BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

The Catholic Mess - the ideological and practical issues of the modern Catholic Church

  
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
01:52 / 18.09.06
So, at the moment Benedict XVI is in the news for many of the wrong reasons, which are being discussed here. However, I'd like to take a look more generally at the state of the Catholic Church and how it is facing up to some of the issues that might reasonably preoccupy a modern, dynamic church, and how that whole business is going. Dead Megatron said in t'other thread:

Speaking as a Catholic, this whole mess really made m emiss the old Pope (you know, the really real Pope). Good old JP2 would never do or say something that stupid*.I know this is not much of a contribution for the debate, but, as a Catholic, I felt I had to say it.* being human and, thus, imperfect, JP2 could have done better in someissues (namely, the position of the Curch on birth control and condoms,and gay issues), but he did started a very good, and much past due, mea culpaprocess for the Catholic Curhc past sins that really needs to go on alittle longer. And, man!, he was so much closer to actual sainthoodthan B16...

I think that, taking those concerns and those others aired in the thread, we can identify some of the key performance indicators of the modern Roman Catholic church as:


  • Dealing with interfaith dialogue
  • Dealing with the legacy of past Roman Catholic activities
  • Dealing with HIV and AIDS
  • Dealing with abortion and birth control
  • Dealing with issues of sexuality and gender



To which I would probably add, in terms of PR:
  • Dealing with child abuse scandals


Right at this minute, Benedict seems to be struggling rather. Not content with pissing off the muslims, he has now managed to quote the statement from Paul about the crucifixion being "a scandal for the Jews" (and a drive-in Saturday). This would not be so bad in itself, but he has also recently exonerated the German people from responsibility for the Holocaust, and also claimed that the massacre of the Jews was part of a process with the ultimate aim of destroying Christianity, of which Judaism is the "tap-root", and on which claim I call "bull-shit". In particular, a word about Pius XII's alleged collaboration with Hitler would not go entirely amiss. As has been mentioned in the other thread, he also appears to be glossing over a number of acts of coercive conversion by the Catholic church, in Latin America but also, most notably, during the Spanish Inquisition.

Meanwhile, over at HIV and AIDS. It's pretty clear, I think, that most European Catholics simply do not listen to the Pope about birth control. However, in South America and Africa, in particular, John Paul II's insistent arguing against condom usage has been responsible, at a conservative estimate, for tens of thousands of deaths, probably more like hundreds of thousands. This is not just about Catholics themselves not using condoms - it is about people listening to Catholic propaganda that condoms do not work to stop HIV transmission, and about pressure on charities working in poverty-stricken areas not to hand out condoms. Father Valerio Paitoni has said that in the future, the Catholic church will have to apologise for its actions in Latin America as they have for their collusion in the mistreatment of the indigenous people back in the time of Cortes:

AIDS is a world epidemic, a public health problem that must beconfronted with scientific advances and methods that have proveneffective. Rejecting condom use is to oppose the fight for life

Of course, this isn't just about AIDS. The prohibition on condoms, along with the strictures on abortion, have led to infanticide, abandoned children, "street children" - again, poverty and lack of education does a lot of the work here, but since the suppression of Liberation Theology the very people the poor rely on for help are actively encouraging actions and beliefs that hurt them.

Sexuality and gender is pretty much a busted flush. JPII was a conservative, by which I mean reactionary, and Benedict is clearly cut from the same cloth. Author of a 1986 Vatican letter that described homosexuality as "an intrinsic moral evil", his and his Vatican's opposition to gay marriage legislation is disappointing but predictable - info from a rather partial source here, but the quotes are solid. I wouldn't place any bets on female or married priests in his pontificate, either.

Still, on the plus side, at least a hard nut like Benedict will be cracking down on paedophile priests, yes? Well, yes and no. He's promised to clear the filth out of the church, and recently approved the Inquisition's invitation to Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, a good buddy of JPII to a reserved life of prayer and penance, renouncing all public ministry. On the other hand, in doing so the process of actually investigating the numerous claims of abuse has now been abandoned, out of consideration for his age. This is indeed forgiving, although perhaps suggests that a bit more rigour might have been applied when the first accusations surfaced in his late thirties. This limbo state of rustication seems to do nobody any favours, in way - Degollado does not get the help he might need if he is in fact guilty of these actions (or the counselling he might need if innocent), and neither he nor those who claim to have been abused by him get vindication. A judge might take advanced years into account, to coin a metaphor, but the Crown Prosecution Service tends not to.

So. Hmmm. I probably have to nail my colours to the mast and say that I see the ongoing rightward drift of the Roman Catholic Church very worrying - specifically, JPII's crushing of the liberal reforms of Vatican 2 and of the Liberation Theology movement and preference for Catholic dictators over Communist ones. By becoming progrssively more isolated from interfaith dialogue and more reactionary on issues like birth control and homosexuality, it may increase its popularity in poor areas, just as high unemployment and low standards of living provide a breeding ground for right-wing extremism, but it seems at present as if it has little actually to offer in support of those areas from the top, which serves to undermine a lot of excellent work done at parish level by activists like Father Paitoni. I see little hope of the higher orders of the church being able to free themselves from dogma, and indeed from the authoritarian spectre of JPII, long after Benedict XVI has passed on, in the short to medium term.

And what do you think? What is the role of the most popular Christian church? How is it being managed? What does it need to do, or is it ticking along nicely?
 
 
All Acting Regiment
08:09 / 18.09.06
Great post, Haus. As a non-Catholic, the question that troubles me the most is "how" changes might happen. Who does the Pope listen to? What would make him change his mind? Can any Catholics, er, enlighten me?
 
 
Lurid Archive
08:19 / 18.09.06
An actual Catholic would find your take on their religion's recent stances and achievements a little one-sided, Haus. In fact, there are plenty of Catholics I know who regarded JP2 as quite left wing on a variety of issues given his firm and apparently sincere opposition to war, both in the abstract and concretely, and his views on global poverty.

That said, many Catholics I know more or less dismiss criticisms about the positions on contraception and homosexuality. I am speaking, of course, about european catholics, who generally don't see these positions as being very important in the scheme of things. This is short sighted to a worrying degree in a sense, but it also gives me a feeling for how shallow the committment is to these reactionary positions. (Its worth noting, for instance, that catholic Spain is one of the first European countries to allow gay marrige with adoption rights, against the will of the catholic church of course, but in a rather top down Vatican driven sort of way.)

The more thoughtful and considerate catholics I have know would share your view about the medium term future of Catholicism being bleak, in a sense, but there is little doubt that the Vatican's position on contraception will change in the next century....which is often the kind of timescale that committed Catholics tend to think in, rather than making too much of a fuss in the present, for the sake of their church.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:35 / 18.09.06
Oh, absolutely. As I said in my post, European Catholics are generally happy to ignore the bits of instruction that don't apply.

However, take a look at what you're saying there. Essentially, when you say:

The more thoughtful and considerate catholics I have know would share your view about the medium term future of Catholicism being bleak, in a sense, but there is little doubt that the Vatican's position on contraception will change in the next century....which is often the kind of timescale that committed Catholics tend to think in, rather than making too much of a fuss in the present, for the sake of their church.

I'm hearing that educated, European Roman Catholics are basically OK with millions of people in Africa and South America either dying or living in abject poverty while they wait for wheel to spin again. A lot of people in poor countries are going to contract HIV or have unwanted children in the next century. If you're not in one of those poor countries, that's easier not to deal with - and the Catholic church is by no means the only offender in the whole situation - but, unlike even the deals made in the 1930s with fascism, the church knows, right now, precisely what it is doing and what the effects of its actions are. That's what I, personally, find surprising.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:02 / 18.09.06
Oh, and I absolutely agree that JPII was committed to opposing poverty. However, by eviscerating the Liberation Theology movement - through the agency of then-Cardinal Ratzinger, not least - JPII did much to limit the effectiveness and commitment of the church actually to work with the necessary people to combat poverty at grassroots level, in particular in South America and also in India.

Honestly, though, if you're a Christian spiritual leader, not liking war and poverty is pretty much entry-level, surely?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
09:30 / 18.09.06
Didn't JPII, like Mother Theresa, think that poverty was quite a good thing?

It should also be noted that it's not just the Catholic Church telling people condoms are bad, the current US administration is also doing it's part, by denying funding to any NGO that doesn't tell people just to have a pray until the urges go away.
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:15 / 18.09.06
Did JP2 think that poverty was a good thing? I don't think so, though as Haus says, eliminating the liberation theology movement wasn't a great move, and was clearly a conservative action taken to try to maintain some distance from politics. I don't want to defend JP2 all that much, though I think it is helpful to understand catholicism if you understand what catholics thought about him, so in response to

Honestly, though, if you're a Christian spiritual leader, not liking war and poverty is pretty much entry-level, surely?

I think a case can be made that JP2 paid a bit more than lip service to his opposition to war and poverty, in some contrast to the US christian right. He was explicitly against Gulf War 2, for instance, and made many statements about the excesses of capitalism (I'm not sure how much one should factor in his distrust of communism here, but its probably remembering that he was Polish and experienced soviet rule). This isn't a great record, by any means, but it isn't the record of an uncomplicated reactionary either.

I'm hearing that educated, European Roman Catholics are basically OK with millions of people in Africa and South America either dying or living in abject poverty while they wait for wheel to spin again.....That's what I, personally, find surprising.

Well, it is (not so clear about the point you are making about "abject poverty" though, surely the Catholic Church's real sin here is the stance on contraception?). I think there is a lot of denial involved of the suffering caused, and while no catholic I've met *wants* millions to die and some claim they believe that abstinence is workable advice, it is also breathtakingly callous and flies in the face of all the evidence. Of course, part of the problem in understanding the catholic mindset here is one of appreciating how little a religious morality sometimes values utilitarian arguments. That said, many catholics also value preserving the Catholic Church, and retaining within it more progressive voices, which pretty much means having to wait the conservatives and agitating invisibly, behind the scenes.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:33 / 18.09.06
Well, it is (not so clear about the point you are making about "abject poverty" though, surely the Catholic Church's real sin here is the stance on contraception?).

Oh - just that no contraception tends to mean large families, unwanted children, abandoned children, families not having the resources to get their children educated, and so on.

You make a very goood point on the distinction between religious and utilitarian morality, and it's tensions like this that inspired me to put this in the Head Shop rather than Switchboard or even Temple. If you believe that there are worse things than death, then death itself is reshuffled - so, if millions of people die of HIV, then their deaths are unfortunate but in the greater scheme of things irrelevant, since their sin (extra-marital sex, sex before marriage) would have been equivalent whether or not it also led to their infection, and in the long view whether the die in sin is more important than whether they die.

Hooever. Hooever the first, that only holds up for as long as everyone is following the same rules. If European Catholics are using condoms and birth control, but supporting a church which forbids them and seeks to keep them away from people in poorer parts of the world, through political pressure and misinformation, then they are indulging in fairly clear hypocrisy - their faith is not internally consistent. The same can be said, for that matter, of the pervasive homophobia of statements from the Vatican and the legal and non-legal persecution of gay men and lesbians worldwide - actions have consequences beyond immediate cause and effect.

I do wonder how things might have gone after Vatican 2, with a different succession, perhaps, or a shorter pontificate for JPII. And, for that matter, what the next move is for the liberal wing. After the overpowering influence of JPII, Benedict XVI might provide a kind of palate-cleaser, assuming he does not last too long or too little, and allow the next Pope to be chosen in a slightly less frenzied atmosphere. What's the next move?
 
 
Ticker
14:02 / 18.09.06
Well as someone with an an eye on how the Vatican is dealing with other religions and occult groups I found it interesting when the exorcism rites were updated under JP2.
cnn article '99

I personally was delighted to see that consulting with medical professionals is now part of the established doctrine.

However I was saddened by the lack of official response to the pagan community's request to be included in the Millenium apology.

As the numbers of pagans/heathens continue to grow I'm expecting the Vatican will have to make a PR decision. Though this catholic anti wicca article is not from the Vatican I did find this blurb on the Vatican's website:


Neo-pagan religions (06/03/03)

4. There is another reason to explain a certain anxiety and a certain rejection of the traditional Church. Let us not forget that in ancient Europe, pre-Christian, pagan religions were very strong, and often, unseemly conflicts took place linked to political change that have been inevitably labelled as Christian oppression of ancient religions. One of the most significant developments in what may roughly be called the "spiritual" sphere in the last century was a return to pre-Christian forms of religion. The pagan religions have had a considerable role in supporting some of Europe's most violent and racist ideologies, thus reinforcing the conviction according to which certain nations have an historic role of world-wide importance in such a way as to have the right to subject other peoples, and that has almost inevitably brought with it a hatred for the Christian religion, which is seen as a new arrival on the religious scene. The complex series of phenomena, known by the term of "neo-pagan" religions, reveal the need felt by some to invent new ways to "counter-attack" Christianity and return to a more authentic form of religion, a religion more closely bound to nature and the earth. For this reason, one has to recognize that there is no place for Christianity in the neo-pagan religions. Like it or not, a struggle is taking place to win the hearts and minds of people in the interrelations between Christianity, ancient, pre-Christian religions, and their more recently developed "cousins".
article in full with some interesting comments on eastern spirituallity as well

Yup makes me not sleep well at night thinking of angry witch burning mobs worried about their children's souls but not so much the abuse they suffer at the hands of their own priests.

Again while I do suspect many Catholics are able to make intelligent choices on their own in regards to birth control, gay rights, and religious tolerance, I find the attitude of the Vatican to be painfully archaic.
 
 
Elettaria
15:19 / 18.09.06
The pagan religions have had a considerable role in supporting some of Europe's most violent and racist ideologies

When did the pagan religions last get a chance to do that? I'd have put Christianity and Islam on that list (no offence to either, it's not necessarily a religion's fault if a group of extremists use it as an excuse to persecute others or grab some land), but paganism? I haven't noticed paganism having a history of aggressive missionary tactics either, that's a pot-meet-kettle situation if ever I saw one.

Haus said:

If you believe that there are worse things than death, then death itself is reshuffled - so, if millions of people die of HIV, then their deaths are unfortunate but in the greater scheme of things irrelevant, since their sin (extra-marital sex, sex before marriage) would have been equivalent whether or not it also led to their infection, and in the long view whether the die in sin is more important than whether they die.

This one's always rather puzzled me. In Judaism, the religion I know best as I've grown up within it, all religious laws may be suspended in order to preserve life. This doesn't just mean emergency situations, you're allowed to take medication which has non-kosher ingredients for instance. Also, you don't quibble about how much the person has sinned in this scenario (which includes self-defence), you save the life and let God decide. Is there really no equivalent school of thought in Catholicism, under which condoms would be the lesser evil since they demonstrably save lives by preventing fatal disease?

As for people being inconsistent when following a faith, following some of its tenets but rejecting others, I'd liken that to living in a country where you don't approve of everything the government does, but on balance would still rather live there, hoping that things will gradually improve, than elsewhere. Governments and religious institutions are human and change, what's decreed to be right or legal or sinful one decade may not be the next. As a Jew, I have the option of switching to a different denomination if I find the political ideas of one objectionable. My rabbi changed from Orthodox to Liberal Judaism mainly because of homophobia, for instance, and is leading the way in improving queer rights in Judaism. Catholics don't have different flavours of Catholicism to choose from.

Could someone explain to a puzzled newbie why posts like these don't end up in the Temple? Do you not file religious politics under religious matters?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:29 / 18.09.06
Well, a number of reasons. In this case, the discussion feels like one of politics, identity, religion and modern media management, and as such seems broad for the remit of the Temple.

Also, sad to say, this thread in the Temple would within eight posts have somebody saying that the Pope was stupid, Christianity was stupid, there was no God, each man and women is a star, fnord fnord, I am a God fnord again, only I understand the truth of the universe, OMG the Invisibles totally showed that organised religion was STUPID (see above). So, Head Shop.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:09 / 18.09.06
Is there really no equivalent school of thought in Catholicism, under which condoms would be the lesser evil since they demonstrably save lives by preventing fatal disease?

Oh, yes, absolutely. I mentioned Father Valerio Paitoni above, a Catholic friar who runs, or ran, three homes for poor HIV sufferers in Sao Paolo. He is actively in favour of condom usage, and helps the Brazilian government to hand out condoms. At least, I assume he is - it's been a bit quiet since he was disciplined for describing condoms precisely as the lesser of two evils in 2000.

However, doctrinally condoms are still off the table, because they encourage promiscuity. The official line is that this makes it more rather than less likely that people will contract HIV, as if they have condoms they will be tempted to have sex, and condoms are, as linked to above, not actually effective against HIV. So, by stopping people from having condoms, you can stop then from having sex, and everyone's happy.
 
 
Elettaria
16:43 / 18.09.06
*meekly*

Possibly it's because I live under a rock, but I'm not getting the references past "there was no God", apart from "only I understand the truth of the universe", which of course is utterly true of me, whoever it was who called me "El" for short (Hebrew for "God") in another thread was right on the money.

*even more meekly*

I think I airily summed up this thread to Blake Head earlier as being about the Pope being stupid about various matters. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I did, of course, say it in the spirit of someone who is deeply committed to the interfaith movement and respectful of all religious traditions, Blake Head's the atheist who's not madly keen on religion here, kill him, not me!

*stops wriggling*

None of the Catholics I know can stand the current Pope either, think you're in good company there.

The reason I asked is because from the relatively small amount of lurking I've done so far, the Temple is intended to be the forum for discussing religion in a wider sense, but in practice seems mostly limited to paganism and magic. I found this rather a pity, since intelligent discussion of religion which doesn't break into a fight in three seconds flat is quite a rarity on the internet.

Going back to the condoms issue, I'm glad to hear that the notion of the preservation of life trumping other issues exists in Catholicism, even if it sounds sadly neglected. I'm familiar enough with arguments that deliberately can't see the wood for the trees when they have an agenda to follow, I'm just trying to see past the insane logic of the anti-condom argument and figure out what the priorities actually are. Is it to do with consistency, not being able to compromise on sexual issues in case it starts a slippery slope, next thing you'll be allowing condoms where lives aren't at risk sort of thing?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:00 / 18.09.06
Is it to do with consistency, not being able to compromise on sexual issues in case it starts a slippery slope, next thing you'll be allowing condoms where lives aren't at risk sort of thing?

Way-ull... think of it like this: whenever you use a condom, lives are at risk - specifically, the life of the ensouled child whose conception you are seeking to prevent. From the Vatican's point of view, contraception is quite literally a matter of life and death.

That's matter of life and death number one. Matter of life and death number two is that by using contraception you put your immortal soul at risk - even if not to do so will put your mortal body at risk. That doesn't matter, because in that case you shouldn't be having sex to begin with. Sex exists as the consummation and renewal of the holy bond of marriage, and as a means of further humanity's God-ordained proliferation through procreation. If you take away either of those elements - by not being married or by breaking the link between procreation and sex - you have committed a mortal sin. You have put yourself in a state where, should you die unshriven, you will go to Hell. How can the Church possibly stand by and let you do that, whether ignorantly or knowingly?
 
 
Elettaria
18:28 / 18.09.06
Blast, I'd forgotten the Catholic belief that life begins when sperm meets egg. Life would have been so much easier if they'd picked, say, implantation, but if it's anything like Judaism you'll have the problem that ancient religious laws need to be updated to cover newly-noticed phenomena as soon as possible, usually before the way said phenomena work has been discovered (e.g. mistakenly counting electricity as a form of fire and thus forbidden on the Sabbath). It's terribly difficult to go back and say that you were wrong due to incorrect science with religious standpoints of this type, I find.

Hang on, this isn't even sperm-meets-egg, is life meant to begin at ejaculation? Are we dealing with the aftermath of some medieval misconception that sperm had pre-souls or something? Where does this place masturbation? My queer-theorist interfaith-friendly sci-fi-reading rabbi recently recommended me The Sparrow, a novel about a Jesuit expedition to another world which goes badly wrong, in which it's concluded that of course Jesuits masturbate and don't particularly fret about it, they have to cope with celibacy somehow.

You have put yourself in a state where, should you die unshriven, you will go to Hell. How can the Church possibly stand by and let you do that, whether ignorantly or knowingly?

I gather that giving them a chance to be shriven before they die by not dying prematurely from AIDS isn't an option here? Obviously, pointing out that withholding condoms doesn't stop people from having illicit sex won't wash with this school of thought.

To move to a more personal level, how do Catholics who are generally practising Catholicism, but not following the Vatican on sex, tend to reconcile this in terms of personal belief?
 
 
Blake Head
18:28 / 18.09.06
In terms of the Catholic Church’s media presentation of itself I thought this reinforced and expanded upon the idea that “breaking the link between procreation and sex” isn’t an issue that’s likely to change soon, given (as you suggest Haus) its importance:

“Having sex, making love, sometimes leads to new life. If bringing new life into the world is inappropriate or if the circumstances of one’s life are unpropitious, then the base line from which every other consideration must begin is that sex is inappropriate where and when bringing new life into the world is also inappropriate. The Catholic Church uniquely holds to the view that intervening in order to disassociate these two momentous aspects of our lives opens up the way to all kinds of developments, both personal and social, that ultimately serve to diminish rather than enhance life. The connection between the widespread use of artificial contraception and the sexualization of society, the breakup of marriage through infidelity, the increase of abortion as a remedy for ineffective contraception, and the inability to offer any rational arguments against the expression of genital sexuality in every and any combination and circumstance, may well as yet be far from easily perceptible and therefore largely unacknowledged, but it is no less real for being unseen.”

It’s Alban McCoy, in An Intelligent Person’s Guide to Catholicism, p113.

It’s a cogent and well-argued book, particularly with regards to criticising common misconceptions regarding Catholicism, but in places it veers from being evasive in responding to the “big issues” to enacting the defence of the indefensible, and I think attitudes like those in the quotation above should appear repellent to all “intelligent persons” despite the clarity and composure of their expression. I agree with xk that while I do suspect many Catholics are able to make intelligent choices on their own in regards to birth control, gay rights, and religious tolerance, I find the attitude of the Vatican to be painfully archaic. While I realise it’s only one example, books like the above, which are being marketed as the acceptable face of Catholicism to educated, aspirational Catholics, and intending to popularise a conception of the religion as modern and tolerant, seem to uphold a familiar intolerance in only a slightly less obvious way. Just to be clear, I don’t think this means that those supporting the doctrinal position on contraception, or following ”the traditional Catholic point of view, [which] is that the genital aspect and expression of our sexuality is best confined to marriage.” should be considered as unintelligent, but that I personally find it difficult to view the basic foundations of this view positively, (as they clearly criticise the expression of freedoms I, amongst others, find important as an individual) and would also suspect most European Catholics would similarly find the Church’s teaching’s to be of an increasing irrelevance in this regard.

And incidentally, I’d rather, on the whole, not be killed for being irreligious.
 
 
grant
19:09 / 18.09.06
Haus: , JPII's crushing of the liberal reforms of Vatican 2 and of the Liberation Theology movement and preference for Catholic dictators over Communist ones.

Hmmm. Liberation theology, yeah, he seemed to have a gut-level anti-communist dislike for, and I think liked to frame that in terms of "worldliness," where political involvement leads to the corruption that comes from all things mundane. The church is supposed to be above all that, after all. (Their words, not mine. There seemed to be a difference between different kinds of involvement – excommunicating pro-choice politicians, not so dangerous. That stance against liberation theology is one of the many differences between my point of view and the Vatican's.)

Not so sure about crushing Vatican II, though. I mean, there hasn't been a return of the Latin Mass, priests still face the congregation and people can still eat meat on most Fridays…. Was there something else you were thinking about? Role of the laity or something? Centralization of power? More went on in Vatican II than I can keep in mind all at once.

Haus: I see little hope of the higher orders of the church being able to free themselves from dogma

I don't think the higher orders of the church have any interest in freeing themselves from dogma, since creating and enforcing dogma is exactly what they do. They are dogma, in some ways, and dogma is them.

This seems like a silly thing to point out, but there seems to be a thread in this conversation about authority and the way the Church wields it. Dogma is essential to understanding how the church leadership frames itself – as the conduit through which the Creator of the World guides humanity, and has done so for 2,000 years. What others allude to in here as "authority" (power to be distrusted and avoided), the Church sees as "apostolic succession" (a responsibility to serve as handed down from Jesus Christ to Peter, and from Peter to the Roman Empire and the rest of the world). Dogma, in the strict religious definition, is a kind of rule that can be directly traced to the teachings of Christ or revelations of God.

The pope's power also isn't exactly as absolute as it seems (ostensibly, ostensibly). There's an organizational sense wherein the pope is the Bishop of Rome – more of a chairman of a body of bishops, except with the bonus of being infallible. "Infallibility" in its specific sense is closely tied to the idea of dogma – it means that the pope has the power to declare something dogma (so long as it doesn't contradict anything Christ actually taught, or that "God revealed" [whatever that might mean]).

So because there's some room for debate within the structure, Paitoni isn't alone. Bishop Dowling is still doing his South African condom crusade (among other notable outspeakings).

Which is not to say the Vatican isn't casting a very long and very dark shadow over those populations where AIDS is found the most. The stance equating contraception with murder goes back to the 1500s (I think it's in the Council of Trent, so blame Luther).

Being the kind of guy I am, I think having a wider variety of clerical orders with different interpretations or emphases on different elements of scripture would lead to a stronger organization. Open sourcing the Church, maybe. But I haven't been to Mass in years, and am not holding my breath for the Vatican to start emulating the Coptic Orthodox (decentralized authority, married bishops) any time soon.

Membership is still declining. I suspect there are a lot more people who feel much the same way as I do but who still turn up in the pews because of the intangible benefits of community, and the fact that 2,000 years (OK, well, 1,700 years) is a long enough time to get a few things about the psychology of approaching divine mysteries just right. Ritually, I mean.

----
Elettaria: The pagan religions have had a considerable role in supporting some of Europe's most violent and racist ideologies

When did the pagan religions last get a chance to do that?

I'm guessing he's referring to the Nazis here, what with the swastikas and the runes on the Gestapo collars and all. I don't think this is a logically valid connection, but it's not unheard of.

-----
alas: While I'm apparently casting myself as an apologist, I'm a little wary of ascribing the University of Bonn with too much in the way of stuffiness – I have no idea how forward-thinking it's been regarding gender equality, but it's the alma mater of Marx & Nietzsche.
-----
Elettaria: Hang on, this isn't even sperm-meets-egg, is life meant to begin at ejaculation? Are we dealing with the aftermath of some medieval misconception that sperm had pre-souls or something?

No, no -- just that the possibility for conception must exist, otherwise God's not given enough leverage to enact the miracle of existence. Sometimes, we humans have to carry the ball.

And, as Blake Head's quotation points out, once you separate sex from procreation, it becomes, well, free of that association with the miraculous (and thus implicated in all sorts of social ills). I'm not sure a slight rephrasing of that quote would necessarily be dismissed by a Planned Parenthood representative -- that contraception has in many ways liberated sex from the dangerous drudgery of family life & oppressive social structures. The patriarchy, in other words.
 
 
grant
19:47 / 18.09.06
By the way, I'm still not sure what to make of this. (link goes to Laboratory thread on Vatican astronomer -- the boss priest-scientist was just maybe fired by the new Pope over intelligent design.)
 
 
nighthawk
19:48 / 18.09.06
Given nature of Catholic doctrine and hierachical structure of Church, there's little scope for short to medium turn change. The reciprocal relationship between the Pope and the cardinals is a major block for the emergence of a more progressive leadership. Moreover, the primacy of the Pope, and the hierachy which supports him, is pretty much the defining feature of the Catholic Church: "The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, ‘is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.’"

Having said that, the Church is obviously affected by political and social currents beyond its control - I think they account for the opening of the Second Vatican council, among other things. One hope might be that as South American bishops gain more power in the episcopate, they'll bring increasing attention to the needs of their parishes. This shift in the balance of power makes sense in terms of the locations of the Catholic laity. I can't find figures on the composition of the current College of Cardinals, but I bet it doesn't reflect the distribution of that map.

But at the same time, even though the Church is susceptible to these currents, its internal hierarchy tends to put a check on progressive currents. Even if the College did reflect the population distribution of the laity, there's no reason to believe that it would lead to a more progressive Church. CELAM was central to the emergence of Liberation Theology, but it was swiftly reintegrated by the Church hierarchy to a more orthodox position. Admittedly this process was sped up by the conservative pontificates of Paul VI and JPII, but I'm not sure there's much basis for claiming that a more 'liberal' Pope like John XXIII would have acted any differently? Yes he initiated the Second Vatican Council, but its reforms primarily concerned the structure and content of the Mass. I think its a bit over-hyped by more liberal Catholics really. For example, it did officialise the role of Episcopal Councils, but their main job is to adapt teachings from above to local conditions, not influence the content of those teachings. As the wikipedia article says, regional conferences like CELAM, which have at times had a progressive membership, enjoy no legislative power. Movements like liberation theology were most popular with individual priests at the bottom of the hierarchy.

Actually, taking Liberation Theology as the best example of a progressive movement within the Church, its worth having a look at the summary Benedict XVI made of it back when he was plain old Ratzinger. He was worried about the emphasis of the needs of particular communities over the teachings of the Church as a whole, and the way in which Liberation Theology challenged the internal hierarchy of the Church:

Previously it was the Church, namely, the Catholic Church in her totality — a totality which spanned time and space and embraced laity (sensus fidei) and hierarchy (Magisterium) — that constituted the hermeneutical criterion; now it is the "community". The experience of the "community" determines the understanding and the interpretation of Scripture.

...

This original synthesis of event and interpretation can be dissolved and reformed continually: the community "interprets" the events on the basis of its "experience" and thus discovers what its "praxis" should be. The same idea appears in a somewhat modified form in connection with the concept of the people" where the conciliar emphasis on the "People of God" is transformed into a marxist myth. The experiences of the 'people" elucidate Scripture. Here "people" is the antithesis of the hierarchy, the antithesis of all institutions, which are seen as oppressive power. Ultimately anyone who participates in the class struggle is a member of the "people" the "Church of the people" becomes the antagonist of the hierarchical Church.

To be honest, I think he's right about this. Any progressive movement in the Church will require major reorganisation of its structure, and a shift in emphasis from the central authority of the pontificate to the experience of laity and parish priests. I'd guess this is unimaginable from most Catholics, and it would flatten most of the differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestant faiths.


I don't want to go on too long, but re: sexuality. I think its a mistake to see the Church's teachings here as peripheral and open to gradual change. One of the fundamental doctrines has been the centrality of the family as the organisational unit of society. It is deeply conservative here, and I think its this, as much as broader 'theological' doctrines like those outlined in JPII's Theology of the Body, which guides its social teaching.

Speaking more broadly, the Church is like any other big organisation with an embedded hierarchy: it protects its interests. Hence the fear of undermining its internal hierarchy and devolving power away from the pontificate, or its role in the child abuse scandal. Hence also, I'd suggest, JPII's ready opposition to war. Church power isn't tied to the fortunes of a particular state anymore, so it doesn't have the motives to promote military action as it did in the crusades. Its also not in its interests to promote the goals of any particular nationalism. If a force were to emerge that threatened the integrity of the Church, I'm pretty sure the papacy would support military opposition, no matter how suspect its allies were.
 
 
Ticker
14:05 / 19.09.06
Like it or not, a struggle is taking place to win the hearts and minds of people in the interrelations between Christianity, ancient, pre-Christian religions, and their more recently developed "cousins".

Is it just me or if we replace ancient, pre-Christian religions, with oh say any of the other major religions we'd be having a big fat scandal over this approach?

I'm guessing he's referring to the Nazis here, what with the swastikas and the runes on the Gestapo collars and all. I don't think this is a logically valid connection, but it's not unheard of.

I hear of a lot more about burning crosses over here in the States than burning runes. Perpetuating sterotypes and religious intolerance does not endear the Vatican to many folks.

in nighthawk's and other folks posts I'm reading that at its core the Vatican remains staunchly conservative. This rigidity is fostering intolerance and while I do carry the touchstone of knowing that individuals can be tolerant regardless of associations I'm leery of any structure that inherently clings to vilifying others as a form of internal cohesion. ( I hold the same critical view on a goodly number of pagan groups who revile Christians)

Hence also, I'd suggest, JPII's ready opposition to war. Church power isn't tied to the fortunes of a particular state anymore, so it doesn't have the motives to promote military action as it did in the crusades. Its also not in its interests to promote the goals of any particular nationalism. If a force were to emerge that threatened the integrity of the Church, I'm pretty sure the papacy would support military opposition, no matter how suspect its allies were.

I tend to agree and would like to ask has the Catholic Church changed except in ways forced upon it by external cultural pressure rather than internal reform?
 
 
Ticker
14:05 / 19.09.06
Like it or not, a struggle is taking place to win the hearts and minds of people in the interrelations between Christianity, ancient, pre-Christian religions, and their more recently developed "cousins".

Is it just me or if we replace ancient, pre-Christian religions, with oh say any of the other major religions we'd be having a big fat scandal over this approach?

I'm guessing he's referring to the Nazis here, what with the swastikas and the runes on the Gestapo collars and all. I don't think this is a logically valid connection, but it's not unheard of.

I hear of a lot more about burning crosses over here in the States than burning runes. Perpetuating sterotypes and religious intolerance does not endear the Vatican to many folks.

in nighthawk's and other folks posts I'm reading that at its core the Vatican remains staunchly conservative. This rigidity is fostering intolerance and while I do carry the touchstone of knowing that individuals can be tolerant regardless of associations I'm leery of any structure that inherently clings to vilifying others as a form of internal cohesion. ( I hold the same critical view on a goodly number of pagan groups who revile Christians)

Hence also, I'd suggest, JPII's ready opposition to war. Church power isn't tied to the fortunes of a particular state anymore, so it doesn't have the motives to promote military action as it did in the crusades. Its also not in its interests to promote the goals of any particular nationalism. If a force were to emerge that threatened the integrity of the Church, I'm pretty sure the papacy would support military opposition, no matter how suspect its allies were.

I tend to agree and would like to ask has the Catholic Church changed except in ways forced upon it by external cultural pressure rather than internal reform?
 
 
nighthawk
14:31 / 19.09.06
I tend to agree and would like to ask has the Catholic Church changed except in ways forced upon it by external cultural pressure rather than internal reform?

I'm not sure the distinction is that clear cut - the Church isn't a sealed and bounded totality, even if it likes to present itself as such, and cultural pressure isn't necessarily 'external'. When I said the Church was affected by social and political currents, I meant this to include the changing concerns of its laity as much as people outside the Church. Its not so much that change is always external; more that the institution's hierarchy tends to check progressive movements, even if their origin is Catholic (i.e. internal).

That said, I think change in the Church is usually undertaken reluctantly and slowly, and rarely initiated by people at the top - it really is a deeply Conservative organisation. Progressive elements often break away (hence the Reformation, or the number of Catholic priests who left the Church to join worker's groups in the C20th).
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:20 / 19.09.06
Yeah - it's hard to separate internal and external when you have such a huge membership - I'd like to tie that into Vatican 2, but I;m afraid I am time-poor at present - later, hopefully.
 
 
grant
15:36 / 19.09.06
Well, I'm not sure if Vatican II could be said to be due to external pressure or not. In some ways, the changes in the way ritual is framed were a recognition that maybe those Protestants were getting a few things right 500 years previously. All that service in the vulgate (so, like, ordinary folks could understand the words of worship) and that business.

I'm also wondering about the Church's potential willingness to embrace military action. I mean, OK, the Pope is personally defended by The Swiss Guard, but it seems like there've been plenty of cases of troublesome priests being disappeared under various dictatorships, and assassination attempts on Pope John Paul II himself which haven't led to any embracing of militarism. Have they? (Not a rhetorical question.)

The best known would-be assassin was a Turk who claimed ties to the PLFP (Palestinian Marxists), although JPII was also targeted by Al Qaeda in the Philippines in the 1990s. But he was still fairly outspoken in condemning military actions in the Middle East (at least to my way of thinking) , and became the first pope to visit (and pray in) an Islamic mosque, the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus. That was in May 2001. After September 11, he went to Kazakhstan & Armenia and addressed Muslim-majority crowds.

To a certain degree, just by mentioning the Crusader stuff, Benedict was motivating those portions of the Church that were outraged by JPII's wishy-washiness in the face of The Threat Of Terror.

I dunno -- given how slowly the organization responds to anything, this might be a turn toward militarism after all...
 
 
grant
15:36 / 19.09.06
(interposted with Haus)
 
 
nighthawk
15:41 / 19.09.06
Oh I was being a bit flippant about Church militarism - there'd have to be an absolutely massive shift in the international political climate for it to feel genuinely threatened. But I still think JPII's anti-war stance should be put in context.
 
  
Add Your Reply