You're not the pope of me

I suppose I'm supposed to be worried or aggrieved or something in response to yesterday's pronouncement from Pope Benedict XVI in which he reasserted his primacy and chastised those of us who don't listen to him and don't recognize his word as authoritative.

But see how that works? I'm one of those who don't listen to him or consider his word authoritative so, you know, I can't manage to get all worked up about his attempts at chastisement.

The circularity of yesterday's assertion is kind of impressive: You must accept the authority of the pope because I'm telling you to do so and I'm the pope:

The Vatican said Tuesday that Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ. ...

A 16-page document prepared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Pope Benedict XVI headed when he was a cardinal, described Christian Orthodox churches as true churches, but suffering from a "wound" because they do not recognize the primacy of the pope.

The document said the "wound is still more profound" in the Protestant denominations. ...

Well somebody sure sounds wounded, but I don't think it's me.

I'm not entirely sure why any of this is news, really. Bees gotta bee, birds gotta bird, popes gotta pope. The question of who does and does not recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome was pretty well settled centuries ago (and even further back for the Eastern churches), and the only thing that's really new here is that Benedict seems to be pretending he didn't know this.

The article quoted above is headlined "Vatican Reaffirms Catholic Primary." It could just as easily have been headlined, "Pope Says Protestants Aren't Good Catholics."

It's puzzling -- a bit like if Queen Elizabeth II were to come out with a statement declaring that Americans are not considered loyal subjects of her throne.

Benedict believes Protestants are profoundly wounded because he believes we are cut off from the apostolic line of succession that began with St. Peter.

You remember St. Peter -- he's the guy who said, "Silver and gold have I none." (Thomas Aquinas noted that he seemed to be the last pope who was able to say this -- which was also why he was the last pope who was able to say what Peter said next to the lame beggar, "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.")

There is a certain tidy appeal to the idea of investing one individual with the collective wisdom and weight of the entire tradition. It means never having to worry or wonder about any unsettled questions. A Catholic friend of mine from the First Things crowd raised this point a while back as we were discussing Baptist polity (or the lack thereof) and the epistemology of Stanley Hauerwas (or the lack thereof). He suggested that we Baptists were prone to the dangers of individualism and what he called a "postmodern crisis of authority." I told him I preferred my postmodern crisis of authority to his premodern one.

What I'm getting at here is both theological and political.

First the theology: If Benedict's claim that the entirety of the Christian tradition is invested and embodied in one man (him) were correct, then he would also be correct to claim that those of us who do not recognize his authority are cut off from that tradition and therefore, in some sense, "wounded." If, on the other hand, we are correct in claiming that the entirety of the Christian tradition is invested and embodied in the body of Christ -- which is to say, in all of us -- then it follows that, by setting himself above and apart from the body, he is in jeopardy of a multitude of wounds.

This is, of course, a rather egalitarian understanding of the church. Some theologians like to argue the chicken-or-egg question of whether this ecclesiological egalitarianism arises from or gives rise to liberal democratic societies. That can be interesting in the way that all chicken-or-egg questions are interesting, but I find my interest wanes after the third or fourth lap, so instead of getting into a debate about cause and effect, let's just note that these things seem to be related -- that one's view of the appropriate form of church polity is likely to correspond to one's view of the appropriate form of civic polity, or politics. Vatican II took some vital steps toward the liberalization of Catholic teaching on both polity and politics. Benedict seems to be walking back that liberalization of polity. I can't help but wonder if this won't have ramifications for his church's political teaching as well.

Finally, it strikes me that Benedict's notion of polity parallels the cyber-libertarians' notion of politics. Both seem incapable of imagining any possibility other than monarchy and anarchy. They may have precisely opposite notions as to which of those is preferable, but they share an instinctive terror that anyone expressing an insufficient enthusiasm for their preference must be advocating it's binary opposite. (Makes me suspect that they may have more in common with one another than I have with either of them.) In Benedict's case, this undifferentiated, binary notion of polity does not seem compatible with the differentiated, multi-layered Catholic understanding of politics and civil society. Something will have to give.

Comments

[LM]

Zlad! is my pope. he's the anti-pope.

[Evan]

So I think that Benedict is really one of the worst things to happen to the church in years. Trying to appease fundies/dominionists/traditionalists who are insistent on things that are absolutely repugnant (no, Opus Dei and the SSPX will NOT stop at getting their Latin Mass back, they won't stop until the entire church has been thrown back 100 years and things like Dignity and liberation theology are but a slight memory) will never satisfy them until they get all they want, *and* it will only alienate people who aren't fundies/doms/trads.

Personally, I once considered converting (but then Benedict got in, I went "no way could I survive in this" and looked elsewhere for my Christian journey), and I know of a lot of people who aren't going lock-step with this trend to trash all the good changes. . . I hope that things improve soon.

[nieciedo]

As a former Catholic, I have to disagree a teesy bit on the theology.

Any good Catholic theologian knows that "the entirety of the Christian tradition" is NOT "invested and embodied in one man." The entirety of the Christian tradition is embodied in the Magisterium of the Church, which is entrusted to and exercised by the entire college of bishops (successors to the apostles) with the Bishop of Rome as the first among equals. The Bishop of Rome's position as successor to Peter makes him the arbiter of disputes and the director of policy and more important the rallying point for orthodoxy. The old phrase goes Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia: Where stands Peter (or his successor), there stands the Church. The Bishop of Rome is the center point for communion within the college of bishops. If a bishop teaches doctrines of faith and morals that are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, then he is not teaching correct Catholic doctrine. Conversely, the Bishop of Rome cannot teach doctrines of faith and morals that put him in disagreement with the consensus of the Magisterium.

The Church entire -- pope, bishops, priests, and the laity -- are collectively the body of Christ. However, just as different organs in the human body have their unique function and just as Paul taught that different people were entrusted with different gifts of the Spirit -- it is determined that different classes of people within the Church have different reponsibilities.

Luther's teaching of the priesthood of all believers was not exactly heretical -- every Christian man (and woman) -- has the potential as a member of the body of Christ to exercise any of the functions of the Church. However, for the stability of society the distribution of those functions needs to be regulated. Thus, it is determined by social convention and tradition that some individuals should be specially designated to perform the sacraments, and some individuals should be special designated to teach Church doctrine, etc. In extremis any baptised Christian can baptize and hear confession and in theory there is no reason why any Christian can't celebrate the Eucharist. But if everyone went around doing whatever he or she wanted, the Chruch would quickly fragment into countless competing and contradictory denominations.

Oops -- that already happened!

[Vashti]

Ah, Fred, I wish more Catholic bloggers were like you.

(Seriously, every time I dip my toe into the Catholic blogosphere I don't get to the end of the page before some knee-jerk conservative comment sends me screaming away. Where are all the liberal Catholics hiding?)

[Don]

Good Morning,

For a wider perspective on the subject. Here's a link to the Vatican II document UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, a decree on Ecumenism.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Thanks,

Don

[Brian J.]

Sorry, guys, but unless a Catholic leaves the Church for good, Adolf I... er, Benedict XVI IS the pope of you. And even if not, he is the head of the largest faction of the Christian church.

God isn't going to come down and set these "heretics" straight; Christianity is what Christians say it is. In particular, Catholicism is what Benny Sixteen says it is, in his role as duly elected Pontifex Maximus, and he ain't about to let anyone forget it.

If you don't want to play that game, leave the church. Otherwise, this guy does speak for you. Sorry.

[nieciedo]

This is also not really news because all he has done is reiterated Dominus Iesus, a statement he made in 2000 with John Paul II's approval back we he was still just Grand Inquisitor. The full text is HERE.

[the opoponax]

Well. So much for that whole "ecumenism" idea, eh?

Benedict is such an embarrassment. It's been a long time since I've been this proud not to be (and never to have been, w00t complex verb tenses!) catholic.

[Ray]

The logic is hardly unfamiliar -

- God must exist - it says so in the Bible!
- But the Bible could be wrong, surely?
- No, it can't. It says _right here_ that the Bible is the Word of God.
- Right there in... the Bible. Ah yes, I see.

[LL]

Sorry for my atheist ignorance, but didn't you all have several wars, at least, and then a "schism" that settled this once and for all about 400-500 years ago? Pope Benny isn't seriously suggesting that he's the head of ALL the Christians, is he? Even he can't be that clueless and arrogant.

[DANIEL SULLIVAN]

Yes, as an RC I can see that those Christians outside the RC Church may feel a bit put out. If so, get over it. The most interesting thing about the reaction to such statements is that anyone should be surprised. That is his conviction and the conviction of Popes and Bishops of the Church. What is the surprise here? The truth is that PC says that he can't say that. Some lumphead may be "offended". I have respect for, although not a believer in,the Orthodox and Protestants faiths. I am all for dialog. But I would not expect to be surprised, shocked or offended if one said I am wrong and he/she is right. What are convictions for anyway? Blessings + !!

[cosmicdance]

But if everyone went around doing whatever he or she wanted, the Chruch would quickly fragment into countless competing and contradictory denominations.

Heavens forfend! We can't have people going around doing whatever they want! Obviously the most important point of Christianity is for everyone to toe the party line, regardless of whether the party line is right or not. Otherwise people might go around doing whatever they want, and that might lead them to say their authority figures are wrong! How's *that* gonna look?

[Francis]

Benedict is absolutely right that the Church is wounded. But it goes deeper than not respecting the primacy of the pope. It goes right the way back to the assertion of the primacy of the pope. If not right back to Aquinas' point about Silver and Gold.

[Francis]

Oh, and I know plenty of liberal catholics who blog - but none of them have "Catholic Blogs".

Oh, and niciedo, I much prefer the theology and praxis that has succeeded the (long overdue) splintering of the church to that which preceded it. I have no wish to see the Auto Da Fe and the Crusades back. While the church remains directly involved in politics*, the nature of the politics drags the morals and the ethics of that church through the mud - thereby making it impossible for the church to focus on God and on doing what is right. While this is the case, the church itself is a force for evil.

And any universal church will have sufficient power that the humans within it will involve it in politics. Thereby making it hideously corrupt.

* Religious adherents should of course be involved in politics. And yes, this is a fine line to walk.

[Pseudowolf]

So even the pope believes that there are RTCs, though perhaps not in the same sense as LH&J

[indifferent children]

> You must accept the authority of the pope because I'm telling you to do so and I'm the pope

Surely this circular reasoning doesn't phase anyone who believes that the bible is any more authoritative than any other bronze-age book of unknown authorship.

> Obviously the most important point of Christianity is for everyone to toe the party line ... and that might lead them to say their authority figures are wrong!

Cosmicdance, if your entire religion is based on catering to a "jealous" supernatural authority figure, then what's left when believers think that it's okay to contradict their authority figures?

BTW, as has been hinted at in earlier comments, this message was not intended to tell Protestants that they are wrong. This was a message to Catholics to tone-down the ecumenicalism, and remember that their Protestant friends might be nice people, but they are still going to burn in Hell.

[Edo]

I apologize for having no particularly intelligent thoughts to contribute at the moment, but the line "Bees gotta be, birds gotta bird, popes gotta pope" is my innocent, childlike amusement for the day. (Intelligent thoughts will be forthcoming.)

[the opoponax]

and then a "schism" that settled this once and for all about 400-500 years ago?

The East-West Schism happened in the 11th century (so almost 1000 years ago), and while it was loosely about whether the Pope is the boss of non-Catholics (in this case, whether the Pope had authority over the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs), it was really, as they say, about "so much more". The exact wording of the Nicene Creed, liturgical practices, jurisdictional claims, etc. not to mention the major fundamental differences between Orthodox and Catholic belief.

Then you also have the Western Schism, which was all about settling the Avignon papacy crisis. This happened, I believe, before the Reformation and had little if anything to do with the relationship between the Pope and non-Catholic adherents.

[the opoponax]

If so, get over it. The most interesting thing about the reaction to such statements is that anyone should be surprised. That is his conviction and the conviction of Popes and Bishops of the Church. What is the surprise here? The truth is that PC says that he can't say that.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The reason non-Catholics will get their noses out of joint about this, DANIEL SULLIVAN, is that several centuries ago (950-odd years for Orthodox, 500-odd years for Protestants), certain groups of Christians split away from the Roman Catholic church, including (but not limited to) the Papacy. Therefore, such Christians do not see themselves as subject to the Pope. Because they're not.

What Benedict just did is the equivalent of Queen Elizabeth up and deciding that, no, actually, she is still the ruler of France, even after her predecessors lost a war over that issue over 500 years ago, and have not had any legitimate claim to France for a very long time.

[Pat Greene]

Daniel Sullivan, I am not simply "put out" as you describe it. I am deeply concerned about what this means generally for relations between RCs and Protestants (because, as indifferent children pointed out, this message was intended not for Protestants but for the "faithful," to destroy movements towards ecumenism), and on a very personal level what it means as an Episcopalian to deal with the RC parts of my family.

I also question Benedict's theology, but that's an entirely different matter. I will let others who are more knowledgeable talk about that.

[Lizzy L]

I think Benedict's pronouncement is actually directed internally, at Catholics, not Protestants: particularly, it's directed at certain theologians and those Catholics whose efforts toward reconciling Catholic-Protestant differences are rather more vigorous than Benedict would like. I agree, it's unfortunate. But since it says nothing new, most Catholics of whatever persuasion (liberal, conservative, whatever) will ignore it and just live their lives, following their daily practice, praying, going to Mass (or not), to confession (or not), serving food at the soup kitchens, volunteering at the homeless shelter, teaching catechism, doing whatever they do to follow Jesus.

Oh, and the liberal Catholics are not hiding, Vashti. We're right here.

[VorJack]

There has been some discussion over at April DeConick's blog about the timing of this proclamation and the earlier proclamation about the Latin Mass. One commenter has suggested that these proclamations are aimed at the Society of Saint Pius X, a schismatic group which apparently conservative tastes. The proclamations may be intended to lure this group, and possibly other conservative groups who split after Vatican II, back to the fold.

[treeandleafster]

Benedict isn't saying anything new: this has always been the official line. I disagree with him, but I'm not offended. I would have been offended if he had said Protestants weren't Christians (even though, as a liberal Anglo-Catholic who is happy to argue that the Anglican church is in the Apostolic Succession, I'm never sure whether I am one or not....), or that they were going to go to Hell.... but he didn't say that, or anything approaching it. They're not very helpful remarks, to say the least, but there's no need to interpret them as worse than they are.

And Brian J, the unsubtle insinuations that Benedict is a Nazi not only border on racism, but they're boring. Grumpy old school German academic who doesn't quite get the modern world is nearer the mark.

[Simon St.Laurent]

Hmmm... I think Fred's written on this before, in a different context. (It's the Sunday School teacher on scripture footnote, the first asterisk.)

[the opoponax]

How is accusing Benedict of being a Nazi bordering on racism?

I mean, I don't think such a characterization is particularly apt, or particularly useful.

But you can't deny that Ratzinger was, in fact, a member of the Hiter Youth, and his defense of that ("Just following orders!") is lame, not to mention insulting to the many people who did manage to find it in their hearts to resist.

People bring this factoid to light, not because Ratzinger is a German (or because he is White, which would be more apt if you're talking about "racism"), but because the whole thing and his handling of it is indicative of his stance on a variety of issues. Ratzi is, at his very core, a status-quo conservative who believes that bowing before authority regardless of the request is more important than doing what is morally right. This tidbit of information is entirely fair game in understanding who Benedict is and what his motivations are.

[the opoponax]

Also, I think Gunter Grass provides a pretty good counterpoint to how Ratzinger could have handled his former-HJ past. Grass, who recently disclosed that he volunteered for service towards the end of the war, has basically said, "I was a stupid kid who didn't know shit about shit, and in hindsight this is a choice that I deeply regret."

This comes off a hell of a lot better than "Not my fault! Just following orders!"

[Lucia]

If Benedict's claim that the entirety of the Christian tradition is invested and embodied in one man (him) were correct, then he would also be correct to claim that those of us who do not recognize his authority are cut off from that tradition and therefore, in some sense, "wounded." If, on the other hand... the entirety of the Christian tradition is invested and embodied in the body of Christ -- which is to say, in all of us -- then it follows that, by setting himself above and apart from the body, he is in jeopardy of a multitude of wounds.

Just curious: where does that leave those of us who aren't Christian at all?

[treeandleafster]

Because I don't think that the fact that someone was in the Hitler Youth as a teenager tells you much about them other than that they're of a particular generation and were a fairly average kid. Virtually everyone was in the HJ. I'm reluctant to condemn anyone for not signing up for a suspicion from a trigger happy governement, with the pervasive fear that anyone who got out of line would end up in a concentration camp, given that I don't know whether I'd behave. I particularly don't know how I'd have behaved when I was a teeneger; given that Ratzinger's father had already been in minor trouble with the government, I can understand why it might have been sensible to keep one's head down. Actually living thorough the end of the war, I imagine, didn't present neat little balck and white dilemmas - more muddy greys? And God knows I'm not a conservative, but it's a bit simplistic to suggest that a conservative = a Nazi? It's certainly unfair to suggest that conservatives only care about following authority, not obeying moral good: it's more complicated than that; it's more likely to manifest as a sense of conflicting goods (obedience versus - whatever other virtue). There were certainly lots of Germans of an older genration who struggled with opposition to HItler and their sense of loyalty to country in itme of war - and it was a real, and very painful dilemma. I don't know what motivated JR to join the HItler Youth, but I'd be surprised if it was fullblown ardent Nazism, and I don't think you're entitled to ssume it without stronger evidence.

(I'm not convinced Grass is a perfect counter-example, anyway. I don't blame him for being reluctant to talk about volunteering for the SS, but it took him long enough to do so, after a long career of denouncing others for not being open enouhg about their own past.)

[Tonio]

The "wound" pronouncement sounds like a Catholic version of the RTC concept. It effectively dismisses the ecumenical progress made in recent decades. And restoring the Latin Mass with its anti-Semitic language suggests a negation of John XXIII's repudiation of the concept of Jewish guilt in the death of Jesus. Benedict reminds me more and more of Protestant fundamentalists in America and their hostility to modernism. I'm expecting him to announce a wholesale repeal of Vatican II any day now.

[nieciedo]

I'm expecting him to announce a wholesale repeal of Vatican II any day now.

Fortunately, he can't do that. All of the resolutions of Vatican II were proclaimed infallibly.

[LL]

K, thanks for help with the timeline (it's a big blur of religious infighting to me, so I'm not up on all the dates, sorry). Those who say the message is meant more for Catholics than anyone else seem to have missed this bit:

"The Vatican said Tuesday that Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ. ... A 16-page document prepared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Pope Benedict XVI headed when he was a cardinal, described Christian Orthodox churches as true churches, but suffering from a wound because they do not recognize the primacy of the pope."

Sounds like to me Benny is saying that if you're not Catholic (ie, under him, so to speak), you don't count as one of Jesus's homeboys. I agree that that isn't exactly a uniquely offensive sentiment (because don't most religious people feel this way, that if you're not Catholic or Muslim or Jewish or whatever they are, you are lost and going to hell), but as such, you'd think this is something that he wouldn't feel the need to say, just as the Southern Baptists don't need to keep reminding us that they think all the gays are sinners who will burn in hell and that anybody who doesn't accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their savior is also going to hell. One wonders why the Pope needs to tell people that he doesn't think that people who don't see him as their religious leader are not "full churches of Jesus Christ." That right there would make my mother pretty annoyed, to say the least. What does he gain by this, exactly? It sounds kinda like Bush's "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" bit, and that doesn't seem to have gone over too well.

I know Fred already pointed all of this out, but it bears repeating. It seems like kind of an assholish thing for a pope to say. I know Benedict isn't a soft and fuzzy pope, but still... The Catholic Church has the second shittiest PR people in the world.

[cjmr's husband]

Somehow I suspect, as he rolls back the modern changes to the church, he will get as far as the Vatican One pronouncement of papal infallibility...

[straight]

I'm curious, Fred, how you do approach the "postmodern crisis of authority." Sure, we all laugh at LaHaye's interpretation of the Bible. And as a protestant, I'm with you in not recognizing the pope's primacy.

But how then do we go about reading and interpreting the Bible in a way that allows us to be genuinely challenged and held accountable? How can we make sure that our faith is more than just the sum of our own prejudices and inclinations?

All around us we see people picking and choosing bits of the Bible and the Christian faith that suit them. How do we keep from doing the same thing ourselves?

[Angelika]

oppoponax: But you can't deny that Ratzinger was, in fact, a member of the Hiter Youth, and his defense of that ("Just following orders!") is lame, not to mention insulting to the many people who did manage to find it in their hearts to resist.

I think the Hitler Jugend issue is blown up. Yes, he did not practice active resistance to a totalitarian regime as teenager, and he obeyed the social pressure to join an official youth group, so what. So what? Unlike the SS, the Hitler Jugend was not employed to commit the government sponsored genocide. Just having been a member of such a group is not a crime.

There are billions of people who live under totalitarian regimes that commit crimes and go along with things, because that seems to be the smart thing to do. These people are often enough smart and decent otherwise, they just happen not to be outstandingly brave*. Most of them might not even realize that government of their country is committing crimes (or at least not the extend of these crimes). State propaganda and limited access to outside information see to that.

*outstanding = not normal.

If I see an house burning and don't rush in to save somebody inside, because I don't see how that would help anybody (because the flames are already rather advanced and it might fall together any moment now, and I'm not really strong enough to carry that somebody out. And I'd be anyway more likely to be yet another casualty.) And I state in the end, 'there was nothing I could do'. Would that be an insult to those who dared the impossible and succeeded or died in attempting it?

[cjmr's husband]

Anyone else ever post a snarky comment and then notice that you forgot the word "not"?

[hapax]

Lucia: "where does that leave those of us who aren't Christian at all?"

Well, IIRC, pagans, heathens, and Jews are in bad shape, but shouldn't expect much worse than the first couple of circles of Hell; if they're virtuous enough, and haven't "heard the Gospel" (or only heard it in distorted form), they might make right merry with Virgil and Plato and the rest.

Heretics, of course, are in a much worse position, but schismatics like me are in the worst of all, doomed to the lowest circles with Judas as Betrayers of Christ and Renders of His Body.

(I'll wave, if I can get my head out of the ice and flames)

[Jeff]

To refer to a previous thread, is Benedict using a "dog-whistle" here?

opopo: It's been a long time since I've been this proud not to be (and never to have been, w00t complex verb tenses!) catholic.

This is one time where your capitolization has gotten you into trouble. The word "Catholic" (upper-case) means a member/adherent/follower of the Catholic church, but "catholic" (lower-case) means having varied tastes.

You seem pretty catholic to me, albeit not at all Catholic.

VorJack: The proclamations may be intended to lure this group, and possibly other conservative groups who split after Vatican II, back to the fold.

Maybe, but at what cost? If it causes massive numbers of Catholics to rebel or to ignore the pope (as large numbers of American Catholics seem to be doing), how does having a small splinter group help?

[hapax]

LL: "the Southern Baptists don't need to keep reminding us that ... anybody who doesn't accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their savior is also going to hell. "

Well, that's the rub, innit? They're not reminding you and me, LL; they are constantly drumming this message into each other's ears. The message that "there are Big Scary Wolves outside the gate" is precisely designed to keep the sheep scared and huddled and terrified of looking through the fence, not to attract outside sheep to come into the fold.

(For the latter, steaming piles of produce might do the trick...)

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

straight, your question reminds me of something that my guitar teacher, of all people, said to me once. (I took lessons during high school. Haven't touched the poor instrument for years though.) I forget exactly what we were discussing, but he basically said, "You listen to what everyone has to say, and then..." [he pointed upwards] "...you ask Him."

Seems to me that you either trust "the small, still voice" inside, or you throw your own moral responsibility out the window and hitch your wagon to some earthly authority. That's the best answer *I* can come up with. I can see someone responding, "Oh yeah? Well, how do you know your 'voice' is right? Especially when it disagrees with your neighbor's 'voice'? What about the 'voice' heard by a psychopath? Who decides?" But I don't think anyone has an answer to that--and to the extent that they did, we could still ask "But how do you know he's right?"

(By which logic, I might end up asking, "Why are you asking Fred? Or any of us? How would you know any of us could be right?")

As regards the Bible specifically, there's at least some historical winnowing that can be done to identify who wrote which bits and what kinds of agendas they might have had. But in the end, I think, if you're a Christian, your best bet is to ask Him and listen for the answer.

(In my case, that method led me outside the church entirely. So mileage obviously varies.)

[nieciedo]

I left the RCC in 2003 deciding I had finally had enough when John Paul II urged Catholic legislators to vote against any legislation on gay rights. I had had my issues with Christianity ever since college, but Catholicism was an aspect of my inherited culture and I got to know many of the Jesuits at my college well enough that I considered it worth while to stick around. But finally, I decided enough was enough. I could no longer believe in it any more. I dallied with the Episcopal Church for a while, but really the issue lay deeper than mode of worship and governance. I just didn't believe in Christianity at all. My long standing fascination with Judaism then took prominence and so I converted.

But even though I am no longer Catholic, even though I'm a gay Jew, I don't understand why it is bad for the Roman Catholic Church to teach that homosexuality is "gravely disordered" and for Catholics -- for some Catholics, the teeny minority who like the Tridentine Mass and understand Latin and would go to a Tridentine service on Good Friday -- to pray for the conversion of the Jews?

None of this is new. Further, none of this is anything that is not completely in keeping with centuries of Christian and Catholic teaching. The Roman Catholic Church cannot just decide one day and say "It's OK to have gay sex and we think every religion is equally valid." It's not possible according to the internal rules by which is functions.

Every religion has the right to believe and teach what it wants. That's the only way that I can have the religious freedom that I cherish.

The Tridentine Mass was never nullified, even by Vatican II. It remained valid, just no longer licit without approval. All Benedict has done is lift that restriction. Nostra Aetate (full text HERE does not say that all religions including Judaism are equal. It recognizes that all religions contain some element of truth but the Catholic Church retains the fullness of truth. Catholicism is religion everyone should choose and the Church will never shy away from proclaiming that, but it will not condemn other religions. It will no longer teach that the Jews are guilty of Christ's death or worthy of scorn and punishment. To be fair, Benedict DID remove the line about the "perfidious Jews."

Also, Ratzinger was a good advocate on behalf of Jews and and he was principally responsible for the normalization of relations between Israel and the Holy See.

Bitching about what the Pope does or the Catholic Church teaches isn't going to solve anything. The Church has a right to teach whatever it wants to and it cannot in good conscience teach contrary to its beliefs. This is a problem only for Catholics who disagree with Rome.

For those of us who are not Catholic and not even Christian, what we need to focus on is strengthing the separation between church and state and guaranteeing religions freedom and other freedoms in the secular sphere. A Catholic can believe whatever he wants, but he shouldn't have the right to limit anyone else's rights and freedom. That's the real issue.

[Jeff]

nieciedo: Fortunately, he can't do that. All of the resolutions of Vatican II were proclaimed infallibly.

So? Other decisions were infallible and have been overturned (it does, indeed, move). How is Vatican II different?

Nicole: Seems to me that you either trust "the small, still voice" inside, or you throw your own moral responsibility out the window and hitch your wagon to some earthly authority.

I'm one of Those Darn Atheists, and I wouldn't say that I've done either of those. Probably closer to the former -- think about the ramifications of actions and decide which is the Right Thing To Do.

[nieciedo]

Lucia & Hapax:

where does that leave those of us who aren't Christian at all?

Fortunately, Dante's Inferno was not infallibly proclaimed. While the Church continues to teach -- and can't do otherwise -- that is it contains the fullness of truth and the Christ is path to salvation -- other religions are recognized as having some elements of truth and must be treated respectfully. As to the eternal fate of those outside the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, that is in the hands of God. While the Church officially can canonize who is in Heaven, the Church has no ability to say who is or will end up in Hell.

[nieciedo]

So? Other decisions were infallible and have been overturned (it does, indeed, move). How is Vatican II different?

Because Vatican II was proclaimed ex cathedra by the Bishop of Rome in communion with College of Bishops on topics of faith and morals.

What other infallible decisions are you referring to?

[the opoponax]

"Yes, he did not practice active resistance to a totalitarian regime as teenager, and he obeyed the social pressure to join an official youth group, so what. "

My point is not that the onus was on him to resist (though others certainly found the moral fortitude), but that the way he explained it away is indicative of his general mindset.

Also "Just Following Orders" was proven not to be an acceptable excuse back at Nuremburg, sorry.

"There are billions of people who live under totalitarian regimes that commit crimes and go along with things, because that seems to be the smart thing to do."

Yes, but if those people are good and moral, they will later realize that what they did was wrong, and they will at least cop to regretting their misguided actions and perhaps even make a point of disavowing the regime they served (As Gunter Grass and others of Ratzi's generation have done). People who don't do these things, who stand by their actions under a totalitarian regime, come off as still being supportive of said regimes. Or at the very least, of being reactionary status quo worshippers who believe that following orders is more important than doing what is morally right.

"if I see an house burning and don't rush in to save somebody inside, because I don't see how that would help anybody... And I state in the end, 'there was nothing I could do'. Would that be an insult to those who dared the impossible and succeeded or died in attempting it?"

I'm not saying "How dare Ratzi, at age 15, not organize a mission to liberate Auchwitz!" I'm saying that now that all is said and done and it's 50+ years later and he's the goddamn pope, the way he shrugged off his involvement is shameful.

Not to mention that your analogy would be more apt if the narrator were one of the gang of hoodlums who cut the water main so that the firefighters couldn't put it out. And within that narrative, if someone was a teenage hoodlum who used to conspire to burn down buildings (even if they didn't know that anyone would be hurt), and as an adult they don't come to regret participating in such an activity, yeah, that person is inhuman scum at the very least.

Also, not to mention that in the analogy you actually used, while many resistors died trying to fight Hitler, their actions were not futile -- to compare their work to people on a pointless suicide mission (rushing into a building already overcome with flames) is insulting. Which is another part of why Ratzi's handling of his past is so awful; he tries to insist that those who did act on their morals did so in vain. Which is not only a lie, but a very dangerous one.

[inge]

Evan, "Trying to appease fundies/dominionists/traditionalists..."

I do not think he's trying to appease. I follow the internal politics of the Catholic church in Germany only occasionally, i.e., when one of the bishops is making an ass (usually a fundamentalist one) of himself and it makes the headlines, and Ratzinger's name came up in this context often enough before he finally went to Rome and got out of the national and regional headlines for a while.

In other words, the way it looks to me, he's feeding the fundies not because he feels that food will keep them from biting him, but because he wants to.

[the opoponax]

also, @ treeandleafster:

as stated above, I am talking about the current approach to past events, and not said events as they unfolded (or anything else, like what Gunter Grass' reasons for withholding information for so long may have been -- I hardly said "Gunter Grass Is The Portrait Of Right Action In Every Regard", just that his current approach to his actions of the past is a bit better).

I think that an appeal to authority does, in fact, cast Ratzinger as someone who values obedience over morality. He didn't say "wow, in hindsight, i really regret having been put into the difficult moral position of choosing whether to work with the Nazis or risk my life to resist" or "I was just a kid, I didn't understand" or even "I apologize for anyone I may have hurt through these actions". Just "well, what can you do, eh?"

I also think that a failure to either apologize or express regret is telling -- Ratzi really feels no compunction about anything he might have done in the war? Really? He feels no responsibility, due to his current religious prominence, to even apologize or express regret just as a matter of course? Wow. I mean, wow.

Maybe I'm just an uncorrupted beam of pure goodness and light, but I sometimes have a hard time living with myself upon the realization that in the aftermath of Katrina, I pretty much just sat idly by, safe in my office, and did nothing besides donate some old clothes and write a very small check to the Red Cross. Other people who had no relation to any of it found it in their hearts to drop everything, get down to the Gulf Coast at all costs, and literally pull people from the wreckage and save their lives. I'm from the New Orleans area, have family down there, and I did basically nothing.

[Lucia]

Aw, gee, hapax, I was hoping we could get adjoining spits.

[J]

Thank you, Pope Benedict. Whenever I start to question my own atheism, say to myself, "Well Christians did give us Michelangelo and Dante and Gregor Mendel and JFK. Maybe there's something to them after all..." then YOU or someone like you (some permutation of fleshy male whiteness, but occaisionally Alan Keyes) comes forward to reassure me that Christianity IS dominationist tripe and that I am absolutely right to reject it whole-cloth.

[Julie]

Brian J. wrote:
Sorry, guys, but unless a Catholic leaves the Church for good, Adolf I... er, Benedict XVI IS the pope of you.

So I'm wondering, how do I leave the Catholic church for good? I gotta get excommunicated, right? Well the Catholic Encyclopedia says
"The excommunicant is still considered Christian and a Catholic as the character imparted by baptism is held to be indelible."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

Aaackkk!! Get it off! Get it off!

[nieciedo]

So I'm wondering, how do I leave the Catholic church for good?

Convert to another religion?