The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Benedict's headache with populist Catholicism
by John L Allen Jr on Dec. 04, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionLike everybody else in this hyper-political age, Catholics are conventionally divided into "liberals" and "conservatives." (Whenever that taxonomy is rolled out, I'm reminded of a line from G.K. Chesterton: A progressive is someone who keeps making the same mistake, while a conservative is someone who prevents a mistake from ever being corrected. Chesterton is a patron saint for those of us who don't recognize ourselves in either camp.)
However useful that distinction can sometimes be, it's hardly the only way to slice the pie. Another is what we might call the difference between "institutional" and "populist" Catholicism. In a nutshell, institutional types (however grudgingly) like to be on the same page with the pope and the bishops, while populists (however respectfully) think the powers that be are occasionally full of it, so other Catholics have to say and do the things that bishops, for political or bureaucratic reasons, can't or won't.
Americans are certainly familiar with populist Catholicism, both on the right (including pro-life groups that sometimes seem as mad at the bishops for their timidity as at Planned Parenthood for its ideology) and on the left (think Patrick Kennedy's insistence that disagreeing with the hierarchy doesn't make him any less Catholic). Among other things, this proves the point that populists of all stripes often have more in common with one another than with the institutional psychology against which they're reacting.
Recent events in Europe, however, illustrate the growing political punch of populist Catholicism on the global stage.
Last Sunday in Switzerland, voters approved a constitutional ban on the construction of minarets, the spires atop Islamic mosques where the call to prayer is issued five times a day. The result came over the explicit opposition of the country's Christian leaders, including the Swiss Catholic bishops, who issued a statement before the vote warning that "fear is a poor counselor." Afterwards, an official from the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Migrants as well as L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, called the outcome a blow to religious freedom.
Despite that, 56 percent of Swiss voters favored the minaret ban. I haven't seen any exit polls, but one has to imagine that a decisive bloc was formed by those Swiss most concerned with their country's Christian identity, which would include a cross-section of Catholics. Switzerland is 46 percent Catholic, so the measure could not have passed without substantial Catholic support.
Officials of the Council of Europe said this week that the Swiss measure may be reviewed by European courts as a potential violation of freedom of conscience and human rights protections.
In Italy, meanwhile, a recent proposal from the far-right Northern League to add a cross to the national flag is producing a similar split between institutional and populist Catholic sentiment.
The Northern League, which routinely draws between five and fifteen percent of the national vote, is part of Italy's ruling center-right coalition. Historically the party has been fairly anti-clerical, seeing the Vatican as an expression of Roman centralization against the interests of its base of support in the north. Recently, however, the party has repositioned itself as the voice of populist Catholic anxieties, directed against both the European Union and Islamic immigration.
Roberto Maroni of the Northern League, currently Italy's interior minister, says his party is committed to the defense of grassroots Catholic values, "not what the elites want" – a catchy way of saying that while the Northern League may be taking up the Catholic banner, it's not taking cues from the Italian bishops or the Vatican.
From a populist calculus, the proposal to put a cross on the flag is a potent political double play. It comes in the wake of a controversial decision from a European court which held that displaying crucifixes in Italian public school classrooms violates church/state separation, and it also makes a statement about the Christian identity of Italy in the teeth of the country's rising Muslim population.
How serious the idea may be in a country where the tricolore, the three-colored flag, is something of a national fetish remains to be seen. What it illustrates, however, is a growing political sophistication among populists about the manipulation of symbolism.
This arousal of populist Catholicism poses a real headache for Pope Benedict XVI.
In recent decades, the Vatican's highest priority for Europe has been recovery of the continent's Christian identity, and Benedict in particular has argued that Europe would be culturally incoherent if cut off from its Christian roots. Yet at the same time, Benedict also has no higher inter-faith priority than outreach to Islam, the defining expression of his transition from "inter-religious" to "inter-cultural" dialogue. In essence, Benedict sees Christians and Muslims as natural allies in the struggle against secularism.
Benedict also has to worry about the fate of Christianity not just in Europe, but also in the Middle East, Africa, and India – places where the intersection of nationalism and religious identity makes life difficult for Christian minorities. Many church leaders fear that provocative acts such as the Swiss vote could trigger anti-Christian backlash in other parts of the world. Italian essayist Massimo Franco recently described this as the Vatican's "geo-religious" perspective.
Looking down the line at the rest of the 21st century, declining fertility rates in the Middle East and North Africa suggest that the current high levels of Islamic immigration into Europe won't be sustained. Long term, therefore, the Vatican may be able to hope for a "demographic fix" to its headache, since immigration might no longer be such a volatile force in European politics.
In the meantime, however, Benedict XVI has to walk a tightrope. He doesn't want to discourage those forces in Europe most passionately committed to a defense of Christian identity, but somehow he also needs to prevent them from upsetting his geo-religious applecart.
So far, there's been no comment from the pope himself about either the Swiss vote or the proposal to put a cross on the Italian flag. The first test of Benedict's balancing act may come when, and if, this consummate European chooses to wade into these burning European debates.
[John Allen is NCR's senior correspondent. His e-mail is jallen@ncronline.org.]
It's very interesting how
It's very interesting how focused Benedict and many Catholics are on "Christian Identity." As a sociologist, I must agree that any identifiable group, society, culture, etc. must have clarity about "who they are." Those of us raised in the Catholic ghettos of urban America know both the advantages and serious disadvantages of that way. Boundaries? Yes. "boundaries" like the Berlin Wall? No way.
Much of the Vatican and U.S Hierarchy are increasingly strong supporters of, what John calls "Evangelical Catholicism;" it's emphasis on apologetics, defensive tactics, exercise of evermore authoritarian power, and seeking certainty rather than truth, can only lead to a siege mentality.
Let's hope that the new concern for "Christian Identity" does not turn out to be like the extremest Christian Identity Church that provides a foundation and support for the KKK, Neo-Nazi Skinheads, revitalized "Militias" and other Hate Groups.
Cogent observations, thank
Cogent observations, thank you!
Someone called your comments
Someone called your comments "cogent"??? Wow. This website is far off the deep end if such barking mad opinions can be considered cogent.
John, you don't really define
John, you don't really define "populist Catholicism," and you don't tell us why it (whatever "it" is) is giving the pope a headache. As the Romans might say, "parlando molto, dicendo pocco." In other words, this column makes no sense.
Kaiser
Excellent comment, Robert.
Excellent comment, Robert. Applies to most of what John Allen is doing: keeping his job and keeping his informants happy. Of course, he is also keeping his notes for the day he falls out of grace - and those memories will be pretty grim.
Jan Jans
Maybe the populist
Maybe the populist Catholicism that causes His Holiness headaches is being fed by Benedict's Cardinals whose pictures in cappa magnas are being sent around the internet. I say if it's symbols that give you headaches then get rid of the symbols..asprin won't help
I kind of agree with the
I kind of agree with the famous Robert Blair Kaiser about this Allen column. It doesn't make much sense. The column seems a little forced to find something sympathetic to say about Pope Benedict XVI: that he has a lot of headaches.
Well, let us agree that he is a good man who has given the rest of humanity a lot of headaches, too.
John Allen starts with a GK
John Allen starts with a GK Chesterton dichotomy & rightfully points out its failings. Then he resorts to creating an updated dichotomy without stressing that any either-or posture no longer holds water in the 21st century. To be forced on one or the other "side" is to denigrate what each side has in common even among glaring differences. For this reason I agree with Mr. Kaiser and with someone else who commented that Mr. Allen's column appears to be a professional journalist's piece with an attempt to be objective, whatever that means (I assume it means straddling both sides of the fence).
Just for the fun of it please consider the following taken from the book WHOLE EARTH DISCIPLINE: AN ECOPRAGMATIST MANIFESTO by Stuart Brand (pg 227. Here he quotes a political scientist: "How you think matters more than what you think." He further declared that "this important distinction in quality of judgment was first expressed by the ancient Greek poet Archilochus: "The fox knows many things: the hedgehog knows one great thing." The political scientist goes on to ruminate that hedgehogs are "happy to extend their grand theory into many domains ... expressing their views with great confidence. Foxes, on the other hand, are skeptical about grand theories, diffident in their forecasts, & are ready to adjust their ideas based on actual events. Hedgehogs don't notice or don't care when they're wrong. Foxes learn. Hedgehogs are great proponents, but foxes are invariably better forecasters and policy makers.... an example of single-minded hedgehogs is Plato... open minded foxes, Aristotle." Another dichotomy, yes, but it doesn't force one into one side or the other. It allows for cross-over growth and commonality; after all Aristotle learned from Plato (and yes, Thomas learned from Aristotle) but learning doesn't end there. We have so much to learn from each other. To bring this comment full circle, "How you think matters more than what you think." That's why I detest being forced into an either/or situation, either ecclesiastically or politically and that's where I think this John-Allen-article fails us, his readers.
I really am not as radical
I really am not as radical either side. though I never used pills for birth control nor aborted my babies(even when they born 11 months apart)and it was very fashionable in the 70s to rebuke the Pope and do birth control. While Planned Parenthood was the temple of liberalism.
I love everything about my faith, but get tired of people being rude to the Holy Father and the hierarchy, those who can't roll with the changes that inevitably happen because the church is not ingrained in everything, just in matters of faith and morals.
The liturgy can be revised without outcry,as long as its respectful, the Mass isn't the same as the Apostles and early Church Fathers had nor what GKChesterton attended. Yet its still Mass, the bread and wine are changed into our Blessed Lord's Body and Blood that was given up for us for the redemption of our sins.
If we could just be a little more grateful and humble about how wonderful our God is we wight not have long dissertations on what is 'in' and what is 'out'.. but quite frankly I think the Swiss was right on this one.
We can get too PC( ie open minded)the Moslems have tried to take over the infidels in Europe before and they are trying again.
Getting complacent is not a Christian virtue.
In view of the Pope's
In view of the Pope's continued silence and retention of all the Hierarchs who connived at the criminal coverup of the sexual abusive subordinate clergy, why does he think that he has any moral influence left to use???
He has said repeatedly that he wants a leaner Church in numbers, but since he is willing to harbor a substantial number of "criminnally inclined" among his higher levels of bureaucrats, then obviously, he is NOT pushing for a morally better membership!
The sex abuse scandal was
The sex abuse scandal was exactly that. I thank God that the truths of what happened are now being exposed. We are called to make sure it NEVER occurs again. What is needed here is sincere charity of heart and forgiveness for those who wounded the priesthood and her Church. It is a hard road to travel but we must. I have been asked as a faithful Catholic, how I could remain in such a church where these crimes against innocent children took place? My reply has been and will remain, I MUST stay to insure it never, EVER happens again! Benedict XVI was chosen by election, if he weren't we would not have known additional facts. He is now out front and will have to be accountable. I see all of this as providential, God is at work to make the Church stronger, unified. ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC. These marks continue on in spite of it's all to human membership that exists in the priesthood and laity.
When has the Pope said he
When has the Pope said he wants a "leaner" Church in terms of numbers?
His Holiness Pope "Benedict
His Holiness Pope "Benedict sees Christians and Muslims as natural allies in the struggle against secularism."
Please continue to explain this to US Catholics, particularly post-Fort Hood.
The logic you have just used
The logic you have just used is the same that allows people to totally reject the Church because of incidences of the sexual abuse of minors on the part of clergy. We can never judge an entire religion or culture based on one or few painful circumstances. Faithful Muslims and faithful Christians have similar hopes and dreams for a more holy and just social order:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents...
In a church that emphasizes
In a church that emphasizes sacramentality, people will naturally look at the lives of the leaders of the church for signs of the grace the church proclaims. When there is a serious contradiction between those lives and what the church professes, people will naturally turn away from the church.
The revelations of sexual abuse of children by clerics, and of bishops (and the Vatican) covering up this abuse for decades, do not point to "one or few painful circumstances" that are now proving problematic for many Catholics.
They point to a systemic problem, one emanating from the center of the church, one that has involved the collusion of a majority of our bishops. It really doesn't do any good for the church to point away from that serious systemic problem and try to claim that the Catholic church has been no worse than any other church in this regard.
People are walking away in droves and will continue to walk away until the leaders of the church address this serious systemic problem seriously and transparently. Catholics who love the church ought not to be making excuses for what our leaders have done--if we want our church to have a viable future.
John, I appreciate your
John,
I appreciate your comments and your fairness in reporting. You seem to truly try to understand those you write about, regardless of their theological points of view, be they populist, institutional, "popstitutional," or other. Just read a review of your new book in America, and it looks interesting. Hope I can get a used copy on Amazon sometime soon.
Fence-sitter
If Benedict has such a
If Benedict has such a headache over populist views within the church, tell him to take two aspirin and join the 21st century!!
My favorite re-framing of the
My favorite re-framing of the conservative/liberal label is "obedient/disobedient"! Either you ARE with the Church or you aren't!
When I read this kind of
When I read this kind of post, I can't help but think that this is just the kind of relationship to religious authority that Jesus himself rebeled against. Also, if you are willing to look closely, you will see that there are, indeed, many areas where conservatives seem to be willing to disobey the teachings of The Chruch (support of the invasion of Iraq and birth control are just two of many areas where many conservatives seemed comfortable to disobey Church teaching).
I know that for some, on both sides of the divide, it is always easier to do the "one size fits all" way of thinking about the opposition or to reduce the complexities of life and faith to soundbites and bumper-sticker slogans. Yet, it does a great diservice to a humble reconition that The Holy spirit may move in ways that are unknown to us - not just limited to obedience, but sometimes, I believe, that it can be the Holy Spirit that promotes disobience.
My spritiuality demands that I stay away from such a dismissive simplicity as your post suggests. It is not always easy and, I am sure that I, at times have failed. None-the-less, I could not consider that I loved my neighbor as Christ tells us to do without giving him/her the respect of not reducing his beliefs to such a narrow, smug, self-satisfying dicotomy
I would like to think that you would be willing to do the same, but perhaps not. None-the-less we are both part of the mysitcal body of Christ. Let's share the joy in that.
Peace and prayers for your journey.
Dear Anonymous: This
Dear Anonymous:
This obedient/disobedient thing you mention is rediculous. Paul told off Peter to his face over the gentiles. St. Catherine of Siena gave both barrels to the Pope and the bishops of her time. Please read some history beyond 1870.
Dear Mr. ALlen, One
Dear Mr. ALlen,
One Catholic group that reaches out to others and serves them is CNEWA. Catholic Near East Welfare Association. THey have an online magazine called ONE. Perhaps it would be good if Catholics here knew a bit more of their inspiring work. Many thanks, Patricia Marks
I wonder if it's correct to
I wonder if it's correct to talk of Benedict as interested in Europe recovering its Christian identity, as opposed to its Catholic identity. If the former, would he have taken Anglicans by surprise, in the recent (and apparently not terribly well thought out) overtures to them? (Anglicanorum coetibus -- see Nicholas Lash, in a recent article in the Tablet). If the former, would he dismiss Lutherans, Anglicans, and the various Calvinist offspring in Switzerland, France, Scotland, etc. etc., as members of mere "ecclesial communities" rather than proper "churches?"
Surely, if we're talking about European Christianity, we have to find room for the heirs of Luther and Calvin, Zwingli and Hooker (as well as others). And that's just in western Europe.
Or is there (quite possibly) a point I'm missing here?
Nicholas Clifford
Interesting reflection. "An
Interesting reflection. "An attack from the right" such as the American Life League posting continued criticisms of bishops who fail to confront the politicians who advocate extending abortions. The secular opinion leaders in the US try to sell the idea that resistance to extending abortion is fueled by orders from the Vatican. Au contraire, the resistance seems to be most strongly advocated by those of us in the pews.
What really frosts us is to discover that $$$ for the 2008 election in California used to lobby AGAINST parental rights and IN FAVOR of same-sex marriage were a result of funds collected from the prior year's Campaign for Human Development.
Our own contributions used to advocate policies we strongly disapprove of!!!
Well, we try to forgive, and pray for courage for our bishops.
It strikes me that anything
It strikes me that anything Benedict might say to distance himself from the Swiss vote would be mendacious. He himself has set in motion the ugly currents of nativism and Christianist chauvinism represented by this vote.
Just as he himself has set into motion the ugly currents of homophobia that are now sweeping through the nation of Uganda. The Vatican keeps trying to distance itself from the extreme rhetoric exemplified by misogynistic and homophobic groups--as well as nativist ones.
But the bitter fruit borne by these groups right now in many places in the world is the ripening of seeds that the Vatican and many bishops have assiduously sown here and there. It's with ill grace that the leaders of the church pretend they have not sought the kind of reaction we now see setting in places like Switzerland, Uganda, or the U.S., for that matter.
Unambiguous witness on behalf of core Christian values--on behalf of the centrality of mercy and justice--would long since have been in order, with Benedict's papacy. It's too late now to undo what the last two papal regimes have deliberately sought with their reactionary turns and reactionary rhetoric. All that appears to be left is for the church to fall down under the weight of the rottenness eating away at it from the center--and to be rebuilt on better foundations.
The Pope is engaging in
The Pope is engaging in politics. Indeed the Vatican has been engaged in the politics of appeasment with Islam for decades, perhaps since the last crusade. And where has it gotten them? All over the Islamic world Catholics and other Christians are actively persecuted, even murdered. Christians are a vanishing reality in the Islamic world. I say good for the Swiss. Muslims in the West should be granted the same privilages and rights as Christians are granted in Muslim nations, Saudi Arabia for example.
John, Patrick Kennedy, if I
John, Patrick Kennedy, if I understand correctly, disagrees with the bishops not just on any old thing but on whether a Catholic should publically support abortion. Here we are dealing with a matter that touches directly on the Church's moral teaching. Certain pro-lifers disagree with the bishops on prudential matters (unless you are talking about some deeper disagreement, but I don't know what that would be). These are hardly equivalent disagreements. Are the bishops just "full of it" when they say that Catholics cannot publically support abortion? I think you're a smart guy and I often agree with you. But putting some pro-lifers' occasional frustration with the bishops on the same level with Mr. Kennedy's disagreement with them (with the Church, I should say, it's not just with the hierarchy) seems more than a little glib.
Joe, you are very confused.
Joe, you are very confused. Patrick Kennedy does not "support abortion." That's the lie from the "pro-lifers" neo-cons to spin this LIE. Patrick Kennedy, like Progressive Catholics, does not believe in going back to the time when abortionist killed the patient as well as the fetus or rendered the girl or woman unable to bear any more children. And yes, the bishops are "full of it" because they don't give a damn about women or girls who were raped and they are trying to force their religion down everyone's throats, never address the males who got them pregnant and their behavior, and the way of the law is not the Gospel way, but the worldly secular way of which they are a very big part but they deny! And, they are "full of it" because they and you and the Pro-life movement never ever say what the punishment would be if abortion was made illegal. I guess they'd rather leave that to Pilate. Should we stone her to death Joe? What about the guy that got her pregnant? What if he is her father, or brother, or cousin, or a stranger that raped her? Then what Joe?
And while I'm here, the Bishops should be addressing a far more serious threat to LIFE with the amount of nuclear weapons that have been amassed in the US for the past forty years costing billions of dollars that could have gone to health care or education, but they refuse to address it at all. That's why I say they are "full of it" because they are not addressing LIFE issues, they are trying to control people, especially women who are vulnerable to the sexual advances of men. They are also "full of it" when it comes to when exactly ensoulment takes place. They are also "full of it" when it comes to birth control. They are just "full of it!"
Anonymous of December 05
Anonymous of December 05 writes:
"And while I'm here, the Bishops should be addressing a far more serious threat to LIFE with the amount of nuclear weapons that have been amassed in the US for the past forty years costing billions of dollars that could have gone to health care or education, but they refuse to address it at all."
Anonymous, you need to do your homework. The Bishops address a variety of issues. They have and continue to address the arms race. You never state what the bishops are full of, but I don't think you are full of common sense and rationality. Let us continue to pray and work for world peace, and the sanctity of human life from conception to a natural death.
Yes, Milo, the Bishops have
Yes, Milo, the Bishops have addressed the issue of the build up of the arms race, but it is an issue the they don't seem to have the same commitment to promoting as they do to abortion. As a result, it seems that too few Catholics are aware of The Church's teaching on this issue. If the Bishops were willing to beat the drum on this issue as they are on abortion, it would be otherwise.
Peace and prayers
Good point, I don't know how
Good point, I don't know how one would expect that Catholics would know the Church's and the bishop's teaching on war and the arms race because they don't promote it! Just ask Catholics what is the the bishop's teaching on abortion and I would guess that everyone would know, truly everyone. Then ask them what the bishop's teaching is on war and the arms race and I would guess that few would know, truly very few. Regardless of what their position is, that they are promoting their teaching in one area and not the other, is a valid point. So I see Milo's critizism a little disengenious.
But you do not understand,
But you do not understand, Milbo 1, that the serious threat to all of life on this planet at this time in history is not the abortion issue, but are nuclear weapons and the billions of dollars wasted every year from the US budget going into the military industrial complex. Think how that money and manpower, if it were allocated to sound investments in humane ways might reflect a Christian's true conscience and the supposed preference for the poor that the Church says it is for. Shouldn't a preference for something the Church espouses for a preference for the poor be a priority?
Pronouncing "the sanctity of human life from conception to a natural death" rings hollow from the Bishops when they did not speak out against the War in Iraq that caused the unnatural death, including the unborn, of hundreds of thousands of people. The Bishops supported it!!!
That War also caused a deficit in the billions, helped to cause a recession, and took money from the pockets of taxpayers to prop up and aide a military industrial complex which for all intents and purposes is for the mass destruction and killing of people to an unnatural death.
But all we have been hearing from the Bishops and the "Pro-life" movement is about abortion, abortion, abortion as the great evil of our time and it should be criminalized. They never say what the punishment should be for that, while there is no punishment or desire to criminalize a system of mass destruction such as the military industrial complex. Perhaps I was not clear about that in my post. That is what is not rational, considering the machinery of death and destruction of the military industrial complex and how many could be killed from those weapons and how many died of starvation on the planet from allocating huge amounts of money into a culture of death. It is also not rational that, at least to me, the Bishops and the Pro-life movement of the neo-con variety supported George Bush even though as Governor of Texas he supported the death penalty, which is an unnatural and premeditated murder, and as President falsely claimed Sadaam Hussein was a nuclear threat and sent troops to the War in Iraq and bombed them to an unnatural death. The bishops and Catholic neo-cons supported him!!! They did not do their homework. It should be called rather, soul-work. Since these Bishops are in a position of authority, the burden for their lack of soul-work goes to them and not to someone such as myself who never supported such evil destruction of life.
The Bishops are not addressing the real issue, which is their lack of being Christ-like. Where may I ask you are they rallying people these days in terms of issues? We need only look at Catholic publication's headlines, their Catholic blogs and from the Vatican's statements and the USCCB's recent meeting to see the truth of their focus. Mostly what we witness are that they are more concerned about denying the civil rights of gay persons and spreading hatred for gay persons and spreading the huge lie that they are "intrinsically evil." They continue to push for criminalizing all abortions and are teaching that ensoulment begins at conception, begins at a time in gestation that is truly not credible and even refutes the teachings and beliefs of Church fathers such as St Thomas Aquinas. They continue to bash women and insist that women are inferior to men and that the Baptism of females is somehow worth less than a male's Baptism in denying women to become deacons and Priests. They continue to push sexual issues and a sexual theology, of which their views are not credible and are in fact immature pathological postures and they have little to no sense or common sense or rationality about sexuality, yet claim their view is correct and that we must obey this view of theirs even if it is against our conscience and better judgment and the teachings of Jesus Christ. They are full of it, and it is not the Holy Spirit.
We have yet to hear from the US Bishops or the Vatican about the proposed law against homosexuals in Uganda that would have them put to death. Not only are the Bishops not rational, they do not seem to even be Christians. They are full of it, but it is not grace. They are full of it, but it is not truth. They are full of it, but it is not Christ-like. They are full of it, and it is hypocrisy.
Clarity of thought and
Clarity of thought and expression is one of John Allen's hallmarks. Thank you for your thoughtful analysis. Jubilee Judy
The Pope should not have a
The Pope should not have a headache. Lay persons are the ones who are confused. The Pope wants to find out that married Episcopal priests who convert to Catholicism will be acceptable to the people. What will happen to married Catholics who want to be priests? Will they be acceptable?
I liked your use of the
I liked your use of the Chesterton quote although I agree with you that it’s not nearly as complete as it needs to be. Good starting point though.
It’s the difficulty in finding adequate expression for that concept that has pushed many of us into the populist camp. I agree with Patrick Kennedy in your paraphrase of his position, "disagreeing with the hierarchy doesn't make him any less Catholic".
For me, part of the problem is that too many Catholic leaders suggest that if you disagree with the hierarchy and do not accept the Magisterium in its totality, then you aren’t up to snuff as a “good” Catholic. Balderdash!
The hierarchy has done its best to alienate far too many Catholics and continues to do so. Think Burke and Rogge in Rome – leading the charge back into history. Liberation theology sought to free us ideologically but it was too radical for the institutional hierarchy. It’s a good reason why many of us no longer warm a pew.
Christmas gift to Benedict
Christmas gift to Benedict XVI:
A bumper sticker for the Popemobile from the days of Jerry Falwell to remind him that
THE MORAL MAJORITY IS NEITHER!
I don't think "populist
I don't think "populist Catholicism" is as much a headache for the Pope as is Islam in Europe in general. In their efforts to bend over backwards to accommodate religious freedom, Europe has definitely compromised its Catholic and Christian identity and is now paying for it.
In addition to his legendary "making the trains run on time," I think Benito Mussolini might have been correct when he would allow the building of a mosque in Rome only if a Catholic church would be allowed to be built in Mecca as well. Perhaps Benito had an insight into Islam that should not have been ignored.
TNCath. The TN must stand
TNCath. The TN must stand for Totally Nuts!
It was reported that the
It was reported that the Swiss Bishops fear a backlash if minarets were to be prohibited. But I cannot remember Muslim nations fearing a backlash when they prohibit chapel and church buildings on their territory. Reciprocity is a dirty word for some..... but still "Christian" nations bend over backwards, subscribe to political correctness and appeasement to accomodate the very people who wish to establish Shari'a law in every country to which they have migrated. Does they know of the phrase "shooting oneself in the foot" ? I have my doubts.....
Benedict has earned the
Benedict has earned the headache!! He deserves lots of them!
Why must Switzerland give up
Why must Switzerland give up its picturesque touristic identity to satisfy an immigrant group? Christians can have churches without steeples, so moslems can have mosques without minarets. With modern technology, anyone can accurately know when the 5 times for prayer are. I do not think any religious leader ever wanted their adherents to be frozen in time. Even the Amish accomadate to modern life and do not impose their way upon others. The immigrants to Switzerland should attempt to become Swiss, if that is where they wish to live.
In a way, I think you are
In a way, I think you are exactly right that this is an issue to do with aesthetics and not with religion. However, this emphasis on appearances over necessity creates a sterility within cultures and communities.
I gripe as usual about the
I gripe as usual about the inability to distinguish pro-choice from pro-abortion. Mr. Kennedy is pro-choice. Is he pro-abortion? Probably not. I learned this lesson from a Presbyterian minister who is a really good friend. To him, freedom is the highest of all values. And so, in his perspective, he is pro-freedom. Americans honor the phrase, "Give me liberty or give me death." Many who are pro-choice (like my friend) would never ever consider an abortion. Myself, I am pro-life, but I can see the difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion.
The problem for us catechism
The problem for us catechism Catholics is that we want the babies to be able to choose life for themselves. We believe they are little human beings who deserve to enjoy freedom. We're pro-freedom for the babies. We want to give them liberty and allow them to pursue happiness. Mr. Kennedy doesn't seem to want to give choice to the babies. To me, he's not pro-choice. He's pro-abortion rights. He must not think its murder like our catechism says it is. I didn't think us Catholics were allowed to choose death, especially for babies. I hope he thinks that aborted babies that are accidentally alive, after the medical procedure to eliminate them, will qualify for immediate assistance under one of the potential new health bills. I guess we know how the president feels about such struggling little lives, but Mr. Kennedy says he is a Catholic. Maybe he should talk this over with the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, the six Catholic Supreme Court Justices, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Oh wait a minute -- Maybe he shouldn't.
Is it really such a big
Is it really such a big surprise that the Swiss voted against the minarets when they know that you cannot even build a single church in Saudi Arabia. Are they and are we supposed to ignore that? Love sometimes call for common sense and plain talk to help people understand that the religious repression so common in the middle east is not acceptable.
Is it really such a surprise
Is it really such a surprise that the Swiss voted against the minarets? Is really so shocking? Love sometimes requires common sense and plain speaking especially in light of the fact that in most middle east Islamic countries, Christianity is severely limited and persecuted. Need we repeat yet again that not single christian church is allowed to exist in Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Allen: Your effort to
Mr. Allen:
Your effort to undefine yourself indicates some discomfort that people reading your columns might have the impression you are a 60's liberal.
Re: "Benedict also has no higher inter-faith priority than outreach to Islam...Benedict sees Christians and Muslims as natural allies in the struggle against secularism." This seems to show some lack of familiarity with Pope Benedict's positions on the topic of Islam and Western secularism. Benedict's Regensburg address explicitly equates the anti-rationalism of Islam with the anti-rationalism of Western secularism, presenting a powerful moral challenge with the same intellectual stroke.
I seem to recall that when Pope Benedict delivered that speech, your cohorts at NCR chalked it up to clumsy diplomacy. Instead of reading it "with the mind of Christ", and showing Benedict the support he needed, you read it with another mind, and you tried to bleed him a little bit.
Benedict is not doing an outreach program with Islam - he's challenging them, in charity, to dare to think.
Your column, on the other hand, subtly chips away at Benedict, and shows little thinking about anything but the superficial respecting Islam, and in so doing, does an injustice to Benedict. The only question is, do you mean to be uncharitable to Pope Benedict?
In Christus Veritas
Secularism is a problem but
Secularism is a problem but Muslim fundamentalism is no answer to this. One day the Muslim world will come out of the Dark Ages and this religion will simply die out. In the meantime, it should be ignored as much as possible!
"One day the Muslims will
"One day the Muslims will come out of the Dark Ages... " Yes, as Catholism races back to it.
"56 percent of Swiss voters
"56 percent of Swiss voters favored the minaret ban. ... Switzerland is 46 percent Catholic, so the measure could not have passed without substantial Catholic support."
No those figures merely show that the measure "could not" have passed without at least 2% Catholic support.
I think liberal &
I think liberal & conservative are still pretty good terms to define the situation in the Church, at least among those people who consider themselves still Catholic. But the problem is usually who is really in the Church. We have schismatics on the right and heretics on the left.
For example, one says the word nun and you assume the person is Catholic. However, there are nuns in Orthodoxy and some in Anglicanism. So if you say Catholic nun, is the person in the Church? One would assume so but then where do you place nuns who advocate priestesses or who escort women to abortion clinics?
Generally, I would say that Liberals are outside the Church for they advocate positions that deny doctrine like the priestess question. Even though JPII as Supreme Pontiff settled the question for all practical purposes, these liberals could care less. They are their own authority. They even disparage the office of the papacy. Granted that even popes can sin but the office itself must be respected.
By the extremely poor
By the extremely poor leadership that pushes the Church toward the thirteenth century, the last two popes have disparaged the office of the papacy themselves. They did it to themselves!
Paulette your definition of Catholic is the Roman one, that all are welcome to come through our doors as long as they profess our doctrine even if it be geocentric. A true Catholic must be able to recognize both personal and institutional mistakes. It should not take 3 centuries to do so! The Greek meaning of the word Catholic is that all views are welcome to examination and understanding. That is the Universal Church not the one that claims its own omnipotence. The ever expanding doctrine of infallibility (thanks to an on again off again Vatican I - only on again when enough votes to disagree with Pius IX had returned home at his request.) is at fault. This increasing and untrue expansive infallible concept is hurtful to the organization and to the character of our bishops. Yes, the borderline behavior of these men is the their own responsibility and self caused illness.
May we have peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Dennise, you can define what
Dennise, you can define what it means to be Catholic and so can I, but our definitions are meaningless. I am making reference to how the Church has always defined herself. Admittedly, it took centuries for doctrines to develop but they did so under the Spirit. That is the way with the doctrine on the infallibility of the Pope. This is based on the germinal doctrine of the primacy of Peter in the gospels. "Tell the disciples & Peter." & "Upon this rock, I will build my Church."
The doctrine on the infallibility of the Pope is a very narrow doctrine anyway. You distort Vatican I. The ones who disagreed left the Church and formed the Old Catholic Church; its most famous member in exile is Hans Kung! It is not unusual at times of Councils for there to be breakaway groups.
Also, not one of the Vatican II documents was approved by all the bishops present. Lefevre himself voted in the affirmative on 13 of the 16 documents. So the Council in general could hardly be the liberating document Liberals claim it to be! For example, a close reading of Dei Verbum shows that it affirms the historicity of the gospels, something Liberals reject.
WANT MORE OF THIS AND
WANT MORE OF THIS
AND GRATEFUL to learn more happenings in Europe, both Moslem-wise and Vatican-wise.
This article was so great I wanted more, more, more. More detail to understand specifics in both Italy and Switzerland, whose borders ironically touch (I'm pretty sure, without taking time to double-check a map) up in the high Alps.
With a slightly hasty reading of the article, because of time constraints, the problems are definitely daunting and complex.
HOWEVER...Here's what I see--and that's not with nearly the indepth knowledge of these issues, that I really want--I still think the CHRISTIAN BASICS are about food, clothing, shelter (and heck let's not forget to throw in HEALTH CARE)! And then there's the big all-important word: JOBS. Which we know have been part of the European-Moslem issues for at least a decade.
And one last core value intermeshed with these Swiss-Italian issues: treatment of WOMEN, whether by Christians or Moslems.
So here's the Christian-Moslem-Vatican solution that I think Jesus might point out, if, with a little band of disciples, he was strolling along somewhere in the Alps:
They all need basic human rights. In 2009, they all are a little freaked-out about the economy. And the women/any women located in all three areas need to be glass-ceiling free, and have basic human rights for their KIDS.
Food, clothing, shelter, rights, and oh yeah, BIG PHARMA-free HEALTHCARE.
Post new comment