We have a new pope. And he’s a fucking mentalist.
Comments like "Cardinal Ratzinger has been criticised for his disapproval of abortion and homosexuality" are silly. Of course he disapproves of them; so do most Catholics (some might say ‘all Catholics’, depending on how liberal their inclusion criteria are).
However, that’s not the issue: the issue is that, unlike previous modern-era popes, Benedict XVI’s key traits are "authoritarianism, hostility to modernity, assertion of papal supremacy and quashing of internal debate and dissent" (Sully). The problem isn’t that he’s not a modernist – it’s that he’s a Counter-Reformationist…
Best-case scenario: Benedict XVI will follow in the footsteps of his illustrious predecessor Benedict IX, and sell the position to someone less loony.
Apparently (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4463397.stm)
he once denounced rock music as "the vehicle of anti-religion". He’s a mad old bastard who can fuck right off.
By the way not all catholics disapprove of homosexuality (this is empirically true). There’s a bizarre conflict in Catholic theology between the authority of the Church (or the Pope) and freedom of conscience. Both are Catholic doctrine despite the fact that they can be totally mutually contradictory. Catholic theologians enjoy tying themselves in knots trying to resolve this issue.
Liberal-minded Catholics who (e.g) don’t disapprove of homosexuality tend to (unconvincingly) cite freedom of conscience in their defence. I expect they’ll have to resort to that tactic a whole lot more now.
Ratzinger once called Buddhism "an auto-erotic spirituality". Talk about free advertising.
See here: Times Online: Pope in his own words in particular
Homosexuality: “Intrinsic moral evil”
Abortion and euthanasia: "Manifest grave sin”
Now, I’ve been trying to work out what these mean, and in particular, to well-order them. Surely almost anyone sane would agree that, relatively, homosexuality is less of a sin/evil than abortion or euthanasia (though would argue until the cows come how about their absolute evil-ness or lack thereof). But I’m really uncertain that Ratzinger doesn’t view being gay as worse than killing someone who’s old, terminally ill and in huge pain. Very weird.
Not that the other quotes on that page show any huge degree of sanity.
On the plus side, he is already ancient, so it’s unlikely his pontificating (geddit?) will last for anywhere near as long as JP2. Not that I expect his successor will be significantly different. And after that, according to the papal prophecies, the world will come to an end. Or something.
Ratzinger was also one of the chief architects of the Vatican’s historic reconciliation with Judaism and Jewry, helping to overturn nearly two millenia of animosity. In other words, he’s a reformer. He’s just not a reformer on every issue. But then who is?
Personally, I don’t care about the Church’s attitude to homosexuals. It’s appalling, yes, but membership isn’t compulsory. I’m quite baffled by gay Catholics who want to reform the Church rather than leave it: they’re a bit like black people wanting to join the KKK. Or a bit like me joining the BCP and demanding that it change its policies.
Presumably then you don’t personally care about the KKK’s attitude to black people either? What if the KKK was 1 billion people strong – would you care then?
The point is that the Church’s attitudes have social consequences beyond its own members.
"I’m quite baffled by gay Catholics who want to reform the Church rather than leave it: "
But what if these gay people also believe that Christ is their redeemer and that their path to salvation is through the rites of the mother church? After all, this "no homos" rule is of relatively recent origin, they were performing gay marriages on priests up till 1000 years ago. If they "left" the church, which the church denies is possible, they’d be abandoning salvation. I know you’re an atheist, Squander Two, but you seem to be a Protestant atheist.
> you seem to be a Protestant atheist.
Hey, is that a Bertrand Russell reference? Cool.
And yeah, you’re probably right. I’m descended from C-of-E atheists and decidedly non-kosher Jews.
> But what if these gay people also believe that Christ is their redeemer and that their path to salvation is through the rites of the mother church?
You mean, what if they’re determined to worship an organisation that hates them? As you can probably guess, I’m simply overflowing with sympathy for that sort of self-destructive idiocy.
> Presumably then you don’t personally care about the KKK’s attitude to black people either?
A good example there of why the words "presumably" and "presumptious" are related. If the Catholic Church routinely killed or tortured gay men, I’d care. They don’t; they just criticise them. Oo, criticism. Run for the hills.
Ach, maybe I should have put a paragraph break between "cumpulsory." and "I’m". And emphasised "a bit like". After all these years, I still naively assume that people will read what I write rather than some other words that spring magically into their heads. Tsk.
Well ok. Arguably the official KKK doesn’t (theoretically) routinely kill or torture black men any more, it just burns crosses occasionally whilst wearing comedy clothes. Run for the hills indeed.
But still I do think that you miss the point that "the Church’s attitudes have social consequences beyond its own members". Plenty of gay people in catholic communities (irrespective of their own beliefs) have their lives made pretty nasty by never-ending judgemental moralising. "Oo, criticism. Run for the hills." is a bit glib, I think.
"You mean, what if they’re determined to worship an organisation that hates them?"
No, they worship God. In a way, using a rite, and doing good works, that they believe will bring them salvation.
> you seem to be a Protestant atheist.
Hey, is that a Bertrand Russell reference?
No, all my own for better or worse. You were talking like a Protestant, about leaving a church. That’s not what catholics do.
> I’m simply overflowing with sympathy for that sort of self-destructive idiocy.
Well, that cuts no ice with people who believe their soul is at risk, now, does it?
> No, they worship God.
No, they worship the Catholic Church and God. If they worshipped only God, none of this would be a problem for them.
> have their lives made pretty nasty by never-ending judgemental moralising.
And so do Catholics in left-wing secular Guardian-reading constantly-hectoring-the-Pope-for-killing-Africans communities. And atheists in Muslim communities. And so on. Such is life. Best thing is not to let it get to you.
> Well, that cuts no ice with people who believe their soul is at risk, now, does it?
It clearly cuts ice with some of them, or no-one would ever leave the Church and neither Protestantism nor atheism would exist. For the rest of them, well, their arguments cut no ice with me and mine cut none with them. What’s the big deal? The world is full of people unable to persuade each other of their point of view. I don’t see why homosexuality and Catholicism are a special case deserving of so much attention. As long as it doesn’t turn into violence, really, what does it matter?
> No, all my own for better or worse.
Fair enough. I thoroughly recommend Russell’s essay on the differences between Catholic atheism and Protestant atheism. Can’t remember what it’s called (helpfully enough), but it’s in the "Why I Am Not A Christian" collection, and is very interesting.
"so do Catholics in left-wing secular Guardian-reading constantly-hectoring-the-Pope-for-killing-Africans communities"
Thanks, that’s put a smile on my face like a Cheshire Cat’s.
"Best thing is not to let it get to you."
Well that and (if you feel strongly enough about it) to try put pressure on the relevant institution to reform and correct the iniquity, thereby improving the lot of others in future who find themselves in your position.
Yes, I understand that reasoning, but I think people could do more good by abandoning the Church in droves, thereby decreasing its power and maybe even helping along its ultimate demise, than by trying, usually in vain, to reform it.
Actually, for once, I entirely agree with you. Though I think a bit of reform is not entirely beyond possibility and would also be positive. I.e best case scenario: people leave in droves, but those who remain reform.
I think the new Pope will be a great opportunity for Germany to rediscover itself. Ever since WW II it has had a kind of national identity crisis.
I get pissed off with the eprverted obsession of all these celibate men with what other people do in bed.
Just suppose, for argument’s sake, that I believed homosexuality to be a sin, that would be quite an important issue for me to make a stand on.
But it would also be reasonable to assume that I believed that lying, or being a bit ratty, or not doing the washing up, or jumping queues, or not recycling my rubbish are also sins, and sins that more people commit, and that have a greater impact on others, and therefore, I ought to make a big stand about the immorality of being a bit ratty, just as much as I would about homosexulaity.
Hmm, homosexu Laity is not bad as spelling mistakes go, in this context…
What people do is between themselves and God. You shouldnt judge other people whatsoever. I personally dont agree with homosexuality, however, Jesus said, ‘ let he who is without sin cast the first stone’. What ha happened to loving thy neighbour? God loves you more than you or your family love you; dont you think he would be annoyed if you went around juding people he loves? Christ didnt hang around with perfect people he help those who were sinners, follow in his example and be a good christian regardless of denomination.