I know a week ago I posted a quotation from Tom DeLay about a vast left-wing conspiracy and officially named it "Best Paragraph Ever." But that was before I saw this beauty:
"He [new pope Benedict XVI] believes in strict obedience to church authority and has been distrustful of the Enlightenment period," said Langan.
AWESOME. I mean, totally. Once that motherfucker Machiavelli showed up - everything went down hill. That just cracked me up. Damn rights, damn Hegel, damn Kant....
But what is perhaps even BETTER is all these people who are pissed off because the Pope is - *gasp!* - *conservative*.
Of course, it's annoying that he is conservative. I would prerfer a Pope that was in favor of birth control, publicly addressed sexual abuse in the clergy, welcomed lesbians, gays & transgendered folks, and started talking about an expanded role for women in the church. All of those would be awesome. [Just to note: Benedict XVI also hates consumerism and capitalism. So he's not all bad.]
But I have a really hard time getting upset that the Pope is not these things.... and it's fascinating that people - notably American Catholics - are that angry.
First, from a purely legal/philosophical point of view, the church is a private institution. It has the right to pick leaders however it wants. It can have whatever doctrine that it wants. The Catholic church isn't advocating violence against anyone and they are in no way required to like everyone (no more than any of us). So what the hell is the problem? Sure, the church is very public and has immense *moral* sway. But no one is telling The 700 Club to replace Pat Robertson or arguing that Rupert Murdoch shouldn't be allowed to be conservative b/c he also has a public persona. I'm just not clear why the Papacy should be any different...
Especially in light of the fact that the Pope has no political power - in this country of anywhere - of any demonstrable value. It's not like the Pope is out there oppressing people with his own grimy hands. At the end of the day, being Catholic is a choice - and even if you choose to belong, it's not like the Pope or official doctrine actually makes you DO anything. John Paul II didn't like birth control - but I suppose that Catholics were still on the pill. This notion that things are stunningly different is sort of silly. Did the church miss an opportunity to appoint a younger, non-European, more progressive leader? Yes. Is the current choice a surprise? No. Is this a big "shake up?" Definitely not.
One caveat: It probably is true that the Pope's influence might matter more in the developing world. Thus, in places where the Church is providing a lot of aid, and all of that revolves around abstinence education ... yes, that is a problem. Those people definitely have a legitimate gripe with Church policy. And people around the world should *advocate* for those people - but I don't know for certain, one way or the other, if this is what is motivating protests.
But, mostly, it's the Americans that crack me up. We rock. Period. There is this big concern that Americans might "leave the flock" b/c they don't have a Pope that fits their moderate stance. I mean, why? By choice, Americans belong to a bizarre, medieval institution that signals outcomes of votes via a *smokestack.* Everyone knows it's not Protestantism - lay Catholics have no real voice in church policy. What I don't fully understand is why Catholics who don't like the conservative bent of the church .. don't leave. They could form their own church (The American Catholic Church of Boston or something), or just join one of the many, more moderate Protestant strains.
There's a great democratic/American moment here. Americans are protesting a body that - as it is designed and intended - is autocratic and non-responsive. There's something admirable in that desire to change and that commitment to modernity. But is also seems silly: the battle of modernity has been won already (for the most part), at least in the West. You have rights - go, form a new association (also a very American thing to do).
Just as much as evangelical fundamentalists, American Catholics seem caught between existential "cross pressures." On the one hand, they are good liberal democrats who want their say in the world, and on the other, they are good Catholics who believe in tradition and that they'll go to Hell (or whatever) if they change churches. Their identities are not clearly parsed. They've attained MOST of a modern consciousness ... but they still cling to these primordial ties that give them foundation. It recalls almost perfectly The Lexus and the Olive Tree by Thomas Friedman: people want everything modern life promises, but are trying to figure out how to balance that with the past they hold so dear.
What matters in the end is intentions .... are American Catholics pissed off b/c they want a Pope to tell them that all their choices are OK? Or, are the concerned about the influence of baroque Papal teachings on people around the world, who lack resources? I'm not really sure which. I sypmathize with their critiques of the Pope. But it seems like the answer is not changing the Church (at one time, it would have been - pre-Martin Luther when religion and the church specifically dominated social and political life). Rather, it seems like the problem is now the church. Maybe it's a good place to go on Sunday to meet folks and here a nice story with an important moral. But it is clearly insufficient to meet modern needs. It may never BE sufficient to meet those needs - it's a synoptic organizations whose leader can serve for a very long time (like say 26 years). It's a body steeped in tradition and conservativism. Inertia alone is going to maintain that for a while.
Given the freedom of moderntiy and the resources available to those of us in the Western world, it seems like people are better off considering other options (of which there are many) for directing their spiritual and charitable energies into. Ultimately, the Church is what it is - and it doesn't *have* to change (or so I feel, as a good classical liberal). I wish it would; it could heal wounds and do a lot of good. And it certainly shouldn't be telling anyone what to do (it lacks democratic legitimacy and trappings of modern rights that are inhernet to our existence). But people are free to join groups and believe as they will, assuming they don't harm others. Which the Church really doesn't. Given that, peole who think of religion in a different way and have the opportunity - should do something more pro-active than moan about how their autocratic association ignores them. To reiterate: form a new damn church, and made it the active, moderate body you want.
[There is a certain rationality in trying to change the church - b/c if you capture it, you capture its resources and influence. This is why winning an election is easier than a rebellion. But, at some point, spinning your wheels to gain influence is just a waste of resources too. Maybe it's time to cut losses, and just start fresh?]
It's rough stuff. I feel for these folks who want a modern, relevant church. But it seems they should MAKE it rather than WAIT for it, by exhorting a body that is designed to not listen.
Thoughts? I feel like this rant is a bit hard on activists and lets the Pope slide (not my intention! - I understand them and he annoys me!) .... But I also feel like these good intended peoplpe maybe haven't thought it all through .... but I could be WAY off.....
"He [new pope Benedict XVI] believes in strict obedience to church authority and has been distrustful of the Enlightenment period," said Langan.
AWESOME. I mean, totally. Once that motherfucker Machiavelli showed up - everything went down hill. That just cracked me up. Damn rights, damn Hegel, damn Kant....
But what is perhaps even BETTER is all these people who are pissed off because the Pope is - *gasp!* - *conservative*.
Of course, it's annoying that he is conservative. I would prerfer a Pope that was in favor of birth control, publicly addressed sexual abuse in the clergy, welcomed lesbians, gays & transgendered folks, and started talking about an expanded role for women in the church. All of those would be awesome. [Just to note: Benedict XVI also hates consumerism and capitalism. So he's not all bad.]
But I have a really hard time getting upset that the Pope is not these things.... and it's fascinating that people - notably American Catholics - are that angry.
First, from a purely legal/philosophical point of view, the church is a private institution. It has the right to pick leaders however it wants. It can have whatever doctrine that it wants. The Catholic church isn't advocating violence against anyone and they are in no way required to like everyone (no more than any of us). So what the hell is the problem? Sure, the church is very public and has immense *moral* sway. But no one is telling The 700 Club to replace Pat Robertson or arguing that Rupert Murdoch shouldn't be allowed to be conservative b/c he also has a public persona. I'm just not clear why the Papacy should be any different...
Especially in light of the fact that the Pope has no political power - in this country of anywhere - of any demonstrable value. It's not like the Pope is out there oppressing people with his own grimy hands. At the end of the day, being Catholic is a choice - and even if you choose to belong, it's not like the Pope or official doctrine actually makes you DO anything. John Paul II didn't like birth control - but I suppose that Catholics were still on the pill. This notion that things are stunningly different is sort of silly. Did the church miss an opportunity to appoint a younger, non-European, more progressive leader? Yes. Is the current choice a surprise? No. Is this a big "shake up?" Definitely not.
One caveat: It probably is true that the Pope's influence might matter more in the developing world. Thus, in places where the Church is providing a lot of aid, and all of that revolves around abstinence education ... yes, that is a problem. Those people definitely have a legitimate gripe with Church policy. And people around the world should *advocate* for those people - but I don't know for certain, one way or the other, if this is what is motivating protests.
But, mostly, it's the Americans that crack me up. We rock. Period. There is this big concern that Americans might "leave the flock" b/c they don't have a Pope that fits their moderate stance. I mean, why? By choice, Americans belong to a bizarre, medieval institution that signals outcomes of votes via a *smokestack.* Everyone knows it's not Protestantism - lay Catholics have no real voice in church policy. What I don't fully understand is why Catholics who don't like the conservative bent of the church .. don't leave. They could form their own church (The American Catholic Church of Boston or something), or just join one of the many, more moderate Protestant strains.
There's a great democratic/American moment here. Americans are protesting a body that - as it is designed and intended - is autocratic and non-responsive. There's something admirable in that desire to change and that commitment to modernity. But is also seems silly: the battle of modernity has been won already (for the most part), at least in the West. You have rights - go, form a new association (also a very American thing to do).
Just as much as evangelical fundamentalists, American Catholics seem caught between existential "cross pressures." On the one hand, they are good liberal democrats who want their say in the world, and on the other, they are good Catholics who believe in tradition and that they'll go to Hell (or whatever) if they change churches. Their identities are not clearly parsed. They've attained MOST of a modern consciousness ... but they still cling to these primordial ties that give them foundation. It recalls almost perfectly The Lexus and the Olive Tree by Thomas Friedman: people want everything modern life promises, but are trying to figure out how to balance that with the past they hold so dear.
What matters in the end is intentions .... are American Catholics pissed off b/c they want a Pope to tell them that all their choices are OK? Or, are the concerned about the influence of baroque Papal teachings on people around the world, who lack resources? I'm not really sure which. I sypmathize with their critiques of the Pope. But it seems like the answer is not changing the Church (at one time, it would have been - pre-Martin Luther when religion and the church specifically dominated social and political life). Rather, it seems like the problem is now the church. Maybe it's a good place to go on Sunday to meet folks and here a nice story with an important moral. But it is clearly insufficient to meet modern needs. It may never BE sufficient to meet those needs - it's a synoptic organizations whose leader can serve for a very long time (like say 26 years). It's a body steeped in tradition and conservativism. Inertia alone is going to maintain that for a while.
Given the freedom of moderntiy and the resources available to those of us in the Western world, it seems like people are better off considering other options (of which there are many) for directing their spiritual and charitable energies into. Ultimately, the Church is what it is - and it doesn't *have* to change (or so I feel, as a good classical liberal). I wish it would; it could heal wounds and do a lot of good. And it certainly shouldn't be telling anyone what to do (it lacks democratic legitimacy and trappings of modern rights that are inhernet to our existence). But people are free to join groups and believe as they will, assuming they don't harm others. Which the Church really doesn't. Given that, peole who think of religion in a different way and have the opportunity - should do something more pro-active than moan about how their autocratic association ignores them. To reiterate: form a new damn church, and made it the active, moderate body you want.
[There is a certain rationality in trying to change the church - b/c if you capture it, you capture its resources and influence. This is why winning an election is easier than a rebellion. But, at some point, spinning your wheels to gain influence is just a waste of resources too. Maybe it's time to cut losses, and just start fresh?]
It's rough stuff. I feel for these folks who want a modern, relevant church. But it seems they should MAKE it rather than WAIT for it, by exhorting a body that is designed to not listen.
Thoughts? I feel like this rant is a bit hard on activists and lets the Pope slide (not my intention! - I understand them and he annoys me!) .... But I also feel like these good intended peoplpe maybe haven't thought it all through .... but I could be WAY off.....
VIEW 11 of 11 COMMENTS
And yes, the contraception position is myopic beyond belief. I'm assuming that the argument is something about wasting seed! Unbelievable. What an antiquated notion. People are fucking dying.
Let me play on some of your final words: you said that the Church as it exists "is better than nothing." Nothing, indeed. I offer the final sentence from The Genealogy of Morals: "Let me repeat, now that I have reached the end, what I said at the beginning: man would sooner have the void for his purpose than be void of purpose..."
1. He opposes Turkey's admission to the EU. What a mistake! It's a golden opportunity to build a strong bridge between the West and Islam. And it would be a slap in the face to those reactionary forces whom believe the two cannot speak to one another.
2. He has an email address. That's just hilarious.