From the above link:
People tend to exclaim: "This cannot be what life is about!". Indeed not. And so, together with forgetfulness of God there is a kind of new explosion of religion. I have no wish to discredit all the manifestations of this phenomenon. There may be sincere joy in the discovery. But to tell the truth, religion often becomes almost a consumer product. People choose what they like, and some are even able to make a profit from it.
But religion sought on a "do-it-yourself" basis cannot ultimately help us. It may be comfortable, but at times of crisis we are left to ourselves.
Again, this seems to be a far more thoughtful and balanced perspective than I would expect. I’m going to go back and re-read that when I get the chance, there’s a lot of nice stuff to draw out from that source. Cheers.
Is that entirely relevant, though?
…
Hooever, that does not preclude me from suggesting that he's unsafe on a number of what I feel are pretty key issues. I don't think not having had a pint with somebody precludes one from being allowed to express an opinion about their public statements.
I’m not suggesting that anyone refrains from an opinion on what the Pope has to say. I’m suggesting that people refrain from equating that with a sound judgement on the Pope himself and then extrapolating that to colour everything else that is said. Considering what we do not know about him is hugely relevant: it helps us to not just assemble a jigsaw of whatever scraps we happen to come across and mistake it for a balanced view of a person.
At no point am I at odds with Flyboy’s problems with what the Pope has said on other issues. I just don’t think that automatically extends to what he has said here, and it is what he has said in here that I am concerned with discussing.
In terms of the juxtaposition of Benedict with John Paul, notice the difference. JP uses words like danger, temptation, seduction, idolatry, false… it’s the language of sin. It’s exactly what I grew up with and what I expect the Church’s stance to be. At no point does Ratzinger do that, and for a follower of the faith or someone with a vested interest the distinction is crucial. You can talk reasonably and sensibly about trends within religion with someone who espouses Benedict’s view… you can’t with someone you believes you’re dangerous, or a source of temptation, or the living earthly vessel of Satan’s plot.
An aside: I’ve been frequently impressed over the last two years by the open mindedness of many Christians to a more personal approach to spirituality and mysticism. I know of Christians who say they’re more like Buddhists, Christians who want to write for what they call the New Age market, Christians who are strong advocates of hypnosis, Christians who are avid fans of Ken Wilbur… there’s a softening of perspectives that seems to be happening in many quarters, and it often seems to be from Church leaders or people who have an influence on Church leaders. It’s a good thing and I hope it continues.
Incidentally, while you're reading that, might it be worth considering how:
If I can put up with you, and if other people can put up with me, then I can easily believe that the Pope doesn't know his ass from his elbows on some issues, is OK on others and pretty good on the rest.
Plays out in the context of the doctrinal infallibility of the Holy Father?
It doesn’t have to play out in that context, because I’m talking solely about my beliefs about the current Pope, which do not include subscribing to Papal Infallibility. And the way in which I would talk to Catholics who believe in Papal Infallibility would likely differ according to my understanding of the person I was addressing. But I do like that the Pope, who is supposed to be without fall, started the above linked speech with this:
We all know that we are imperfect, that we are unable to be a fitting house for him. |
