Lileks on Pope Benedict

[theim]

had me laughing..

I have no stake in the matter of who’s the Pope – or do I? Choose a cardinal who issues a homily titled “On the Need to Gas Grandpa When He Starts Crapping Himself” – I’m sure it would sound better in Latin – and this might have an impact on the society where I hope to find myself in 30 years. The selection of Ratzinger was initially heartening, simply because he made the right people apoplectic. I’m still astonished that some can see a conservative elevated to the papacy and think: a man of tradition? As Pope? How could this be? As if there this was some golden moment that would usher in the age of married priests who shuttle between blessing third-trimester abortions and giving last rites to someone who’s about to have the chemical pillow put over his face. At the risk of sounding sacreligious: it’s the Catholic Church, for Christ’s sake! You’re not going to get someone who wants to strip off all the Baroque ornamentation of St. Peter’s and replace them with IKEA wine racks, okay?

I have my doctrinal differences with the Catholic church as well; I understand the reasons for requiring priestly celibacy, but I don’t agree with them. I don’t agree with many Catholic positions on issues regarding sexuality. Growing up Lutheran, I was gently guided away from the clanging errancy of Maryolatry. Because I disagree with the Catholic Church on these and a few other matters, I am– how do I put this? – NOT CATHOLIC. Hence I am always amazed by people who want the church to accommodate their thoughts, their new beliefs, their precarious and ingenious rationales, instead of ripping themselves from the bosom and seeking a congregation that doesn't make them feel like a heretic banging thier head on Filarete's doors. To those who want profound change, consider an outsider’s perspective: the Catholic Church is the National Review of religion. You may live long enough to see it become the Weekly Standard. In your dreams it might become the New Republic. But it’s never going to be the Nation. And if ever it does, it will have roughly the same subscriber base.

Yes, yes, easy for me to say, it’s not my church. New age of oppression and intolerance, and all that. Write me when hot-eyed Jesuits walk into a mosque in Qom with ten pounds of Cemtex strapped to their chest.

One story, linked by Blair, had this remark:

The election of Ratzinger to the papacy has disappointed the Ordination of Catholic Women who were hoping to begin a modern era with a new pope.

Habeum pap. Note: every era is the modern era to the people who inhabit it; a “modern” pope in 1937 would have announced that godless collectivism was the wave of the future, and ridden the trains to Auschwitz standing on top, holding gilded reins, whooping like Slim Pickens. The defining quality of 20th century modernity is impatience, I think – the nervous, irritated, aggravated impulse to get on with the new now, and be done with those old tiresome constraints. We’re still in that 20th century dynamic, I think, and we will be held to it until something shocks us to our core. Say what you will about Benedict v.16, but he wants there to be a core to which we can be shocked. And I prefer that to a tepid slurry of happy-clappy relativism that leads to animists consecrating geodes beneath the dome of St. Peter's. That will probably happen eventually, but if we can push it off for a century or two, good.

The name was bracing, too – all my life the Pope has been a John or a Paul or both. (I saw Paul at the Vatican in ’76, with a few thousand others, in a vast room where he met the supplicants. We were announced as a group from North Dakota, America. Following the lead of the other groups, who’d shouted a slogan upon being introduced, I shouted our school slogan. Which, unfortunately, was “GO SPARTANS.”) Benedict is an old name but it sounds new. At least my greatest fear didn’t happen: they’d choose a Pope from Africa, and, unaware with the nomenclature of American marketing, he would call himself “Urban.”

 

[Annie]

Thanks for the opening. At school today thanks to whoever posted the 'white smoke,' I turned on the tv with the students. Acting as vice-principal today, I let all the teachers know that it was on and a pope was selected.

The older kids chose to eat lunch in their rooms, so they could keep watching until the Pope made his appearance. Lucky me, I too got to eat with the kids and watch. The other teachers were in the lounge, with a television on. The Pastor chose to watch with them.

Second hand info but I'm sure pretty close, the pastor was opining that whomever was chosen, had to be better than JPII. He brought up Ratzinger, but was sure that could NEVER happen. Many of you might love this pastor, until a year ago, there was no crucifix in this church, (in order for him to get a $100k donation the parishioner insisted on a crucifix. It's of the 'Risen Christ' suspended in front of a cross.) There are no statues and the communion is kept outside of the church sanctuary. Stations are hung only during lent. I'd say that it's a Catholic version of Protestant, but that would be an insult to the Protestants.

Needless to say, he was furious at the selection. He was joined by the 2nd grade teacher, an ex-nun and the 4th grade teacher who is not Catholic.

I must admit to being confused by those that want to be 'Catholic' but don't want to follow the doctrine-rather would prefer to choose their own. I might be wrong here, but isn't what the Reformation and the following schisms within the Protestant umbrella all about? In the US, no one is forced to belong to a particular religion or any at all.

 

[freeandfun1]

In the US, no one is forced to belong to a particular religion or any at all.

I've been reading a lot about catholocism lately and from what I gather kat, there are a lot of people (catholics) that have broken away from the church. But all of them (from what I read) want to take the church back. Even a lot of protestants believe the catholic church is the first and rightful church, but that it has been taken over by those that have lost the meaning of the church. those that would rather participate in ceremonies instead of spreading the word as was the original mission of the apostles that started the church. so although they don't have to belong, maybe they feel that they would like to see the church restored to its original glory as the keeper of the word.

Just a thought from a non-catholic that also believes the founding fathers of the catholic church would not be pleased with the catholic church today.

(for the record, even I believe that the catholic church - in its original format, was/is the keeper of God's word and his direct agent on earth).

 

[Bonnie]

Free..Just a thought from a non-catholic that also believes the founding fathers of the catholic church would not be pleased with the catholic church today.

Well those same reformers would also like Gay marriage, women priests, abortion to be okayed by the church, and so on. In order to do that we need to change Christs words and the Gospels. The Founding Fathers were democratic as they should be, the church is not a democracy it is supposed to be a rock in a changing world, It's not supposed change it's principals to suit decling morality, and pride. Pope John Paul and this new Pope Benedict would have made the St Peter the founder of the Catholic church very proud as they were the ones who actually brought the church back to it's original teachings and tennants.

 

[freeandfun1]

Well those same reformers would also like Gay marriage, women priests, abortion to be okayed by the church, and so on. In order to do that we need to change Christs words and the Gospels. The Founding Fathers were democratic as they should be, the church is not a democracy it is supposed to be a rock in a changing world, It's not supposed change it's principals to suit decling morality, and pride. Pope John Paul and this new Pope Benedict would have made the St Peter the founder of the Catholic church very proud as they were the ones who actually brought the church back to it's original teachings and tennants.

I think you misunderstood. I meant the founding fathers of the Catholic Church. Not of America. The founding fathers of the Catholic Church were not democratic. And yes, Peter was the ROCK on which the church was built.

I know that all protestant religions have their roots in the catholic church. I also believe that one day, all the protestant faiths will once again turn to their roots, but under a reformed church. I believe from the scriptures, that there will once again be 7 churches that spread the word of God. I believe at some point that all the different Christian (not Islamic, Buddhist, etc.) faiths will again come together and return to the roots established by the early apostles.

I don't want my point to be misunderstood. I am NOT blasting the catholic church. But I do believe there are many catholics that are asking themselves, "have I left the Catholic Church, or has the Catholic Church left me?" Their points being that so many (maybe not the Pope) want to loosen the rules and have gotten away from the original teachings and intentions of the church.

The Church was NEVER meant to become royalty. It was never meant to become a symbolic institution. It was meant to be a teacher. A sower of the seeds of Christianity.

And I did not say that the founding fathers of the Church would not be proud of JPII, etc. I said they would not be proud of the Church as a whole. But that is just my humble opinion.

 

[Bonnie]

Free..I don't want my point to be misunderstood. I am NOT blasting the catholic church. But I do believe there are many catholics that are asking themselves, "have I left the Catholic Church, or has the Catholic Church left me?" Their points being that so many (maybe not the Pope) want to loosen the rules and have gotten away from the original teachings and intentions of the church.

Okay if that's true, than the translation to that is the church won't bend to my liking and allow me to do what I want so Ill leave it and find one that says I can do what I want. Loosen the rules?? Meaning change Christs teachings to suit the new morality? Well then maybe they should move on?

The church is not royalty but it's not a democracy either. The gospels are the gospels they don't change. If you want to disagree that the church is misinterpretating the gospels then you are certainly entitled to do that, and I respect that, however when people proclaim to be Catholic they accept the churches doctrine for what it is, not change it to suit their liking. The whole purpose of the church like you said is to teach Christs words, what good does it do to teach the wrong tennents just to make people feel better, or tell them what they want to thear?? Makes no sense?

We expect our leaders to stick to their words and their principals right? It's even more important for religious leaders who are responsible for representing Christ on earth to do the same even in the face of criticism.

 

[Avatar4321]

I've been reading a lot about catholocism lately and from what I gather kat, there are a lot of people (catholics) that have broken away from the church. But all of them (from what I read) want to take the church back. Even a lot of protestants believe the catholic church is the first and rightful church, but that it has been taken over by those that have lost the meaning of the church. those that would rather participate in ceremonies instead of spreading the word as was the original mission of the apostles that started the church. so although they don't have to belong, maybe they feel that they would like to see the church restored to its original glory as the keeper of the word.

21 No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse.

22 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles. (Mark 2:21-22)

I think that is what Christ says about the matter. I'm not sure people think about it that much.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I've been reading a lot about catholocism lately and from what I gather kat, there are a lot of people (catholics) that have broken away from the church. But all of them (from what I read) want to take the church back. Even a lot of protestants believe the catholic church is the first and rightful church, but that it has been taken over by those that have lost the meaning of the church. those that would rather participate in ceremonies instead of spreading the word as was the original mission of the apostles that started the church. so although they don't have to belong, maybe they feel that they would like to see the church restored to its original glory as the keeper of the word.

Just a thought from a non-catholic that also believes the founding fathers of the catholic church would not be pleased with the catholic church today.

(for the record, even I believe that the catholic church - in its original format, was/is the keeper of God's word and his direct agent on earth).

There are quite a few Catholics (especially in Europe and America) who want to "reform" the Catholic Church to accomodate their progressive beliefs. One of the loudest is Andrew Sullivan, a gay man who thinks the Catholic Church needs to change to accomodate him and his personal view on such matters as gay marriage. How arrogant is that?

Sullivan, like many other reformers, is terribly upset that a conservative Pope was elected as there obviously will be very little room for progressive dissent. This radical is attacking the traditional values of the Church simply because he does not agree with them. IMO if he doesn't like it, he needs to simply find another church. Here's some of his screeching:

And what is the creed of the Church? That is for the Grand Inquisitor to decide. Everything else - especially faithful attempts to question and understand the faith itself - is "human trickery." It would be hard to over-state the radicalism of this decision. It's not simply a continuation of John Paul II. It's a full-scale attack on the reformist wing of the church. The swiftness of the decision and the polarizing nature of this selection foretell a coming civil war within Catholicism.

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=1625

 

[Bonnie]

There are quite a few Catholics (especially in Europe and America) who want to "reform" the Catholic Church to accomodate their progressive beliefs. One of the loudest is Andrew Sullivan, a gay man who thinks the Catholic Church needs to change to accomodate him and his personal view on such matters as gay marriage. How arrogant is that?

Sullivan, like many other reformers, is terribly upset that a conservative Pope was elected as there obviously will be very little room for progressive dissent. This radical is attacking the traditional values of the Church simply because he does not agree with them. IMO if he doesn't like it, he needs to simply find another church. Here's some of his screeching:



http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=1625

What a sad and arrogant person!

 

[freeandfun1]

Bonnie,

by your reply, I still think you are missing my points.

Christ told the Apostles when they went to preach, don't take anything with you (food, blankets, money, etc.) as everything would be provided by the Holy Spirit (paraphrasing). The Catholic Church has become one of the wealthiest (assets not cash) entities on earth. I don't think Christ would be too happy with that. The people I am talking about that are asking if the church has left them, are those that think the church is becoming too liberal. Not the ones that don't think it is liberal enough. The ones that think the church has become a corporate entity, not an entity teaching the message of Christ.

I am NOT AT ALL suggesting the catholic church should bend to those that want it to become more liberal. But I am suggesting there are many that see the catholic church (at least large parts of it) as being corrupt and not what it was intended to be. That it (the church) as a whole, is not keeping/following the tenants of which it was founded upon by the Peter and the apostles.

Perhaps I am not articulating myself well enough. If not, sorry.

 

[freeandfun1]

I think that is what Christ says about the matter. I'm not sure people think about it that much.

So are you saying (or are you stating that you believe Christ was saying) that once a church become old/corrupted, that it is better to form a new church than to try and "repair" the old one?

Not trying to start anything, just trying to assertain the meaning you are trying to express.

 

[Bonnie]

Bonnie,

by your reply, I still think you are missing my points.

Christ told the Apostles when they went to preach, don't take anything with you (food, blankets, money, etc.) as everything would be provided by the Holy Spirit (paraphrasing). The Catholic Church has become one of the wealthiest (assets not cash) entities on earth. I don't think Christ would be too happy with that. The people I am talking about that are asking if the church has left them, are those that think the church is becoming too liberal. Not the ones that don't think it is liberal enough. The ones that think the church has become a corporate entity, not an entity teaching the message of Christ.

I am NOT AT ALL suggesting the catholic church should bend to those that want it to become more liberal. But I am suggesting there are many that see the catholic church (at least large parts of it) as being corrupt and not what it was intended to be. That it (the church) as a whole, is not keeping/following the tenants of which it was founded upon by the Peter and the apostles.

Perhaps I am not articulating myself well enough. If not, sorry.

I have heard that opinion before that the church is too grandios. The Vatican supports itself through donations and sales of religous items, as for all other churches they vary in size and assets, however they all do two things with the money they collect, they help the needy, and they help pay their bills. As far as the royalty or pomp and circumstance that goes along with the Vatican and it's hierarchy, you need to remember that it is done as a symbol to garner and maintain respect and dignity fitting very holy/scholarly men who essentially spend their entire lives lving there interpreting and studying scripture. For Catholics anyway that is the center of the religious universe. Do we need really nice churches? Can't answer that, but I will say that each parrish makes a choice as to how nice their churches are and how much they are willing to donate to keep it running. I do understand that you think such formality can be corrupting or liberal, to Catholics it is tradition. And very true that the sex abuse scandal is a dark blemish to the church, you should know that this new Pope was staunchly outspoken against what he called filth within the church, and hopefully he will make sure this problem is firmly and clearly addressed from now on.

When you refer to the apostles and Jesus wanting them to live a simple life that is true, and priests today also live a very modest life, recieving modest pay for running their churches. They don't live the life of luxury, at least not the churches I have gone to or the priests I have known. I think it's unrealistic to expect priests to live soley on bread and water as the apostles did though, after all priests are also just men and human.

But I really do get your what you are saying, and I hope I have explained my position well.

 

[theim]

I don't really see rampant corruption in the Church as a whole at all. Some are making it seem as if we are in the days of the Pope turning the Vatican into a whorehouse and selling indulgences for personal enrichment. This has not been the case for hundreds of years.

But if someone still thinks the Church is incorrect and corrupt, fine, then don't be a Catholic, its as simple as that.

 

[Avatar4321]

So are you saying (or are you stating that you believe Christ was saying) that once a church become old/corrupted, that it is better to form a new church than to try and "repair" the old one?

Not trying to start anything, just trying to assertain the meaning you are trying to express.

Im saying is that those who are attempting to fix the Church by patching what they don't like are just going to make things worse.