Much attention has, rightly, been paid as to the likely identity of the new Pope. Opinion seems to believe that as the conclave is almost entirely of the previous Pope's own choosing, they are likely to plump for someone broadly similar to John Paul II. So, far from the church moderating itself on social issues, the bastion of conservatism would remain.
This is a grave mistake. John Paul II was very successful in bringing the Church into the modern age. A church which had often seemed distant, irrelevant and aloof, suddenly found itself with a head who realised the political, as well as religious mission that he had to achieve. By becoming a Pope of the people, the physical presence of religion became something that was widely shared. The televised pictures of the four million present at Mass in the Philippines demonstrates the social significance of the Pope.
Similarly, the dying days of the Pope showed how slick and efficient the Vatican media machine was. The news of his death was completely controlled so that the portrayal of John Paul as a man suffering for the whole of humanity was carried out very successfully. Indeed, they also interspersed news with sufficient details of the continued administration of the Church so as to make sure the question of authority never became raised.
On social issues, however, the Catholic Church has been much less successful. The gap between the rhetoric and the reality of the Church is striking. The Pope calls for greater understanding between religions, but refuses to open the Vatican papers detailing what they knew of the Holocaust. Whilst protesting against sexual immorality the world over, he found a special job in Rome to prevent Cardinal Law being prosecuted for his role in the Boston Church scandal. He even deified a Pope who is strongly suspected of having been a paedophile.
Let him without sin cast the first stone. If the Church is willing to demonise those who act on normal and uncriminal human desires, so simple as using a condom, it should not be prepared to stand by those who have committed crimes of a much more serious nature. This gap between what was said and what was done may well, in the future, undermine significantly the historical reputation of this Pope.
The reasons for a liberal Pope, however, are far more numerous. Firstly, I know many Catholics who consider their church to be disgracefully hypocritical when it controls so much wealth, and yet does not act against poverty, despite pronouncements to the contrary. It is all very well for John Paul to have been sceptical about rampant materialism; yet he had the power to make a much greater difference than he did.
Secondly, as a friend of mine at the Dustbin of History has pointed out, his statements regarding sexual matters can be considered to be morally corrupt, or even morally evil. To ban the practise of using a condom for church members, thus greatly increasing the spread of HIV, is ill at ease with a church that wishes to defend human life. I may have sympathy with preaching abstinence. But for a leader like John Paul to stubbornly stick to doctrine when a personal pronouncement on the matter could have saved, literally, millions of lives, is unpardonable and should not be forgotten. The church will find itself storing up serious problems for the future if it forgets to preach a message of goodness at the expense of concentrating what people get up to in their bedroom.
Finally, the continued ban on marriage for the priesthood will prevent the Catholic Church from attracting young men into active service for the church. In some countries it is estimated that half the clergy may die within the next ten years. Preventing priests from having a family will be a major factor in this. What does the Church think is more important? Clinging dogmatically, once again, to a point of principle, or preventing the church from a slow but certain death?
These are the choices that face the conclave of the College of Cardinals as they turn their thoughts to John Paul's successor. The Catholic Church made great strides under John Paul's leadership. But there is much distance left to run. The decisions of the next few weeks will be highly important in determining the future direction of the church.
"The need for a liberal Pope"
ReplyDeleteYou mean, "My want for a liberal Pope".
"Much attention has, rightly, been paid as to the likely identity of the new Pope. Opinion seems to believe that as the conclave is almost entirely of the previous Pope's own choosing, they are likely to plump for someone broadly similar to John Paul II. So, far from the church moderating itself on social issues, the bastion of conservatism would remain."
"Opinion" doesn't know much, then, since the Pope has appointed liberal Cardinals as well as conservative ones. Making your conclusion to the paragraph a bit meaningless.
"..."
"On social issues, however, the Catholic Church has been much less successful."
By whose standards?
"The gap between the rhetoric and the reality of the Church is striking. The Pope calls for greater understanding between religions, but refuses to open the Vatican papers detailing what they knew of the Holocaust."
That rabbis all over the world have paid warm tribute to him suggests to me that you're illegitimately appropriating the Holocaust solely to justify conclusions drawn independently of it.
"Whilst protesting against sexual immorality the world over, he found a special job in Rome to prevent Cardinal Law being prosecuted for his role in the Boston Church scandal."
Perhaps he believes in forgiveness. Yes, it was politically foolish, but I for one wouldn't condemn a man of God for trying to avoid political machinations.
"He even deified a Pope who is strongly suspected of having been a paedophile."
To say he deified a Pope is just astonishingly offensive - I'm amazed anyone still thinks it's okay to jibe Catholics as Pope-worshippers. All you do is show that this, as ever in these cases, is just a continuation of a long line of English anti-Catholic bigotry and hatred.
"Let him without sin cast the first stone."
Love to see the video footage you clearly have of the Pope stoning people to death.
"If the Church is willing to demonise those who act on normal and uncriminal human desires,"
I'm going to assume from this that you don't really know anything about Catholicism. Have you read the Catechism? Thought not. Provide proof of demonisation before claiming it exists.
"so simple as using a condom,"
Using a condom is a "natural human desire"? Erm, having sex may be a natural human desire, and not getting ill may be a natural human desire, but use of a contingent commodity isn't a "natural human desire". Try and argue that the desire to use condoms stems from those other desires, by all means, and that it is the only way to satisfy those actually natural human desires (it isn't), but claiming that the desire for condoms is some kind of innate urge is just silly!
"it should not be prepared to stand by those who have committed crimes of a much more serious nature."
The Church doesn't completely abandon people who use condoms, etc, so there's no reason why it should completely abandon Cardinal Law. Besides, no one accused Cardinal Law himself of paedophilia, as you so under-handedly imply they do. Not wanting to believe that your friends are criminals isn't the most heinous of crimes.
"This gap between what was said and what was done may well, in the future, undermine significantly the historical reputation of this Pope."
So, there was no gap. Another wasted paragraph.
"The reasons for a liberal Pope, however, are far more numerous. Firstly, I know many Catholics who"
A classic trick - "Honestly, some of my best friends are members of this group I'm ripping into with apparent bigotry".
"consider their church to be disgracefully hypocritical when it controls so much wealth, and yet does not act against poverty, despite pronouncements to the contrary."
These Catholic friends of yours are remarkably ignorant, then. Nearly all of the Church's supposed wealth is tied up in property, in bequests, and in artworks of enormous historic and social value. Perhaps they should sell the Sistine Chapel to American plutocrats, and prevent ordinary people from ever seeing it again? If you actually bothered to look, you'd know that the clergy live frugally, especially in the Third World. What's more, the Catholic Church is the world's biggest donor to charity, with just one Catholic organisation alone, Caritas, ranking as the world's second largest charity. Perhaps you should give those Catholic friends - who I bet are actually lapsed Catholics, that is, people hardly famed for their love of the Church - the nod on this one.
"It is all very well for John Paul to have been sceptical about rampant materialism; yet he had the power to make a much greater difference than he did."
Something very touching was contained in the Pope's will - he had no possessions to leave. He was no materialist, but a man who led a frugal life as head of the world's biggest charitable donor.
"Secondly, as a friend of mine at the Dustbin of History has pointed out, his statements regarding sexual matters can be considered to be morally corrupt, or even morally evil."
Yes, now we get down to it: Catholics are "morally evil" (don't try saying it was just the Pope you were referring to - most Catholics support him, so you're saying that most Catholics are also "morally evil"). It can be prettified as much as you like, but this is still just another side of the snarling face of anti-Catholic bigotry and hatred throughout the ages.
"To ban the practise of using a condom for church members, thus greatly increasing the spread of HIV, is ill at ease with a church that wishes to defend human life. I may have sympathy with preaching abstinence. But for a leader like John Paul to stubbornly stick to doctrine when a personal pronouncement on the matter could have saved, literally, millions of lives, is unpardonable and should not be forgotten."
Unthinkingly providing condoms just promotes that risky behaviour. Even British teenagers, who virtually have condoms coming out of their ears, still get STDs. You're criticisng him for proposing the only solution that would work 100% if applied 100% (all contraceptive methods fail sometimes, except chastity), and for campaigning against something that just prevents that perfect solution from being enacted. The church thinks in centuries; saving the lives of countless people in the future who see that chastity is the safest way, at the cost of the lives of people now who knowingly take risks at the expense of that future society isn't anywhere near as horrendous as you paint it.
"The church will find itself storing up serious problems for the future if it forgets to preach a message of goodness at the expense of concentrating what people get up to in their bedroom."
Why should sex be singled out as entirely exempt from a theory of the good? You only think that all the Church talks about is sex because that's all that the hypersexualised Western media ever discusses with regard to Catholic teaching. You are ignorant of the vast amounts of productive social doctrine that the Church has produced. That isn't the Church's fault. And it's not yours, either, until you start writing such inflammatory material.
"Finally, the continued ban on marriage for the priesthood will prevent the Catholic Church from attracting young men into active service for the church. In some countries it is estimated that half the clergy may die within the next ten years. Preventing priests from having a family will be a major factor in this. What does the Church think is more important? Clinging dogmatically, once again, to a point of principle, or preventing the church from a slow but certain death?"
Such things might have to change. There isn't really any doctrinal reason why they shouldn't. But at the same time (as with so many anti-Catholics!), you assume that all Catholics around the world are part of your Western European elite. They're not. Many would oppose women priests, and the issue, which already caused ructions in the more liberal Church of England, would damage the Church far more than your thoughtless short-termist proposals. Of course, you wouldn't mind seeing the Church schism. But don't blame the Pope for trying to keep his community together.
"..."
Chris, I'm sorry you see so much of this as anti-Catholic bigotry. I admit quite freely that as a Christian I have many serious, serious problems with the teaching of the Catholic Church - transubstantiation; its seeming stubbornness in its doctrine, which strikes me as unnecessarily restrictive; the belief in the importance of procedure in getting to heaven; the refusal to comprehend divorce, among others. But I see these as matters for debate, not hatred.
ReplyDeleteI'll now try and address some of your points. Yes, you are right that it is my wish to see a liberal Pope - but you seem to attach negative connotations to this because I am not Catholic. I see no wrong in having an opinion on what any other organisation does.
As for conservative cardinals, from what I have read, both before and after the death of the Pope, the majority of cardinals appointed were 'conservative', insofar as such labels are useful. I don't deny there are liberal cardinals, but I understood that they were the minority rather than the majority.
To say he deified a Pope is just astonishingly offensive
I apologise for the use of the word "deified" - its an error, it wasn't loaded like you have taken it to be. I meant that he elevated him to the sainthood, nothing more, nothing less. I used the wrong word with no other sinister motive in mind.
Love to see the video footage you clearly have of the Pope stoning people to death.
That's not a helpful comment at all. I don't think it's stretching the truth too far to say that exhortations to avoid using condoms has contributed to deaths from AIDS in Africa, though. Like you (I presume), I'd far rather see abstinence than the use of condoms. But we live in an imperfect world, and I'd rather take a pragmatic solution that saves lives rather than sticking to a line which presumes a perfect world and condemns the imperfect to death.
The Church doesn't completely abandon people who use condoms, etc, so there's no reason why it should completely abandon Cardinal Law.
I suppose those who don't use condoms find their reward in heaven. No, the Church shouldn't completely abandon Cardinal Law. But I'd say that finding a cushy post for him in Rome to avoid him having to face trial for what he did or didn't do is a pretty questionable act.
So, there was no gap. Another wasted paragraph.
No, there was a gap. To protect someone who is strongly suspected of covering up sexual molestors whilst preaching abstinence elsewhere seems somewhat inconsistent to me.
A classic trick - "Honestly, some of my best friends are members of this group I'm ripping into with apparent bigotry".
Well, actually, in this case it's true. Many of my best friends are Catholics, and I have had some very interesting and respectful discussions with them on these very matters over the last few days. Some have lapsed, but many others haven't. And this isn't bigotry with which I'm treating the Catholic Church.
Something very touching was contained in the Pope's will - he had no possessions to leave. He was no materialist, but a man who led a frugal life as head of the world's biggest charitable donor.
I agree, it was nice to see that he had no possessions to leave. Although, to be fair, I must wonder how many things he would have had had they not been provided by the Church. This is not a criticism, by the way, because I realise that goods in kind are absolutely essential for clergy in many churches. Yet there are questions to be asked here - there is massive material wealth held in the church, in whatever form. Is it right to give up some of that to tackle the problems of poverty?
Yes, now we get down to it: Catholics are "morally evil" (don't try saying it was just the Pope you were referring to - most Catholics support him, so you're saying that most Catholics are also "morally evil").
No, I don't think that's fair at all. I'm not going to try and wriggle out of it by saying it was just the Pope I was referring to, either. I actually have a lot of sympathy with their position against using condoms. I think that AIDS campaigners who fight for greater use of condoms are taking their own morally corrupt arguments about having choice for free sex and trying to limit the impact by advocating condom use. But at the same time the Pope's refusal to bend towards a more nuanced, pragmatic stance has caused problems. This can (please note my use of the conditional in the original) be considered morally corrupt, too.
You are ignorant of the vast amounts of productive social doctrine that the Church has produced.
No, I'm not ignorant of it. But I don't expect that to be changed or otherwise by the choice of Pope. Other changes which I may like to see in the Church could be. And in any case, I think the message of loving your neighbour as yourself etc is far more important than issues of what "people get up to in their bedroom". It's my biggest criticism of my own Church, too. Now, I would agree the media is a problem. But one of the achievements of the Vatican in John Paul's papacy was that it became more adept at managing the media. Why shouldn't it on this issue, when fewer and fewer are going to Church and taking on board religious messages?
Many would oppose women priests, and the issue, which already caused ructions in the more liberal Church of England, would damage the Church far more than your thoughtless short-termist proposals.
I wasn't actually talking about women priests at all - although I think we can see again a gap between rhetoric and reality where the Pope apologised for (something like)the Church's historical teachings on women, yet still considers them second-class citizens in divining the word of God. My Church did take them, and I think they are right. But in any case, I don't think that's the major problem for the Catholic Church right now. In the UK, I have read, half of the priesthood may die in the next ten years. That's a serious problem whichever way you look at it. I would have thought that allowing priests to marry would be a solution to this. Just my two cents, and it's a matter for the Catholic Church in any case. But, that doesn't stop me having an opinion on it.
A far less incendiary post there, which is nice. Yes, you can have whatever beliefs you like, but when you start propounding them in a public forum to which great efforts are being to made to draw attention, those views become public property and open to criticism. I don't have a problem with non-Catholics having a view on the Church (I'm sure I have a view on your unnamed denomination); I have a problem with non-Catholics, who haven't made an especial study of the Church or even read relevant parts of the Catechism (easily available online), claiming free speech protection to proclaim mistruths and slurs against Her. Members of a community have, by sad necessity, far greater license in their criticisms, because it is more certain that they're not acting out of simple prejudice. But, if you keep your critical statements clean of inflammatory rhetoric then I'll quite happily never need to bring up anti-Catholicism again, and will be able to point out calmly exactly why your negative perceptions of the Church are so misguided.
ReplyDeleteI'm happy to believe you on 'deified', but bear in mind that 'papolatry' is one of the classic slurs against Catholics, and be more careful in future.
"Love to see the video footage you clearly have of the Pope stoning people to death.
That's not a helpful comment at all."
Well, you said that he shouldn't have been casting stones, and I responded in metaphorical kind. My point was that the Church doesn't condemn people in anywhere near the way you suggest. Yes, it maintains a firm moral stance, but always with regard for the individuals. To be honest, I find it bizarre that the Church should be claimed to have enough influence to stop entire populations using condoms, but doesn't have enough influence to stop those same populations' mass promiscuity. Besides, Southern Africa was mostly colonised by the English, Germans and Dutch, hardly good Catholic stock. In South Africa alone, only 2/3 of the population is Christian, of whom most will be Anglican or Dutch Reformed - not groups especially prone to listening to the Pope! In short, the Church is a scapegoat for the promiscuous culture that should instead be tackled. It's important to realise that this is not liberal Western Europe - in southern Africa, multiple partners are part of the general cultural heritage. Polygamy, formal or otherwise, is not necessarily in itself a bad thing, but, if your concern is to reduce AIDS and not just to bash the Catholic Church, then you would do better to speak against the culture of promiscuity.
"The Church doesn't completely abandon people who use condoms, etc, so there's no reason why it should completely abandon Cardinal Law.
I suppose those who don't use condoms find their reward in heaven. No, the Church shouldn't completely abandon Cardinal Law. But I'd say that finding a cushy post for him in Rome to avoid him having to face trial for what he did or didn't do is a pretty questionable act."
Those who don't use condoms and who live monogamously don't have any problems relative to condom-users that would need eschatological recompense.
If the Church had given a job to those who actually committed the acts then I could understand your concern. But you're allowing yourself to be drawn into the anti-Catholic agenda of those who simply wanted to use any excuse to attack senior churchmen.
"So, there was no gap. Another wasted paragraph.
No, there was a gap. To protect someone who is strongly suspected of covering up sexual molestors whilst preaching abstinence elsewhere seems somewhat inconsistent to me."
No, if the Pope had encouraged priests to molest children whilst personally condemning individual adulterers, that would have been hypocritical. But to condemn both sins, and to show compassion to adulterers and to a man who was fooled by the paedophiles is consistent.
If you really do have these enthusiastic practising Catholic friends, then I'm surprised and disappointed that none of them had pointed out that the Catholic Church is the world's biggest charitable giver, and that just one of its charities is the world's biggest.
To say that there is massive disposable wealth in the Church is just untrue. Which of the churches would you have them sell, so disrupting whole communities? Which priceless artowrks would you see taken out of public view and hoarded by private collectors? The world is not just food and water, and it is deeply unfair to criticise the planet's biggest giver of aid to the Third World for also providing beautiful places to worship God and for letting the public see priceless artworks. The Church provides physical food for the hungry in its aid programmes, hospitals; intellectual food for the curious in its schools and seminaries; and spiritual food for all in its every action.
"Yes, now we get down to it: Catholics are "morally evil" (don't try saying it was just the Pope you were referring to - most Catholics support him, so you're saying that most Catholics are also "morally evil").
No, I don't think that's fair at all. I'm not going to try and wriggle out of it by saying it was just the Pope I was referring to, either. I actually have a lot of sympathy with their position against using condoms. I think that AIDS campaigners who fight for greater use of condoms are taking their own morally corrupt arguments about having choice for free sex and trying to limit the impact by advocating condom use. But at the same time the Pope's refusal to bend towards a more nuanced, pragmatic stance has caused problems. This can (please note my use of the conditional in the original) be considered morally corrupt, too."
I could truthfully say that helping old ladies across the road "can be considered to be morally corrupt, or even morally evil." But, of course, I'd only actually bother saying that during a polemic if I actually believed that it was morally evil. Similarly, though you pick out the conditional, you wouldn't have mentioned the moral evil at all if you didn't agree with such a view. And such words imply more about your position on the Church than they do about the Church's actions themselves.
Anyway, if it's wrong, it's wrong and should be condemned. Notice that it's the sin that is condemned, not the sinner. Calls for a pragmatic stance are calls made by people who think the opposite and want to change your principles by default rather than argument. And I don't hear you calling for a nuanced, pragmatic approach to murder or rape just because lots of people do it.
You certainly don't seem very knowledgeable about the Church's contributions on development when you roll out the old complaint that the Church doesn't do enough to help the poor. Try telling that to the countless priests who've gone out to the Third World and slaved away to help local populations. Moreover, the Church's domain is all of human life. This includes sex, and there is no reason why it shouldn't. But still, that's just one part of it. The Church releases loads of documents on all sorts of varied issues all the time. The media only picks up the "interesting" ones, and the Vatican can't prevent that. As an example, the Jesuitical condemnation of smoking was picked up by the national media, because it's "interesting". But, of course, sex sells, and so whenever a Church document on sexuality is released, the media are all over it. And whenever a churchman is interviewed, all the media want to hear is what he thinks about sexual issues. And so on and so on.
The same applies to married priests - many would be opposed. But, of course, the Church accepted the married English priests who defected over female ordination, and so could easily bring it in soonish. It's a matter of time. Bear in mind that this is a global Church. In Protestant denominations, what one branch does has relatively little impact on what the others do - the Episcopalians can allow gay bishops and the Nigerian Archbishop can try to exorcise Peter Tatchell's demons. But if the Church allows married priests in Europe and America it has to do so in the Third World. Whilst the majority of Western Catholics might be open to the idea, the vast majority of Catholics, the Third World ones, are less so. So the same principle applies: a balance must be struck. I reiterate; the Church thinks in centuries, and can bide its time to make changes until that time is right. Predicting the imminent death of a 2000-year-old institution which is still the largest religion in the world shouldn't be done lightly!