Godammit
HPS had a particular interest in the outcome of this papal conclave. As you may have worked out, we’re of the Catholic persuasion.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s elevation to the Bishopric of Rome and the Papacy is, for us, the worst possible outcome, and coming as it did on only the third vote (by our count), it worries us that the balance of theology in the college of cardinal is skewed further towards the orthodox than we had thought.
None of the changes that I had fervently hoped to be initiated from the top will come from this man. At best his papacy will be much the same as John Paul II’s. At worst, he will be combative and divisive.
In today’s edition of Slate, Jack Miles makes the point (via theologian Charles Davis) that the only unique aspect of the Roman Catholic Church - the only feature which is not shared by at least one other Christian Church, or indeed any other religion - is the centralised papal heirarchy. For that heirarchy to fail in attending to the diversity of the faithful is to continue the tradition whereby Catholics get told what to do, and are expected to do it, or leave the club.
This isn’t how it has to be.
April 21st, 2005 at 9:59 am
Just how Catholic are you, Vince? I’ve always taken you for a proper, upstanding heathen.
April 21st, 2005 at 10:33 am
Baptised, confirmed and all the rest of it. Go to mass every third or fourth Sunday, when I have to set it up. Up to about a year ago I went every week. Like to talk to my two parish priests once in a while. Take an interest in papal conclaves. Once every six months or so I go to the confessional. A pedant would say that there are a lot of things I’m supposed to do that I don’t, and a lot of things that I do which I shouldn’t.
I’m not very well educated about the history and the rituals of the church - so I hesitate to write posts like this one where I make out that I know what’s best for the world’s Catholics. But what I do know is that there’s a diversity of practice - extreme corruption as well as benevolent defiance of Rome - at the lower levels of the heirarchy. What I’d like to see is for this diversity to be recognised by the top instead of merely ignored.
I’d like to see the church pick up the liberation theology that it discarded and remember what it could achieve when it was an active agent of civil, economic and human rights, especially in the developing world. I’d like it to do this alongside other organisations, secular and religious.
I’d like the Church to admit to hideous mistakes and the damage it has inflicted and continues to inflict. I’d like it to recognise that it is an institution made up of men and therefore a human institution, capable of fallibility and selfishness as well as sensitivity and generosity.
By strict definition, I’m not a very good Catholic. To answer your question though, look at it this way: how much of a Melbournian are you? How much of a man are you? How much of a writer are you? I don’t define myself by my Catholicism, but I see the good and the bad in it, and for the most part hope that it can improve for the sake of the people it purports to care for.
April 21st, 2005 at 5:31 pm
Yeah, but being a Melbournian comes for free, being a man imposes a few fairly optional responsibilities, and being a writer may be measured by 1) how much I write and/or 2) how much I say I’m a writer.
Being a Catholic, however, implies that you believe in a God.
And I didn’t know that was your sorta thing.
April 26th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
Yes, but the Church has always been morally conservative- that’s what distinguishes it from some of the other ‘do-what-you-feel’ denominations. I agree that child molestation et al. have been poorly handled. But do we blame Catholic doctrine (and “moral conservatism”) or human fallibility? Contrary to popular opinion, I do not believe that celibacy breeds paedophilia: such a suggestion would imply that men have no control over their biological urges… tell me i’m wrong (!!)
Btw Joe (cause it’s rather fun on the moral high-ground), I reckon we can scrounge around for something more concrete than “a few fairly optional” responsibilities…
May 2nd, 2005 at 11:35 am
It’s been, what, probably 13 hours since Rove won his third Gold Logie, and nary a peep from you, Vince? You’re not going to take this lying down are ya?
May 3rd, 2005 at 2:45 pm
Rove… Ratzinger… they’re all the same aren’t they? No one can ever be as good as Graham Kennedy right?
Personally I envy that Vince has such a relaxed routine to fall into every third or fourth Sunday (thought I’m aware that’s not very Christian of me). Baptised and confirmed myself, I have never managed to get on the monthly, let alone the weekly wagon. Not really known where to start to be honest - though this is probably mostly attributable to a 7 or 8 year string of hungover Sundays. Still, I do feel that there’s plenty in there to be explored beyond the odd midnight mass - history and rituals precisely, an occasional chat with a priest. It might well just be the sucker for history in me though - that and I dig the tunes… my faves from the funeral were the one where they sang out every Saint’s name and responded, and the one that the Greek Orthodox bruvvas turned out.
As for God, Joe, I personally tend on the side of a divine one rather than one in footy boots (or handling a mean guitar solo for that matter).
May 4th, 2005 at 4:58 pm
Sarah:
We blame both. And then we do something about it, instead of getting hung-up on who to hang.
Men might like to think that we have control over a lot of things, but we very often don’t. True, it’s not correct to say simply celibacy=pedophilia, and abolishing clerical celibacy isn’t necesserily going to mean that priests will never agin abuse their power. My take on getting rid of celibacy is that it would attract more people to the priesthood who otherwise wouldn’t want to make that sacrifice - but I don’t think that would by itself make the priesthood perfect. If you’re saying that the key issue is the character of individual priests, then I’d agree with you. But a progressive Catholic doctrine can help. Do I make sense?
Joe, the melbournian/man/writer thing was a way of suggesting that I think it’s fairly meaningless to measure how much of a blank one is.
As for this:
And I didn’t know that was your sorta thing.
It’s complicated, and I wish I’d never brought it up. But if you want a short answer: yes.
Ned:
I wanted to watch the whole thing from start to finish. Not because I particularly venerate JP, nor because I was really into all the pomp (in fact, the commentary and “televised spectacle” thing kind of creeped me out). But I was sort of compelled. Again it’s complicated.
Yeah, that pretty much sums up how I feel about the whole thing, too. Thanks for dropping round, by the way.