This morning's New York Times once again reveals the ignorance, or, at best, the intentional neglect, of the facts of Catholicism by those who would write about that sacred faith.
In "Pope May Color Debate in U.S. Over 'Life' Issues Like Abortion", writer Robin Toner (one dare not call her a reporter), leads with this inscrutable remark:
"The election of an unstintingly conservative pope could inject a powerful new force into the intense conflicts in American politics over abortion and other social issues, which put many Catholic elected officials at odds with their church."
That the Holy Father is described as "unstintingly conservative" is like calling the New York Yankees "unswerving in being a baseball team". In other words, it's tautological. It's surprising that it wasn't reported that the papal conclave had elected a Holy Father that was "unstintingly male"; or that the College of Cardinals had foisted upon the waiting world a Pope who was "surprisingly Catholic."
Latent in the writer's commentary is a fundamentalist liberal (dare I say, American) notion that someday the Catholic Church could have a progressive Pope - a liberal Papa - who, in fact, could so transform the backward Church that maybe, in the not-too-distant future, the world could applaud the election of a female Pope (commonly known as a "Mope", I believe).
That the NYT writer implies that the Church could have elected a Pope other than an "unstinting conservative" reveals that far too many people view the Church's rôle as entirely human (lacking any divine inspiration or guidance); democratic and politically malleable, bending with the currents of modernity.
Moreover, that one of my belovéd family members should grieve that Pope Benedict XVI is in the "same vein" as John Paul II, indicates that even Catholics - American Catholics - fail to understand that ALL Popes are to be in the same vein. There is no "zeitgeist pope"; there is no Pope for today, another for tomorrow. Each Pope is the Vicar of Christ, the earthly stand-in for the Divine Savior of the world, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
That outsiders to the Faith particularly should chide the Church for being nothing other than itself - a bulwark against the whims of a capricious humanity - should remind us, not of the inflexibility of the Church, but of the instability of its critics.
(In other news, kudos to NYT columnist David Brooks for his astute commentary regarding Roe v. Wade. "Trenchant" comes to mind when considering his analysis.)
©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Pope Benedict XVI, Catholic Church, David Brooks, New York Times
Showing posts with label Pope Benedict XVI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pope Benedict XVI. Show all posts
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
The excoriation begins
Less than 24 hours after Benedict XVI's election to the Holy See, critics began to strip him of his skin. Whether it be the life-long Catholic who served me lunch yesterday, or members of my family, or Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Pope Benedict is not really God's man for the job. He's more likely the devil's.
Representative of this are comments by the likes of Boston's Mike Barnicle, who yesterday during his radio talk show chided the Church for lacking the "transparency" of an American election. This morning on Imus in the Morning, Tim Russert suggested that American Catholics wanted a Pope that would preach the "gospel as presented in the Sermon on the Mount", emphasizing the care of the poor and one's neighbors; and not a Pope like Benedict, who's caught up in divisive issues, "like abortion", and homosexuality. And Maureen Dowd (it's hard to believe she's won the Pulitzer Prize) implies this morning in her column that Benedict is little more than the Inquistion with new letterhead.
That Barnicle (and most Americans) miss the paradox of freedom is understandable, largely because Americans have come to view democracy in profoundly stupid terms. The paradox, of course, is that for freedom to thrive, there must be things that are not free; there must be darkness if we want transparency. For example, if the Oval Office in the White House was to be truly open to the people, one would discover quite quickly that America was no longer open to anyone. Similarly, if the Constitution were a transparent and elastic document, open to the revision of all truly free people who claim to have a voice in such matters, Americans would awake tomorrow morning to a world where the Constitution suddenly turned invisible. The paradox of freedom is just that: that something must be afixed - permanently - for freedom to exist at all.
If my meaning is yet not clear, think of it this way. The only reason we have an open society is because there are some things that are not open, like the Oval Office. The moment the Oval Office becomes transparently open to all is the very same moment the open society would close, close in tyranny, chaos or both.
That Barnicle believes the Catholic Church should be as transparent as an American election reveals that he understands neither the Church nor elections. For there is secrecy at the heart of every American election. Imagine if, in the interest of the pop idols "transparency" and "full disclosure", every citizen voted under public scrutiny. That Barnicle suggests this is clear, as is the result of such "clarity": voting as we know it and the freedom voter secrecy provides would cease.
Transparency at the level that needs to be obscure breeds death to freedom.
Russert's remarks are just plain foolish, suggesting that abortion is not related to caring for either the poor or one's neighbors. He would pit those who advocate a social gospel against those, such as Benedict, who advocate a total Gospel, one that deals with the social dimensions of the world in light of the personal, moral life of each individual; a gospel that rebukes the heresies that destroy those individuals' souls and the societies such individuals create.
But Russert's remarks also reveal that the Americans to which he refers would prefer a Pope that would do what "most Americans" want for him to do, which is to submit to democracy.
And Dowd, whose work reads less like a reasoned argument and more like verbal gas pains, is simply absurd. She bemoans the fact that the Church is a heirarchy and not a democracy like the New York Times (wait a minute, the NYT is not a democracy either. Well, perhaps I misrepresent her feelings about her employer, which, come to think of it, would not be a member of the free press if everyone, from the crankpot on the loading dock to Ms. Dowd herself - each equal in Dowd's small world - had control over that press. But I digress.)
That the Church is a heirarchy angers Americans - particularly Dowd - for no other reason than that Americans believe that "anyone can make it to the the top" (although there is no top in a democracy, is there? See how confused this all gets?). What Ms. Dowd really believes is that she, and her other infallible cohorts, should be allowed to elect and create a Pope who's in their own image. It's a sort of spiritual nepotism, where one elects and supports one's ideological clone.
Of course, if there is a God at all, agnostics and theists alike must submit that equality is a myth, and that heirarchy is at the very core of Being. But that sort of reasoning is just too Papal.
Here's a fun physics question for Messrs. Barnicle, Russert and Ms. Dowd. When a car freely travels down the highway, what part of it is not free to move at all all? The answer strikes directly at the heart of the role of the Papacy.
If there is nothing fixed in human life, nothing moves in human life.
Pope Benedict XVI, particularly his office, is precisely that still point where the rubber meets the road. Without that traction, one is not free to move, skidding helter-skelter or just spinning in the same tired rut.
Watch over the coming weeks whether it is the "Papists" or the press who convene the Inquisition.
Contratimes
©2005/Bill Gnade - All Rights Reserved.
Representative of this are comments by the likes of Boston's Mike Barnicle, who yesterday during his radio talk show chided the Church for lacking the "transparency" of an American election. This morning on Imus in the Morning, Tim Russert suggested that American Catholics wanted a Pope that would preach the "gospel as presented in the Sermon on the Mount", emphasizing the care of the poor and one's neighbors; and not a Pope like Benedict, who's caught up in divisive issues, "like abortion", and homosexuality. And Maureen Dowd (it's hard to believe she's won the Pulitzer Prize) implies this morning in her column that Benedict is little more than the Inquistion with new letterhead.
That Barnicle (and most Americans) miss the paradox of freedom is understandable, largely because Americans have come to view democracy in profoundly stupid terms. The paradox, of course, is that for freedom to thrive, there must be things that are not free; there must be darkness if we want transparency. For example, if the Oval Office in the White House was to be truly open to the people, one would discover quite quickly that America was no longer open to anyone. Similarly, if the Constitution were a transparent and elastic document, open to the revision of all truly free people who claim to have a voice in such matters, Americans would awake tomorrow morning to a world where the Constitution suddenly turned invisible. The paradox of freedom is just that: that something must be afixed - permanently - for freedom to exist at all.
If my meaning is yet not clear, think of it this way. The only reason we have an open society is because there are some things that are not open, like the Oval Office. The moment the Oval Office becomes transparently open to all is the very same moment the open society would close, close in tyranny, chaos or both.
That Barnicle believes the Catholic Church should be as transparent as an American election reveals that he understands neither the Church nor elections. For there is secrecy at the heart of every American election. Imagine if, in the interest of the pop idols "transparency" and "full disclosure", every citizen voted under public scrutiny. That Barnicle suggests this is clear, as is the result of such "clarity": voting as we know it and the freedom voter secrecy provides would cease.
Transparency at the level that needs to be obscure breeds death to freedom.
Russert's remarks are just plain foolish, suggesting that abortion is not related to caring for either the poor or one's neighbors. He would pit those who advocate a social gospel against those, such as Benedict, who advocate a total Gospel, one that deals with the social dimensions of the world in light of the personal, moral life of each individual; a gospel that rebukes the heresies that destroy those individuals' souls and the societies such individuals create.
But Russert's remarks also reveal that the Americans to which he refers would prefer a Pope that would do what "most Americans" want for him to do, which is to submit to democracy.
And Dowd, whose work reads less like a reasoned argument and more like verbal gas pains, is simply absurd. She bemoans the fact that the Church is a heirarchy and not a democracy like the New York Times (wait a minute, the NYT is not a democracy either. Well, perhaps I misrepresent her feelings about her employer, which, come to think of it, would not be a member of the free press if everyone, from the crankpot on the loading dock to Ms. Dowd herself - each equal in Dowd's small world - had control over that press. But I digress.)
That the Church is a heirarchy angers Americans - particularly Dowd - for no other reason than that Americans believe that "anyone can make it to the the top" (although there is no top in a democracy, is there? See how confused this all gets?). What Ms. Dowd really believes is that she, and her other infallible cohorts, should be allowed to elect and create a Pope who's in their own image. It's a sort of spiritual nepotism, where one elects and supports one's ideological clone.
Of course, if there is a God at all, agnostics and theists alike must submit that equality is a myth, and that heirarchy is at the very core of Being. But that sort of reasoning is just too Papal.
Here's a fun physics question for Messrs. Barnicle, Russert and Ms. Dowd. When a car freely travels down the highway, what part of it is not free to move at all all? The answer strikes directly at the heart of the role of the Papacy.
If there is nothing fixed in human life, nothing moves in human life.
Pope Benedict XVI, particularly his office, is precisely that still point where the rubber meets the road. Without that traction, one is not free to move, skidding helter-skelter or just spinning in the same tired rut.
Watch over the coming weeks whether it is the "Papists" or the press who convene the Inquisition.
Contratimes
©2005/Bill Gnade - All Rights Reserved.
Monday, April 18, 2005
Waiting for smoke
Deep in the heart of Christendom, in the core of the Christian legacy, an old adage will once again prove true: Where there is smoke, there is fire. Soon, in fact, there will be smoke drifting over St. Peter's Square and the Sistine Chapel. The fire of the new Bishop of Rome will be kindled.
It's amazing how fascinated the media are with this conclave, held above a false floor in Michelangelo's gallery; and with the group of religious gathered therein so wholly intent on maintaining tradition that counter-espionage measures have been taken to thwart that very techno-crazy media gathered outside. Have not the last days of Pope John Paul II and this present conclave all seemed so important to the media that it would be crazy not to suggest that the newsgatherers have proven the divine importance of the Vicar of Christ? Has any vacancy and succession of any office been more analyzed; more scrutinized to the very edges of sanity? Why this fascination?
Perhaps it's because the Catholic Church has for centuries stood in the way of human excess. Oh, sure, there are those who scoff at the Church's calls for sacrifice and humility when it is adorned with gold and encrusted with gems. But only the reckless speak thus, forgetting, or ignoring, the curious fact that even in the manger, the stable of the only royal birth, there was gold, frankincense and myrhh. Jesus was and is a king, and his kingdom will have no end. Truly it's OK to manifest the glory of God with the sacraments of art and craft; of precious metals and hallowed frescoes. What else to do with such things than to point heavenward?
But the Church's longstanding resistance to "progress", that ever elusive, seemingly capricious idol; and its criticism of "traditions" that debase and oppress others; give the Church's detractors much to decry. For Rome, particularly in the last papal term, has held firm ground against the spirit of the age, whether it be the inhuman optimism of utopian socialists; or the idolatry of unfettered capitalists; or the licentiousness of the sexually maniacal West. The Church has indeed fought against the idolatries of conservatives and liberals, of heartless moralists and snickering anarchists; and it has fought well. For this reason the world watches and waits; for this reason the media obsess and wonder, and in some cases, even worry.
Doesn't it strike you as strange how many papal "experts" have crawled out from under every rock and paten on the planet? Never before have there been so many experts. Even many non-Catholics seem infallibly articulate on what John Paul II's successor must do, and what he must be like as man and pastor. In fact, every one of these voices sounds, well, infallibly papal. The question thus comes to mind: with this many experts walking the streets, who needs a pope at all (a very liberal wish, no doubt)?
That liberals pray for a liberal, conservatives for a conservative, combined with the grotesgue democratization of everything in America (where everyone is equally expert); all make a fascinating and irresistable story.
But let's skip the punditry (its own sort of idol), and let's have faith (at least those who have it) that God will use men (yes, men) to bring to Christendom another bold and bright flame that burns the skin when held too close, and yet warms the soul when held close enough.
And may the Vatican religious choose another leader who can help guide us home when we have wandered far into those cold and lonely places where our idols love to dwell.
©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
It's amazing how fascinated the media are with this conclave, held above a false floor in Michelangelo's gallery; and with the group of religious gathered therein so wholly intent on maintaining tradition that counter-espionage measures have been taken to thwart that very techno-crazy media gathered outside. Have not the last days of Pope John Paul II and this present conclave all seemed so important to the media that it would be crazy not to suggest that the newsgatherers have proven the divine importance of the Vicar of Christ? Has any vacancy and succession of any office been more analyzed; more scrutinized to the very edges of sanity? Why this fascination?
Perhaps it's because the Catholic Church has for centuries stood in the way of human excess. Oh, sure, there are those who scoff at the Church's calls for sacrifice and humility when it is adorned with gold and encrusted with gems. But only the reckless speak thus, forgetting, or ignoring, the curious fact that even in the manger, the stable of the only royal birth, there was gold, frankincense and myrhh. Jesus was and is a king, and his kingdom will have no end. Truly it's OK to manifest the glory of God with the sacraments of art and craft; of precious metals and hallowed frescoes. What else to do with such things than to point heavenward?
But the Church's longstanding resistance to "progress", that ever elusive, seemingly capricious idol; and its criticism of "traditions" that debase and oppress others; give the Church's detractors much to decry. For Rome, particularly in the last papal term, has held firm ground against the spirit of the age, whether it be the inhuman optimism of utopian socialists; or the idolatry of unfettered capitalists; or the licentiousness of the sexually maniacal West. The Church has indeed fought against the idolatries of conservatives and liberals, of heartless moralists and snickering anarchists; and it has fought well. For this reason the world watches and waits; for this reason the media obsess and wonder, and in some cases, even worry.
Doesn't it strike you as strange how many papal "experts" have crawled out from under every rock and paten on the planet? Never before have there been so many experts. Even many non-Catholics seem infallibly articulate on what John Paul II's successor must do, and what he must be like as man and pastor. In fact, every one of these voices sounds, well, infallibly papal. The question thus comes to mind: with this many experts walking the streets, who needs a pope at all (a very liberal wish, no doubt)?
That liberals pray for a liberal, conservatives for a conservative, combined with the grotesgue democratization of everything in America (where everyone is equally expert); all make a fascinating and irresistable story.
But let's skip the punditry (its own sort of idol), and let's have faith (at least those who have it) that God will use men (yes, men) to bring to Christendom another bold and bright flame that burns the skin when held too close, and yet warms the soul when held close enough.
And may the Vatican religious choose another leader who can help guide us home when we have wandered far into those cold and lonely places where our idols love to dwell.
©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)