Andrew, Andrew, Andrew
Our openly gay closeted liberal must have received a deluge of email from both sides on this one. One side appears to say: "What did you expect? The whole of the Catholic church is filled with anti-gay bigots." The other half says: "Idiot! Of COURSE he's a traditionalist" You'll find me firmly in the latter camp.
Let's review, shall we?
"THE CHURCH NEVER CHANGES? The response of some non-Catholics to those of us who are appalled by the selection of the new Pope goes something like this: What did you expect? The Church never changes. Having a new Pope who adheres to doctrine is not a big deal. Expecting big changes in a church whose main selling point is eternal verities is stupid. All these non-Catholics like their Catholic church authoritarian, unchanging, eternal. All I can say is: what would they have said about, say, John XXIII or even John Paul II? In the last forty years or so, the Church has officially revoked its previous anti-Semitism, it has changed the very structure and vernacular of the mass, it has doubled the number of saints in heaven, it has shifted its position on religious and political liberty, it has apologized for the Inquisition, it has declared that homosexuality is innate and without sin as a condition, it has ordained married priests, it has innovated a new policy against all forms of artificial birth control, and dramatically strengthened its teachings against the death penalty. If you were to believe James Lileks, none of this would have been even faintly possible. "
He's mixing apples and oranges. (which is odd given his preference for pairing LIKE things...but I digress.) There are changes to the means and methods of worship (i.e. Nova Ordos) which are not substantive changes. That which is a sin always was and always will be. Murder, infidelity, theft and so on will ALWAYS be sins. The church has indeed, clarified some things but not changed them. To be gay, as an identity, is not sinful as you are not engaging in a sinful act. Similarly, to be a glutton is not sinful, it is engaging in gluttony that makes you a sinner. Andrew knows this but cannot reconcile the judgement that is rendered against him and I don't blame him. He's in a very difficult position that I would never want to be in nor would I know what to do if I were. Apologizing for the Inquisition seems like a good thing. That issue alone is so clouded and controversial it needs not only it's own post but it's own BOOK and there have been many. I am unaware of any changes the Church has made regarding religious and political liberty. Was there a previous condemnation of them? If so, please let me know. I'd like to read that. AFAIK the has NEVER been anything other than steadfastness against artificial contraception. What, precisely, is new about this stance? That JP2 weighed in against whatever the new means is? The man is grabbing at straws. He's too smart and read too much about these matters to really think these things are substantive changes.
Let's continue:
"THE ISSUE IS OXYGEN: The issue is not change itself. The Church has changed dramatically - and will continue to change dramatically. The issue now is whether the Church can even debate its own issues and future."
Are we not allowed to debate anymore? Where and whence did this edict come from? Our new Pope must be very busy if he's found time to end debate w/in the Church.
" Some caricatures of my position, for example, say that I oppose this Pope because I want the Church to endorse gay marriage. Puhlease. I cannot see any basis within Catholic theology for granting the sacrament of marriage to gay couples. Such a simple inclusion strikes me as completely out of bounds."
So....he's in favor of legalizing something and giving it the name invented by the church but allowing churches (including his own) to ignore them. That's interesting. I don't know how he expects to integrate into parish life with a relationship that would be recognized by the law but viewed as sinful to the Church. There is a similar problem for sexually active singles who attend mass together. While they would be similarly sinful, it's murkier b/c you cannot ask people if they are doing what people assume they are doing. Being paired in a gay relationship removes all doubt so I guess that's the difference.
"What many of us are asking for is simply the ability for lay Catholics and indeed priests and theologians to be able to debate respectfully such pressing issues as mandatory celibacy for the priesthood, a less rigid biological understanding of the rights and dignity of women, and a real dialogue with gay Catholics about how we can practically live lives that reflect our human dignity and our profound human need for intimacy and sexual expression."
Here's when he loses the script. Priestly celebacy is, in the eyes of the church, a done deal. 1 Cor 7:35 tells that married people are distracted by worldly things and pleasing their partners. I used to think celibacy was outmoded. Then I met some married men who were pastors. The one pastor's wife I know is THE single most gossipy, catty women on the block. Why? I think she hears much from her husband about the problems his flock is having. No thanks you.
"We'd also like to see greater autonomy for national churches, a respect for political secularism,"
The problem is that "political secularism" runs contrary to everything the church is teaching. Abortion is no big deal, casual sex is a good thing, there is nothing higher in our culture than sex, objectification of women is fine, violence is good, families are unimportant, men are morons...the list goes on. Not only do national churches have autonomy, the individual Bishops have a tremendous amount of latitude, much more so than people realize.
"and a more open hierarchy that cannot get away with a criminal conspiracy to hide the widespread sexual abuse of children and teens."
Score one very big point for Andrew. This, in my opinion, is the single biggest problem the Church faced in the past 50 years and they didn't do enough to root out and destroy the problem. They did not turn out the predator priests and the administrators who KNEW about their abuses and moved them from parish to parish as things began to catch up with them. Abject evil and needs to be something the church is keenly aware of and brooks no tolerance of.
"None of this is that radical in the context of change in the last fifty years. None of it is subject to infallibility. And what we object to is the arrogant notion that lay people - let alone theologians or priests - do not even have the right to raise these questions within a formal church context. But our opponents want to construct a straw man in which Ratzinger presents orthodoxy and critics represent revolution. The truth is almost the direct opposite. Ratzinger's views on freedom of thought within the church are deeply authoritarian; his views on what conscience is are totalitarian; his conflation of his own views with the Holy Spirit are offensive. But he is Pope now. And fairness suggests we should wait and see. I can only say that I do so with dread and fear."
Doesn't sound much like "wait and see" sounds more like "I've made up my mind and now he has to convince me or I'm taking my ball and going home." Some of the sweeping changes aren't really changes they're really minor adjustments. The ones he really wants to change, like married priests, celibacy, acceptance of homosexuality, ordaining women and the like are contrary to the very nature of the Church. If you want that, there are plenty of Churches that accept them. Go there. The church is not a democratic institution. It never was meant to be and it never will be. Certainly the parishoners have a voice in how their parish is run but if you believe in the Magesterium, you don't get to vote on whether we should have married priests or saints or what have you.
"RATZINGER ON SEXUAL ABUSE: "I am personally convinced that the constant presence in the press of sins of Catholic priests, especially in the United States, is a planned campaign, as the percentage of these offences among priests is not higher than in other categories, and perhaps it is even lower... One comes to the conclusion that it is intentional, manipulated, that there is a desire to discredit the church," - Pope Benedict XVI, 2002. "
Where exactly, is the problem with this statement? I firmly believe there were a good many people who couldn't wait to pounce on the Church for this one.
"He has also written about the need to rid the Church of "filth." By "filth," I suspect he means gay people, regardless of their conduct or holiness. My prediction: the pedophiles and their protectors will remain. (I have a pretty good idea whom Cardinal Law voted for.) The gay men will be scapegoated and purged.
- 1:04:00 PM"
Um...I would think the "filth" part is the predators and pedophiles. This Pope was the one that oversaw the recognition of gay orientation as a neutral condition. That is, HE is responsible for changing the doctrine of the faith to say that the mere condition of being gay is not, in itself, sinful. Does that sound like a man who wants to purge the church of gays? Personally, I have no problem with priests who are gay so long as they keep their vows and adhere to the magesterium. That's the whole point of being a priest.
Our openly gay closeted liberal must have received a deluge of email from both sides on this one. One side appears to say: "What did you expect? The whole of the Catholic church is filled with anti-gay bigots." The other half says: "Idiot! Of COURSE he's a traditionalist" You'll find me firmly in the latter camp.
Let's review, shall we?
"THE CHURCH NEVER CHANGES? The response of some non-Catholics to those of us who are appalled by the selection of the new Pope goes something like this: What did you expect? The Church never changes. Having a new Pope who adheres to doctrine is not a big deal. Expecting big changes in a church whose main selling point is eternal verities is stupid. All these non-Catholics like their Catholic church authoritarian, unchanging, eternal. All I can say is: what would they have said about, say, John XXIII or even John Paul II? In the last forty years or so, the Church has officially revoked its previous anti-Semitism, it has changed the very structure and vernacular of the mass, it has doubled the number of saints in heaven, it has shifted its position on religious and political liberty, it has apologized for the Inquisition, it has declared that homosexuality is innate and without sin as a condition, it has ordained married priests, it has innovated a new policy against all forms of artificial birth control, and dramatically strengthened its teachings against the death penalty. If you were to believe James Lileks, none of this would have been even faintly possible. "
He's mixing apples and oranges. (which is odd given his preference for pairing LIKE things...but I digress.) There are changes to the means and methods of worship (i.e. Nova Ordos) which are not substantive changes. That which is a sin always was and always will be. Murder, infidelity, theft and so on will ALWAYS be sins. The church has indeed, clarified some things but not changed them. To be gay, as an identity, is not sinful as you are not engaging in a sinful act. Similarly, to be a glutton is not sinful, it is engaging in gluttony that makes you a sinner. Andrew knows this but cannot reconcile the judgement that is rendered against him and I don't blame him. He's in a very difficult position that I would never want to be in nor would I know what to do if I were. Apologizing for the Inquisition seems like a good thing. That issue alone is so clouded and controversial it needs not only it's own post but it's own BOOK and there have been many. I am unaware of any changes the Church has made regarding religious and political liberty. Was there a previous condemnation of them? If so, please let me know. I'd like to read that. AFAIK the has NEVER been anything other than steadfastness against artificial contraception. What, precisely, is new about this stance? That JP2 weighed in against whatever the new means is? The man is grabbing at straws. He's too smart and read too much about these matters to really think these things are substantive changes.
Let's continue:
"THE ISSUE IS OXYGEN: The issue is not change itself. The Church has changed dramatically - and will continue to change dramatically. The issue now is whether the Church can even debate its own issues and future."
Are we not allowed to debate anymore? Where and whence did this edict come from? Our new Pope must be very busy if he's found time to end debate w/in the Church.
" Some caricatures of my position, for example, say that I oppose this Pope because I want the Church to endorse gay marriage. Puhlease. I cannot see any basis within Catholic theology for granting the sacrament of marriage to gay couples. Such a simple inclusion strikes me as completely out of bounds."
So....he's in favor of legalizing something and giving it the name invented by the church but allowing churches (including his own) to ignore them. That's interesting. I don't know how he expects to integrate into parish life with a relationship that would be recognized by the law but viewed as sinful to the Church. There is a similar problem for sexually active singles who attend mass together. While they would be similarly sinful, it's murkier b/c you cannot ask people if they are doing what people assume they are doing. Being paired in a gay relationship removes all doubt so I guess that's the difference.
"What many of us are asking for is simply the ability for lay Catholics and indeed priests and theologians to be able to debate respectfully such pressing issues as mandatory celibacy for the priesthood, a less rigid biological understanding of the rights and dignity of women, and a real dialogue with gay Catholics about how we can practically live lives that reflect our human dignity and our profound human need for intimacy and sexual expression."
Here's when he loses the script. Priestly celebacy is, in the eyes of the church, a done deal. 1 Cor 7:35 tells that married people are distracted by worldly things and pleasing their partners. I used to think celibacy was outmoded. Then I met some married men who were pastors. The one pastor's wife I know is THE single most gossipy, catty women on the block. Why? I think she hears much from her husband about the problems his flock is having. No thanks you.
"We'd also like to see greater autonomy for national churches, a respect for political secularism,"
The problem is that "political secularism" runs contrary to everything the church is teaching. Abortion is no big deal, casual sex is a good thing, there is nothing higher in our culture than sex, objectification of women is fine, violence is good, families are unimportant, men are morons...the list goes on. Not only do national churches have autonomy, the individual Bishops have a tremendous amount of latitude, much more so than people realize.
"and a more open hierarchy that cannot get away with a criminal conspiracy to hide the widespread sexual abuse of children and teens."
Score one very big point for Andrew. This, in my opinion, is the single biggest problem the Church faced in the past 50 years and they didn't do enough to root out and destroy the problem. They did not turn out the predator priests and the administrators who KNEW about their abuses and moved them from parish to parish as things began to catch up with them. Abject evil and needs to be something the church is keenly aware of and brooks no tolerance of.
"None of this is that radical in the context of change in the last fifty years. None of it is subject to infallibility. And what we object to is the arrogant notion that lay people - let alone theologians or priests - do not even have the right to raise these questions within a formal church context. But our opponents want to construct a straw man in which Ratzinger presents orthodoxy and critics represent revolution. The truth is almost the direct opposite. Ratzinger's views on freedom of thought within the church are deeply authoritarian; his views on what conscience is are totalitarian; his conflation of his own views with the Holy Spirit are offensive. But he is Pope now. And fairness suggests we should wait and see. I can only say that I do so with dread and fear."
Doesn't sound much like "wait and see" sounds more like "I've made up my mind and now he has to convince me or I'm taking my ball and going home." Some of the sweeping changes aren't really changes they're really minor adjustments. The ones he really wants to change, like married priests, celibacy, acceptance of homosexuality, ordaining women and the like are contrary to the very nature of the Church. If you want that, there are plenty of Churches that accept them. Go there. The church is not a democratic institution. It never was meant to be and it never will be. Certainly the parishoners have a voice in how their parish is run but if you believe in the Magesterium, you don't get to vote on whether we should have married priests or saints or what have you.
"RATZINGER ON SEXUAL ABUSE: "I am personally convinced that the constant presence in the press of sins of Catholic priests, especially in the United States, is a planned campaign, as the percentage of these offences among priests is not higher than in other categories, and perhaps it is even lower... One comes to the conclusion that it is intentional, manipulated, that there is a desire to discredit the church," - Pope Benedict XVI, 2002. "
Where exactly, is the problem with this statement? I firmly believe there were a good many people who couldn't wait to pounce on the Church for this one.
"He has also written about the need to rid the Church of "filth." By "filth," I suspect he means gay people, regardless of their conduct or holiness. My prediction: the pedophiles and their protectors will remain. (I have a pretty good idea whom Cardinal Law voted for.) The gay men will be scapegoated and purged.
- 1:04:00 PM"
Um...I would think the "filth" part is the predators and pedophiles. This Pope was the one that oversaw the recognition of gay orientation as a neutral condition. That is, HE is responsible for changing the doctrine of the faith to say that the mere condition of being gay is not, in itself, sinful. Does that sound like a man who wants to purge the church of gays? Personally, I have no problem with priests who are gay so long as they keep their vows and adhere to the magesterium. That's the whole point of being a priest.
Comments