Do you think the planned vigils and demonstrations are going to do anything to sway Benedict, or is this simply a matter of letting him know the dismay about his hateful rhetoric on key issues? (PageOneQ):
Gay Catholic activists, who plan to demonstrate Tuesday along the papal motorcade route in Washington, have compiled a list of statements by Benedict during his career which they consider hostile to gays and lesbians. These include forceful denunciations of gay marriage and of adoption rights for same-sex couples.BTW, he’s not doing a stop in Boston, where the scandal exploded — imagine that?“He has issued some of the most hurtful and extreme rhetoric against our community of any religious leader in history, and we want to call him into account for the damage that he’s done,” said Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of DignityUSA.
Duddy-Burke said she hopes the protests will be coupled with celebration of the gains made by gay Catholics in America in recent years. She cited the growing number of parishes welcoming openly gay members and the dozens of Catholic colleges that now have gay-straight alliances.
…For many American Catholics, the most distressing church-related issue of recent years has been clerical sex abuse. Thousands of molestation allegations have been filed against Catholic clergy, and dioceses have paid out more than $2 billion in claims since 1950.
David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abuse by Priests, said his advocacy group would not be mollified even if the pope meets privately with abuse victims.
Other Qs —
* What about churches that are welcoming to non-celibate gay parishioners - will there be a “crackdown”?
* Is it reasonable to expect any meaningful progressive change during this Pope’s reign?
* For Catholics out there, how do you reconcile Benedict’s positions with your faith?
I’m just tossing these out there for discussion. It’s clear that Prada Papa Ratzi’s arrival on U.S. soil will generate a lot of press, and a good amount of dismay among women, gays, health advocates who are promoting condom use to curb the spread of HIV/AIDS, and other progressive members of the Catholic community who believe that the conservative Benedict has hurt the church, particularly in light of the clergy sex abuse scandals.
Read Kevin Naff’s editorial on Papa Ratzi’s visit at the Washington Blade.
I was raised Catholic and have seen the good deeds so many adherents perform. From feeding the hungry and caring for the homeless, Catholics are decent, charitable people. Last Christmas, parishioners in my mother’s church were asked to adopt soldiers in Iraq who had no family waiting for them back home. Many, including my mother, did just that, sending care packages, letters and e-mails to complete strangers fighting thousands of miles away.It’s unfortunate that the good work performed by so many Catholics is overshadowed by the Vatican’s venom. The dirty little secret that the pope doesn’t want to acknowledge is the large number of gays in the pews, especially in inner city churches long ago abandoned by white families escaping to the ’burbs. If only the gay and lesbian outreach that happens in local churches were matched by affirming words from Rome.
But with Benedict in charge, that’s all wishful thinking and the Catholic Church continues on its path to increasing irrelevance in the developed world.
79 Responses to “Qs of the day - American Catholics and Pope Benedict”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Of course he’s not going to Boston. They might arrest him for that letter he wrote Law telling him to obstruct justice.
I can’t be Catholic anymore. I lived with the disconnect between what Jesus said and what the good priests I knew were vs. the hierarchy and it’s reluctance to act for a long time. It’s a co-dependent relationship.
But the Archdioceses of Chicago really did it in for me. JPII appointing Francis George to replace Joseph Bernadin has been a nightmare. Fucking correctors. They are only concerned with being “respected” and they don’t care about the people they are called to serve.
And then there’s the nightmare of how awful they were to my son in preschool (nothing sexual, but compete and total incompetence that took years to get him back on track.)
It’s hard leaving, but I can’t support the nonsense anymore. And it’s not like George or Ratzi will care. They’ll just say I’m damned to hell.
Better hell than a heaven that honors pedophiles and their enablers.
“Do you think the planned vigils and demonstrations are going to do anything to sway Benedict, or is this simply a matter of letting him know the dismay about his hateful rhetoric on key issues?”
To an authoritarian like Ratzi, and his RWA followers, vigils and demonstrations (especially by anybody who can even vaguely be labeled “liberal”) are proof that he’s doing the “right” thing. If everybody was happy, he must not be authoritarian enough…
The loathsome Bill Donahue had an ad in the NYT congratulating the Pope on taking it to “radical secularists” and “militant atheists”.
They certainly aren’t going to sway Benedict on gays and lesbians or on dealing with abusive clergy, any more than the torch protests will free Tibet and Uigurstan. However, they will show that there are Catholics and others who are unhappy with the Pope’s teachings. it might also force the media to look at some of the serious problems facing American Catholics.
Of course given the media’s propensity for fawning over authoritarian bullies, especially white male ones, there probably won’t be much positive coverage of the protests. Unless some asshole mega-Protestants show up to disrupt the Pope because he is the Roman Anti-Christ (then being white and male, they will have a pass for anything noxious they do).
In the picture, what is the symbol on his stole? There’s a red cross, yeah, but what’s that thing on top of it? A lighthouse? A dildo? wtf?
Please. Ratzi is nothing more than a power-hungry right-wing politician who stole an election at the last minute. Benedict is to John Paul II as Cheney is to Reagan: not even the MSM pretends he’s as beloved or charismatic as his equally medieval predecessor. The only thing that progressive constituents can do to sway these authoritarians is to cut off their funding until they start behaving.
Man I wish you were as hard on Muslim clerics who say, encourage and often do infinitely worse things than Benedict has ever dreamed of. But alas, they are opressed so gotta lay off them.
I reconciled Benedict’s (and the Church’s) positions with my own by leaving the Catholic Church. And if you really want to get the Church’s attention on these issues, you’ll convince your Catholic friends to do the same. Less people in the seats equals less cash in the collection baskets and less power for the Church to wield in our names.
Man I wish you were as hard on Muslim clerics who say, encourage and do infinitely worse things than Benedict has ever dreamed. But they are opressed so I understand you gotta lay off.
Pam, you ask how Catholics reconcile their faith with Ratzinger. That’s a lot like asking how Americans reconcile their faith in Democracy with Bush’s Presidency. Ratzinger is a man who holds an office - he is not the church. He is not Jesus. The Catholic church is a human institution, plain and simple. No reconciliation is really necessary, just opposition to the Church’s policies and theology. Which is a particularly Catholic thing to do - one of the nicer things about about having a priesthood is the necessity for study and theology - you don’t get to claim to know the will of God directly. For the record, I stopped being Catholic long ago (gone the whole atheism route) but I respect the distinction between a religion and an institution.
Man I wish you were as hard on Muslim clerics who say, encourage and do infinitely worse things than Benedict has ever dreamed. But they are opressed so I understand you gotta lay off.
I don’t know about Pam, but I’m as hard on the mullahs as I am on Ratzi (harder, in fact). The oppressed people I see with regard to either organised religion are women, gays, the children who were abused under religious tutelage (be it in a madrasah or a Boston Catholic school), and (to a lesser extent) those who choose not to believe in their flavour of Invisible Bearded Sky Man(tm).
Since you’re here, Freddy, we’d be interested in hearing your answers to Pam’s questions along with your snark.
I don’t quite get the obsession with the pope.
The last time the US had a papal visit was in 1999 in St. Louis, and I got a 2 day gig working as a go-fer for Dan Rather (had to bring him his lattes). I got into a chat with one of the CBS producers on hand, and he had been all over the world covering different events, and had seen many heads of state on official visits.
He stated that there isn’t a single world leader - including the President of the United States - who gets a bigger security detail than the pope. And sure enough, as the popemobile whizzed by, he was led by about 100 motorcycles and 40 Suburbans preceeding and following him through the streets of St. Louis. I counted about 30 Secret Service agents within 100 yards of the popemobile alone, standing on the runners of the Suburbans.
Why is this guy such a big deal that he gets more protection than even the leader of the free world?
I decided to post on this after hearing a report on NPR while on the way home yesterday. I thought this was interesting.
I saw choosing Ratzinger as a decision by the College of Cardinals to simply put off the question of how to deal with the Church’s issues for 10-15 years. He was the “status quo” candidate, he is old enough that he’s going to die in the relatively near future. They can then deal with a bunch of issues confronting the church AND they won’t have to deal with Ratzinger’s input to boot.
In the scheme of things, he’ll be much like all those popes between Paul VI and John Paul II who we don’t think much about because they’re all sort of “miscellaneous.”
Pam -
Apparantly B16 is supposed to have a meeting with the presidents of 200 Catholic Universities (including Georgetown, Notre Dame, Boston College, among others) to give them a good tongue lashing over how overly “secular” they’ve become.
Apparantly, American Catholics - particularly those educating our young adults - just aren’t Catholic enough for God’s Rottweiler.
I heard that NPR thing yesterday (I think…it might have been this morning). The bit about the dogma of the church falling apart had me cracking up, since the person saying that was saying it like it’d be such an awful thing.
The other thing I learned from NPR (and I’m pretty sure I got this from this morning) is that, while the Catholic Church was formerly against the invasion of Iraq, Benedict has apparently now shifted the stance so that they’re for the occupation. Which gave me yet another reason to be happy I’m no longer a Catholic.
Tyro -
Rumor has it that Benedict’s successor is likely going to be a black man… Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Arinze
While superficially it might be percived as an incredibly progressive move for the Church, don’t be fooled. Arinze, from what I’ve read, makes Alan Keyes look like a flaming liberal.
Why is this guy such a big deal that he gets more protection than even the leader of the free world?
Mainly because his office was the leader of the oppressed world for several centuries, so lots of legitimate and long-standing grudges there (especially since Ratzi makes no or very reluctant apologies for past Church policies). Throw in Rapture-obsessed American evangelicals who agree with McCain’s favourite pastor, Ted Hagee, that the Church of Rome is the Whore of Babylon. Add in violent Islamic fantasists who think they’ll make a splash by taking out the Pope, and general nutbars who want to be the next Mehmet Ali Agca. Take all that, add in massive crowd-control issues and a lot of personal badwill toward a former Hitler Youth who more recently allowed priests to get away with child abuse, and even I’ll agree that the Pope merits a bigger security detail than the average visiting world leader.
Tyro —
Hate to nitpick, but this struck me as funny:
In the scheme of things, he’ll be much like all those popes between Paul VI and John Paul II who we don’t think much about because they’re all sort of “miscellaneous.”
I just went back and checked to make sure. There was one and only one pope in between Paul VI and John Paul II. It was John Paul I, who died a month after assuming the office. Depending on whom you ask, he was either old and in poor health to begin with, or he was whacked by the Mafia.
And can I say that I really love hitting the “Blaspheme!” button to comment on this topic?
I dunno about this “why didn’t the Pope go to Boston” complaint. I have a suspician that if the Pope did go to Boston on this tour, some of the same people would be complaining “how dare the Pope go to Boston and thus implicitly give his imprimateur to a diocese still not fully reformed from its quasi-criminal past”.
Also, there is a larger issue here: people in positions of power sometimes tend to get off on power. And one way they do it is through sexual abuse. The clergy-sexual abuse scandals are much bigger than the Catholic church — they occur in all faiths (and some of the emphasis on Catholics here is a bit too reflective of standard issue Anglo-American anti-Catholic paranoia for comfort).
The real issue is that the Catholic church, having a hierarchy, could have done something about the problem and instead chose to actively cover it up. But what about other religious bodies with no hierarchies to do anything about sexual abuse in the first place? Is the Catholic church transferring an abusive priest any worse, in a utilitarian manner, than a Protestant church that has no way of tracking an abusive minister to keep him from being hired by Congregation Y after he was booted out of Congregation X?
Freddy: Bear in mind that as of 2001, Roman Catholics make up about 24.5% of the population as opposed to followers of Islam at 0.5% of the populace (possibly more, unlikely more than 1%). And bear in mind that that is likely splintered amongst the multiple sects, and thus don’t have a single religious leader that speaks for the faith as a whole.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm
#3: But what about radical militants, secular athiests, militant secularists, atheistic radicals, and people who say “beep-beep” when you get in their way in the hall? MOTHERFUCKER BE SLIPPIN’.
MattPatt: hm. I had no idea that Pope Paul VI lasted that long. For some reason I had it in my head that he didn’t last much longer past Vatican II. Shows how much I know.
For those wondering about the Pope’s security, keep in mind that Pope John II was, in fact, almost assassinated back in the early 80s. I can see how they’d be paranoid.
1- Do you think the planned vigils and demonstrations are going to do anything to sway Benedict, or is this simply a matter of letting him know the dismay about his hateful rhetoric on key issues?
I assume he won’t care. This is a man who would rather see the church shrink then give up one point of his power and consider that he might be wrong. Many people idolize JPII, and dislike BXVI, without realizing that they espouse the same positions on most things. BXVI was appointed to keep the faith pure by JPII; their positions are substantially the same.
2- What about churches that are welcoming to non-celibate gay parishioners - will there be a “crackdown”?
Probably.
3- Is it reasonable to expect any meaningful progressive change during this Pope’s reign?
No, nor in the next one either. Something like 75% of the cardinals, who choose the pope, were appointed by JPII. They are as conservative, or more conservative, as JPII and BXVI.
4- For Catholics out there, how do you reconcile Benedict’s positions with your faith?
I don’t. I am an Episocopalian now (when I go to church at all).
I think that “how do you reconcile” is a bit of a cheap shot, Pam. I am not very happy with Benedict. I am also not very happy with the Church. For different, but sometimes overlapping, reasons.
What I like about the Catholic Church is that there is a big focus on serving the poor. Also, compared to a lot of protestant sects, less evangelizing comes along with the charity. But I think the Church is entirely wrong on just about everything to do with human sexuality. If the Church were like the wonderful priests, deacons, monseigneurs and bishops I grew up around, I would still be Catholic. But, its views on sexuality are still bound up with a bunch of greek nonsense, so for right now, I’m done.
I think I’ll raise the future children Unitarian. Sigh.
To the concern trolls: if somebody was dumping trash in your backyard, would you sit tight and not say anything until factories stopped polluting the Yangtze river? After all, that pollution is MUCH worse.
I’m an ex-Catholic atheist, grew up in the church, and some of my best memories were of church-related activities. Our church was rockin’. There were always a dozen-or-so volunteer charitable groups, and they had fun, usually in high spirits, doing charitable work because it needed doing, not to gain points with God. Service music ranged from fun-to-sing folk to performances by a very skilled choir; modern music, not the old shopworn hymns. Sermons were positive; the focus was love, peace, the golden rule, and God as the guy covering your back. “Hell” was invoked far more often as a swear word than as a possible destination.
We paid as much attention to the Pope as we did seismic hazards: damn little. (The church sanctuary was irreparably damaged in an earthquake a decade after I grew up and left.)
I have no doubt there were atheists lurking in that congregation. It was just a good place to belong, and religion be damned.
I think that “how do you reconcile” is a bit of a cheap shot, Pam.
Huh? Where’s the cheap shot? Put down the hi-test coffee. I have discussions about this very matter with my Maronite Catholic wife, and yes, for her the church under B16 is something many have trouble reconciling.
4- For Catholics out there, how do you reconcile Benedict’s positions with your faith?
I’m no longer a Catholic, but I know one way they do it:
There’s a banner at the nearest Catholic Church (which I’ve been to for funerals, weddings, etc.) showing a whole bunch of people of all ages & colors, with a priest or two mixed in but not on a higher level than the rest. It proclaims: We Are the Church.
There is a very, very long Catholic tradition of viewing the Pope as the guy who happens to be at the front of the crowd, but he doesn’t determine who’s in the crowd or where it’s going.
Apparantly B16 is supposed to have a meeting with the presidents of 200 Catholic Universities (including Georgetown, Notre Dame, Boston College, among others) to give them a good tongue lashing over how overly “secular” they’ve become.
He’s mad at us for having the Vagina Monologues on campus, and other such things. I’m sure the Jesuits [BC, GU] are gonna get it even worse, what with their long hair and short skirts and GET OFF MY LAWN YOU DAMN KIDS!!!
I came here first to get a feel for the state of the anti-Catholic wing of the Democrat Party, given the Pope’s visit, and I wasn’t disappointed.
I came here to get a feel for the state of the anti-Atheist and anti-Humanist wing of the evangelical Catholic faith, given the Pope’s visit, and I wasn’t disappointed.
In fact, this is just a warm-up. I can just imagine the fun going on at Free Republic between the Christian right-wing authoritarians and the Libertarians.
“I can just imagine the fun going on at Free Republic between the Christian right-wing authoritarians and the Libertarians.”
My favorite is when one group of “Christian right-wing authoritarians” who support the RCC fight with protestant “Christian right-wing authoritarians”.
One says “WE are the REAL Christain church, and you heretics will fry!!!”, and the other group snaps back “Whore of Babylon! The Pope is the Antichrist!”
I got no dog in this hunt.
As long as they’re fragging each other, we can all sit back and enjoy…
…unfortunately, they soon go back to demonizing the Left…
“I came here first to get a feel for the state of the anti-Catholic wing of the Democrat Party, given the Pope’s visit, and I wasn’t disappointed.”
Hey, we haven’t even STARTED talking about Ratzi’s shoe collection/obsession, etc. You’re getting off lucky…
Besides, we’re not “anti-Catholic” at all. ALL religions are fair game for criticism. ALL OF THEM.
Did you happen to catch any of the discussion when Falwell went to his “reward”?
Of course, the rules for religion (especially christians) say: “Unless you believe exactly as I do, you hate me (and I hate you)” - which is rather interesting considering the hate that streams from the religionists.
Criticism =/= hate or anything like it. Criticism is just criticism. Get over it…
Wow. First of all, what you call “Benedict’s positions” are not really his own, and they go back 2000 years, well before the terms Republican and Right Wing came about.
Second, why is everything about american politics with you? Why can’t you accept the fact that the man actually believes in the Catholic Church and its constant teachings.
I’ll be in NYC at the Youth Rally not because he’s “conservative” as you foolishly believe. But because he is the Vicar of Christ as 1 billion people around the world believe.
Viva Il Papa!
I don’t think Pam’s question about reconciliation (oh, I love a good pun) was a cheap shot at all. She’s hitting at a very real split between old school Catholics and the doctrines of the Church.
Let’s recall that the RCC is not a democracy. Although the doctrine of Papal Infallability is quite new, the College of Cardinals no less than Ratzinger is quite conservative right now (a conservatism that developed w/increasing rapidity towards the end of John Paul II’s life- he didn’t start out conservative!) The Church is -founded- on profoundly anti-sex theology, and to make any changes in dogma relating to sexuality (straight or queer) would fundamentally change the Church. (Church of England, anyone?)
Nevertheless, old school Catholics around the world demonstrate a very pragmatic faith. “Oh, but you’re a good person,” my own father protests, when I point out the Pope himself has ordered me and others like me out of his Church. The deep divide between highly educated clergy and less theologically-saavy laity in the RCC may create and perpetuate this scenario.
I would argue, however, that there are fewer “old school Catholics” today than in the past. The very youth-movements than Vatican II promoted (and Ratzinger has developed) have successfully educated a larger percentage of 1st World Catholics about their own theology than ever before in history. This may result in a more activist laity, which works towards doctrinal change, but I think it’s still too early to tell, in an institution that marks change in centuries, rather than years or decades.
Funny thing. That works with the Catholic Church, too.
When the parish priest at one of the largest northshore Chicagoland parishes retired, the parishoners asked Francis George to send someone similar–>liberal and open-minded.
Well, George showed them! How dare they suggest any such thing. They were in dire need of correction!
The first dogmatic asshole he sent got caught up in the pedophile scandal. That’s when George got in trouble for claiming that a 17 y/o girl might throw herself at a priest, so it’s not really all the priest’s fault. That blew up in his face when NOW got ahold of it. He’d actually changed the gender of the “girl” to hide the fact he was talking about his buddy, the pedophile.
So, fired buddy #1, again he’s asked for a liberal, open-minded priest, again he sends an authoritarian corrector.
Who is also a shop-a-holic and spends the parish’s $1.4+ million in reserves on tchotchskis and personal items (like a house for his boyfriend).
His authoritarian ways drive folks off (surprises surprise) Collections are WAY down from the formerly highest revenue parish in Chicagoland. So, authoritarian Corrector #2 has to go. Not for all the asshole-ness, but for the money!
Now the parish is getting a great open-minded, liberal priest from the southside. That parish has a huge community, reaches out to the homeless, to gays, to women who have had abortions, etc. Their weekly bulletin is over 100 pages long with community outreach.
He’s at the end of his 12 year term, so he has to go. The parish petitioned to keep him one more year, as they have a right to. George was rude, let them know it’s really not their place to question him and is going to stick them with a corrector.
His response when asked about people leaving b/c of his choices? If they don’t go to mass, then they’ll go to hell.
I have never thought the hierarchy in the Catholic church was worth a damn. I have loved my relatives and others who were good, but being too far on the inside and seeing the bungling bureaucrats and power-mad shitheads is just too much for me. I reconcile this dichotomy by leaving.
and Ratzi’s not going to Boston b/c they might arrest him for obstruction of justice, seeing how he wrote a letter telling Bernard Law to hide the pedophiles to “protect” the church.
Until the brotherhood of priests remembers it is called to serve the people, I don’t see any chance of reconciliation with American Catholics. They might let Mel Gibson’s crazy sect back in–certainly they will if they vote the Nigerian in as Pope.
Pam,
I thought it was a cheap shot b/c it is part of a common Catholic-bashing meme, that we are somehow Pope-drones. (E.g., what JFK had to overcome). Even if I were still a practicing Catholic (I was once very devout) I would say that I was not bound by anything the pope says, unless it was ex cathedra (when the pope invokes his infalliability). (When I was a devout Catholic, I was a devout dissenting Catholic.) Ex cathedra statements are few and far between. I might ask a protestant what they thought of this or that leader of their sect, but I would never ask them to “reconcile” that with their faith. They don’t owe me any explanation of their faith, and most religious people, Catholics included, do not blindly follow each and every decision of their primary religious leader (even those who profess to do so.)
I know, as I’m sure you’ve learned from convos. with your wife, that in terms of severity Catholic-bashing has never touched gay-bashing (and that the former bears some responsibility for the latter) but it is absolutely no fun. There are still some parts of the country where Catholics are not treated well, and asked why we pray to Mary and the Saints, and told we are not Christians. (Which always irks me because unless their sect traces their origins to the Coptic Christians or the Orthodox Church, which they don’t, they are an offshoot of our relgion. Argh.)
/rant
I came here first to get a feel for the state of the anti-Catholic wing of the Democrat Party, given the Pope’s visit, and I wasn’t disappointed.
I’ve seen a lot of opposition here to Benedict and to the Rome-based Church hierarchy, basically because both are right-wing extremists when it comes to issues of gender and sexuality, and because both were complicit in the cover-up of a child abuse scandal. One would have to be pretty stupid to expect 21st century liberal and progressive Democrats to support what are literally medieval positions, not to mention harbouring fugitives from American justice like Bernard Law.
That said, criticism of a Pope and the Church hierarchy doesn’t translate into general anti-Catholic bigotry; unless you consider the majority of American Catholics to be self-hating; or unless you’re an authoritarian right-wing Catholic like Bill Donohue, who considers any criticism of the current Pope tantamount to an attack on Jeebus himself.
Whatever the case, if you’re worried about true anti-Catholic bigotry I’d suggest you focus on people like McCain’s buddy Ted Hagee. Even a partisan thug like Donohue was forced to point that one out. Meanwhile, the “anti-Catholic wing of the Democrat party” will go back to praising Obama for being reminiscent of JFK and RFK.
[And to Andrew: you might better ask Michael Carr “why is everything about american politics with you?”, since he was the one that brought it up in connexion with this discussion]
Activist Catholics and former catholics need to start funding progressive charitable institutions. Not only because so many official catholic charities insist on their right to discriminate against many of those they’re supposed to serve, but also because the church has shown itself absolutely willing to throw its charitable mission under the wheels when it “needs” money to pay for judgments resulting from its unlawful acts. (I say “needs” because they have plenty of assets to support the lifestyle of bishops and cardinals, and somehow those never get sacrificed.) And as more and more of the faithful withdraw their support from the hierarchy, I’m betting that more and more of the charitable mission will get pared away, just as any large corporation boots out the rank and file before touching the salaries of executives.
Tyro, Paul VI only became Pope after Vatican II. The Vatican II Pope was John XXIII. You were probably thinking of Paul as one of those less significant guys between John XXIII and JP II, both of whom are sometimes referred to as “the Great.”
Someone mentioned that the church of rome is going to irrelevance in the developed world. That is sort of true. They are losing native-born parishoners and priests in the US. Overall numbers are up only because of immigrants. But they are doing better than the more “relevant” (ie in tune with the modern left) churches. It’s the congregationalists, methodists and ucc who are really disappearing.
And Ratzinger et al seem to have decided to write off the developed world and sided with the poor world. And they are booming in Asia and Africa (and according to some accounts, in the mideast as well). hence Arinze as a possible successor. Yes, they have decided to bet on China and Nigeria instead of France or the US. History will show whether they were smart or not. Mostly they are using the developed world to funnel money to poor people in the shitholes of the world.
As far as their ideology not being hip with what modern americans want, yeah. That’s true. Their epistemology is to remain faithful to a very ancient view of the world and not change with the times. But is also one that has seen many many challengers come and go. They’ve weathered at least four periods of atheism more serious than the current one. Who knows, maybe Pandagonism will succeed where thousands of other movements have failed.
But that would be surprising.
Tyro, Paul VI only became Pope after Vatican II. The Vatican II Pope was John XXIII. You were probably thinking of Paul as one of those less significant guys between John XXIII and JP II, both of whom are sometimes referred to as “the Great.”
Someone mentioned that the church of rome is going to irrelevance in the developed world. That is sort of true. They are losing native-born parishoners and priests in the US. Overall numbers are up only because of immigrants. But they are doing better than the more “relevant” (ie in tune with the modern left) churches. It’s the congregationalists, methodists and ucc who are really disappearing.
And Ratzinger et al seem to have decided to write off the developed world and sided with the poor world. And they are booming in Asia and Africa (and according to some accounts, in the mideast as well). hence Arinze as a possible successor. Yes, they have decided to bet on China and Nigeria instead of France or the US. History will show whether they were smart or not. Mostly they are using the developed world to funnel money to poor people in the shitholes of the world.
As far as their ideology not being hip with what modern americans want, yeah. That’s true. Their epistemology is to remain faithful to a very ancient view of the world and not change with the times. But is also one that has seen many many challengers come and go. They’ve weathered at least four periods of atheism more serious than the current one. Who knows, maybe Pandagonism will succeed where thousands of other movements have failed.
But that would be surprising.
As a Catholic I agree with the teachings of the Church. The Church does not teach anyone to hate a person for being homosexual.
This is from the Catechism Of The Catholic Church:
Chastity and homosexuality
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Tyro, Paul VI only became Pope after Vatican II. The Vatican II Pope was John XXIII. You were probably thinking of Paul as one of those less significant guys between John XXIII and JP II, both of whom are sometimes referred to as “the Great.”
Someone mentioned that the church of rome is going to irrelevance in the developed world. That is sort of true. They are losing native-born parishoners and priests in the US. Overall numbers are up only because of immigrants. But they are doing better than the more “relevant” (ie in tune with the modern left) churches. It’s the congregationalists, methodists and ucc who are really disappearing.
And Ratzinger et al seem to have decided to write off the developed world and sided with the poor world. And they are booming in Asia and Africa (and according to some accounts, in the mideast as well). hence Arinze as a possible successor. Yes, they have decided to bet on China and Nigeria instead of France or the US. History will show whether they were smart or not. Mostly they are using the developed world to funnel money to poor people in the shitholes of the world.
As far as their ideology not being hip with what modern americans want, yeah. That’s true. Their epistemology is to remain faithful to a very ancient view of the world and not change with the times. But is also one that has seen many many challengers come and go. They’ve weathered at least four periods of atheism more serious than the current one. Who knows, maybe Pandagonism will succeed where thousands of other movements have failed.
But that would be surprising.
Trashcanjack, not quite true — Vatican II was the brainchild of John XXIII, but he died long before it was finished. Paul VI, in fact, had been a supporter of it in the first place, and wasn’t required to continue it after his predecessor’s death. Now, Paul VI is responsible for the encyclical Humanae Vitae, which pretty much ended any chance of meaningful doctrinal change on the subject of contraception, so one might or might not like him, but he was hardly a caretaker pope.
And Ratzinger et al seem to have decided to write off the developed world and sided with the poor world.
Not only is that the smart move, it’s a positive move. It’s smart because dogmatic religion tends to thrive where poverty-driven ignorance does — always good marketing to go where your potential customers are. It’s a positive move because it will by necessity shift more humanitarian funds to places where they’re desperately needed, and even with mystical strings attached, the fewer hungry and unsheltered and uneducated people there are in the world, the better.
Of course, Ratzi and co. expect those funds to keep rolling in from American contributors, rather than from the treasury in Rome — hence this Papal PR visit. But since he’s not even willing to put the deal to American Catholics in blunt terms (”just keep paying and we’ll let you be Catholics despite your eeevil beliefs”), that won’t happen. The Church hierarchy will have to reconcile itself to the fact that they themselves, and not American parishioners, will be footing the bill for the RCC’s expansion in the developing world.
“Wow. First of all, what you call “Benedict’s positions” are not really his own, and they go back 2000 years, well before the terms Republican and Right Wing came about.”
I love these implications that the RCC is somehow immune to change. When “it” wants to, it changes. So don’t try to tell us that today’s RCC is exactly the same as 2000-years ago.
Since the church DOES change, admittedly very slowly, there IS the possibility that LGBT people will someday be welcomed, that priests may someday be allowed a proper sexual outlet (maybe in another 2000-years or so), that real birth control will be recognized as legitimate and necessary for human health, etc.
Now why somebody would want to maintain allegiance to the RCC in the meantime? I don’t know and probably never will. But that’s a whole other question…
The Church does not teach anyone to hate a person for being homosexual.
From what you quoted, however, 2358 does falsely teach adherents that homosexuality is a disease of either the body or the mind (”objectively disordered”).
Also, replace “homosexual persons” with “clergymen” in 2359 and that graf still works — explains a lot. If they had taken out the part about chasity, they’d have saved themselves a lot of trouble over the past few years.
The real questions are
“At what point do the Americans keep their wallets in their pants/ purses?”
“Who will fund the Vatican, if the American money dwindles or goes directly to NGOs?”
“How does the RCC plan to compete with the media-savvy, marketing-savvy conservative Word of Faith/ neoPentecostal (Creflo Dollar and the like) and evangelical denominations and churches?” (RCC is losing out to them in S. America). State-mandated religious monopoly is a thing of the past in Christian-dominant countries.
“Is the RCC truly universal, or is it a “niche” church?”
“How is the RCC going to deal with inevitable higher aspirations and lower birth rates of developing world urbanites?” Sooner or later, birth control is highly desirable to urban populations because children are no longer sources of labor for the family business (farm), and become hard to maintain expenses - prompting families to invest more per child in fewer children per family.
I love these implications that the RCC is somehow immune to change. When “it” wants to, it changes. So don’t try to tell us that today’s RCC is exactly the same as 2000-years ago.
It can change some customary practices, but it can’t change its moral teaching or its doctrinal belief. Why? Becaus the Church doesn’t have the authority to change the Divine Law or the Natural Law. Homosexual acts will never be tolerated by the teaching authority of the Church, nor will abortion.
And some same sex attracted men and women are fine with that: http://www.johnheard.blogspot.com/
Oh, and for those commenting on Vatican II, don’t forget that Ratzinger was actually present at the council as a theological advisor. If anyone today is going to interpret the council, I’d pick him.
Padraig said it best:
“Ratzinger is a man who holds an office - he is not the church. He is not Jesus. The Catholic church is a human institution, plain and simple.”
For my part, my wife and I both were raised Catholic, and baptized our kids into the faith, but abandoned that a year or so ago, after careful thought.
There were two real reasons: first, my own Bishop famoulsy rushed to the defense of his predator priests by pointing out that they were not pedophiles, but instead pederasts. Second was Donahue’s completely inappropriate abuse of the former Edwards bloggers.
Ratz? He never really factored into my equation, into our decision.
To Caren: I cannot speak to your distress over your child’s education, but you’re wrong about Cardinal George, he’s a decent, faithful man. If my Bishop were the same way, I’d only have Donahue to blame for my departure from Catholicism.
Andrew, Vatican II was a huge shift in doctrine and mission. Many many catholics and hierarchs didn’t like it. See Mel Gibson–not Catholic despite the press. He belongs to a sect founded by an exommunicated priest that denies V2.
JPII did everything in his power to roll back the changes and reinstate the church as a political power. Ratzi is doing the same. He may have been at V2, but he didn’t like the result.
Priests used to marry. The orthodox still do (and they are older than the RCC). It was a political ploy to keep church assets from being passed down to bishops heirs.
It’s Aristotle and Augustine, not Christ.
The hierarchy can and does change when it wants to. You don’t see them selling indulgences so much anymore now, do you?
I just got tired of fighting for the change. It’s not acceptable to me anymore to say “yes homosexuals are people, but the church needs time to change” Why does it need time? It’s had plenty of time. And while it’s condemning the laity for using birth control, it’s been hiding buggery.
I’m mad. They need to clean house and respect the people they are called to serve. Running around demanding respect and being correctors does nothing to help spread the message of Christ.
Pam, in regards to your second two questions:
2) Probably not. The Catholic Church does change, but it has the tendency to do so with all the speed of a half-dead snail in a puddle of maple syrup. (Yes, Andrew, even in regards to moral teachings. The current doctrine about homosexuality had to have come about in this century, as there would have been no way for the church to recognize homosexuality as an orientation when absolutely no one was recognizing it as such.)
3) I know the answer for a lot of my generation don’t reconcile, either leave or try to change it.* For my father’s generation, I’ll echo Dr. Science’s claim that most people just ignore the hell out of the Pope. He’s there, he makes important decisions about the church higer-ups, and it’s nice to look at the pretty ceremonies, but really, he doesn’t have any influence in your life. Your bishops do, your local priest does, the community of other Catholics around you do, but the Pope really doesn’t. So unless it directly affects you, you ignore it. In regards to doctrinal matters, he’s essentially a respected scholar that you can feel free to disagree with.
This ignore rather than leave strategy may be due to doctrinal ignorance, as some one else suggested. Or it may be due to the fact during my father’s childhood the church was tied up in nearly everything in your daily life. It was a large part of your schooling, your community, and even your ethnic identity. And that’s what it was, part of your life, something you did day to day.
That is great, the next pope might be a priest from Nigeria, a country where the rape of nuns and young girls by priests is rampant, as elsewhere in Africa.
This was exposed a few years ago, but seems to have disappeared from the radar.
http://www.priestsofdarkness.com/nuns.html
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-73355746.html
The National Catholic Reporter did several articles on the scandal.
That’s the problem.
Then you, yourself are a little mistaken about Catholic doctrine. Your conscience is supreme. Always has been, always will be. As a good Catholic, you cannot allow Ratzinger or anyone else to interpret the council for you.
When the hierarchy is wrong, and it is b/c it’s run by human beings, it’s your responsibility to do what’s right.
You’ll never convince me Jesus had Aristotle and Augustine’s hangups about sex.
Midwest Progressive, I’m not wrong about Francis George at all. I know how often he defended Kealy. I know how much was in the reserves when Ventura left, and I know how much Spiess squandered. He’s not getting that position at Notre Dame, is he? B/c the parishoners threatened to go public if he was “rewarded”.
I know how much the revenues went down and how much flack George must have taken for that. I also know what a complete authoritarian, evil tempered whack job Spiece was.
When questioned about people leaving a parish b/c of the changes, George replied that their souls will be damned. A polite ‘go to hell’, but a go to hell nonetheless.
I know these people. I know the people who had the conversations. Disbelieve if you will, but Francis George is the sorriest excuse for a replacement for Joseph Bernadin. He’s all about the red beanie and the mansion and the trappings.
Not that there aren’t much worse people out there, but George also violated the rules about child abuse w/r/t Daniel McCormack. If he’d done what he was supposed to, instead of continuing the practice of covering for fellow brother priests, at least 2 boys would not have been abused.
Becaus the Church doesn’t have the authority to change the Divine Law or the Natural Law.
Then what happened to Limbo?
“Priests used to marry. The orthodox still do (and they are older than the RCC). It was a political ploy to keep church assets from being passed down to bishops heirs.”
“The hierarchy can and does change when it wants to. You don’t see them selling indulgences so much anymore now, do you?”
“The Catholic Church does change, but it has the tendency to do so with all the speed of a half-dead snail in a puddle of maple syrup. (Yes, Andrew, even in regards to moral teachings. The current doctrine about homosexuality had to have come about in this century, as there would have been no way for the church to recognize homosexuality as an orientation when absolutely no one was recognizing it as such.)”
“Then what happened to Limbo?”
This was the kind of thing I was trying to get at with my comments to Andrew above.
This ridiculous meme, that the RCC (or Christianity in general) is “constant” and “unchanging” is continually used as a cudgel to thrash those who dare to suggest important changes that must be made to keep the religion current.
The RCC is not the pope, the cardinals, the bishops, the priests - it is the teaming throngs who support it with their time, money, and devotion.
But, hey. I’m an atheist. All I care about is that people be as happy as possible. So I guess my views don’t count…
Don’t forget - the majority of American Catholics are now Hispanic, and they tend to toe the line from Rome with more willingness than white American Catholics, who are considered by many clergy from around the world as a sort of degenerate case. The Church hierarchy is very interested in this demographic shift, since they see it as a way to bring American back into the fold. The concerns raised above are of little interest to them, sadly, so there appears to be even less reason for bishops to address them as the liberal American Catholic Church diminishes.
American Catholicism has for a long time been different than old school European Catholicism and south-of-Texas Catholicism. It is more Protestant-influenced, less likely to venerate saints, less likely to avoid contraception, and more progressive. While a lot of the liberation theologians were Latin American, that strain of Catholicism has been consistently undermined by the bishops. Latin American and African Catholicism is quite theologically conservative these days and is largely considered the ‘future’ of the church.
I think the boys in Rome will all breathe a sigh of relief when liberal American Catholics are completely marginalized and they can just ignore them.
Second was Donahue’s completely inappropriate abuse of the former Edwards bloggers.
While I agree with you about this right-wing thug’s bullying ways, it’s important to note in these discussions that the “Catholic League” doesn’t truly represent American Catholics as it claims. The large membership number Donohue is fond of citing is based on the Catholic League’s largely inactive bulk mailing list. The only reason they have any presence is because the right-wing hierarchy in Rome funnels money to them, and because Donahue is willing to spend all day walking up and down upper 6th Ave, fully-charged mobile phone in hand, waiting anxiously for a MSM outlet’s booker to say “yes, Bill, you can be our media whore today.”
Second was Donahue’s completely inappropriate abuse of the former Edwards bloggers.
While I agree with you about this right-wing thug’s bullying ways, it’s important to note that the “Catholic League” doesn’t truly represent American Catholics as it claims. The large membership number Donohue is fond of citing is based on the Catholic League’s largely inactive bulk mailing “opt-out” list. The only reason they have any presence is because the right-wing hierarchy funnels propaganda money to them, and because Donahue is willing to spend all day walking up and down upper 6th Ave, fully-charged mobile phone in hand, waiting anxiously for a MSM outlet’s booker to say “yes, Bill, you can be our media whore today.”
Caren:
You may find ExChristian.net to be of help to you. Certainly it has helped me.
It’s a positive move because it will by necessity shift more humanitarian funds to places where they’re desperately needed, and even with mystical strings attached, the fewer hungry and unsheltered and uneducated people there are in the world, the better. - TG
I suspect it’s a Jewish thing, but many in my family would disagree with this assessment: feeding the hungry, sheltering the unsheltered are definite goods, but those “mystical strings” might impose a huge burdon. There are many aspects of so-called backward cultures that are, well, backward (their treatment of women, etc.). But there are many aspects of traditional wisdom which represent a unique adaptation to the circumstances in which the culture finds itself. As such, any form of cultural imperialism can be, in the long run, very dangerous and make matters worse for those living in an environment but deprived of the traditional wisdom needed to live in this environment.
And the Church, while it does a decent job nowadays of trying to conserve some of that traditional wisdom, is still culturally imperialistic in some bad ways (and doesn’t even support some areas where a little dose of cultural imperialism might do some good — e.g. feminism).
*
Re: the Church and Homosexuality … again, speaking as a Jew, I find the implicit assumption of “sex as a privilage” in many of the Church’s teachings — on gays, on contraception (”don’t have sex unless you can afford the baby”), etc. — to be disturbing. Sex is a human need. And while some sexual outlets (non-consentual sex in any form — whether it’s sex with kids, rape, bestiality, etc.) are considered to be abominable and while some sexual outlets are traditionally preferred (missionary position, lights out, no barrier of any sort between partners), so long as both partners consent, sex is kosher (the Jewish version, so to speak, of Acts 10:9-16 in Nedarim 20b uses a prepared table as a metaphor for sex) … and considered a human need. The idea that God calls some people to be chaste is, to a Jew, rather bizarre … as is the idea that “if you can’t afford the kid, don’t have sex”.
*
The orthodox still do (and they are older than the RCC). - Caren
They really are the same age. The orthodox have kept alive many of the older traditions and rituals, though.
As to your story, it is very heartening. However, in general it seems that many liberal types tend simply to be less committed to religion than conservative types, so churches tend to do better when more “conservative” (there are also issues as to the nature of this commitment — social justice requires more of a commitment than getting to hear titilating details about teh hawt sex under the guise of condemning it).
It does seem that every year the death of liberal Christian and Jewish churches is predicted and every year that demise does not happen — liberal religiosity is not going away … however, in terms of pure numbers, a church would do well to become socially conservative — while for every two liberals the church drives away, only one conservative is brought more into the fold, the fact is that those liberals likely wouldn’t have stayed anyway in this age of decreasing church affiliation whilst the conservative becomes more dedicated with “authentic’ (note my use of quotes — the religiosity involved is hardly authentic but quite modern and as much, if not more so, a product of the enlightenment than our “secularism”) religiosity being promoted.
*
“Is the RCC truly universal, or is it a “niche” church?” - NancyP
Puns intended?
I suspect it’s a Jewish thing, but many in my family would disagree with this assessment: feeding the hungry, sheltering the unsheltered are definite goods, but those “mystical strings” might impose a huge burdon. There are many aspects of so-called backward cultures that are, well, backward (their treatment of women, etc.). But there are many aspects of traditional wisdom which represent a unique adaptation to the circumstances in which the culture finds itself. As such, any form of cultural imperialism can be, in the long run, very dangerous and make matters worse for those living in an environment but deprived of the traditional wisdom needed to live in this environment.
More a liberal thing than a Jewish thing, and I do agree that cultural imperialism and spreading mysticism aren’t good things. But given that, in the short term, developing nations will be saddled with cultural and religious backwardness whether from within (tribalism) or without (imperialism), I’d rather see poor people fed and housed. In the longer term, a population that doesn’t have to worry so much about food and shelter has the luxury of questioning authority — even the authority that fed and housed them in the first place.
Another Former Catholic weighing in. I left the church while at a Jesuit college because it was not able to reconcile with my thoughts and feelings on the nature of the divine. I became a practicing pagan because defining the divinity as female made so much sense. I’ve left paganism because too much of the community in my area is a seething mass of immature morons who are completely taken with how weird they are. With all of that as a background, I’ve postulated in the past that Catholicism in the USA is inherently difficult because we’re all taught democracy stuff in public school, but the church is no democracy. American Catholics think that they have rights within the structure of the organization and, truthfully, they don’t. That was hard to swallow also.
I’m a Georgetown grad student (NOT the one in the interview~) and to be honest there’s a lot of fear on campus, especially from the Jesuit ministry, that the Pope’s visit will set back the progress made at GU by decades. In the past 10 years we’ve had lawsuits to allow certain student groups on campus (GU Pride), and have tacitly consented to having H*yas for Choice (our pro-choice group), among others, not mention the full spectrum of interfaith ministries. The word in the Jes community is that Georgetown, being the oldest Jes school, is Ratzi the Nazi’s sticking point in terms of education reform. Basically everyone is holding their breath at the possible coming storm of a new war over academic freedom at an institution where, up until now, that has been a hard-fought war and has reached a level of coexistence with Jesuit education.
Other than that, as someone who lives on the Green Line in DC, Ratzi is just one more thing to bollocks up traffic and screw my morning commute.
Since the catholic ‘church’ has embraced fascism in the past, what are the chances that Benny the rat will stand up and say that Bush is evil for ok’ing torture.
Just about zero I’d predict.
Love the cartoon… He needs them to walk on the poor and ignorant masses that flock to his nad to kiss the ring…
I don’t know, Pinky, if he had JPII’s moral integrity he would agitate over it. JPII was one of those who raised the profile of East Timor and called for peacekeeping troops. Not that it happened.
Maybe the last more or less “reasonable” Pope was Alexander VI. He liked women and had several kids. He didn’t hide his life.
He wasn’t a pervert like all the Popes and Cardinals and Priests today.
I’m friends with some priests, Bernarda. Way to generalize. I acknowledge that their were pedophiles, and the church hierarchy protected them, and should not have. But my archdiocese and my priests did not.
Protestant ministers molest, and it is swept under the rug. Catholic priests molest, it is swept under the rug, it comes out, and people who already were bigoted against Catholics call for the church’s destruction.
AR in DC -
I went to a Jesuit school for my undergrad work (Saint Louis University), and the University President has been in a seemingly endless battle with the St. Louis Archdiocese for the past 10 years. Back in 1997, a battle took place over the university’s $500MM sale of the university hospital to a private corporation, and then Archbishop Rigali (now Cardinal Rigali, head of Philadelphia archdiocese) was threatening to involve the pope in the land battle. The school recently opened an $80MM basketball arena on campus, and 10% of the financing came from TIF money - the school was challenged in court by the Masons (establishment clause battle), and somehow the school managed to convince the courts that they were in fact a lay institution with a Catholic identity… whatever that means. Needless to say, the archbishop wasn’t pleased with the university making this claim.
Most recently, Rick Majerus, the new head coach of SLU’s NCAA Div. I men’s basketball program was seen by a local reporter at a Hillary Clinton rally, and when asked about his beliefs, he said that he was pro-choice and supported embryonic stem-cell research. The current archbishop was less than pleased, and Bill Donohue of course made a stink about it, with the archbishop essentially demanding that Majerus either renounce his positions, or be fired by the school’s president. Fortunately, neither has happened.
But it does indicate the growing chasm within the church… Jesuit universities, and the Jesuit order in general, seem to be among the more progressive voices within the church - and the traditionalists are none to happy about this - especially when the Jesuits run 28 Catholic Universities in the US.
I doubt I would still be Catholic even if the church as a whole were run the way the Jesuits run their schools, but I would find them to be a far less repulsive institution.
Even fewer realize that JPII was the more conservative and authoritarian of the two.
I’ll give BXVI credit for this. He has made perfectly clear the idea that one cannot hold certain liberal views and remain Catholic. He is right in that the Catholic Church believes what they believe and Catholics should believe what their Church teaches.
I do not agree with what the Catholic Church teaches, therefore I am no longer Catholic
I reconciled Benedict’s (and the Church’s) positions with my own by leaving the Catholic Church. And if you really want to get the Church’s attention on these issues, you’ll convince your Catholic friends to do the same. Less people in the seats equals less cash in the collection baskets and less power for the Church to wield in our names.
My sister-in-law got fed up with her pastor and joined an Episcopalian church, so that works. The Church is trying to figure out what God wants its members to do; if you think what they’ve decided is bullshit you have to leave the church
Reasons I Respect, Admire, and Yes. Love, Dammit, the Catholic Church
-The ritual of the mass is very beautiful: the music, the language of celebration, the candles–it’s uplifting
-Being part of a faith community is also uplifting
-The Church can, and often does, provide basic human services for people desperately in need
Why I Can’t Go Any More
-I’m tired of being asked for money, over and over and over (Say it with me, fellow Catholics: “Today’s second collection is for…”)
-I’m tired of the hypocrisy (”Sex is Bad–unless priests are having it with unwilling children.” “We’re the Richest Organization on Earth–but we need more of YOUR money.”)
-I’m tired of being asked to write post cards to my senators and representatives asking them to ban abortion (walked out on that almost as often as I walk out on the Archbishop’s Annual Appeal)
-the Church’s positions on birth control, women, celibacy for clergy, infertility (apparently, it’s only God’s decision who gets to have babies: asking a doctor for help is immoral),homosexuality, etc., etc.
I used to try and ignore the parts I disagreed with, but sat through too many sermons where they knocked the “Cafeteria Catholics” who think we can pick and choose which doctrines to believe in: the party line is “all or nothing.” I don’t see that attitude changing at my local parish level any time soon; I certainly don’t see the Church hierarchy suddenly becoming flexible and all-embracing.
When the Pope visits Ground Zero, he will be greeted by a vigil honoring the late FDNY chaplain, Father Mychal Judge, the first official casualty of the 9/11 attacks.
Mychal was considered a living saint by many even prior to his heroic death. His extraordinary works of compassion have been compared to Mother Teresa (see http://SaintMychalJudge.blogspot.com )
But ironically, Fr. Mychal Judge would be barred from the priesthood today because he was openly gay, though celibate. He often asked, “Is there so much love in the world that we can afford to discriminate against any kind of love ?!”
We have no illusions that this pope is going to change. Rather, we are bearing witness to two truths — that God created and loves gay people, and that the pope does not speak for the whole Church, the Ecclesia, on these matters.
Indeed, two-thirds of U.S. Catholics-in-the-pews reject the pope’s views and support either civil unions or full marriage rights, according to numerous surveys.
As Fr. Mychal also said, “Don’t let the (institutional) church get in the way of your relationship with God.”
When the Pope visits Ground Zero, he will be greeted by a vigil honoring the late FDNY chaplain, Father Mychal Judge, the first official casualty of the 9/11 attacks.
Mychal was considered a living saint by many even prior to his heroic death. His extraordinary works of compassion have been compared to Mother Teresa (see http://SaintMychalJudge.blogspot.com )
But ironically, Fr. Mychal Judge would be barred from the priesthood today because he was openly gay, though celibate. He often asked, “Is there so much love in the world that we can afford to discriminate against any kind of love ?!”
We have no illusions that this pope is going to change. Rather, we are bearing witness to two truths — that God created and loves gay people, and that the pope does not speak for the whole Church, the Ecclesia, on these matters.
Indeed, two-thirds of U.S. Catholics-in-the-pews reject the pope’s views and support either civil unions or full marriage rights, according to numerous surveys.
As Fr. Mychal also said, “Don’t let the (institutional) church get in the way of your relationship with God.”
To MP: Wow, thanks a lot for letting me know about that–priests like him are what I loved about being a practicing Catholic.
2) Probably not. The Catholic Church does change, but it has the tendency to do so with all the speed of a half-dead snail in a puddle of maple syrup. (Yes, Andrew, even in regards to moral teachings. The current doctrine about homosexuality had to have come about in this century, as there would have been no way for the church to recognize homosexuality as an orientation when absolutely no one was recognizing it as such.)
The Church has been around for two thousand years. What you see as a bug may well be a feature.
It may well be that the Church will still be around when feminism, liberalism, progressivism are seen in the same light as Marxism is today. Should there be an ecopocalypse with global warming, my money is on the bloody Catholic Church surviving rather than all those worthwhile movements based on assumptions of equality and fair play which, ultimately, rest on a high level of social wealth and technological freedom.
There is nothing but our opinion to say that our ideals are more valid than those of Ratzi, and plenty of evidence to suggest that the latter can, at least, stand the test of time. Not particularly nice to own up to, but there you go.
@Doctor Science:
Those things over the crosses are actually pins: they hold that band of fabric (called a “pallium”) in place, and they’re supposed to represent the nails of the cross.
In case you were wondering.