The pope, modern science, and a canary in the coal mine

"joer wrote: "Faith, human religious insight, can be surely instructed only by revelation, can be surely elevated only by personal mortal experience with the spiritual inner presence of the God who is spirit."

"can be surely instructed only by revelation" Question: in the context of evolution, what is meant by "revelation"? Is it "extra" ("outside" the natural), i.e., "super" natural, or is it "naturally" spiritual, i.e., the "inner presence (in nature/ creation) of the God who is spirit"?

The NATURALIS SACRAMENTUM ORDINIS, in the sense that I understand it, does not need God functioning within the order of nature in an "extra" natural way. "Revelation" to me IS God functioning in unfolding consciousness, that is, by the natural, symbiotic evolution of energy/ matter, soul/ substance. God not only "knows" everything we do personally, God experiences everything we do.

Dear Joer and all who feel beset by the conflict of science and religion. Let us visualize the "scientist" who goes to work each day in his/her lab to work on a line of research that touches on one gene maybe and its connection with whatever. Observation, documentation, recording, comparison, computer programs, simulations and results; searching the archives for similar and related studies; consultation with buddies and remote others; writing-up results and presenting a report for peer review as a condition for and prelude to publication (not to even mention applications for and justifications for funding). He/she goes home to spouse and children and re-enters that world of the,more easily understood, mundane.
Where is God, Jesus, religion? There is such a requirement for focus in the research environment and such chaos in the private life, the real life of those about whom we speculate that reflection on the spiritual or religious context is rare.
This is the fodder for the philosophers and the theologians who have the liberty and opportunity to speculate on these things. This is also the reality that somehow fails to be imbued by church, for the most part, by the consciousness of, but most of all the confidence and joy, not to mention the cautions, that he or she is in the company of and in the work of the creator and in some mysterious way elevated by Christ's becoming human to merit attention by the creator.
I was blessed many years ago to take a summer course from a philosopher from Fordham U., I forget his name, who declared that if St Francis were alive today he would compose a hymn to the bulldozer as he had to brother mule in his time. The point being that it is so easy to see the spirituality of the simple and the connection of the rural with the rest of the universe and how it is unfolding. It is more challenging and equally important to rest in the confidence that there is not or need not be any fundamental conflict and that the pursuit of science does not exclude one from the service of God.

Dennis, thanks for the great reply.

You wrote:
"Dear Joer and all who feel beset by the conflict of science and religion."

While I don't feel beset by this past conflict that still exists for some or maybe even many, there was a time when it did bother me. In the late fifties and early sixties. By the late sixties my Faith was so strong That I knew there must be a solution to this perceived conflict in time. I could see that we didn't know enough to make the resolution between teachings of God and Science from the fifties. I did look forward at that time to the discoveries that would lead us to the synthesis of seemingly divergent ideas at the time. I was at Peace with that in myself.

Now in my lifetime I have seen the development of Science and Religion where this conflict is becoming a thing of the past.

You write:
"This is also the reality that somehow fails to be imbued by church, for the most part, by the consciousness of, but most of all the confidence and joy, not to mention the cautions,"

and this following line I find especially true among many new scientists.

"that he or she is in the company of and in the work of the creator"

"and in some mysterious way elevated by Christ's becoming human to merit attention by the creator."

You also wrote:
"to rest in the confidence that there is not or need not be any fundamental conflict and that the pursuit of science does not exclude one from the service of God."

And consistent with what you say I continue in peaceful anticipation, enjoying the emerging synthesis and support that science (the discovery of God's creation) and religion (The Faith in an ALL LOVING CREATOR BEING)lend to each other. :-)

God's Love and Peace be with all here. :-)

Oh Yeah, in terms of the Pope turning his back to the people it brings back joyful nostalgic memeries of serving mass as an altar boy in the late fifties and early sixties also. While at the same time I recognise the importance of seeing how the Church in the history of it's traditions and rituals SEPARATED the faithful from their God. In the forms of their church strutures (basilicas), rituals of priviledge, and simply creating distance between God and His most wonderful and deserving common people. Now in the NEW TRADITIONS established since the remarkable and healing rituals established since Vatican II that restore the faithful to full communion with their God, I am not blinded to their value by my nostalgia for the old traditions I so much enjoy.

If the Pope and the Church were to make this (recognition of past failures to maintain fuller communion between God and His children and the essentiality of our current forms of celebrating the Mass) clear to the people of God, perhaps they could more fully enjoy the culture and tradition of THE OLD MASS.

May the Peace of God be with all who visit these boards. :-)

The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will

The Holy Father is sending the message to all priests and particularly all bishops that we have had 20 other Councils and several millennia of Tradition, not just one council to change it all forty years ago. Furthermore, that last council has been abused, and is taken to forbid things that were never forbidden (the priest leading the people in facing the coming Dawn).

The pope's agenda is not hidden, he wrote about it for years, try picking up a copy of Spirit of the Liturgy or Feast of Faith.

That has not stopped many bishops from opposing him openly. Entire conferences of bishops attempted to dissuade him from publishing "Summorum Pontificum" last year. France and Germany as a whole, many prominent American, British, and Irish bishops all tried to work in control clauses, quotas, limitations. Then Peter decided that James was not right and published anyway.

---

As to your question, father, about the Church positioning itself against the world, this is nothing new. Save for the glorious age of Christendom and the period of its corruption the Church has been in opposition to the spirit of the age, whether it be puritan or secular. If you want to see joyful, light-hearted Catholics, here are some pictures (although they are of somber minds here: via American Papist on the March for Life on the 22nd.

++++++
What I'm Listening To...

The point that the Church has had over 20 councils is a good one. I'd like to suggests that taking we should trust the most recent council that the Bishops (JP I & II, Benedict XVI) and the Holy Fathers of the council (John XXIII & Paul VI) knew the history of the church well in addition to the signs of the times. My concern is why would people disregard Vatican II in favor of a church council nearly 500 years ago (Trent) or Vatican I which took place in the 19th Century?

People (like the Holy Father) are not ignoring Vatican II, but (re)reading it in the light of 2000 years, 20o some Popes and 20 other councils, as well as demanding that we take everything back to the original sources of our faith (resourcement).

My question is why reject reading one council in conformity with the others? Are you not by that method rejecting those councils?

++++++
What I'm Listening To...

Ah, but HT, what you like best, by your own acknowledgement--is Christendom, the theocratic moment in the Church's history--yes? And you tend to stop there, and not re-source back to the earliest days of Christianity, which is part of what V2 did for us. It helped us shake off some of the temporal distortions that accumulate over time and refreshed us with a remembrance of our early responses to Jesus, before the world and its temptations took us over and shaped us by power and privilege. The Holy Spirit called us to re-source and re-freshen ourselves. I think V2 both built on early councils and stood out from earlier councils as well, in the ways that councils perhaps do in relation to the signs of the times, which do change, as V2 said.

...Oh no, not both things at once again. Paradoxes, conundrums, mysteries, and such. Both/and...

Here Today,there are two ways of looking at this idea of aggiornamento. Science changes. History changes. People change. Things that change, change us. Things that do not change are to be admired and protected [consider art masterpieces antiques and historic buildings]but those things don't change us. We are changed by living people and current ideas. By adhering to ancient practices without explanation or apology we become eccentric. We are not really doing too well in the fight for the minds and hearts of all nations. Christians are less than one of every seven and practicing Catholics are less than one of every twenty.[Do they teach math in catholic school?] This is hardly teaching all nations. When we go back to the basics, which is always where we should go when we are not doing well,we find practices that were closer to the people. I don't see any pictures of the last supper with Jesus sitting with His back to the apostles. I see no reference to Jesus speaking Latin.He probably spoke in a language that His hearers understood. By going back to some of the failed practices of the third to the 20th centuries we kill the church and make it an antiquity. B16 knows Jesus theologically and He knows better than to appeal to eccentricities.If B16th were in Jesus place the Apostles would have worn uniforms, been blue eyed,and been less han successful.
A man who does not have followers is not a leader.
Vatican 11 assembled, presumably by the Holy Spirit, was to start a process of reaching out to the world by going back to the basic teachings of Jesus. If you wish to refute this do it in Latin

"By adhering to ancient practices without explanation or apology we become eccentric."

I don't think anyone is advocating abandoning the explanations and apologetics of the age-old practices of the Church.

My primary argument for maintaining traditional forms is in the area of fruitfulness. The average of NCR's readership, IIRC, is in the 60's. CTA, VotF, and similar groups are not growing, and have few young people in them. FSSP (a traditionalist community), has existed for ~10years, has 300 members, with an average age of ~30 years old. The Nashville Dominicans, Ann Arbor Dominicans, and Erie Benedictines all have constant vocations crises, while the Erie Benedictines are slowly going the way of the buffalo, the Dominicans can't build fast enough to house overflowing novitiates. Of course this should seem as little surprise, considering that the Church's growth before Vatican II could only be described as exponential, and since as exponential decay. Something happened in the wake of the Council that so disturbed the Church, laity and clergy alike, that caused such a violent reaction.

(If we were to get into population growth functions of liberal vs orthodox vs traditional sections of the church it would be most enlightening, but my Catholic school calculus is a little rusty.)

As far as the Last Supper, you don't see Him with His back to them, but in most depictions you see them all facing the same way. Jesus spoke, probably among other languages (Aramaic and Greek), Hebrew, the language of the Torah that has been preserved for millenia after it was effectively a dead language by the usage by the Jews in their worship.

In conclusion: I maintain that it is the abandonment of ancient customs that link us through the generations to the apostles that has precedented this decline in the faith.

++++++
What I'm Listening To...

In my younger days, in the Lutheran Church, the pastor would face the altar from time to time during the worship service. I never felt that he was turning his back to me, but rather that he was modeling for me how to approach God. After Vatican II, when the Catholic Church made changes and the Lutheran Church, in the interest of ecumenism, made similar changes, the altar was moved forward and the pastor began to stand behind it. Still, though, the pastor did not engage with me during his time behind the altar. He directed his attention heavenward. I never really felt there to be much of a difference. Perhaps, Pope Benedict XVI wishes to dispell the idea that where the priest stands has something to do with respecting or disrespecting the worshippers, and perhaps the point is that joy is to be found by focusing on God.

What on earth's going on over there?

Today's Clerical Whispers website carries a posting stating that the Vatican has called for a rally to back the pope: http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2008/01/vatican-calls-for-rally-backing-pope-in.html

According to the website, the vicar of Rome Camillo Ruini has called on "'all believers, but also all Romans,' to stage a show of support during the pope's Angelus prayer on Sunday in St Peter's Square."

This is eerily reminiscent of that highly staged Angelus event on the feast of the Holy Family recently, in which Benedict beamed himself to Madrid to weigh in against the Socialist government in Spain.

I'm trying to remember a time in recent history when high church authorities have openly encouraged the faithful to rally in mass demonstrations like this. Am I mistaken, or is this a new impulse for the recent history of the church?

And if so, why now? Is there an increasing sense of an embattled Vatican? If so, that sense seemed present even the day Ratzinger's name was announced to the crowds in St. Peter's Square as the new pope. My own reading of the body language (and some of the vocalizations) in the crowd was that there was not uniform joy in the choice of the Cardinal electors. Some of whom looked (to me, at least, watching on t.v.) downright belligerent as they looked out on the crowds....Among those on the balcony was a highly influential and high placed American Cardinal, who seemed to me to be scanning the crowd with a particularly baleful look, as if to say, "Yes, we chose him, and you'll like him, or else."

Maybe this is all just me. Still, it seems to me that in its highest pastoral office, the church is backing itself quickly into defensive corners, turning its back even more than ever on dialogue, and simultaneously stooping to tactics not unlike those that often precede the arrival of a fascist order.

Meanwhile, even today (Jan. 17), students continued marching at La Sapienza to protest the invitation to Benedict.

Is some of the strong reaction on the part of church authorities being driven by nervousness at the thought that Americans might elect federal leaders less malleable than recent ones have been--particularly in assisting the Vatican in being immune from prosecution in sexual abuse cases? Is there a fear that a change in government could blow the abuse cases wide open, so that lots of information starts to pour out which church authorities have been desperate to conceal?

I wonder. If full disclosure does ever happen, it will be extremely painful for all of us. But full disclosure may also be the price we have to pay to cauterize this wound and move to a church modeled more closely on the gospels.

William D. Lindsey

Since my Jan. 17 posting has generated lively discussion (and perhaps a bit of doubt as to whether I am overstating my case), I'd like to provide a few tidbits from news accounts this week, to substantiate my argument that the Vatican is now engaged in unprecedented initiatives in the political life of European nations.

For some reason--I suspect because we are an insular people, when all is said and done--American news outlets seem largely to be ignoring these stories. European media sources, by contrast, are reporting daily on the Vatican's recent turn to a more overtly confrontative political stance in Europe.

For instance, on January 23, Christoph Prantner wrote in the Standard (Vienna), noting the “retheologizing” of politics in Europe due to Vatican intervention. In Prantner's view, the pope's recent involvement in the political life of Spain, Italy, and Frances amounts to an attempt to stage "a politicized Reconquista."

The novelty of what is happening now, with overt papal involvement in European politics accompanied by well-staged public demonstrations, was noted in a January 21st article in the German paper Die Welt, which characterizes last Sunday's Angelus demonstration as the "largest demonstration of solidarity with the Papacy since the Middle Ages."

John Hooper of the English paper The Guardian writes on Jan. 22 about the “long arm of the Vatican” in current Italian political events. As Hooper notes, before resigning this week after he and his wife were implicated last week in a cash-for-favors scheme, Italian Justice Minister Clemente Mastella contacted Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, the head of the Italian bishops' conference. Previously, Mastella had stated that his party would continue to support the current center-left government of Italy headed by Romano Prodi.

It is well known that the Vatican has not been pleased with the Prodi government, in large part because it has proposed changes in Italy's marriage laws that would recognize gay marriage. Mastella's resignation, along with his announcement that he was withdrawing support for Prodi's government, leaves that government on the verge of collapse.

Writing in the British Telegraph on January 23, Malcolm Moore reproduces the picture of Benedict looking out at the crowds from his papal suite during the Angelus last Sunday (a picture I noted in a posting below), and notes that the Vatican is being accused of "meddling" in the affairs of the Italian government. Moore quotes the Italian paper La Stampa, which states that the Vatican is trying to bring down Prodi's government. Moore notes that opposition to initiatives in support of gay rights is a neuralgic point in this conflict.

Interestingly enough, simultaneously with the announcement of Mastella that he was resigning and withdrawing support from Prodi, the cardinal whom he contacted prior to taking those steps, Cardinal Bagnasco, gave an interview to Osservatore Romano on Jan. 22, in which he mounted a head-on attack against the Prodi government. Bagnasco calls for Catholics to enter public square courageously, and promote their "non-negotiable values" in the public square.

It might be tempting to regard these as typical tempest-in-a-teapot stories of turbulent Italian politics. I want to suggest, however, that the sequence of events--from the well-staged December 30 "demonstrations" in both Madrid and Rome, up to last Sunday's well-staged Angelus event in Rome--indicate an unprecedented new initiative on the part of the church vis-a-vis the political sphere. I also want to suggest that this initiative is dangerous and ill-advised.

It is quite telling that Cardinal Bagnasco (who would surely have assisted in helping to stage last Sunday's huge Angelus demonstration) speaks of Catholic involvement in the public square. This is a theme that has been central to U.S. Catholic dialogue for some time now. The public square theme has, until now, been a largely American theological and political theme, a way of talking about the contribution of the Catholic community to a pluralistic nation in which no one church owns the public square or the political realm.

Talk about the public square in the American context has emphasized the need for Catholics to contribute to a wide-ranging public dialogue in which specifically religious rhetoric and warrants should be set aside for a language permeable to all--the language of rights, of civil obligation, of justice. By its very nature, the American discussion has been an implicit critique of the attempt of any religious body to impose its peculiar religious views on the entire body politic--let alone, of attempts to stage mass demonstrations in the public square, designed to flex the muscle of a particular religious body.

What is exceptionally troubling about Bagnasco's interpretation of the public square theme--and of the way it is being used by the Vatican in European politics today--is that mass demonstrations are being used not to foster pluralistic, wide-ranging dialogue, but to try to stop such dialogue. The intent of the recent church-organized public demonstrations in European nations is to reassert the right of the church to control what goes on in the political sphere--particularly in the area of sexual morality and marriage.

This is, as I continue to maintain, a fascist and anti-democratic impulse. It is unwise for the church to ally itself with such movements. They do not represent the future--not a viable, humane future.

And the strange mono-focus on gay marriage, as if this is the end-all and be-all of political discussion today, the final stop-gap issue around which crusading Christians must rally at all costs, is not merely bizarre: it is deeply hurtful to many human beings.

The church has no business at all placing itself on the side of hurt--except to heal hurt.

P.S. Now that I see this posting has appeared, I'd like to cross-reference it to a post I sent to the intrinsic disorder thread just after sending in this posting. That posting continues my argument in the final sentence of the posting above.

William D. Lindsey

I have posted a reply on other aspects of your post to your intrinsic disorder thread, and so I will only focus on one aspect of this post here, that of Catholic involvement in the public square.

In my opinion, the Catholic involvement in the public square in 2004 was a good deal more than "a way of talking about the contribution of the Catholic community to a pluralistic nation in which no one church owns the public square or the political realm". It was distinct meddling of exactly the same kind as is happening in Europe, and it was effective from the Catholic Church's point of view because those elected professed to be anti-abortion.

I think this activity in Europe is the result of how well things went here, from electing a specific individual who uses the Church's pro-life rhetoric, even while he ignores most of its recommendations other than those regarding unborn life, to engaging otherwise indifferent individuals in questions of moral teaching, the message of Christ, and the existence of God.

Were I able to influence a European response to this meddling it would be to tell people to start going to Church in order to put a human face on what is otherwise seen as an ideology or threat. God is everywhere, but when one is in Church, it is clear to others there that one is in His embrace.

MarieR, I appreciate your reply at both threads. For brevity's sake (well, I'm a blabbermouth, so for economy's sake?), I'll try to respond to both replies in this one posting.

I agree with your observation that, "the Catholic involvement in the public square in 2004 was a good deal more than 'a way of talking about the contribution of the Catholic community to a pluralistic nation in which no one church owns the public square or the political realm'."

What my postings were addressing was not precisely how Catholic involvement in the public square worked itself out in 2004. What I was trying to address is what the theological discussion of the term "public square" has been about. It's a way of talking about how, in the context of a pluralistic society, Catholics can contribute to discussion of value-laden issues without trying to impose our particular religious viewpoint on the body politic. The phrase itself suggests this focus: we inhabit a huge square/agora full of many different kinds of people, with many different viewpoints. We want to talk and interact in a way that respects everyone, invites the contributions of everyone, while aiming for the common good--as defined by all of us, not by any one ideological or religious group.

I'm not by any means saying this is how Catholics allied with the religious right have been behaving. Our behavior has often betrayed our ideals. To the extent that we've allied ourselves with the religious right, we've been promoting a theocracy that would evacuate the public square of any significance. Why have public gatherings to air different ideas, when a unitary belief system is imposed from above?

What I want to suggest in recent postings is that some European church leaders seem to be appropriating the language of public square theology, but seemingly without understanding its historical and cultural roots in our pluralistic society. This language is being put to a very different use in societies in which the church has, until very recently, dominated what goes on in the political sphere.

The theology of the public square (as opposed to any misuse to which those on the religious right may have put that theology in our nation) is NOT about gathering huge masses of believers in St. Peter's Square or in downtown Madrid, to demonstrate for a return to church control of the political sphere. It's about opening up a dialogic space in the heart of a pluralistic culture in which everyone is free to interact, as long as the interaction and dialogue are normed by a shared pursuit of the common good.

What's ironic about what's going on in Europe now, in my view, is that, in the current U.S. political and religious context, the religious right is rapidly losing steam. Even the strongest advocates of the religious right have not been gaining strength in the political primaries in the areas of the country (SC, for instance) that formerly voted solidly with the religious right.

The religious right's in trouble. Many of us are wising up to the fact that the rhetoric of values and faith is not the exclusive possession of one party or of "conservatives." ALL the issues confronting us now, many of them brought on our heads by "pro-life" and "values-oriented": leaders, are value-laden: war; lack of healthcare; economic suffering for many while a very few grow vastly richer; destruction of the environment, and so on.

I would argue that not even the abortion issue is able to spur right-wing voters in the current elections, as it has in the past. As you note, it's rather hard to maintain that those who have promised to end abortion, while promoting war (and displaying shocking callousness at the time of Hurricane Katrina), have a deep commitment to pro-life values. People are becoming aware of this, and are thinking more carefully about the issues before casting votes that reflect a single issue--no matter what church leaders might instruct us to do.

But here's the interesting point to notice (in my view): even as the influence and rhetoric of the religious right wanes in the U.S., some of its nastiest tactics seem to be taking root in European politics in which church leaders are playing a role. There's an element of intimidation in staging mass demonstrations. There's an element of deception in talking about family values when what one really means is opposing gay marriage. There's certainly some duplicity in using mass demonstrations to suggest that some church-backed political groups have power that goes beyond their actual numbers or actual influence.

Ironically, the sad lessons we're beginning to learn in the U.S. church about how our alliance with the religious right played us for fools don't seem to be preventing some European Catholics from going down the road we are now seeing as a dead end. We've learned through bitter experience that allying ourselves with one political viewpoint betrays our tradition, and that getting into bed with theocratic conservatives solely because they spout pro-life rhetoric, while they don't share our values in any other respect, may even undercut our pro-life positions.

It strikes me that it's unwise to replicate political tactics that haven't worked well, especially when those tactics are being taken from a cultural context very different from the one in which they're now being used. When groups trying the same old tired tactics with diminishing results, it seems to me we're tacitly admitting that we lack imagination, hope, and inspiration.

And that disturbs me. It's becoming harder and harder to hope, to rejoice, to celebrate, to imagine, to feel inspired in a church that keeps grasping for political options that have proven ineffective at best, and malicious at worst. Something's wrong, when the political path a church keeps choosing siphons off central aspects of spiritual life, including hope and joy. Something's wrong, when we'd rather try to keep replicating failed politico-religious options, than to value new ones.

Something's wrong, too, when news that the abortion rate has fallen is met by religious conservatives not with rejoicing but with dismay. Isn't that what we've been working for all these years? Why the dismay about this news?

I bring this up to illustrate several points. One is to underscore the failure of the kind of politics we have chosen to wage for too long, and the sheer stupidity of continuing to try to replicate the failed experiment. The second point I'd like to make is that, in my view, the dismay with which many religious conservatives (many Catholics included) have met the news of a declining abortion rate suggests to me that the anti-abortion movement has been about a lot more than stopping abortion. It's about opposing women's rights, too. It's about giving males power over women, too. It's about not permitting women to make decisions about their reproductive life (something that is possible without advocating abortion).

I suspect that some of the dismay at the news about a declining abortion rate is dismay about the loss of yet another juicy political wedge issue to rally the faithful. Those who have chosen to ally themselves with the religious right are floundering now, as the wedge issues prove less and less politically useful or politically persuasive.

And so gay rights and gay marriage. Call me cynical, but I do believe this is the "new" abortion issue of the early 21st century. It's the only area in which there's still much traction to the religious right. I don't think it's at all coincidental that the rhetoric about marriage and homosexuality is being ratcheted up in Europe, among some Catholic leaders, just as the religious right flounders in the U.S.

In your posting on the intrinsic disorder thread, you say, "As we have mentioned before, there is really no connection between supporting families and opposing homosexual unions." That's absolutely true, but it's not how church leaders are choosing to talk about family life. In his December 30 address in Rome and Madrid, foreshadowing a major emphasis of his thinking this year, Benedict spoke of both defending the traditional family against assault, and of defining that family as the union of one man and one woman. There's no way to avoid hearing this defense of family as simultaneously an attack on gay unions.

Your other posting also notes, "Homosexual unions should be a nonissue for the Catholic Church." If I understand what you're saying here correctly, you mean that it's possible to defend family and still accept and affirm gay unions. And you're right, I believe.

But the fact is, the church hasn't behaved that way. All over the U.S., the church has lent very strong support to and has helped fund initiatives to prevent any recognition of gay unions. In many places in the U.S., the church has even actively campaigned against recognition of basic human rights for gay folks, including the right not to be discriminated against in housing and employment. The discussion of whether Catholic Charities must submit to government regulations is fueled in part by the fear that Catholic organizations will not be permitted to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Finally (and sincere apologies to all for such a long response), you say, "I find it interesting that you read the instruction to the Jesuits to think with the Church as meaning that the thinking is to be mean to homosexuals and find ways to exclude them from society for theological reasons. I find your objection to this at odds with your embrace of the concept of shepherding."

I'm not saying that I read what the Pope said to the Jesuits--to align themselves with the magisterium on issues of "pastoral care for homosexuals"--as an instruction "to be mean to homosexuals." I'm challenging the very suggestion that the church's approach to gay people has been, in its central thrust, about "pastoral care" for gay persons at all!

I think that many pastors in the church have had to find sly, subversive ways to show a pastoral face to gay people, in an institution whose official face to us is anything but pastoral. I'm also noting that this denial or betrayal of pastoral intent grew worse, and not better, in the years in which Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) was head of the CDC. I don't see the, well, the ugliness abating anytime soon.

Meanwhile, I do think that there are increasing numbers of pastors in many places--pastors on the ground, who deal with real human lives on an everyday basis--who are impatient with, dismayed by, or simply unconvinced by the official position of the church towards gay folks. It strikes me as unpastoral to urge those pastors to stop doing the best they can to be pastoral, and, when they are theologians, as many Jesuits are trained to be, to infuse their theology with what they learn from pastoral experience.....

William D. Lindsey

William,

You wrote, "The theology of the public square (as opposed to any misuse to which those on the religious right may have put that theology in our nation) is NOT about gathering huge masses of believers in St. Peter's Square or in downtown Madrid, to demonstrate for a return to church control of the political sphere. It's about opening up a dialogic space in the heart of a pluralistic culture in which everyone is free to interact, as long as the interaction and dialogue are normed by a shared pursuit of the common good."

If your group is not well represented in society, does it not seem reasonable to you to stage a mass demonstration to indicate to the majority that you are not to be counted out? I think this is what the Church leaders are attempting to do in encouraging these demonstrations.

I think there is an important distinction to be made between the current condition of the public square in Europe and the public square in the United States. It may be that as a result of the Church once having had such a strong role in politics in Europe that it is not being considered as one voice among many, but may actually be experiencing exclusion as a result.

Still, I agree with you that it is inappropriate for the Church to stand so strongly against homosexuality in doing this. In that regard it is considerably more like the Nazi WWII demonstrations than, for example, a civil rights demonstration or an anti-war demonstration.

Even in the US, it has been inappropriate for the Church to invest so much effort and money into opposing homosexual unions. This was a complete overreaction to a fantasy in which homosexuals take over the universe, as if it would become the preference to be homosexual if the social stigma and resulting discrimination were removed.

William,

The Church is (pardon the expression) damned if it does and damned if it doesn't defend itself. This incident in Rome does not seem to me to have any relationship to concerns about the handling of sexual abuse cases.

First, the Vatican is very distant from the individual incidents of sexual abuse, so that if it is enjoying a certain immunity from prosecution, it is likely only a shortcut to the point that would have been reached if legal action had been taken against it. The Vatican would have been found not culpable to the same degree that our state governments are not culpable when a public school employee engages in sexual abuse.

Second, even by the account found on "Clerical Whisphers...", those protesting the pope's proposed visit are predisposed to being anti-Catholic, and the counter-demonstrations express the predominant point of view regarding the pope's right to talk about the relationship between religion and science and challenge those who make religion out of science.

If there is facism lurking here, it could just as well be an anti-religious facism.

MarieR writes~ "...the vatican is very distant from the individual incidents of sexual abuse....". I have no idea of the legal complexities associated with "...a certain immunity from prosecution...." that it might enjoy but it is certainly, at least to me, extremely not distant from the moral, "institutional", accountability for the instances and circumstances of clerical sexual abuse.

Yes, Dennis, the institution is morally accountable.

I think one would have to be a nonbeliever to think that no accounting has taken place if the Vatican has not had to defend itself in US courts.

William, I think you know exactly what is going on. Only someone who does not believe that God created the Universe would respond the way those physics professors and some of their students have responded. Holy Pope Benedict XVI, however, does know the Truth. I can imagine He is suffering as Christ suffered with those who denied the Truth. Regarding the Catholic Church modeled more closely on the gospels - The Catholic Church believes in the Word revealed to us in the Trinitarian relationship of Sacred Tradition,(what has been written or handed down in Tradition)Sacred Scripture and Magisterial teaching. P.S. Regarding Science- Science "appears" to be changing as we are constantly discovering that conditions exist, that everything exists in relationship. Only God knows the entire truth about the Universe that He, The Creator, Created.

Despite what modern scientist may argue, one could argue that the Earth, given the fact that it can sustain life,(due to the God created conditions) must hold a PREFERRED place within the Solar system as well as the Universe.

If it is true that fundamental to Contemporary Quantum Theory there is no phenomenon until it is observed, does this mean that "Blind" persons as well as Blind persons are unconscious?

anne-I think you are making a lot of assumptions when you say "I think you know exactly what is going on. Only someone who does not believe that God created the Universe would respond the way those physics professors and some of their students have responded."

I am not defending the profs or students, but your comment is an assumption and is presumptuous.

I think you are blowing things way out of proportion especially when you say "I can imagine He is suffering as Christ suffered with those who denied the Truth." Really, you act as if the Pope were being crucified because a hand full of people at a University in Rome didn't want him there.

butterfly, I am making this assumption based simply on the fact that they have no other reason to respond in such a hostile way. I have no doubt that Holy Pope Benedict XVI is suffering as I know he desires salvation for all of us.

Anne, I think there is enough evidence to indicate that the response of the physics faculty and some students has as much to do with bearing grudges as it has to do with faith, or lack of faith, in God.

William quotes: "...the Vicar of Rome, Camillo Ruino has called upon 'all believers but also all Romans' to stage a show of support during the Pope's Angelus prayer on Sunday in St. Peter's Square".
Using a traditional opportunity for genuine prayer for "political" ends? "Believers" of what? Believers in the beautiful sanctity of Mary's acceptance of the call to be the mother of Jesus or in the Pope's local, petty battle with a local university regarding the universal right of the papacy to re-establish a disproven pre-eminence of medieval theology and "hierarchical church" over the secular physical sciences? How hypocritical, how, well, not-intelligent.

Marie and Anne,

Possibly I'm being cynical, and if so, I want to listen carefully to your admonitions.

Still, it strikes me as more than coincidental that this latest Angelus gathering exhibits more than a few parallels with the one on Dec. 30 about which I've commented elsewhere. Is it not a bit strange that, all of a sudden, those big-screen t.v.'s are showing up to beam Pope Benedict here and there for Angelus gatherings that involve staged crowds? And that all this is happening right before the elections in Spain, where some church officials are pushing hard against the government, and as the Italian government debates changes in laws that would sanction unions of unmarried couples? And as the U.S. enters a new election cycle that promises to be perhaps more unpredictable than any in several previous election cycles?

I don't read what has happened as you do, Anne, I have to say, in that I don't assume that the professors and students who protested against the lecture by Benedict are atheists. In my view, the sharp distinction between a church that must be viewed as always holy and a world that must be viewed as always Godless is not an accurate description. The church is both holy and sinful. The world stands in need of redemption and is simultaneously graced.

It may be politically expedient for reactionary movements in the church to imply that there is no salvation anywhere outside the church, and that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. But I don't think it's theologically wise to think this way, or that thinking this way is soundly rooted in our tradition.

Personally, I give Benedict more credit for knowing what he is doing when he lets slip those remarks such as the one he made about Islam several months back, or the remark about Galileo. I'm aware he's quoting others, but I also have to doubt that a man who has such an eminent public position makes offhand and ill-considered remarks.

Frankly, I see a lot of baiting going on here, and a lot of staging. And it does concern me, because the ultimate goal of some of this behavior seems to be to push the church's influence in the political arena in an illicit way.

And, though I'm aware many may think this is reaching, I do very much suspect that there's a strong concern in Rome about what would happen if the U.S. elected a government less pliable, when top Catholic officials seek immunity from investigation or even prosecution in the abuse cases.

Meanwhile, I wonder where the money is coming from to fund these large "prayer" protests? I wonder why they're being staged--now, at this point in history? I continue to ask when in recent papal history we've seen the use of papal prayer gatherings to such political ends? (The fact that, in advance, Ruino had to issue a denial that the event was political speaks volumes--to me, at least--about the fact that it WAS political.)

How have we gotten here? In my view, it's not Godless secularism that has brought the church to such a futile confrontative stance with contemporary Western society. It's the church itself who keeps marching to such dead ends. I strongly maintain that some of the theological and political decisions the church made as the 20th century ended were extremely unwise, and that it would be unwise for the church now to continue down the dead-end path it has chosen, in saying nothing but no to the contemporary world.

The church is not wise in turning its back on the world and refusing to engage in dialogue with culture. I agree with Dennis: this is a not-intelligent decision on the part of the church's leaders. And sadly, the entire church is paying a large cost for the decision of those leaders.

We could have chosen a different path. We did so at Vatican II.

And then we turned our back on that council and began denying that it happened, that it meant what it said, and that it was necessary.

William D. Lindsey

Hi William,

You said "We could have chosen a different path. We did so at Vatican II."

Praise be. Did you join us?

Peace and Good,

Your Brother in Christ (Franciscan Tertiary of Mary, Mother of the Most Blessed Sacrament)

Actually, yes, I did join you at the time of Vatican II, SaintandSinner. In fact, it was during the second Vatican Council that I felt called--deeply, ineluctably--to leave my family church of origin and become Catholic at the age of 16. I paid quite a price for taking this step, by the way, in that many members of my family perceived it as a rejection of them and my heritage.

Have I understood your question aright? If so, I hope I have answered it to your satisfaction.

William D. Lindsey

MarieR and Annedanielson, a clarification--or perhaps a summary of what I wanted to say in my response.

While the papacy is a religious institution and a ministry in the church (and an essential one, I believe), it is also a political institution. Over the course of history, it has taken on many political accretions that have little or nothing to do with its central ministry in the church, which is to be servus servorum Christi.

Though many Catholics have the mistaken impression that it's irreligious or anti-Catholic to criticize the papacy when it functions more as a political institution than a religious one, I think this is our duty as faithful members of the body of Christ. I understand that in the U.S., a nation with the soul of a [Protestant] church, Catholics have long felt embattled and hesitant to critique the papacy's political activities.

Yet when those activities threaten to harm the church's mission in the world, and to undermine its effectiveness as the body of Christ, they deserve criticism. I can't agree at all, Marie, that the Vatican has been distant from the abuse situation in the U.S. There are abundant indicators that the cover-up of this situation reaches to the very top of the church. The failure to address the situation with transparency and accountability--from center to periphery of the church, from top to bottom--is harming all of us. It's as if a festering sore is at the very heart of the church, and that sore will not stop festering until the source of the infection is removed.

My own analysis of the church's most crucial need today is this: clericalism, an illicit caste-system that gives unwarranted power to the ordained (who are all male), saps the strength of the church as the body of Christ. It undermines the ministry of all of us, ordained or not-ordained, in the church. It fosters an abuse of power that is at the very heart of the sexual abuse crisis--which is about abuse of power even more than abuse of sexuality.

Until the disease of clericalism is addressed forthrightly, the church will continue to suffer. The actions of the papacy for some time now have been bound up in a defense of the illicit system of clericalism. Everything has been weighted in that direction, as if the future of the church is contingent on keeping in place at all costs a system that has developed over the course of history and can change now, just as it has changed in the past.

Shows of pomp and circumstance designed to reassert clerical power in the face of cultural and political changes only deepen the problem. It is clear to me that what has been taking place in Rome recently IS a show. On the internet today, I saw a photograph taken from inside the papal suite, as Benedict looked out over the crowd at last Sunday's Angelus. The text accompanying the photo noted that it is a new step for Benedict to take advantage of such photo ops. Staging....

The church stands in need of reformation at this moment in its history perhaps more than at any previous moment since the colossal split of the 16th century. The nub of the problem is clericalism, reinforced by a papacy whose political activities (and whose undercutting of collegiality in local churches) are militating against the gospel-centered ministry of the pope to be servant of the servants of God. The ecclesiology of Vatican II, which is deeply traditional, has not been given a chance to flourish under recent papacies. And the church is withering on the vine in many places in the world, because of this.

William D. Lindsey

Some sores will only stop festering if we stop picking at them and let the body rid itself of the infection. The past cannot be changed. We need to look around now and make sure things have been changed so that the likelihood of abuse is reduced to the greatest degree possible and that any incidents are dealt with properly. We do not need to keep going back and resurrecting the hurt, though it might be helpful for Cardinal Law to publicly admit that his heart was in the wrong place while he was in Boston, and for him to appear as less forgiven than he has been.

Bill I've been giving a lot of thought to this issue which you call the 'disease' of clericalism. I think your absolutely correct. It is a disease, and I think the reason it's a disease is because it's self definition is designed to equate the office of priest with that of the person of Jesus. In persona Christi. This linking of the two, to the extent we now have it, causes huge problems with cognitive dissonance and is probably why it's hard for the laity to hold the hierarchy accountable. How can you hold Jesus accountable?

What makes it more insidious is these linkages were instilled in us as children, and coupled with a theology of 'self loathing' (as one theologian described the the Baltimore Catechism)it's very difficult as adults to really look at the system. The solutions to all the cognitive dissonance seem to be somewhat limited. One either quits thinking and just follows; develops an inability to prioritize such that sacramental incidentals become as important as just war theory and masturbation is equvalent to abortion; or one just leaves the whole thing behind. None of these approaches is a solution, because the underlying causality is not changed and the child is not integrated into the adult.

In many respects you can see this same cognative dissonance and the same ineffective solutions in the Church structure itself. There are too many yes men, no seeming ability to prioritize and deal with real issues---instead we get the gay smoke screen for the abuse scandal, latin and limbo, and a plea to return to the good old days of pre Vatican II piety and pomp.

Well, those were the good old days for the clerical caste, but in the meantime we have a huge priest shortage, and maybe this is God's way of dealing with the disease.

Colkoch, your posting hits home for a very specific reason (and thank you for your kind and also thought-provoking comments). You say,

"There are too many yes men, no seeming ability to prioritize and deal with real issues---instead we get the gay smoke screen for the abuse scandal, latin and limbo, and a plea to return to the good old days of pre Vatican II piety and pomp."

Indeed. Last night, Steve and I re-watched the 1996 movie rendition of Arthur Miller's play "The Crucible." As you know, this retelling of the story of Salem witch trials was written in 1953 with an eye to the witch hunts of the McCarthy period--a commentary on the perennial tendency of human communities that feel threatened to identify some scapegoat and expel that scapegoat from the community in rituals of humiliation, in order to feel cleansed.

As I watched the movie, and thought about the role religion played in it (often a diversionary role, distracting people from the real problems at hand, an obfuscating role, a role that deliberately fostered irrationality when rationality threatened to expose social mechanisms the movers and shakers did not want revealed), I asked myself, "Have we really gotten very far from this story?"

I'd like to think so. And yet, when I read that not only American fundamentalists, but high Catholic officials, are willing to entertain anti-evolutionary nonsense, to defend the church's treatment of Galileo, and to revive interest in deviltry and exorcism, I wonder.

Poland has just announced plans for a huge exorcism center. As this announcement came out, Father Marian Piatkowski, regional coordinator of Polish exorcists in Stettin, stated that Poland definitely needs exorcists. In fact, he claimed, "Ideally, each deanery would have one."

In December, the website Petrus stated that Pope Benedict intends to place more exorcists in every diocese in 2008 and will also reintroduce the prayer during Mass to St. Michael the Archangel, the chief expeller of demons. Though the Vatican denies this report, in 2005, the Athenaeum Pontificium Regina Apostolorum College in Rome introduced a course for exorcists, as well as classes on the history of Satanism.

One would think that Pope Benedict might look skeptically on these developments after the death of Anneliese Michel in Bavaria in 1979, at the age of 27. After her death due to malnutrition and dehydration following repeated attempts to exorcise demons from her, the priest who exorcised her as well as her parents were charged with criminal neglect, and the German church announced that Anneliese Michel had been mentally ill, not demon-possessed.

One of the interesting features of the 1996 rendition of "The Crucible" is that, whenever critical questions seek to expose the real underlying mechanisms of witch-hunting in Salem, the girls pretending to be harassed by the devil simply shriek louder and fling themselves about in the court. In this way, they divert attention from the real issues underlying the witch trials--judicial corruption, clerical corruption, abuse of women, the jealousy of neighbors coveting the land of others, and so on.

So, "gay smoke screen for the abuse scandal, latin and limbo, and a plea to return to the good old days," indeed! You're right on target. These are diversionary moves, which distract us from the very real problems of the church, in which the disease of clericalism plays a central role.

I welcome the discussion of the new role science should play in a postmodern worldview. Rationalistic, minimalistic understandings of scientific truth ruled the day in the modern period, and impoverished our notion of how the world works.

But I suspect that some of our highest church leaders are not promoting this critique of the role science played in modernity in order to move us forward towards a postmodern world. I suspect the real desire is to return to pre-modernity.

We may soon find ourselves in a world that claims humans were created several thousands of years ago, that the sun revolves around the earth, that we are all tormented by demons and witches, and that exorcisms and witch-burnings are just the thing to solve our problems. I hope not. I hope this is an unthinkable scenario. But I also never expected exorcists to proliferate as the 21st century gets rolling.

Are we going forward--where the reign of God points us--or backward, these days?

William D. Lindsey

"Are we going forward--where the reign of God points us--or backward, these days?"

This is a good question Bill. Where are we headed? I sometimes think the answer is not forward or backward, but just further apart.

You brought up the sudden Vatican interest in training exorcists. I have a couple of thoughts on this, but first want to point ou