The Popes Failures

In an otherwise quite delightful article, the oblique reference to Richard Gere as decadent money-grubbing and promiscuous and the intimation that HH Dalai Lama is a “feel good” moral relativist do not do justice to either individual. As a personal teacher of Mr. Gere, HH the Dalai Lama has, by all accounts, held Mr. Gere to a very strict standard of behavior. It appears that he is attempting to live by that standard, and is being very quiet about his very generous gifts to many (international) charities, some of which I know about. Further, in HHDL’s teachings as a Buddhist to Buddhists, he is strongly against many things that are considered bywords of liberalism, including free use of abortion as a birth-control tool. HHDL is also on record as not being notably liberal on the issue of homosexuality, etc. He holds quite strictly to Tibetan and Buddhist ethics, which I gather the writer either dismisses or does not understand. If I understand the Dalai Lama’s way of teaching to non-Buddhist audiences, I believe it could be said that he does not see it as in his “brief” to insist on the same things he does for Buddhists.

Clarke Fountain, M.A. Buddhist Studies (1989), Naropa University

Posted by Clarke Fountain on Apr 8, 2005 at 1:59 PM

In These Times is not as craven as amy goodman in covering up the dead pope’s reactionary essence, but zizek lets john paul off pretty light given that he destroyed the liberation theology movement that was the only bright spot in 2,000 years of catholic oppression of latin america; that he never did anything substantive regarding his supposed committment to peace. he supported all imperialist wars at least tacitly, never putting his own precious body or church’s stolen resources on the line. he was death to women and children in general, not just because he generated patriarchal oppression, which he did, but because he perpetuated insane ideologies committed to over-population and under-distribution. he was not environmentalist, nor did he do anything material to oppose political executions and the awesome excesses of capitalism, for which he was an apologist. so why are these so called liberals and progressives singing his praises? he was actually an evil man fronting for a greater institutional evil, much like that other useless capitalist tool the dalai lama. i guess these progressives like the pope because he said that he was full of love and peace and they chose to believe his words rather than his deeds and they are lost themselves, having forgotten that history is the class struggle.

Posted by peter byrne on Apr 8, 2005 at 2:30 PM

When I read the ‘blah,blah,blah’, by a verbally gifted writer, I wonder what axe(s) they have to grind. This guy spins all over the place, but where he really lands, without being explicit, is the “victimization” of the jews- that is what his real-and well hidden- point is.
One would really have to be stupid not to see the idiocy of this pontiff- and the Catholic Church as a whole. The criminality, corruption and stupidity is as rampant as the ‘elephant in the living room of an alcoholic house’, this society just doesn’t want to look at it.

Posted by J. Peteerman on Apr 8, 2005 at 3:06 PM

Unlike many people who think the Dali Lama is some sort of saint, we are aware of all the gold the monks stole when fleeing Tibet. Actually it was a double theft because first they robbed the people for the gold that went into the art works the monks then stole.
www.gnostics.com

Posted by Gnostic Communications on Apr 8, 2005 at 4:21 PM

Slavoj Zizek’s 1,620 piece could have been thinned down to four paragraphs stating the following opinion: 1) The liberal movement sanctions situational ethics and condones the twisting of basic civil rights for selfish and pernicious conduct, under the guise of “enlightened” human rights, 2) Pop psychology is a “feel good” pseudo science that leads to exaggeration disproportioned to the truth, 3) Pope John II’s ethical purity was belied by his failure to address and correct the Catholic Church’s pedophiliac culture, (4) The author’s own religious and philosophical roots are the standard for scrupulous moral adherence.

That’s the gist of it in 94 words, without the rambling detours that denigrate the Dalai Lama’s moral teaching imperative, that erroneously invalidate the African Diaspora’s rightful historical claims, and that juxtapose all manner of separate topics into one huge smorgasbord of smug opinionation.

Carl Hitchens

Posted by Carl Hitchens on Apr 8, 2005 at 5:07 PM

I am a fairly new student myself, but I point to (in the hope of not oversimplifying) the Eightfold Path and the Five Precepts as an example of some of the “specific obligations” of Buddhism.

Anyone who would describe Buddhism as a “feel-good spiritualism without any specific obligations” has obviously never studied it.

Posted by Beata on Apr 9, 2005 at 7:02 AM

escuse me, in my post above I meant 2,000 years of Catholic oppression in general and 500 in Latin America.

Posted by Peter Byrne on Apr 9, 2005 at 8:20 AM

The Pope has multiple personalities.  What we see most often is the showman—kissing the ground, kissing babies, etc. This is a throw back to his early life before he entered the seminary.

Another personality is that of a bureaucrat—one who insists on the minute rules of canon (church)law be carried out to the letter, such as the communion wafer (which beomes Christ in the mass) must be made of wheat, and Christ is not present if it is made of rice. And the good bureaucrat sticks up for his high ranking subordinates, even if that means giving a plush job to Cardinal Law after it became well known that he knew about pedophile scandals and did nothing to really stop them.

The third major personality is the moralistic teacher.  Even though he preaches a moral code that at times harms people (no condoms even to stop AIDs, for instance) he insists that his teachings be lived up to everywhere at all times. 

Sad to say, he seem to be sincere that he is doing the right thing—that it is the Holy Spirit that is just acting through him.

Posted by Roy Lechtrecl on Apr 9, 2005 at 12:48 PM

a pope is just a guy in a dress. that he is a pederast or has any other vice, so, who hasn’t. i hated the guy’s guts. still do. and i’m sure i’ll hate his successor; i just hate creeps in dresses mumbo-jumboing around, be they jews, lamas, preachers or whatever. come on, let’s forget about the dead dicks.

Posted by vil òbit on Apr 9, 2005 at 3:39 PM

Alright - another pope story! I’ve had enough of pope stories since last week. Anyone who thinks they should venerate a murder weapon, allow others to pay for their sins, and considers themselves appointed as God’s representative on Earth needs to be considered psychologically impaired.

And I believe in God!

Posted by anonymous coward on Apr 9, 2005 at 4:58 PM

Sorry if right and wrong do not change to suit your needs and the times you live in. Whine and whine, the pope has an obligation NOT to bend to society’s desires, however popular, if he believes them to be wrong. You know why no condoms to stop AIDS? Because if he was to reccomend condoms that would be condoning premarital sex, something which the church has ALWAYS been against. You’re not worrying about husbands and wves giving each other aids are you? So then the condoms are for prematiral sex… do you really expect him to bend? He isn’t ignoring what’s going on, he is disagreeing with what is going on. He can only profess what he believes to be true and right, tough shit what you want.

Posted by Ryan Conover on Apr 9, 2005 at 7:19 PM

The Pope was a human. Early man looked at the sky and found his God-The Sun. Later man looked at a mirror and found his God-The Son. What do you see in the mirror?

Posted by Mark Cartwright on Apr 9, 2005 at 7:25 PM

If no one believed in the Catholic religion, why do you think so many people are Catholic and go to church regulary and try to live an upright moral life the way they do?  The pope is the leader of the Catholic church and yes he makes mistakes just like everyone else.  I think the church has advanced quite abit since he became the pope.  Laymen in the church take a bigger responsibility now.  That includes women and men. I do think he should have made it acceptable for priests to marry because we are having a hard time getting men to become priests.  They feel they have to give up to much in life to do so.  As far a pedofils go, they are found in all walks of life.  People just take offense more when it is found in a religious background.  I think they should have to pay the price just like any other criminal.  However for quite some time now, it’s suppose to be up the the cardinal in parish diosease (misspelled), that are suppose to see that this is done. However I have to wonder about some people who wait until they’re 30 or 40 years of age to come forward saying they were abused as children.  I think greed becomes a factor here. If you think the laws of the church are going to change by going against the 10 commandments, you’ll be waiting a long time.

Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Apr 9, 2005 at 8:38 PM

““There’s a light in the vatican window for all the world to see

And a voice cries in the wilderness and sometimes he speaks for me

I suppose i love him most of all when he kneels to kiss the land

With his lips upon our mother’s breast he makes his strongest stand”

–John Denver, It’s About TIme, 1983

Posted by sidulhgfs on Apr 9, 2005 at 11:14 PM

It takes people 30 years to admit abuse because they’ve been DAMAGED!!!!

You think greed becomes a factor? I think your stupidity is a factor.

Posted by abused on Apr 9, 2005 at 11:17 PM

Pope John XIII through Vatican 2 issued in a liberal revolution in the Catholic church. Sadly, it was short lived. The conservative (read “fearful” in my view,) Cardinals in ‘78 returned the Church to strong authoritarian rule with John Paul II. He began rolling back the liberal achievements of true compassion and equality from day one.
 
Authoritarian rule at its extreme is fascism.

An unfair question might be asked,
“How close to fascism is the Catholic Church?”

I do not question John Paul’s belief regarding condoms. I do condemn his use of “godly” authority in imposing his belief on his “flock” (an appropriate word I think meaning sheep.)” It is an insidious war that John Paul pushes. One that is hidden from view by the masses, yet not much different than the “in your face” war called Iraqi Freedom. A war justified by lies and deception. The similarity is stark in the death tolls they reek.

Another unfair question might be,
“Why do millions of people revere a man who through his “godly” hands has sanctioned painful sickness and death by condemning the use of condoms to prevent HIV and AIDS?”

Posted by Merlin on Apr 9, 2005 at 11:38 PM

I do not think it takes 30 years to come forth about something so terrible.  I have had worse happen to me and did not wait to come forth.  Maybe your from another planet.
We need a book of rules, regulations, laws or commandments to be able to conform to society.
How the hell do you think we differ from 3 world countries who have or put no value on human life.  Of course maybe you would like to go live with the apes somewhere, I prefer it hear.
There were terrible wars in biblical times, probably worse than anything we have today that were sanctioned by GOD so people who tried to walk as closely in his past could reign over the people who worshiped UNGODLY idols.
As far as Homosexuals using or not using condoms, most of us feel as GOD says in the bible that it is an unholy act.  These wonderful individuals would not have these dieases if they had been practicing forbidden type of sex. Live a celibate type life if you want to walk hand in hand with GOD.  GOD didn’t say you couldn’t be a good religious person as long as you don’t commit the sin you live in.  I guess what GOD and the POPE doesn’t like is the fact that you do not even try to atone for your sin.
If everyone thought as you all do that the pope was a bad man, I don’t know why so many people came to his death bed to give him a wonderful send off to the pearly gates.

Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Apr 10, 2005 at 6:26 AM

I’m not much into religion and such with this whole business of the morally bankrupt feel-good spirituality of Buddhism as opposed to the morally superior feel-bad spirituality of Christianity so I had to do a bit of research to discover what that Jesus fellow had to say on the subject of divorce:
Matthew 5: 27-29
27 “You have heard that the law of Moses says, ‘Do not commit adultery.’
28 But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
29 So if your eye—even if it is your good eye—causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away.
Pardon my left-lib sensibilities but that’s a bit extreme. If this is what he was promoting in his ministry then maybe the vilification of the Pharisees should be re-examined.

Posted by Ian on Apr 10, 2005 at 6:37 AM

A priest once told me a long time ago, that the bible was written as it is so people of that day could understand what Jesus was trying to get across.  The only way alot of people in the biblical ages received any religous teachings was when story tellers would come through their villages and everyone would congregate at the village square to listen to these story tellers.
The priest went on to say none of these villagers could read or write and everything told to them had to be very simple and straighforward so they got the message.  Well, you know how you tell a story to someone and by the time the fifth person tells it, it is not recognizable?  Well the bible was written by man for man, not by Jesus so we don’t know how much of it is valid.  That’s why the new testament was written by the apostles.  They were to teach and write down Jesus’s word because they spent so much time with him.  So where you get alot of this dramatic types of writings is from the old testament.  I’m also a left winger.  I also have trouble sometimes believing in faith where there is no reality.  So your not alone.

Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Apr 10, 2005 at 8:49 AM

I don’t think it’s reasnable to compare apples and oranges, when it comes to abuse issues: whether it takes 30 minutes or 30 yrs. The fact that there are opportunists in the world does not change anything regarding the need to protect people.

Their is a bell curve of decency all over the world: where segments of societies shine brightly or dimly. To depcit so-called 3 World countries as having no value on human life is untrue and inflammatory…. So much of what goes on in these countries has been directly influenced by the historical interference of Western nations in the past and present.

The idea that Divine Intelligence would elevate one people over another and endorse their killing and destruction based soley on how they believe, has been and continues to be the sanguineous catalyst for slavery, imperialism, and wars of domination, with the associated hubris and jingoism guaranteeing the rallying of the people to the cause.

Since Aids can be transmitted by anyone, regardless of sexual persuasion; since it can affect a heterosexual having heterosexual sex, can we dispense with the premise that it is the God-punished disease of “un-Godly” “homosexual-deviates?”

Spirituality recognizes the oneness of all people, of all life. When individual and/or group religion and philosophy support that blood doesn’t flow. When they promote its contradiction, all types of personal or group “holy wars” are waged for the “glorification of the One.”

Posted by Carl Hitchens on Apr 10, 2005 at 9:20 AM

Zizek is attacking the superficials without looking at the roots. Catholicism is not opposed to abortion just for fun. We oppose abortion for the same reason we oppose war, social injustice, and the death penalty. Every human being is a person and therefore should be treated with the dignity incumbent upon persons. Their lives are worth neither more nor less than anyone else’s. “Collateral damage” is as opposed to Catholic morality as is abortion, not paying a decent wage, antisemitism, or anything else that subordinates one person’s rights as a person to another person. Are all Catholics consistent? Of course not. Does that mean Catholic morality is wrong? No more than steroid usage means baseball is wrong.

An ethics without an underlying sense of the Good is fundamentally doomed. Bush is wrong because his sense of what is Good is wrong; Democrats that voted for the war are wrong because they never asked “is this war Good?” If more people had a sense of moral ethics instead of just looking for “what works,” there would probably be a lot less murder.

” ‘The right to pursue happiness and private property’—the right to steal and exploit others. ‘Freedom of expression and freedom of the press’—the right to lie. ‘The right of free citizens to bear weapons’—the right to kill “

Are these good things? Does anyone, other than Bush, seriously favor stealing and exploitation and killing? Zizek does not draw a distinction between what one can do and what one should do.

An “ethics” that is centered around feeling good and what works is weak and useless for social change. How can you be opposed to war, killing, unrestrained capitalism, and all the other evils of the GOP without an ethical system that says “No, the war is wrong. The death penalty is wrong. Destroying social security is wrong.” Otherwise, you’re just interested in what works.  How can you change the world if you don’t have an aim for what it is to be like.

In the Eastern Church, there likewirse are no priestesses, but they do marry (including Eastern Catholics). But there is no pedophilia crisis in the East. The “sexual apartheid” can’t be the cause. Likewise, other celibate priests don’t have this problem, e.g., the feel-good buddhists (and if “feel-good” spirituality is the highest ethic, then why do you care about pedophilia?). The problem is widespread in the western church. The problem is that these priests come from the Western world, it is not a problem with the Church, which exists in the third world and in the east, but rather it is a problem with the West. Simply put, the West is diseased. Pedophilia is a symptom of the same thing that causes war, social injustice, and the death penalty. In the West, we value some lives more than other. Its a shame that some priests are tainted with this. And where can I find hope of converting the West, of teaching people that exploitation is wrong? It is not in a feel-good ethic.

Posted by jamie on Apr 10, 2005 at 10:54 AM

No one in their right mind believes that aids is punishment for homosexuals. People sure do assume a lot of things about people and their beliefs. You can’t talk about the fringe and apply it to all catholics. Besides all this, the pope never prevented people who want condoms from getting them. If you are going to go out and have pre-marital sex against the teachings of the church, do you really think you’re going to care that the pope says “no condoms”? “Well, im going to have sex anyway, but certainly without a condom…I wouldn’t want to disobey the church would I??” Comeon, seriously…

Posted by Ryan Conover on Apr 10, 2005 at 10:58 AM

I’ve got a neighbour who likes turnips. I don’t like turnips. He got into a car accident recently. God is telling us the eating of turnips is reprehensible.

BTW - the apostles didn’t write the gospels, in fact it is quite likely that none of the writers of the gospels ever met Jesus. According to Encarta, Matthew’s gospel was written around 80 AD, Mark around 70 AD, Luke - 90, and John - 100.

Posted by Ian on Apr 10, 2005 at 11:01 AM

I don’t agree with you about some people not caring for human life.  There have always been Arabs in the desert that killed anyone and everyone if they thought it was to their advantage.  I’m not saying that most of them are like that.  But where do you think we got the Sadams, the kadafis (spelled wrong)how about Arafat, Atila the Hun, the Baals.  These DBA’s would have treated their own people decently if they believed in the value of human life. 

You tell me why the New Testament is pushed so hard as being the word of the Lord then since you know everything.

The question was not how you get aids but the morals behind it.  Homosexuality is described in the bible as a beastual act.  It sure is caught by any foods you eat.  Yes straight people can get aids from one another too, but there was a case of aids somewhere in the bed hopping since you don’t get it off a toilet seat.  I prefer to think cancer and heart research would be a far better way to spend money then finding a cure for aids.  Why are you so hot under the collar about it anyway, do you by chance belong in that catagory?

Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Apr 10, 2005 at 11:20 AM

Jamie that was a well written piece.  I agree with what you had to say, I’m sorry to say I haven’t a grasp of the english language the way you do.  I detest the Bush administration and everything it stands for.  I’m dumb founded how that forked tongued fool could get so many people to accept us.  I’m so afraid of what condition this country is going to be in, in a few years.  The way Bush makes enemies, if one nation we are indept to decides to call in our mark we will go belly up.  I think Iould rather take my chances with the pope and the Lord then with this administration.  Whats wrong with the people today is pure greed and nothing else.

Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Apr 10, 2005 at 11:29 AM

None of you has got the point. What matters is to accept and admitt the contradictions and tensions in one’s own discource and resist against any urge to “complete” and cover the cracks and voids of thinking. There is more truth in Pope’s clinging to “dogmatic and solid values” than in New Age mottos with all it’s “good” and “peacfull” wisdomes. One could find it’s roots in liberal false universalism and it’s “victim-other”. Zizek’s criticism of multicultrulism in a world where “apparantly” every thing is permitted is a criticism of late-capitalist ideology: you can violate all laws except the laws of capital.

Posted by Omid Mehrgan on Apr 10, 2005 at 1:37 PM

As much as I’ve tried to address Mr. Zizek’s article and reader’s comments from a dispassionate platform of reason, good will, and the universality of all people, it has become obvious that the emotionalism and personal self-identification that people attach to the subjects of religion and religious dogma will inevitably bring about polemic confrontations between opposing personalities – thus, sabotaging my efforts at interjecting a sense of common ground in our human experience. A sameness of human beings that infers the solution to our differences is to be found in the central core ideal of respect for all life. Peace and justice can only flourish from this foundation. So I will cease and desist after this.

But I did want to address Pat Grzybowski’s comments that were obviously directed toward me, without her naming me:

American’s romantic naivety about our history and heroes has led to our continued failure to put our leaders and their actions - past and present - under the same critical microscope that we place other heads of state. We’ve ignored the trail of corporate blood money so often at the root of clandestine and overt aggressions on other nations, from war to assassinations. Let us consider that, when we summarily dismiss other’s caring for human life.

I don’t claim to know “everything.” However, my current spirituality and my childhood upbringing in both the Methodist-Episcopal and Catholic Churches has not led me to the same conclussions you’ve reached concerning scriptural meaning or validity. Why not accept that with consideration?

I am heterosexual, but do not accept homosexuality as anything other than part of the diversity of human expression. I do not see a connection between various Church dogmas’ views on homosexuality and AIDs. One is a sexually transmitted disease of dubious origin (some scientists have the opinion that it is man-made), and the other is a lifestyle based on self-identification.

May we some how find the way to enter into a new era of peace on earth.

Posted by Carl Hitchens on Apr 10, 2005 at 2:01 PM

Wow, what an articulate and impassioned dialogue this has been. Thank you “In These Times” for giving a forum for such platitudinous blather. Carl H. , Pat G. , Ian, et al, a round of applause!

Posted by poopooface on Apr 10, 2005 at 2:30 PM

Why are you called poopooface.  Is it because thats the side you most often show to the world?  You should not berate others when they haven’t heard your drivel about this article yet.
So if you can’t say something construction, keep your silly opinion of us to yourself.

Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Apr 10, 2005 at 4:57 PM

Pat G. ,
I don’t think everyone’s opinion is worth hearing (this may include Zizek’s too), just as you claimed that my opinion should be kept to myself. I’m sorry if I was/am mean.

Posted by poopooface on Apr 10, 2005 at 5:37 PM

I would love to hear why any scientists think AIDS is man-made, or how one might make a virus, especially in the 70’s.

Posted by Ryan Conover on Apr 10, 2005 at 7:36 PM

It seems that there have been Marxist, Catholic apologist, Liberal, and psychoanalytic approaches discussed so far. I’d like to add another: reactionary. As a staunch Creationist and advocate of celibacy, I believe the larger point hasn’t yet been made, namely that God chose America to be the greatest country on Earth. We speak of the Pope as if he’s the President. The Pope is supposedly infallible, but since God chose America, that means only the U.S. President can be. As an American I realize that our mission in this world is to spread American (thus God’s) values and goods. They aren’t called “goods” for nothing! When I watch TV and see a crying Arab on the street, I wish to God somebody would slap an American flag in his hands and watch that gaunt face light up like a roman candle. Arabs can grow mustaches more easily than we can, so if they are waving a flag and have a moustache don’t be so sure they aren’t a little kid. This is important because the little ones are less dangerous. Back to original point: Kierkegaard got it wrong when he said the “ethical is the universal,” in fact the “ethical” is the American. If we do it, it’s ethical, regardless of what any Pope has to say. For more reactionary worldviews, get webtuned to www.welloiledrobot.com

Posted by Hoggy on Apr 10, 2005 at 7:47 PM

As I understand what Zizek is saying, those who moan about the Pope’s failure to sign up to liberal situationist ethics in respect of sexual practices and the prohibition on excessive greed, which underpins much of late capitalism, miss the point about the Catholic Church,the point about the crisis of legitimacy the Church, and liberalism. 
The problem for 21st century liberalism is that it wants to have it both ways-an unrestrained freedom for the individual to do as s/he pleases, on the grounds that the ‘autonomous’  self referential individual is the only proper source of value in evaluating social action and policy, whilst decrying at the same time the practical social effects of this form of practical nihilism.

The Pope at least is consistent.

He understood that the insitution of which he was head relies for social order on the imposition of authoritative pronouncements unable to be challenged by anyone, on the basis that the proouncments of the Church reflect ‘divine’ authority.

Now I myself could not disagree more with this way of dealing with the problem of reconciling individual freedom and autonomy with the necessary circumstance that for humans, this promise or goal can only ever be socially realised. However, those who want the Church to combine its claim to ‘divine’ authority with liberal situationist ethics as a means of reforming current social and economic arrangements are confusing two fundamentally different ways of understanding and dealing with social reality. It is a category confusion.

Myself, I could not care less what the Church requires its adherents to believe and practice. I object however when these pronouncements move from the realm of private religious practice to influence actual policies and programs. But of course that is the point. For the Church, not to try and ensure that its pronouncements are implemented in an actually existing society, means that it is failing in what it understands to be its mission. The result in Africa, to take one point, is that women and children have been condemned to death by the Church’s insistence that the use of condoms be condemned, and by the deeply institutionaly misogynist culture that tacitly accepts that while many women are in no position to refuse sexual activity demanded by their ‘lawful’ husbands, for example, the lives, the very right to exist of actually existing women, must always be subordinate to the claims of the Church that women simply have less claim to the status of autonomous moral being than men, since their divinly sactioned role is essentially inseparable from their biological role in reproduction. That is the stark essential truth of the Church’s position, whichever way you cut it.

It is this and the uncomfortable reality that the beliefs of the Church sincerely held have resulted in the deaths of thousands, possibly millions of ‘innocent’ people that is so profoundly confronting about the Church’s approach to social order based on ‘divine’ authority. But before smug liberals start smiling and agreeing, may I suggest that the philosophical underpinnings of that approach to social order has also resulted in the deaths of millions, from hunger, slavery, war, and simple, preventable misery. The fact that the ‘market’ and its mysterious workings are used to obscure this fact, does not render it any the less lethal for actually existing human beings.

The late Pope knew this, and he said some things about it. The point is however, nothing the Church says about what to do about this, can possibly be a basis for social action that is at the same time liberatory and worthy of the human capcity for reason and freedom, liberty and order. But neither can liberalism, which often appoints itself as the official opposition to papal obscurantism. That is I think the point that was being made by Zizek.

Posted by Jane Doe on Apr 10, 2005 at 7:50 PM

Hi Jane,
You wrote:
“But before smug liberals start smiling and agreeing, may I suggest that the philosophical underpinnings of that approach to social order has also resulted in the deaths of millions, from hunger, slavery, war, and simple, preventable misery.”

I would appreciate some specifics about what you consider are “the philosophical underpinnings” of smug liberals that have “resulted in the deaths of millions” of people.

The author and a number of commenters here have bandied about this word “liberal” in a way that puzzles me. Something being done by the MSM a great deal as well.
Who can define liberal? What is this definition called “feel-good liberal” baloney. Conservatives and others protecting their own authoritarian bent, often set up a “straw man” (some defined word) and then expecting you to accept their framing of the discussion proceed to tear it down. Liberal in my view is not based on “feelgoodism,” nor on “permissiveness” as the fearful conservatives allege. Certainly Gray and his truly silly pop psychology Mars-Venus book can’t speak to anyone from the experience of his own life. His marriage fell apart and both he and his ex wife have cashed in (with books) on their superficial solutions on making a relationship work. Nor can this author it appears.

Believe it or not, there is another kind of “Liberal” view that believes in connecting personal freedom with responsibility, both personally as well as it applies to the world.

Regarding the article, I think Carl Hitchens summed it up nicely. His analysis says it all. The author “juxtapose(s) all manner of separate topics into one huge smorgasbord of smug opinionation.”

Posted by Merlin on Apr 10, 2005 at 10:04 PM

Hi Hoggy,
Your view is not reactionary nor funny. It is the truth according to the wingnut believers. It is how they feel and act on the political scene. From Bush to the insanity of Tom DeLay and all the other photo-op phonies (including Jessie Jackson.) How I wish I could laugh at this parody or sarcasm or cynicism, if this were the case! Instead I can only shake my head in sadness while being faced with the truth that so many people are living and breathing this farce.
Sigh…

Posted by Merlin on Apr 10, 2005 at 10:20 PM

Merlin,
I think I may have been misunderstood. By ‘liberal’ I meant classical liberal thinkers such as bentham and Mills (and others) whose writings and thinking underpin both libertarian and free market economics, as well as more palatable notions of social liberalism. I was notmeaning to suggest that US ‘liberals’, which is a term you guys use for more social democratic thought are exactly the same and are the ppoint of my argument. You may still disagree, but I think I have used a term which has a different meaning in the US context.

Posted by Jane Doe on Apr 10, 2005 at 11:13 PM

Hi Jane,
Thanks for your explanation.

Posted by Merlin on Apr 10, 2005 at 11:42 PM

The way I see it the problem for 21st century conservatism is that it wants to have it both ways-an unrestrained freedom for the individual to do as s/he pleases, on the grounds that the ‘autonomous’ self referential individual is the only proper source of value in evaluating social action and policy, whilst decrying at the same time the practical social effects of this form of practical nihilism. Oops. That’s a whole heck of a lot of words and big ones at that which mask an absence of content. Both sides in this political “debate” between conservatism and liberalism stress personal freedom for themselves while piously imposing strictures on others.

Posted by Ian on Apr 11, 2005 at 4:30 AM

The idea the liberals lack morals and are the cause of the breakdown of civilization is factually and historically ungrounded. Sadly, some liberals don’t practice the discipline required of a truly liberal era. Just as conservatives fail. The romantic image of the late Pope John Paul II presented in this article betrays a reality where ecumenism was trashed, liberation theology was undermined and the majority of American & European Catholics are now denied a space for their faith within their own church.

Posted by Tim on Apr 11, 2005 at 5:10 AM

As long as moral philosophy is on deck, let me make big plug against Original Sin. Definitely worthy of being discarded as a philosophical premise, I heartily encourage all of you to search your own minds for that little nugget of self-loathing and expunge it right away, along with all the downstream thoughts linked to it. Speak against it also in your personal propaganda efforts, you’ll be glad you did.

It won’t outrightly solve the injustices of society, but it would be a worthy start. Original Sin, scrap it. Really, just flush that shit.

Posted by Kuya on Apr 11, 2005 at 5:10 PM

Hi Kuya,
You suggested:
“...Original Sin. Definitely worthy of being discarded as a philosophical
premise.”

Ah, the complications you raise!  What you suggest would take away the power of the Christian religion to be what it is and do what it does.

Sin is the result of the transgression of acknowledged rules or Commandments from God. To do away with the concept of sin is to do away with the rules or Commandments that cause them to be. To have sin (evil) you must have “good.” Without sin, “good” loses its place in the dualistic balance created by God.” “Good” then must be redefined as it no longer is the opposite of sin. Would “good” take on a completely secular definition? Without sin where is the fear of hell; or for that matter, the concept of Hell? Is there a need for Hell without sin? How would it be justified? What, then, did Jesus die for? If there is no sin does that make him a fool or a charlatan for his crucifixion?
What is the role of the priest without the cycle of sin, confession, forgiveness; and sin once again beginning a new cycle? Without sin as a concept, what is the role for a Bishop or a Cardinal or a Pope? Do they even have a viable purpose? What happens to the sermons of “fire and damnation?” What about the “end time” and the “rapture?” Will there be no gloating at the suffering of the people “Left Behind” at the time of Armageddon?

Questions, questions, questions…such a can of worms you have opened!

No sin?...Thus crumbles the religion underpinning it, and the concept of the Christian God as he is defined.

No sin, no religion, no God as we understand them now? How would we justify our crusades or our “liberations?”

My friend I think you are suggesting we kick the “Big Crutch” out from under the believers.

Posted by Merlin on Apr 11, 2005 at 6:26 PM

Hello Merlin,

Gracias for your response.  :-)  I’m a “believer” myself, but only in the awesome majesty of the process that brought us all about, which I consider truly worthy of worship. I think the best way to worship is to treat people, other critters, the world, etc, as though they’re inherently valuable and worthy of being taken care of.

Yes, I know that sounds like a simplistic theology.  :-)  Blame it on my Zen teacher, way back when.

What I heartily reject is the idea of inherited sin. Actually, even the Bible says that the sins of the father don’t devolve to the son (although I also don’t buy the inerrancy fiction).

There’s surely “sin” in the world, although I’d personally rather be more specific about unjust conditions, active evil, neglectful allowance that people live in squalor through no fault of their own, self-indulgence that actually injures others, and all that. Definitely those kinds of things need to be addressed with the active grace of conscientious people, applying their efforts to improve the quality of human life and to minimize the negative consequences of their pursuit of a pleasing life. But the inherent unworthyness of people of all times and places, the unbridgeable separation of humanity from their divine Source… No way, no how, it aint there.

May peace be with ya.

Posted by Kuya on Apr 11, 2005 at 9:44 PM

Kuya and Merlin,
  You two have some seriously flawed concepts of Catholic concepts.
  First, in the Catholic Church ‘Original Sin’ does not mean we are all innately evil - it refers to the fact that we are imperfect beings in an imperfect world with autonomous free will. Original Sin means that even with the best of intentions and guidance, we are capable of sinning. No more than that. Indeed, Catholic doctrine insists repeatedly that people are innately good.
  And ‘good’ does not depend on ‘evil. Catholicism is not some New Age duality cult. Good is acting in accordance with natural law - to do what is good. Morals, ethics, and the natural law exist as they are, not in a contrast to evil. If no one were to do evil, the concept of ethics and the details of what is ethical would not change. Catholics do not preach fire and brimstone. The Rapture and the End Times are foreign to Catholic doctrines and seen as a weird fad. The Left Behind books are seen as something silly or wrong-headed.
  Merlin, wondering what a Bishop would do if he couldn’t threaten his flock with the Rapture is pretty darned silly, akin to accusing Alec Baldwin of promoting the Iraq War.

Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 12, 2005 at 4:51 AM

Jane,
  I have always been confused by the claim that the Catholic Church has the blood of “millions” on its hands for not changing its moral teachings on condoms. The Church teaches a) no extra-marital sex and b) no use of condoms or other artificial birth control. Aren’t the “millions” who engage in promiscuous behavior at least as guilty as the Church? Aren’t the men and women who knowlingly engage in the risky sexual behavior under any burden of guilt? And can you blame the institution for its rules when the problem is that their rules aren’t followed?
  Face it, if everyone in Africa actually listened to the Vatican, there wouldn’t be an AIDS pandemic there, would there?
  And there is a lone bright spot in Africa - Uganda. the infection rate is slowing there and even retreating. What is their secret? The government *reinforces and promotes* Catholic teachings; no extra-marital sex is the only tool that is working in the Real World of Africa. tens of millions of dollars worth of free condoms have had virtually no statistical impact in South Africam but abstinance education is making great inroads in Uganda.
  Seems like the problem may be that people aren’t listening to what the Bishops are saying.

  And I have no idea where you get the belief that the Catholic Church sees women as less autonomous than men. The Church’s teachings on the inherent worth, goodness, and equality of women are 2,000 years old, including a huge volume from John Paul II himself on equality in the workplace. And in light of the fact that the first women lawyers, doctors, and dipolomats were all trained by the Catholic Church (as well as employed by them) really knocks that theory on its hat.

Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 12, 2005 at 5:05 AM

Bravo Rick Stump

Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Apr 12, 2005 at 11:30 AM

Rick,
1. My point is that women in Africa and many other parts of the world simply don’t have the option to be celibate. They are bound to comply with their husbands in everything, including sex. Get it? THEY HAVE NO CHOICE!
2. The church’s teachings on women have changed a little over the last decade largely as a result of the owmen’s meovement. However please do not rewrite history. The Church’s position on the rights of women to education, social autonomy and freedom from the dictates of their husbands, fathers and the priest, is a most recent phenomenon. Why don’t you read the encyclicals of the 19th century popes,on the evils of democracy and women’s rights. And while you are about it, go read St Augustine. Please don’t treat the readers as fools. You may believe wha you like, but nelieving doesn’t make it so.

PS Since when are the people of Uganda or anywhere else for that matter, obliged to listen to what catholic bishops or any others have to say? Who said so and on what authority?

Posted by Jane Doe on Apr 12, 2005 at 3:08 PM

Hi Rick,
You believe I have some “serious flawed concepts of Catholic concepts.” I would disagree with you on that. We are simply looking at this from totally different angles. Being an ex Catholic I certainly understand the difference between the evangelical Christians and the Catholic Church. I also understand what Original Sin is supposed to represent. Actually, I don’t accept your explanation of the meaning of Original Sin as correct, but a discussion of details and issues is irrelavent to me. I don’t believe in God and all the things that flow from that belief.

By your response I suspect you missed the point my rant pretty much entirely.  My main point is that, religion, whether it be Catholicism, or any other belief syste (especially pernicious are the wingnut Dominionists,) is systemically flawed. All authoritarian organizations, rule by their own laws within their own “legal” area, whether they are a business, government or a church. The people within their control must accept their edicts. Differing opinions or the idea of change is unacceptable. On a personal, individual level I accept a person’s choice and his right to choose. I reject any entity forcing its choice on me or others.
I reject the concept of authoritarian rule, even when it comes in the form of a “benovelent father figure” who holds some ideas that are full of compassion. The Pope showed that side in his stand against war and the death penalty. The fact that I agree with his (the Church’s) view on a subject does not change the systemic problem of authoritarianism. His view against the equality of women (becoming priests for instance) is set in stone and virtually forced, by edict, on the flock whether they like it or not. There are many Catholics who swallow their anger at this sexist, male dominated view in order to stay within the Church.
I see little difference between any of the religions (Christianity, Judiasm, Islam or the authoritarian forms of the Eastern religions.) Little difference even between religion and the current Bush Administration as they relate to the people.
Authorianism is a deeply flawed and often terrible form of “governing” people. Democracy, even though it is not perfect, and is a work in progress, is a far better choice, in my view, than religion in taking care of the world’s problems. The Church is not a Democracy.

My closing remark in that post, in case you missed it, was a sarcastic jab at those folks who “use” religion as an addiction to run away from their problems. For them, religion is little more than a “Big Crutch” that they will hobble around on for the rest of their lives while they avoid life. My feeling is that many, if not most, evangelicals are doing that, to one degree or another. For these folks anything that threatens their belief syste (i.e. sin doesn’t exist, thus present ing them with an infinite number of painful questions) and threatens to kick the “crutch” out from under them sending them crashing back into the painful life they escaped into religion from.

All of this is not to knock the folks that are truly spiritual. These folks are where we all should be, but free of the destructive authorianism that current mainstream religions supply.

YMMV. Your milage may vary.

Posted by Merlin on Apr 12, 2005 at 4:37 PM

Hello Rick Stump,
Permit me to clarify. My take on Original Sin is that there is an inherent, inborn separation between the divine creator (evolver, actually) and humans, and that in the absence of ritual baptism and decisive acceptance of the Risen Jesus as one’s personal savior from the inherited burden of sinful imperfection, passed down from the time of “Adam”, we are doomed to remain separated from That which brought us about, implying an uncrossable gap between the source of all life and love, in life and after. That’s what’s been said to me by Christians of many stripes including Catholics, and also what I heard in a variety of churches, Catholic, Protestant, and “non-denominational” (as they described themselves).

If that take on Original Sin is different than the real Catholic phrasing, Rick, sorry, however it does seem to be the typical way that people at large think about O.S. in their daily lives; it is surely how they talk about it. And so, I speak against it as a basic paradigm of thought, trying to make an inroad toward eroding the idea out of people’s minds, to whatever extent they’re willing to question it as a premise and (I hope) to ultimately drop it.

I didn’t mean to aim at Catholics per se, although the context of my statement (the article) might suggest that. It’s a widespread idea among Christians at large (not all, however, and other religions, e.g. Islam and Buddhism, don’t accept it).

I think it’s really so very mistaken, and does much more harm than good.

You see, sir, I don’t think I need an intermediary between myself and God. I don’t think I’ll suffer after I’m dead over it, either, and I repeat my suggestion to anyone who does think so that they look over the concept with a very critical eye, not to accept it merely on the authority of an interpretation of scripture, and think hard about the implications of it as a worldview. Maybe all y’all who accept the idea will still do so afterward, it’s cool, I’m not one to legislate belief, but I’m taking an opportunity to call it into severe question in this forum. It’s a personal propaganda effort.

You guys aren’t bereft of your connection to your creator, no matter what happened in the past. If you get baptized or not, you still won’t be. The sinfulness or uprightness of your actions is about what you chose and about their outcomes, not about an inborn isolation from the worshipful power that shaped life out of subatomic particles.

Just planting seeds, gang, maybe a few will germinate…

Posted by Kuya on Apr 12, 2005 at 5:40 PM

Jane,
  OK, for whatever reason of culture, the women HAVE NO CHOICE!! The men, presumably, do. As a matter of fact, the Church teaches that husbands owe their wives their very lives. Again, the Church teaches Catholics - including, oddly enough, the men - not to be promiscuous, not to engage in sex with multiple partners, not to force their wives to engage in sex against their wills, etc. Those who ignore these strong moral rules both violate Church teachings *and* put themselves and all of their sexual partners at risk of death. *IF* the citizens of these nations followed *all* of the moral guidelines of the Catholic Church there would be no AIDS pandemic.
  Please go back and read the history of Europe. Almost 1/2 of the Doctors of the Church (i.e., great scholars) are women, mostly from the middle ages. The scholarship of women as varied as Catherine of Siena and Julian of Norwich have been valued publically for their erudition for centuries. St. Claire of Assisi publically chastised the Pope for being a coward in the 13th century, causing him to do as she wished. Some of the most powerful people in middle ages Europe were the Abbesses who controlled vast estates and great wealth often forcing regional and even national rulers to consult them. Women who wanted to avoid arranged marriages or have a career could seek the refuge of the convents, where they had a chance to travel, become scholars studying Greek philosophy and Roman rhetoric, become lawyers of the Church, etc.
  The Church’s admonition that women be free of forced marriage, free to inherit and control lands and money, be represented in the law as indivduals, etc. are ancient *not* recent. 

  And not only is Uganda free to ignore the Catholic bishops, I never said that they are “obeying” anyone. The Ugandan government simply realized that abstinence education is the only chance they have to stop AIDS and echoes Catholic teachings because they are the only ones with a mature, coherent abstinence education program. They do so as secular authorities and differ from the bishops in many particulars.

  I note that you fail to answer my question - why is the Church guilty for the actions of those who refuse to obey what the Church teaches?

Posted by rick stump on Apr 12, 2005 at 6:56 PM

Rick,
Abstinence is ok for those who can and want to-the point is that for those who can’t and don’t want to, condoms save lives. As simple as that . My point is that rather than wait until every body agrees with the teaching of the church, it would relieve suffering and death if people had available to them freely, the means to prevent Aids -condoms. This would mean that you can go preach to living sinners, and try to convert them by way of reason and argument, instead of blaming the dead for their deaths on disobediance.Get it. Uganda’s position on abstinence is a result of US funding for Aids programs being conditional on preaching abstinence. And yes they do use condoms in Uganda, and yes I do think women’s rights would make a huge difference. But the point is for one more time-Preventing access to the means of preventing sidisease and death is a sickness of its own, the results of which should be called properly what it is-a crime against humanity.

Posted by Jane Doe on Apr 12, 2005 at 7:13 PM

The commentary from the athiests here is coming from people who obviously don’t fully understand Catholicism completely. They are willing to use any argument, no matter how flimsy or downright incorrect it may be to impose their views and make others feel miniscule and unimportant, even foolish. Immaturity and egotism are to blame. Why bother….

Posted by Ryan Conover on Apr 12, 2005 at 7:42 PM

Jane,
  Do you know the difference between abstinence and fidelity? Because you seem to switch back and forth. More importantly, if deviating from abstinence can result in death, who *wouldn’t*? What I find amazing in this country is that eople who can’t quit smoking are looked down on as ‘lacking wilpower’ (as are the obese) yet failure to refrain from potentially lethal activities is seen sa something beyond our control. Especially when there are dozens of cultures in exitence now where abstinence until marriage is the norm.
  Last I heard there are millions of condoms delivered to Africa every month and the Church has yet to send squads of Templars to burn them at the docks - so I have no idea where your comment on “preventing access” to condoms comes from. The Church teaches Catholics not to use condoms within marriage and not to engage in sex outside of marriage. Sure, many Catholic groups warn that condoms aren’t a magic shield that makes you immune, but that is an acceptance of reality. Despite the hype, condoms aren’t 100% effective at preventing pregnancy, and its a lot tougher to catch pregnant than to catch AIDS.
  Listen, if you want to sleep around, cheat on your spouse, and engage in risky behavior - go aheadm its patently obvious that I can’t stop you. But don’t refuse to wear a condom while visiting a prostitute and then blame the Catholic Church when you get AIDS - they told you to avoid all those risks before even mentioning condoms.
  And the Ugandan government is fully ommitted to abstinence education and programs for a simple reason - its the only thing working. The WHO confirms that Uganda’s programs are working (and I never tried to imply they forbid condms; they just focus on abstinence. More evidence of the lack of direct involvement of the Church). The WHO also confirms that the many, many programs focusing on the use of condoms are failing, and often failing miserably.
  And, once again, are you capable of explaining why you blame the Catholic Church for the actions of people who knowingly and willingly engage in risky sexual behaviors despite the warnings of everyone from the Church to Planned Parenthood?

Posted by rick stump on Apr 12, 2005 at 9:33 PM

Good column, Slavoj. I too see a lot of contradictions and plain stupdity in liberalism. It’s crap. But what isn’t? It’s just a phase, then there will be some other crap to make fun of.

Cheers.

Posted by abb1 on Apr 13, 2005 at 3:08 AM

What the passing of the Pope has brought into stark relief is the derision that many people have for Catholics.  Every person I talk to seems to feel it neccessary to deride and mock me for having faith.  It seems that there’s been a shift. Whereas 40-50 years ago if you declared yourself an Agnostic or Atheist then you were met with scorn or pity, now it appears the opposite. The Church is anachronistic, the Papacy is evil, belief in Real Presence is superstitious voodoo. 

It’s like the vegan that yells at me for eating meat…I don’t care what the vegan eats, so leave me alone if I want a taco dammit!

I personally don’t care if “you’ve let Jesus into your life” or whatever, not all of us on on zealous missionary kicks…I have faith, please don’t belittle me for it.

also i think it might bear repeating that as far as I’ve always learned, the social policies of the Church play a secondary role in their purpose.  I’ve always been taught that their chief responsibilities are the dissemination of the Holy Eucharist to the faithful and the forgiveness of sins…can anybody back me up on this or was my French Catholic education wrong?

Posted by neil on Apr 13, 2005 at 7:30 AM

Re: Paedophilia and the Church
I think it is simplistic and just plain inaccurate to suggest that the church ‘systematically’ produces paedophiles.

It is now a recognised fact that paedophiles choose environments that put them in contact with potential victims.

Many schools, orphanages and youth groups have discovered (mostly) men with their own motives for working with young people (especially disadvantaged young people). This is particularly shocking when the abuser is dressed as a representative of God, but no less distressing to the victim if it is the head of his/her swim team.

I would like to know how the author reaches his conclusion that “it is the priesthood itself that generates pedophilia through its sexual apartheid (male exclusivity)”? Where is the sociological research to back this up? I’m genuinely curious. I’m not a supporter of an all-male, celibate priesthood, so if this statement is grounded in anything other than personal opinion, I’d like to be able to read the studies that produced it.

Over-simplifying paedophilia does a disservice to its victims.

I don’t know if there is anything that can ever compensate someone for being abused as a child. But perhaps to see that people are learning from the errors of the past and are working to prevent their repetition in the future comes as some comfort, especially since this work for a better future could not have happened without the bravery of past victims speaking out against their abusers.

Posted by Tel on Apr 13, 2005 at 7:43 AM

C’mon Neil. This meme of being persecuted is just part of the whole Christian schtick. Look at the situation objectively - everybody is persecuted for some reason or other and today, if you want serious persecution, try being a Muslim.

Posted by Ian McGarrett on Apr 13, 2005 at 8:02 AM

All this rhetoric about religions, Catholic vs whatever is making me go blind.  What about “Religion is the opiate of the people”,
“Do unto others as you would have done to you” and “All that is brown is not chocolate”.

A few simple rules to live by…

Posted by Cisco on Apr 13, 2005 at 8:30 AM

This is a weak article, that attempts to praise the pope for his dogmatism, and ignores his damage to the liberation theology movement, his failure to respond humanely to the AIDS problem, environmental damage, imperialistic wars, and many of the world’s other pressing problems and needs. The only good thing about the article is that it points out a few of his other failures. Generally, it is a rambling, pretentious, and weakly argued mess that is not worthy of In These Times.

Posted by gerry on Apr 13, 2005 at 9:37 AM

Gerry,
  Quick, name three Catholic theologians (i.e., with degrees in Catholic theology and a mandatum) “suppressed” by the Pope for espousing Liberation Theology. Then explain why the seminal “A Theology of Liberation” is still required reading for all students of Catholic Theology in approved degree programs.
  Liberation Theology was never ‘suppressed’ or ‘damaged’. Theologians who used liberation theology as a tool to espouse marxism or socialism were told that they are teachers of theology, not guerrillas.
  Gee, apparantly stating that a war is immoral and unjustified isn’t “opposing” it, although Kerry voting for the war and then recanting *is*. And you need to read a few encyclicals about humanity’s moral obligations as shepherds before you continue down the environmental path again.

Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 13, 2005 at 11:51 AM

Ian,

Sorry, I guess I wrote that post a little too hastily. I didn’t mean to imply that I’m persecuted…that’s a ridiculous notion.  I was just trying to point out that atheists and agnostics in their rush to deny the legitimacy of someone who believes in the Catholic Faith are guilty of doing the exact same things we were 50 years ago.

and while I’m far from an apoligist for the Catholic Church (I sincerely hope that the new pope will try to modernize the church even just a little) I’ve always been taught that what the Church has to say on social issues is of secondary relevance to the mystery of the Paschal Sacrifice and the forgiveness of sins and the live everlasting etc. etc.

Karl Marx, while he is my biggest hero, got it wrong.  Religion is not the opiate of the masses.  Rather Tommy Douglas (founder of the NDP in Canada) got it right: “Socialism as far as I can tell is Christianity in practice”

Posted by neil on Apr 13, 2005 at 12:49 PM

Rick
Three catholic theologians suppressed by the Vatican under the previous Pope:
1.Bishop Leonardo Boff of Brazil—silenced in 1985 by the Pope, and later left the church as a result
2. Bishop Feodine(sp?) of Brazi—who decided to leave in protest of Boff’s silencing
3. Bishop Ernesto Cardinal, censured by the Pope during his visit to Nicaragua in 1983
On war—Did the Pope speak out against the invasion of Iraq, or Italy’s involvement in it?
And if we are shepherds, perhaps we need to stop messing up the pastures, which aren’t doing too well under the acid rain…
Gerry

Posted by gerry on Apr 13, 2005 at 1:30 PM

Gerry,
  Sorry, you failed to meet the critereon. Boff was silenced for his Christology, not for his stance on liberation theology (although he did openly espouse marxism under the guise of promoting liberation theology). Oh, and Boff was *not* a bishop!
  Cardenal was also not censured for liberation theology. Instead, he was chastened for holding political office while being a priest. He refused to give up his political office and was defrocked for disobedience. Cardenal was also not a bishop.
  And whoever you mean by Bishop feodine, I hardly think that you can say the Vatican suppressed someone when they left over actions against someone else.
  The statement of the Pope was that the Iraq War does not meet the criteria of Just War Theory. Meaning that it is immoral to wage it.

Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 13, 2005 at 7:48 PM

Rick

The fact remains: the Vatican under the past Pope actively fought against the social activism that characterized the Liberation Theology movement. And your simplistic equation of socialism with guerillas shows the same kind of prejudice and overstatement that characterized the Vatican since the appointment of John Paul.

Gerry

Posted by gerry on Apr 14, 2005 at 9:28 AM

Gerry,
  So there are no marxist guerrillas in Latin America? And the most extreme elements of the Liberation Theology movement didn’t support them? Fr. Bourgeoise *still* boasts of going on armed patrols with marxist guerrillas in Latin America. If by ‘social activism’ you mean ‘promoting specific political systems’, yes, the Church opposes that.I hear many in America clamoring to keep religion and the state separate when it comes to abortion and then decry the Pope “suppressing” rogue priests who wanted to champion socialism and communism in Latin America. You can’t have it both ways.
  Cardenal is a prime example - he wasn’t in a parish, he was a politician advocating a specific political stance and imposing it. This is in violation of Church rules for priests and very problemmatic in other ways, too.
  Even Archbishop Romero chastened the elements of the Church in Latin America who espoused marxism and socialism, as it interferes with actually caring for the poor. And I am sure he disapproved of the priests who carried AK-47s while they patrolled with guerrillas.
  Even the cardinals from Latin America who disagreed with JPII, even disliked him, admit that when they visited him or were summoned by him he always asked three questions; “What are you doing for the poor?”, “What are you doing for the workers?”, “What are you doing for the young?”. And they also say they were required to make progress in these areas.
  As a student of liberation theology, I can tell you that this *is* the core of that movement.

Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 14, 2005 at 9:46 AM

What can you say about any religion whose principal symbol, the Cross or the Crescent, is an obvious reference to sado-masochism.  Even Judaism is not immune: open up the Star of David and see what you get…

Albert Camus defined the structural equivalence of Communism and Christianity: communism (Hammer and Sickle) is the materialist heir to christian spirituality.  After the Revolution (or the Last Judgement), the faithful will obtain their salvation and the infidels will be suitably condemned.  The only difference is that a spiritual paradise is exchanged for an equally credulous material paradise.  The more philosophically inclined among us might find some consolation in the recognition that our children and grandchildren might benefit from the sacrifice of our collective crimes.  They will, in any case, revise the details of our heroic evolution.

The point is that Original Sin is not a doctrinal or theological speculation meant to absolve us from our sins.  It’s an awareness that our collective survival, however justified we claim it may have been, is an unavoidably pathological process in a pathogenic universe.

The heart of a heartless world.  The sigh of an oppressed creature.

Posted by Jerry on Apr 14, 2005 at 2:53 PM

Jaysus, Jerry, cheer up!

The world is not heartless. The greedy tend to be more virulent, true. And those who live and let live tend to take a while to acknowledge a threat, yes. But there are thousands out there fighting the good fight every day.
Forget big things like the fact that pretty much any country that ever had to fight for its right to self-governance immediately enshrines ‘freedom of speech’ in its constitution, I’m talking about individuals who take a stand - and you don’t have to go back that far in history and it’s happening all over the world. Whether it’s a Catholic priest offering his life to save that of a husband and father in 1940s Auschwitz, a supermarket checkout worker in 1980s Dublin who refused to handle Outspan oranges because of the apartheid system in South Africa at the time or, right this second, Medecins sans Frontieres’ doctors risking their own lives fighting the Marburg virus in Angola today.

Yes self-interested parties constantly try to amend or subvert ‘freedom of speech’, yes the very fact Maximillian Kolbe had to make that sacrifice was because Auschwitz even existed, yes the supermarket check out worker lost her job (although she subsequently got the Trade Unions on her side and succeeded in raising the political profile of the whole issue to motivate a nation, as well as getting her job back), yes the work of Medecins sans Frontieres is a small positive in a wave of negatives inflicted on the African continent by Europe, but the point is, individuals made & make a difference. Don’t give up, keep fighting the good fight, even if the only thing you can do (and if everyone did this, the planet would be a better place within a generation) is bring your children up to have self-respect, to respect others and to respect the planet of which they are temporary residents.

Seeeeeriously, Jerry, I’m not some happy-clappy Pollyanna, but taking existentialism to the point of nihilism is just as personally limiting as the unquestioning embrace of any other doctrine. A less blinkered view is just as much a trap if it means all you do is just stand there looking at it.

Here are two useful things I learned at my Roman Catholic convent school - one is the existence of moral dilemmas (yes! I learned that sometimes there is NO right answer and you just have to work out the least wrong path before you make your decision) and the second is that human beings have free will and can make and stand by any decision if they reach BASED ON AN INFORMED CONSCIENCE.

Of course, this latter is the bit that irks most people. Everyone wants free will, but few people want to have to examine and inform their conscience first. You can’t just choose what you want, what’s most immediately pleasant or what’s easiest, you must study, you must reflect, you must consider the consequences, not just personal consequences but the effect your actions have on others, some would say you must pray for guidance.

Basically, though, you have the right IF you take the responsibility.

Don’t let yourself be paralysed by a sense of ‘what’s the point?’. The woman next to you on the bus has never had the chance to reflect on the collective survival of the human race because she’s too busy working three jobs to feed her children. Get out and activate for an increase in the basic wage. Teach adult literacy classes, if you’re of a more academic inclination. Even if your only motivation for doing these things is to allow her more time and education so she can read Camus and Sartre! Just as my motivation might be to give her more time and knowledge so she doesn’t have to keep reacting to the things life throws at her but can consider her actions.

You may not believe there’s any explanation for humanity or any reason why we’re here, but right now we are here and we should look after one and other. Maybe we are all on the brink of nothing - then all you have is this moment, live in it.

Posted by Tel on Apr 15, 2005 at 1:53 AM

Hi Tel,
Wanted to tell you how much I enjoyed reading your e-mail.  I think the reason people do not stand up and make themselves heard on important issues is that they’re scared.  Nothing in our world is stable today.  People use to feel if they did their jobs and did it well, they would probably have the job for life.  So you do not want to roil the waters because your afraid of loosing everything you have.  When you reach the age of 40 it is harder to attain employment.  So don’t condemn people for these type of actions.
Religion is a guide line to follow so you can be part of society.  If you did not have religion and the fear of going to hell for your actions, what would stop people from becoming base animals?  Even if you were not raised with religion, your parents surely had standards to live by that they taught you.  Society is kept sane and on an even keel because of laws and rules.  There isn’t anything that is total freedom no matter who you are.  The pope has alot of power over people because people want him to regulate and control the actions of people.  We have a role model for everything, the pope, your boss, the president, law enforcement, and anywhere else you want to take this.  I sincerely pray for peace on earth, but my mind tells me that is wishful thinking.

Posted by Pat Grzybowski on Apr 15, 2005 at 11:36 AM

“Keep fighting the good fight. Bring your children up to have self-respect, to respect others and to respect the others.” Thank you Tel. I couldn’t agree with you more. But do we need “religious guidance” to have an “informed conscience”? I personally don’t think so. I don’t believe in a god given the permanent state of injustice humanity has been in ever since the beginning…yet I consider myself to be “respectful” of myself, the others and our planet. I don’t eat meat, buy organic food, pay close attention to how and what I consume and am a pacifist and environmentalist.I try to keep myself up informed and notice that the plight of a lot of our fellow human beings, the animal kingdom, and the environment as a whole is taking a full on battering. This despite media savvy people like the former pope and the omnipresence of the world’s other religions (which in my humble opinion are only successful sects) filling the airwaves. Why not concentrate on the things that matter most for our present and future generations?

Posted by chris p on Apr 16, 2005 at 3:20 PM

” ...to respect others and respect the planet” which is what I wanted to type- sorry;-)
How about a black woman for pope? Maybe I’d start believing in a god that way…;-)

Posted by chris p on Apr 16, 2005 at 3:28 PM

Pat,
  The motivation of Catholics (at least, the one we should all strive for) is *not* ‘fear of Hell’, it is the desire to live and act morally, to be a positive agent for ethical, moral behavior.  And as far aas the ‘Pope having power’ over Catholics, he has about as much as the president of a college - about the most he can do is expell you.

Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 18, 2005 at 7:41 AM

To Chris P:
I don’t think ‘religious’ guidance is necessary to have an informed conscience but some ethical guidance must apply - this may be a secularised version of your ancestral religion, a philosophy you’ve studied and adhere to, but something, I believe, that is beyond one’s immediate personal experience.

To Pat G:
I would never condemn someone for being scared. I’m scared a lot of the time myself! You can’t be brave if you’re not scared first. I think Rick answers you best in relation to fear of hell & the Pope.

Posted by Tel on Apr 18, 2005 at 8:28 AM

I stopped reading after the writer accused blacks of rewriting african history to give themselves a sense of pride.  He is entirely wrong on his assertion.  Egypt is an african country where dark skinned african once reigned.  The builders and architects of the pyramids and sphinx were of african descent.  Now i don’t believe african americans to be rewriting history - its not like they are claiming that they had computer 3000 years ago.  They just had a better understanding of science. Europeans added to this knowledge and expounded on it.  Most of the most important inventions in ancient times were invented by peoples of color (gun powder, paper, to name a few).  Not that europeans were lacking intelligence, just their part of the world didn’t have the richness of the lands of the peoples of color.  The writer jumped around so much I fail to see how this is about the pope.

Posted by Teal'c on Apr 19, 2005 at 8:48 AM

“One can see why the Dalai Lama is a much more appropriate leader for our postmodern, permissive times. He presents us with a feel-good spiritualism without any specific obligations..”

This is insulting. As a former Catholic who has studied the Dalai Lama, I find this kind of statement extremely bigoted and ignorant.

Since when do Catholic priests own the moral compass for the planet? When they executed women in medival times and stole their land? When they collaborated with the Nazis? When they buggered little boys? 

Go read the Gospel of Thomas. Then maybe you can distinguish between the true teachings of Jesus and the modern corruption of the Catholic church.

Posted by DMR on Apr 19, 2005 at 9:12 AM

The Church, or at least the Curia, has abandoned all notion of owning the moral compass with the election of the Lizard Pope. Former Hitler Youth, supporter of Vatican II when it meant giving him a voice, denigrator of Vatican II when it meant giving others a voice, heir to the mantle of the Grand Inquisitor… John Paul II’s enforcer and John Paul II’s political strategist and ultimately John Paul II’s feet of clay. All hail Benedict XVI, political opportunist extraordinaire.

Posted by Ian McGarrett on Apr 19, 2005 at 10:35 AM

Egyptians were african but they weren’t exactly black. The population of Egypt today is known to be almost identical to the racial makeup of Egypt during the time of the Pharoas. Look at the reconstruction of the features and look of the Pharoas done today, look at Ramses… I don’t say this to take anything away from black Africans, but there are the facts. One can also look at the way the Nubians were depicted in Egyptian art: they were obviousy much darker, and some portrayals of the Nubians even resemble the racist chariactures of African Americans seen during and after slavery in this country. Again, not a racist statement nor is it intended to be one, but to imagine that the Egyptians were black africans is to distort the facts.

Posted by Ryan Conover on Apr 19, 2005 at 11:14 AM

Also, the Gospel of Thomas is just a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus. I see little in that particular document that offers greater insight into the teachings of Jesus than any of the other gospels.

Posted by Ryan Conover on Apr 19, 2005 at 11:19 AM

Hi Rick,
You said:
“ And as far aas the ‘Pope having power’ over Catholics, he has about as much as the president of a college - about the most he can do is expell you.”

If you really believe this you are seriously out of touch with psychology and how it impacts life!

The threat of a life in the hereafter, consisting of the incomprehensible pain of hell, is more powerful than you realize. Why do you think there are “deathbed conversions.” They are made at the last minute in the dread fear that if they don’t “believe” and be “saved” they will suffer eternal damnation. Where do you think that fear comes from? What makes you think the Pope, as God’s “representative” here on earth, has the right to use guilt and fear to cow the masses? After all, for Christians, all life boils down to death, judgement, and then heaven or hell. How the Christian lives his day to day life existence is to give answer to that ending. 

Jesus may have preached the Gospel of love, but today’s distorted Catholic religion, at its base, is all about hewing to the Church’s doctrines under the Pope’s guidance. Failure to do that leads to the ultimate judgement of being condemned by God. To believers in Catholicism this is power in the extreme.

Posted by Merlin on Apr 19, 2005 at 11:37 AM

Merlin,
  Thank you for referring to my faith as ‘distorted’ - really sharpens your arguments, such as they are.
  Someone who cares so little about the doctrines of the Church as to ignore them has no fear of damnation, unless they are emotionally immature in the extreme. Last I heard, the “guilt and fear” you harp on are the provence of Protestants, not Catholics. The greeting of choice of the leaders of the Church for a quarter century has been “Do not be afraid”. A center element of Catholic ethics is that making decisions based on fear is to be avoided and using fear to coerce a decision is immoral and wrong.
  You have a pretty weak grasp of Catholic doctrine, as has been demonstrated before. Here’s an example - the cathedral on St. Paul, Minnesota, has two statues in the front. They represent Faith and Reason, the cornerstones of the Church on Earth. As a systematic theologian I am held accoutnable - if my arguments on ethics and morals are not logically sound, they are flawed and to be fixed.
  Stick to the things you know.

Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 19, 2005 at 12:03 PM

Ah well, another conservative white man at the helm… sigh…why bother?

Posted by chris p. on Apr 19, 2005 at 12:14 PM

So now we have a new Pope who “has served as the chief enforcer of the Church’s doctrine for 20 years,” according the LA Times. A traditionalist who has the backing of 2 Opus Dei Cardinals who said prior to his election, that Opus Dei is “above the fray” politically. If I were to believe that there is no political use of the extremely powerful position Opus Dei holds, I would be the proud owner of a bunch of shares of the Brooklyn Bridge. Sadly, John Paul’s ideas and edicts will continue along with the negativity they reap.

Posted by Merlin on Apr 19, 2005 at 12:17 PM

Chris,
  And what is inherently wrong about a conservative white man? There are a fari number of them in the world - are they all to be dismissed as irrelevant? Are they innately inferior to a woman, or a ‘man of color’?

Merlin,
  Opus Dei are the new Jesuits of the tinfoil hat crowd. A “secret” organization with a published roster of priests, an “elusive” order of average men and women who want to live their spirituality while they work and live, not confine it to a Church on Sundays, and they are now a ‘sinister group’.
  Spare me. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, sometime people are as they say they are.

Posted by rick stump on Apr 19, 2005 at 1:18 PM

Hi Rick,
As a theologian you deal in ivory tower intellectualism and high sounding philosophical theory but are out of touch with the real world. Perhaps you should come down to earth and deal with real people instead of looking at the world through rose colored glasses. That you cannot see the manipulation and control that the Church has been using for a thousand years with devastating effect is testimony to that out of touch idealism.

You pontificated:
“Stick to the things you know.”

This is a “polite” way of telling me to “shut up” if I disagree with you. Nice to see our resident theologian being as arrogant as us lesser mortals.

“Stick to the things you know.”  Is this a mantra of yours? You seem to be drawn to say it.

Posted by Merlin on Apr 19, 2005 at 1:22 PM

In my experience of life I have found that more often than not a cigar is just a cigar just as a cliche is just a cliche. But I have also found that people are seldom what they claim they are. As for these Opus Dei folks, like most pious folk, in trying to emulate the divine they too often lose sight of what it means to be human, ie they lose touch with that self-same humanity that was supposedly God’s gift to them in the first place.

Posted by Ian McGarrett on Apr 19, 2005 at 1:30 PM

Hi Rick,
You stated:
“Opus Dei are the new Jesuits of the tinfoil hat crowd. A “secret”
organization with a published roster of priests, an “elusive” order of
average men and women who want to live their spirituality while they work and live, not confine it to a Church on Sundays, and they are now a
‘sinister group’.

I have no idea why you are saying these things. I said none of them. I said that it is a political oriented group( that was raised to importance by John Paul in about 1982.) It is also no secret that voting for a new Pope is considered a political (within the Church) task. Would you deny that?

You believe that:
“...Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, sometime people are as they
say they are.”

Rick, this is precisely the problem you have. In the real world it is extremely rare that people “are as they say they are.” If you believe they are, you are not seeing what is before your very eyes. We are all mortals here with many glaring faults. Very few of us are willing to show the world the real us. We become masters of hiding from others what we don’t want them to know. And this includes the whole hirarchy in the Catholic Church. Look at the priests involved with children, in recent years. Their abusive conduct was covered up, and in the case of Bernard Law who shuffled them around and ignored the matter, he was given a post in the Vatican by John Paul. A promotion you might say. And didn’t he say mass as well during the recent Church doings there? Were I a Catholic who had been abused, I would be both saddened and insulted as if I had been slapped in the face.

It seems to me, that if there was one thing Jesus knew, it was the reality that everybody was a sinner (and didn’t show it.) Casting the first stone sums that up. So I find it odd that you cling to the notion that because a man is a priest, Pope, Opus Dei Cardinal, or anyone else for that matter, he really is as you see him and then believe him to be.

Posted by Merlin on Apr 19, 2005 at 4:13 PM

I was brought up believing in a one-size-fits-all God, a God that was all-seeing, all-powerful, and ever-present, a God which, by the very definition of Him, was undefinable. Howeveer it is not a very comforting notion of God, and not a very convenient notion of God. Thus we have General Ratzinger, the Lizard Pope, who, despite a religious tradition that defines God as being unknowable, claims to speak for God and to know unknowable things. The church that threw open its doors under Karol Wojtyla and promoted sharing with other religious traditions has closed that door and has abandoned all sense in favour of theological charlatanism.

Posted by Ian McGarrett on Apr 19, 2005 at 11:48 PM

Y’see, I believe there is a place for ‘ivory tower intellectualism’ as well as earthly reality. I don’t think academicians have rose-tinted spectacles, it’s more that they tend to take a distant overview or, conversely, become utterly involved in a specific detail. These different perspectives are valuable. All pure theory is valuable - why do you think so many big corporations are keen to control universities? Controlling the application of theory is power.

Ratzinger’s election as Pope made me sigh. Ian, the church only physically threw open its doors under JPII, doctrinally himself and Benedict XVI are cut from the same cloth. I can only hope that the curia is seeing some work we can’t see from our perspective, something JPII started that requires a similar minded man to complete and that the balance of electing such a conservative is to choose such an old man, to limit the reign (although, Canon O’Flaherty at the Pro-Cathedral here in Dublin depressed me further by pointing out the long life the Holy Spirit generally endows on Popes - another item to fuel conspiracy theorists re JPI!!!).

I think for the most part you can tell if an individual is honestly representing him or herself. And if you deal honestly with people, you receive honesty in return. That’s always been my experience.

It’s harder when you’re talking about an organisation. When have any two people ever been in COMPLETE agreement? Even when they initially think they are, some issue usually comes along to divide them. So with any organisation, you have the founder and his/her rationale then you have those who join, each for their own personal reasons and with their own personal understanding of the founder’s rationale. And so we come to Opus Dei, which IS scary. Any fundamentalist clique is. The concept if a mostly lay-organisation having its own prelacy is really wonderful, but Opus Dei demands of its members a commitment that most ordained priests don’t have to make. I have personally witnessed the severing of a person from their family by Opus Dei - parents lost a daughter, siblings lost a sister and an engagement was broken off - if their son had a vocation to the priesthood, they would still be in contact with him, but her vocation to Opus Dei demanded of her that she remove herself from her family. I cannot explain Opus Dei’s reason for this, only describe the sadness of her family and friends at losing her.

The intention of the organisation is good, I believe, but what’s that about the road to hell?

It is right that there should be a lay organisation with such a voice in the Vatican. But how did their methods get so twisted? Secrecy only fuels concern. What little I know makes me view Opus Dei with the same ‘brainwashing’ suspicion I view Dianetics.

I think Slavoj Zizek’s article was not good journalism. It was unresearched and personal without provision of a convincing argument to back up his bias.

In this particular forum, I had not expected so huge a response to such a non-politically focussed religious piece (other than people telling him to write better in future, please). I think it shows that there is a place on In These Times for an informed and researched analysis of JPII’s legacy and anticipation of BXVI’s papacy.

Posted by Tel on Apr 20, 2005 at 2:08 AM

Merlin,
  If you ever see an ivory tower, let me know. Personally, I work for a living surrounded by people almost as ordinary as myself.
  When I offered the advice of ‘stick to things you know’ it was after yet another post where you complained about a Catholic position that doesn’t exist. You are free to continue to embarrass yourself by flaunting your ignorance, just as I am free to ‘pontificate’ about biophysics, if I wish.
  I have no idea what trauma has led you to believe that people wander around with their ‘secret selves’ radically different from their outward facade, but I am sorry. While I might not think my friends are *completely* honest when they tell me my barbeque is ‘the best ever’, I do believe them when they tell me they are worried about the environment, or college tuition for thier kids, or glad that their candidate won an election. I don’t assume that they have a reservoir of deep, dark secrets that makes the ‘real’ them so different that what they say about themselves isn’t to be trusted.
  And the bit about Opus Dei is, I think, justified if not aimed specifically at you. Despite the theories, Opus Dei has almost no ‘political’ influence within the Church, and I don’t know how Ian can worry about Opus Dei members ‘losing touch with their humanity’ when all they do is contemplate the fact that their daily work, whatever it might be, is a spiritual exercise, too.

Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 20, 2005 at 4:13 AM

Oh no, a “white man” in power. I can only assume that a “white man” has nothing to say worth listening to. Since us white men are so useless I guess I’ll just go dig a hole and die in it.

Posted by Ryan Conover on Apr 20, 2005 at 11:08 AM

Let’s talk about our own failures…

Posted by Ryan Conover on Apr 21, 2005 at 1:16 AM

I am sure you would have much to talk about, Ryan, but that would be changing the topic and as relevant to the matter under discussion as talking about how best to bake a cherry pie.

As for Tel’s comment about sighing - Ratzinger’s made me laugh. Consider his pre-election position on homosexuality. It makes one wonder what the cardinals assembled in the Sistine Chapel were thinking - under that magnificent ceiling painted by Michelangelo whose body took a dreadful physical toll in executing it. Perhaps “Needs a coat of paint… Something to go with our red caps and vestments? Or a neutral… beige?” It certainly wasn’t “These walls and this ceiling were painted by a homosexual, someone who had enough of God in him to pass his inspiration on to centuries of Catholics.”

Posted by Ian McGarrett on Apr 21, 2005 at 3:14 AM

Ian,
  Well, first of all the evidence on Michaelangelo’s sexuality is kinda’ lacking. Sure, there’s circumstantial evidence, but we’ll never know. Its also moot.
  A person’s actions and their moral weight and consequence isn’t predicated on who they are - that is divorcing ends, means, and motive from one another. Andrew Cunnanan (sp?) was a mass murderer - and gay. Does that mean all gay men are killers or probable killers? No, it doesn’t.My friend Julie speaks really good French. Does that mean it is easier for lesbians to learn French? No, it doesn’t. Same idea.
  The Church does not condemn homosexuals for being homosexual or for having homosexual desires. (No, actually, it really doesn’t). It condemns certain *actions* no matter who performs them. The actions of homosexuals are seen as no different than the actions of a man who cheats on his wife, or people that have sex before marriage.
  Just like those ‘classes of people’, though, the Church will not condone their actions.

Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 21, 2005 at 5:11 AM

Rick, you’re completely right about the Catholic church and its stance on sex and sexuality - as I’ve explained to SO many of my friends over the years, it’s quite simply any sex that is not open to procreation that’s condemned (hence the whole large Catholic family thang).

But, Ratzinger has made some really nasty comments about homosexuality being EVIL - that is ‘homosexuality’, not ‘homosexual acts’.

This is where I invoke the whole ‘free will based on informed conscience’ thang and choose to use contraception within my marriage rather than have 15 children I can’t afford to feed and educate (only one so far, trying for second at moment, keeping my fingers crossed on the whole being able to afford to educate them bit and concentrating on the feeding part right now), and where I consider my sister’s 12-year lesbian relationship to be as much a marriage as my straight Church-wedded union and not at all evil even though, gasp! I think they might sometimes have sex!

Of course, I am one of the á (can’t make computer do correct accent) la carte Catholics Ratzinger is going to try to rein in. He’ll lose me altogether instead, the way he’s going. And I can definitely speak for my two sisters (even if he considers one of them as already being condemned to hell) and my brother when I say that if he demands UNQUESTIONING obedience of anything other than the ten commandments, rather than engaging in a dialogue with his flock, he’ll lose them also, and I think maybe about a dozen more of my friends.

Posted by Tel on Apr 21, 2005 at 6:23 AM

Hey Ian, you’re neither clever nor funny. Remove the dick from your ass before you talk, it’s not polite.

Posted by Ryan Conover on Apr 21, 2005 at 9:49 AM

“The actions of homosexuals are seen as no different than the actions of a man who cheats on his wife, or people that have sex before marriage.” I fail to see why 2 consenting adults playing hanky panky in their own privacy is to be condemned.Aren’t there more important issues to tackle in today’s world?
To Rick - I’m not saying conservative white men are innately inferior to women or “a man of color” but what I find disturbing is their disproportionally high number in positions of power and influence. Their agenda will drive our planet into the abyss.

Posted by chris p. on Apr 21, 2005 at 12:56 PM

That’s a low comment, but I guess I deserve it for denying you the opportunity to tell us all what a failure you are.

Posted by Ian McGarrett on Apr 21, 2005 at 2:24 PM

“““There’s a light in the vatican window for all the world to see

And a voice cries in the wilderness and sometimes he speaks for me

I suppose i love him most of all when he kneels to kiss the land

With his lips upon our mother’s breast he makes his strongest stand”

–John Denver, It’s About TIme, 1983”

Yeah? And look what happened to John Denver!

Posted by Lefty on Apr 21, 2005 at 10:05 PM

“Kuya and Merlin,
You two have some seriously flawed concepts of Catholic concepts.
First, in the Catholic Church ‘Original Sin’ does not mean we are all innately evil - it refers to the fact that we are imperfect beings in an imperfect world with autonomous free will. Original Sin means that even with the best of intentions and guidance, we are capable of sinning. No more than that. Indeed, Catholic doctrine insists repeatedly that people are innately good.
And ‘good’ does not depend on ‘evil. Catholicism is not some New Age duality cult. Good is acting in accordance with natural law - to do what is good. Morals, ethics, and the natural law exist as they are, not in a contrast to evil. If no one were to do evil, the concept of ethics and the details of what is ethical would not change. Catholics do not preach fire and brimstone. The Rapture and the End Times are foreign to Catholic doctrines and seen as a weird fad. The Left Behind books are seen as something silly or wrong-headed.
Merlin, wondering what a Bishop would do if he couldn’t threaten his flock with the Rapture is pretty darned silly, akin to accusing Alec Baldwin of promoting the Iraq War.

Posted by Rick Stump on April 12, 2005 at 6:51 AM”

The notion of original sin is the product of a psychopath.

Posted by Lefty on Apr 21, 2005 at 10:11 PM

Ian, seriously… shut the fuck up.

Posted by Ryan Conover on Apr 22, 2005 at 10:21 AM

Someone’s comments just get more and more clever. If I do shut up, though, something I have no problem with, then all people are left with is what you have to say… like the above. So long, guys, and thanks for showing me what’s wrong with “a white man in power”. But weren’t you the guy who was going to “dig a hole and die in it” Never can trust a white man to be as good as his word!

Posted by Ian McGarrett on Apr 22, 2005 at 10:44 AM

Hi Rick,
You querried:
“Quick, name three Catholic theologians (i.e., with degrees in Catholic theology and a mandatum) “suppressed” by the Pope for espousing Liberation Theology.

It sounds a lot like what happened to Curran is very revelant to your argument that, “Liberation Theology was never ‘suppressed’ or ‘damaged’.”
There is an article in Thursday’s LA Times by Charles E. Curran, A Catholic priest and theologian. Here is the opening of his piece. Read the rest at:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-curran21apr21,1,3804875.story?coll=la-news-comment

“I grew up as a typical pre-Vatican II Catholic. I entered the seminary at 13 and became a priest 11 years later, never questioning church teachings. But as a moral theologian in the 1960s, I began to see things differently, ultimately concluding that Catholics, although they must hold on to the core doctrines of faith, can and at times should dissent from the more peripheral teachings of the church.
Unfortunately, the leaders of the Catholic Church feel differently. In the summer of 1986, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the powerful enforcer of doctrinal orthodoxy around the world, concluded a seven-year investigation of my writings. Pope John Paul II approved the finding that “one who dissents from the magisterium as you do is not suitable nor eligible to teach Catholic theology.” Cardinal Ratzinger — now Pope Benedict XVI — told the Catholic University of America to revoke my license to teach theology because of my “repeated refusal to accept what the church teaches.”
I was fired. It was the first time an American Catholic theologian had been censured in this way. At issue was my dissent from church teachings on “the indissolubility of consummated sacramental marriage, abortion, euthanasia, masturbation, artificial contraception, premarital intercourse and homosexual acts,” according to their final document to me. It’s true that I questioned the idea that such acts are always immoral and never acceptable (although I thought my dissent on these issues was quite nuanced).
Unfortunately, the Vatican — which was already moving toward greater discipline and orthodoxy — was having none of it. Seven years earlier, it had punished the Swiss theologian Hans Küng because of his teachings on infallibility in the church. Later, Cardinal Ratzinger “silenced” Brazilian Franciscan Leonardo Boff, an advocate of liberation theology, for a year. Just recently, Ratzinger said U.S. Jesuit Roger Haight could not teach Catholic theology until he changed his understanding of the role of Jesus Christ.
Since 1986, no Catholic institution has offered to hire me. Although I remain a baptized Catholic and a Catholic priest — the pope and the cardinal did not move to have me defrocked — my case sent an unmistakable and unequivocal message to Catholics around the world that deviation would no longer be tolerated.

Posted by Merlin on Apr 22, 2005 at 12:13 PM

Ian… you just aren’t funny. You’re not more clever than me. Please, grow up a bit. I’m sure you have more important things to do on a school night than be clever, but you can always sleep through homeroom I guess.

Posted by Ryan Conover on Apr 22, 2005 at 6:36 PM

I never said I was more clever than you. I don’t know you. To imply that I indicated any such thing is putting words into my mouth. In fact the assessment that I am more clever than you is a conclusion you reached all on your own. All I did was chide you for going off-topic. You wrote: “Let’s talk about our own failures.” I assumed that was your way of saying “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” but that wouldn’t have been original so you paraphrased it. Of course, simply paraphrasing the idea of another without attribution is plagiarism but I let that slide since it was likely you were just deluded and didn’t realise it was something said by someone else.

Unfortunately my response wasn’t clear in explaining why I felt you were going off topic. The reason is that your failures, my failures, the failures of anyone else on this forum are irrelevant to the failures, real or perceived, of someone who directs the lives of over a billion people. That response was curt and vaguely funny (because I was not trying to offend) but it was not vulgar: “I am sure you would have much to talk about, Ryan, but that would be changing the topic and as relevant to the matter under discussion as talking about how best to bake a cherry pie.” Yours reply to it was very vulgar: “Hey Ian, you’re neither clever nor funny. Remove the dick from your ass before you talk, it’s not polite.”

I lost patience and my counter was rude: “That’s a low comment, but I guess I deserve it for denying you the opportunity to tell us all what a failure you are.” You, in turn: “Ian, seriously… shut the fuck up.” That is not right. I have not really done anything to provoke you beyond reacting to your attacks which I guess is provocation enough in your mind. And now I have a problem with you in that you don’t think, you don’t shut up, and you don’t go away. I do, however, have a solution, based on the assumption that you are a “Good Catholic.” Tomorrow afternoon you will likely attend weekly confession, cleansing your soul in preparation for Mass on Sunday. Print out the exchange that we have had here in this forum and present it to your priest. He will likely disagree strongly with things that I have said. But he will be horrified at the things that you have said in response. Consider: Joseph Ratzinger is a pre-eminent theologian with a keen intellect, something shared by his predecessor, Karol Wojtyla. I doubt very much whether in any of their theological debates they ever told those arguing the other side to “remove the dick from your ass” or to “seriously… shut the fuck up.”

As for who is more clever, that is your word, not mine, you brought it up and clearly you decided on your own that it is from cleverness that I present my points. It would be stingy of me not to concede you some territory, so I accept the accolade. Seriously.

Posted by Ian McGarrett on Apr 22, 2005 at 7:49 PM

Merlin,
  Curran is not and was not a Liberation Theology advocate. So I have no idea what relevance he has to your statement that Liberation Theology was suppressed or that what hapened to him was relevant.
  Currant did not dissent from ‘peripheral’ teachings of the Church, he dissented from core teachings of the Church. Things like the sanctity of marriage, the conceptualization of the application of logic to theology and, most damaging, the sanctity of life. After a seven year investigation which included meetings with him to clarify what he thought and what was expected of him as a teacher licensed by the Church he was dismissed as a teacher when he refused to do as he said he would.
  This is no different than a public school teacher being fired for refusing to teach her 5th graders American history and instead teaching marxist theory for 7 years. The teacher might have noble goals, but the kids are there to learn American history, not political theory and the teacher was hired to teach American history, not political theory.

Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 23, 2005 at 6:25 AM

Tel,
  If you want to control the size of your family you do *not* need to use artificial contraception. This is why it is al,ost impossible for a family that dissents on contraception to do so with a properly formed conscience. Please let me know if you are interested and we can ‘speak’ in another forum on this. I have 4 children, well spaced and all purposeful, and artificial means were never employed. The Church doesn’t demand that you have as many children as possible until everyone is poor and the wife’s uterus falls out. It just demands that the timining and spacing of children not result in a divorcement of ends and means.
  Ratzinger’s comments on homosexuals are a bit more nuanced than you may know. Please take a little time to discover them for yourself.
  And as far as ‘losing’ you as an a la carte Catholic - hasn’t the Church lost you *already*, you just continue to call yourself Catholic?

Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 23, 2005 at 6:31 AM

Chris,
  OK, I need some more clarity, I’m afraid. First of all, *where*, exactly, are there a disprotionate number of them in positions of power? China? The Phillipines? Oh, I know - Europe and North America. Oddly enought, both those areas are where “White” people *live*, right? And as far as many leaders being men, well, that could be a matter of biology (originally) and culture. But many of the political leaders are elected, and usually require a majorty of the votes of women to win office, so…. And as far as the Pope, he must be male and happens to be White.
  More importantly, why, exactly, would the ‘agenda’ of White men lead us “into the abyss”?Would Black or Asian men not lead us there? What about White women?

Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 23, 2005 at 6:43 AM

Lefty,
  Why, exactly, is the concept that imperfect people in an imperfect world sometimes make mistakes that we must forgive the ‘work of a psychopath’?

Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 23, 2005 at 6:45 AM

Rick,
When I referred to a disproportionate number of white men in positions of power I was referring to those white males running global institutions like the worl bank, the IMF, and the WTO who go out of their way to create international laws to protect the wealth of the global north or west, or whatever you wanna call it, you know the part where white “political leaders are elected”. These former colonial powers are still controlling the world’s resources and becoming even richer still through their remaining gatekeepers in the global south. Those white guys are running the world in ways that will maintain western predominance and protect western interests.Economic inequality has now reached gigantic proportions. The gap between rich and poor countries has never been wider. 30 years ago the gap between the richest one fifth of the world population and the rest stood at 30 to 1. Today it stands at 74 to 1. You’d expect the Vatican to throw all its weight into a battle against social injustice on such a scale.
But no, a crusade against the use of preservatives was JP’s choice thereby fanning the AIDS flames wrecking countless African families. What the…! With the passing away of that great man you’d think this moral compass for over a billion believers would finally make a bold move and choose a Pope from amongst their most fervent majority of either Latin America or Africa to reflect the diversity of the “catholic flock” Wishful thinking once again. Then again the Vatican is no democracy so…
As to the “abyss” I was referring to the pillage of the world’s resources and environment which by no means is the exclusive domain of white males yet this tragedy is being orchestrated by the before mentioned global institutions(run by white males).
If Jesus were around today, he’d be fighting the fight against social injustice and the destruction of our planet for the sake of our future generations and not preaching from that ivory tower called the Vatican.

Posted by chris p on Apr 23, 2005 at 1:56 PM

I sure as hell don’t want anyone to protect western interests! Wait… what?

Posted by Ryan Conover on Apr 24, 2005 at 8:55 PM

P.S.- when did “white men” become a derogatory term? Excuse me, but fcuk that $hit!

Posted by Ryan Conover on Apr 24, 2005 at 8:56 PM

Wow!  Now I know that I have made the right decision to be agnostic.  Hey, how ‘bout those Crusades?  Those Christian badass motherfuckers sure killed the fuck out of those non-Christian motherfuckers.  Do unto others as blah, blah, blah.  Thou shalt not kill unless the other motherfuckers don’t believe as you do.  Somebody help me out with those other Commandments.  Ya’ all sure do know a hell of a lot more about religion than I do.  THANK gOD!

Beelzebub’s got beer, and HOT chicks!

Posted by Matt Harris on Apr 27, 2005 at 8:42 PM

You knowledge of history is almost as poor as your grammar. Want to understand the Crusades? On the off chance you do, visit a research library and start reading.

Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 28, 2005 at 9:35 AM

in a classic, I mispelled a word while complaining of someone’s grammar!!

Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 28, 2005 at 9:36 AM

Appreciating the irony of making a spelling mistake when correcting someone else’s grammar, the picker of nits, in trying to correct the error, compounds it by misspelling misspelled. Who says 9/11 brought an end to the Age of Irony. Attacking the grammar of an opponent’s argument skirts dangerously with arguments against the man (ad hominem) which is never acceptable. As one with impiccable vocabalury, spelling, diktion, and cleverness, I never feel the need to supersilliously correct other peeple’s spelling or grammars or such, so I never fall victim to that trap. However I’m not sure and maybe I’m just kidding.

Posted by Ian McGarrett on Apr 28, 2005 at 11:51 AM

Ian,
  I am glad ewe recognized my point. Ah, more evidence that one who makes an ad hominem attack is point at themself.

Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 28, 2005 at 12:24 PM

I may not believe in Original Sin, but I do believe in the religion of assertive love that Jesus is said to have promoted. Looks like it could use a little spreading around.

Posted by Kuya on Apr 28, 2005 at 11:09 PM

The pedophilia scandal that rocked the US Catholic Church is nothing but a direct result of the rampant liberalism and modernism that have prevailed in the American Church for decades. Overall, the American Church has been, for many succeeding popes, the enfant terrible in the Roman Catholic Church. You disobey on doctrine, practiced a wishy-washy cafeteria-style Catholicism, and when problems come up, you’re quick to blame the pope. Come on, it’s time you wake up and smell the incense. With a return to orthodox teachings and practice, the American Church can revive and flourish.

Posted by Cheng Yung-kang on Apr 30, 2005 at 1:30 AM

BARRISTER ANTHONY SOMAZU
SOMAZU & CO.(SOLICITORS & ADVOCATES)
#45 BAS AVE. VICTORIAISLAND -LAGOS NIGERIA.
email address:anthonysomazu@yahoo.com

NOTIFICATION OF BEQUEST
This is sequel to your non-response of our earlier letter to you On behalf of the Trustees and Executors to the Will of late   Engr. Willy Bubenik (ksm), I wish to notify you that you were listed as a beneficiary to the bequest of the sum of US$2,500.000{ Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Us Dollars] in the codicil and last testament of the deceased. The late Sir Willy Bubenik until his death was a former Managing Director and pioneer staff of a big construction company (Julius Berger) here in Nigeria. He was a very dedicated Christian and a great philanthropist during his lifetime.

Late Sir Willy Bubenik died on 9th February 2002 at the age of 68. He was buried on the 23rd of February. Late Sir Willy Bubenik even though he was an American living and working in here as a foreigner he requested before his death that he be buried here in his words, “I regard here as My home and the people as my people”. He said that this token is to support your ministry and help to the less- privileged. I hereby request that you forward any proof of identities of yours, your current telephone and fax numbers and your forwarding address to enable us file necessary documents at our high court probate division for the release of this bequest of money. please get back to me through my email address . anthonysomazu@yahoo.com

Congratulations. Yours faithfully,

BARRISTER ANTHONY SOMAZU

Posted by anthony somazu on May 1, 2005 at 11:13 AM

have you seen avro manhattan’s web site ? it will shock you !  everybody gets saved eventualy thank christ

Posted by ken hood on May 11, 2005 at 9:22 PM

Actually, Ryan, it appears Ian definitely is more clever than you.

Posted by Scout on Sep 22, 2005 at 2:43 PM

Posted by M.A. Erickson on Apr 11, 2007 at 12:11 PM