics to dissassociate themselves completely from the bible given the views expressed.
The New Pope likes liturgy so look up for a shake up there and the previous Benedict was a reformer in WW1 so look out there.
Of course conservative reformers are always preferrable to liberal ones.
Good grief, ken, now the Pope is like the Ayatollah Khomenei? You are being ridiculous as is Mindy and Mark banisch - just post to your own blog man and stop trolling for hits on other websites - he is the Pope, you guys don't care what he stands for or says. Go right ahead and say all that, but stop with the comparisons. He is the Pope. There is no comparison anywhere else. Sheesh.
"you Ken and others want the Catholics to dissassociate themselves completely from the bible given the views expressed."
But the Bible says nothing about whether women should be priests (although you can read it into St Paul's writings fairly easily), nor about priestly celibacy, nor abortion, nor IVF, nor stem cell research etc etc. Nor does the Bible state or imply Papal infallibility (or even imply the existence of any such office). And the new Testament at least says very little about homosexuality.
So few if any of my doctrinal wishes and hopes are in any sense contrary to Christ's teachings. They are certainly contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, however, and I accept that it is a hierarchical organisation that has never conceded primacy of conscience to its members. That's why I pre-emptively conceded in an earlier comment that I couldn't in conscience remain a practising Catholic: a Catholic isn't free (at least in theory) to choose which aspects of Catholic teaching to believe and practise and which to ignore. If you disagree with significant parts of Catholic teaching, irrespective of whether they are biblically based or not (and most of the ones to which I object aren't), then you must cease to be a practising Catholic. That's what I've done. But it doesn't and can't reasonably stop me from objecting or arguing that the current Church hierarchy are wrong in these regards.
Why is it that so many people who aren't Catholics insist on telling the church what its doctrines should be?
"Why is it that so many people who aren't Catholics insist on telling the church what its doctrines should be?"
Why is it that the church insists on telling so many people who aren't Catholics how to live their lives?
One piece of unwanted interference deserves another.
When my father (an old CBC boy and all) had separated from his first wife, the parish priest told Dad he might as well be dead. (Culture of Life LOL) Fortunately, for my sake, he didn't take the advice.
Oh, and strangely enough the priest is now in prison for child abuse.
Sigh. To quote the late Dave Allen, "Thank God I'm an atheist".
W writes:
"You are being ridiculous as is Mindy and Mark banisch - just post to your own blog man and stop trolling for hits on other websites - he is the Pope, you guys don't care what he stands for or says."
Have you ever heard of trackback, W? The convention is that if you directly mention a post it's polite to refer its author and readers to the further discussion. In my post, I noted my agreement with Ken and in the second one, I discussed reaction in the blogosphere generally and linked to this post as an instance of vigorous debate.
If you post a link without talking about the post on your own site, you're "trolling for hits".
As to why I care about who the Pope is - I'm a Catholic.
Ken
This may be an outrageous intrusion on your spiritual privacy, but you have been known to be candid once or twice before, and I'm dyinig of curiosity, so I'll chance it.
As someone who made a smooth transition from mass-going Catholic to atheist at 16, I'm bewildered that anyone as apparently sane and intelligent as you could tie yourself in knots over whether to practise Catholicism. Do you, or did you, as a matter of interest, think that: you were born with Original Sin but saved from it through the sacrament of Baptism; that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, the son of God but simultaneously one of three parts of a single God, made man, sent by His Father to save you from your sins by dying on the Cross; and that bread and wine 'literally' become His body and blood in the Eucharist? If not, then why would you want to be part of an institution premised on these doctrines? To me it seems that someone who will sign up to all that stuff might as well go along with any second order doctrines about sex and whatnot.
If, on the other hand, you just vaguely believe there's a higher conscience in the universe, and you want to be part of some spiritual community, pray a bit, do things to help the poor and so on, why didn't you just become a quaker or a Bahai or something harmless like that?
Whoops: consciousness, not conscience.
James, I think you asked me a similar question last year - but my position has moved since then. It's a fair one - though I guess the choice as you note is up to Ken as to whether he answers it.
I actually don't think that the core doctrines (which are more about Christ than your somewhat dogmatised presentation - though as I said, you're being reasonable in what you ask)don't imply the secondary ones which Ken and I reject.
James
I'm too tired to comment intelligently tonight, but I'll answer your questions in the morning.
No, Mark, of course the core ones don't imply the secondary ones. But if you don't subscribe to the core ones anyway, i.e. regard them as just so much ancient ritual to be tolerated, why not save yourself a lot of trouble by finding a religion that suits your social philosophy?
I don't remember in your case using the words sane and intelligent, but yes I did ask you a similar question, and you said you weren't sure. But if you do, at least on some days of the week, subsribe to the above creed, I can see that in your case you might want to hang around and fight it out with the Pells of the world. But in Ken's case I have no sense of whether he believes it at all ever, hence the question.
I'm kinda with James F on this. While the Christos mythos itself is a very powerful and moving reworking of the cycle of death and rebirth that acts as an emotional motor for so many belief systems, all the immaculate conception, virgin birth and original sin doctrines, the plonk and crackers, and all the second and third dogma that follows on strikes as me as just metaphor and ritual, not the stuff itself that binds you to yer maker.
So if it's all about reaching a covenant with yer prime mover, just go ahead and covenant away.
Do you really need an organised church for this? With old blokes in skirts, who don't personally partake of the divine act of bringing new lives into corporeal being, laying down their law for what should be the most intense, personal and profound transaction of yer life?
As I've said before, I don't think religionists (especially the bronze-age sky god followers who can't make their minds whether he's called God, Yaweh or Allah) realise just how utterly ridiculous their doctrinal disputes look to those outside their hierachial and completely overmediated traditions.
Hey, anybody asked God lately what he thinks about all this?
Fair enough, James.
And in overnight news, the Spanish Parliament has voted to allow gay marriage and give homosexuals the right to adopt children.
This, in one of the most (nominally) Catholic countries in the world - the home of the Inquisition, no less.
Presumably the timing is coincidental, but it is still a fabulous show of contempt to the new Pope.
James
I certainly believe in a universe-creating intelligent force or spirit we call God, and I certainly believe that Jesus was not only a historical person but a projection of God, and that the Gospels (albeit imperfectly) reflect his teaching.
The literal truth or otherwise of the virgin birth and resurrection aren't important to my faith. It's certainly possible that a God who created the universe could intervene in whatever way He/She/It chose, but whether that actually occurred I have no idea, and so I can't claim to have faith in that sense. Of course, that would be sufficient for most Christians to label me as not being one of them.
My major reservation about the idea of an interventionist God is that it creates all sorts of conundrums that Catholic theologians (and christian theologians generally) answer very unconvincingly. For example, if God intervenes frequently in the universe he created, why does he intervene to do party tricks of the sort typically used to bolster the claims to sainthood of JPII's ideological mates, but doesn't intervene to save innocent children from slaughter? Neither notions of original sin nor the "God moves in mysterious ways" mantra help here.
So if God really did intervene in the world to give effect to the virgin birth and physical resurrection of Jesus, then it was a singular intervention IMO.
I think God constructed the universe to operate and evolve according to laws of physics etc which integrally involve hazard (chaos theory, quantum mechanics etc). If the universe is deterministic and/or God is an interventionist, then morality, good/evil etc have no real meaning. We make moral choices in hazard, and God generally doesn't save any of us in this world at least, except through the insight and wisdom we can acquire through Jesus's teaching and through prayer and contemplation.
I don't accept the notion of original sin or the literal truth of transubstantiation in the sacrament of communion.
However, I DO believe that Jesus, as projection/son of God, consciously died for our sins. And I always found communion to be a profound, powerful and moving experience, and I greatly regret that my broken marriage means I can no longer participate according to the Church's current doctrine.
In fact, the whole concept of Jesus's sacrifice and the psychically healthy forgiveness and redemption it facilitates for christians, are for me the most powerful aspects of christianity and the core of my personal faith. But as I said, neither His virgin birth nor the physical reality of bodily resurrection are central or even important to my faith.
Given the rather large divergences of my personal brand of faith from Catholic teaching, why would I wish to be a Catholic? To be part of a community of faith, because we're social beings. Because I find the ritual and tradition very attractive. Because attending Mass provides a great structured opportunity for prayer, contemplation and peaceful reflection. Because the Catholic Church's emphasis on redemption through good works results in a much stronger practical social justice orientation than any other church, and that orientation fits well with my personal political beliefs.
Really appreciate that, Ken. I can relate very well to the last two sentences if not to the rest.
'So if God really did intervene in the world to give effect to the virgin birth and physical resurrection of Jesus, then it was a singular intervention IMO.'
- a one off you reckon?
You have lost it Parish... any born to it all Catholic will tell you you don't have to take all those stories seriously. They are strictly for the one's who need them. I believe you are born a Catholic like you are born a Jew. There's no getting away from it. I love the Catholics we are insane! Transubstantiation? You have got to be joking!
Virgin birth.
Lightning strikes, and Jesus is raised up from the dead - well, Jesus, among others.
I love the blood and guts, the fantasy, the improbability of the Catholic faith.
If you can believe in Catholic doctrine, you'll believe anything! Hardline conservatives? I think that orientation is not possible in this faith. Catholics are more likely to be imaginative, hope seeking lunatics.
All hail the new Pope who is about to save our Chappelle.
It's Schapelle, but I certainly share your deep optimism about the prospects of the new Pope being able to persuade Muslim Indonesians (and even more so Hindu Balinese) offcials to spare her from death or long imprisonment. What more suitable advocate could there possibly be? Why didn't Pell treat the journo's question with the disdain it deserved?
As for your attitude to Catholicism, and as we discussed on the phone just now, it's much easier for someone (like yourself) who was born and raised a Catholic to take that sort of light-hearted, irreverent approach to dogma while still conisdering themselves a Catholic. But it isn't really possible sensibly to take such an approach when you make a faith decision as an adult. My experience anyway is that one needs to be both intellectually and emotionally convinced that it's the right decision.
I doubt that it would be possible for any thoughtful, intelligent person to find any specific religious creed that fitted their perspectives, beliefs and understanding of the world perfectly. It's a bit like membership of a political party in that respect. You accept the internal discipline of the Party or Church, because some such discipline is necessary for the organisation to be workable, but it doesn't mean that you prostitute your intelligence or suspend disbelief completely. You simply express dissent in a respectful, restrained manner and, as far as possible, keep it "in house".
Of course, all this means that mature-age converts like me sound like awfully Serious Old Insects to many highly-educated lifelong Catholics like you, but so what? It's a broad church, as they say, although nowhere near as broad as it should be IMO with Wojtyla and now Ratzinger in charge.
very old insects indeed very old dull and boring old insects very old sick and smelly old insects You remind me of the Pope sometimes Parish.
ain't love grand?
matter of fact, yes!
Ken, I am afraid to tell you that if Jesus did NOT physically rise from the Dead then christianity is a fraud. The Bible tells me this.
Interestingly Homer, that was the very subject of the "Da Vinci Code" of its day, the Edwardian bestseller "When It Was Dark" by Guy Thorne.
The late great Claud Cockburn wrote a good article about the book several decades later, pointing out, amongst other things, how if the resurrection was revealed as a fraud, things wouldn't really change that much for most people post WW1, unlike the collapse of civilisation depicted in Thorne's theological seaport novel.
Anyway, Claud's article has been recently been exhumed and posted here.
http://www.counterpunch.org/claudhorror1.html
The Da Vinci code was a fiction novel in every sense of the words.
"I am afraid to tell you that if Jesus did NOT physically rise from the Dead then christianity is a fraud."
Homer, obviously this is a description of your religious faith, but it doesn't accurately describe mine. But quite frankly, I'm not interested in getting involved in a theological argument. I simply responded to James' questions as a matter of courtesy, because I thought they were fair questions given the views I've expressed in this post and some other recent ones. However, having briefly explained the nature of my own religious faith, I don't see any useful purpose in arguing about it. Feel free to continue to hold your own beliefs, and I'll stick with mine.
Ken, It is not my belief but the rock of christianity. Your beliefs I am afraid are not compatible with the Catholic denomination however I am sure you could find a church of the Uniting denomination which could accomodate you. you should also read John Spong. you have a lot in common.
Oh, me too, jen. I know exactly what you mean. I'm culturally Catholic, but I got confirmed as Joan wearing a red sailor dress. This was partly the work of my mother, who was told not to come to mass after divorcing her (as it turned out) gay husband.
Homer is basing his statement (rightly) on St. Paul who asked if the resurrection did not happen, what is the bass of faith in the risen Christ? But as usual, he's insisting on words like "physically" which for all his insistence on the inerrance of the Bible, don't appear there.
For "bass" read "basis".
Zoe, she probably could have got an annulment on that basis. And nobody should be told not to come to Mass. The inconsistent thing is that you're not meant to take communion if you're not in a state of grace (ie have just been to confession) but it's only ever applied to marital/sexual "sins".
I think it's quite wrong - Jesus hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors and broke bread with them - I suspect that it's the reception of Christ in the Eucharist which is the biggest forgiveness. Or anyway so I believe.
Mark, quite a few years later, after marrying my dad, she was asked to give a talk to a group of priests about her experience.
She was quite upset, which surprised her, and some of them tried to comfort her, including by telling her she could get an annulment. She would not do that because they had a child, who she felt would be repudiated by an annulment, and because too much time had passed for it to be meaningful for her anymore. It's a very sad story.
There are a lot of them around, sadly, Zoe.
"Homer is basing his statement (rightly) on St. Paul who asked if the resurrection did not happen, what is the bass of faith in the risen Christ? But as usual, he's insisting on words like "physically" which for all his insistence on the inerrance of the Bible, don't appear there."
I think para 645 is what you're after Mark. And 1 and 2 Corinthians. NT Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God is a good (if sometimes infuriating) read - although that book addressed more to certain academic schools.
I think one of the changes Catholics may see under the new pontificate is allowing divorcees to take communion. But like annulments, too much time has passed for some for it to be meaningful. And what do you say? Marriage, divorce, remarriage, 'hedging the table' as some Protty's call it, have always been a bone of contention - and source of pain - in all Christian traditions. Sadly.
Mark, if he didn't physically rise from the dead then he was sinful and therefore could not be God, could not take my sins on the cross and could not sit at the right hand of God and judge those who are to enter the kingdom.
Moreover Satan would still rule over Earth.
It is as simple as that.
We're unlikely to agree, Homer!
Mark, I am merely saying what the central tenets of Christianity is. Of course a lot of people who believe they are christian don't agree with them but that is another story.
Again, Homer, we're unlikely to agree!
What do you think the central tenets are then Mark?
"Because attending Mass provides a great structured opportunity for prayer, contemplation and peaceful reflection. Because the Catholic Church's emphasis on redemption through good works results in a much stronger practical social justice orientation than any other church, and that orientation fits well with my personal political beliefs."
These are also the reasons that I attend Quaker Meeting, and I have never associated either of these things with Catholicism - where the ritual completely alienates me. It is interesting how differently two such different ways of worship can appear to different people.
I also agree with Homer that you would enjoy Spong. Your theological beliefs are fairly similar to his, and he engages very thoroughly with the arguments that not believing in the resurrection, the virgin birth, or whatever other doctrine, means that you are not a Christian.
I'll get back to you, Homer.