Unlike perhaps the last one, the quite elderly pope has decided to resign instead of waiting for death or something to force his hand. That's nice. Shouldn't be as impressive (first time in a half millennium!!!!!) as it is made out to be, but hey, mild kudos. As the sister on the panel discussed noted, this act showed some responsibility that looks beyond the personal to the needs of the Church overall.
[MHP covered this issue too, including more directly focusing on needs of inclusion and better priorities. Her husband is Catholic and they go to mass .. um her second husband.]
Chris Hayes covered the matter today, he and his panel of Catholic speakers mainly focusing on the child abuse scandal and how the elite hierarchy did not do enough to handle it. This was said to be a primary driver of dissatisfaction and often abandonment of the laity. One journalist for a Catholic publication noted that the Church focuses so much on sexual purity (me personally, I think the focus on the contraceptive mandate, said by some religious leaders as some grand line in the sand for religious freedom should have been addressed here -- it is a glaring symbol of the problem) while not properly handling this one.
A member of the clergy noted that the pope's official statements on the faith often were quite beautiful, just not very topical. He also noted that there were various things that could have been the focus of the conversation for which there could have been more disagreement. After all, the conservative writer took a line many liberals might -- little chance the new pope (with the same hierarchy, appointed by them in fact) will change things in the short term. First thing you have to do to show you mean business is to take the offices away from top officials who enabled things, allowing some of them to be arrested for their crimes.
It is helpful to focus on a point of agreement and the discussion hinted at wider problems. I was raised as Catholic (Irish-Italian) but though I went to Catholic school because it was deemed the best education available locally (well, it was better than the not totally safe public school options; I went to public elementary school), the faith part wasn't really drill in me. This is fairly common and not just for Catholics. A religion often is as much a culture as a matter of doctrine* and that is surely the case here.
But, and let me say that there is a strand of Catholicism that is great and all, especially the individual members and clergy, really -- I find chunks of their doctrine as ... dead wrong. So, do many average Catholics, which is why when you piss off (e.g., a clip on the show involving a report from Ireland on the child abuse cover-up) on such a basic issue as protecting children is liable to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. The Church ALREADY is not concerning itself enough with really matters while making things that quite a few Christians (the conservative writer cited the empty tomb etc. -- that isn't what makes one a Catholic, specifically) think not very important at all lines in the sand. Contraceptive mandate?
The Catholic Church, sadly to many liberal Catholics, comes off as something Rick Santorum would love. Birth control. Divorce. No women priests. Homosexuality. All of these things in some way seems to turn around sex, both the act and the gender. I find each of the positions dead wrong or at best missing the forest for the trees. Take marriage and divorce. The Notorious Elizabeth Tuttle (see a few days back) noted how Puritans in New England had for the time a liberal view on marriage, seeing it as a civil contract and some members of the clergy defined the divorce rules loosely. So "abandonment" can in effect be "constructive" abandonment, that is, even if the spouse was still around, s/he might make the marriage so hard that they "abandoned" their spouse.
Would the Catholic Church take that tack? I think it reasonable, for a religion, to put up some degree of barrier of entry and exit to marriage. Also, to favor it (given it is also a sacrament,** the union ultimately of concern not just to the couple, but to the faith community as a whole) as the ideal for a couple, including for raising children. And, the Church has moved on -- marriage is not just for procreation, some would not be, but also (underlining why SSM fits here) for companionship. See again the book cited, which (back in the 1600s) showed how Puritans understood sex as an important part of marriage for both parties.
Anyway, not supporting all the lines drawn, the due care there is fine. Problem is when it is taken to wrongful conclusions like not supporting artificial contraceptive use (as seen in the 1960s, this was in no way compelled even if you accept Catholic doctrine) or divorce once it is clear the couple no longer can happily be married. Also, women in the priesthood and homosexuality. A literal reading of Pauline epistles could lead to not allowing sisters from speaking in church and that is allowed to my knowledge (as I recall, it was done). Some scholars will also point to evidence of women leaders in the early church from references in the New Testament. As to homosexuality, the couple verses involved can be gotten around just as a few others troublesome ones.
But, the show went beyond such sexuality issues to the basic elite nature of the Church, its separation from the laity. This is particularly questionable though the New Testament justifies some degree of hierarchy. [Note though that the clearest references, such as in the Timothy and Titus, probably came late -- the epistles were likely not actually written by Paul.] Jesus' ministry was known for its popular appeal. The church grew in large part because it served the needs of the disenfranchised. Its ethics, including sexual ethics, helped, yes, by showing its purity. But, there were ascetic philosophies and religions out there. Its appeal was in large part its appeal to the masses.
In time, as it grew in size and importance, it set up a hierarchy and complex organization, one copacetic to their new benefactors -- Roman Catholic Church -- and, it provided an independent means of survival and means to thrive. Nonetheless, in time, the masses felt they were too separate and isolated. This is not unique when elites are involved, but a major problem here is that there was less of a means of redress. We in some fashion have power over political officeholders -- we vote for them, after all. But, the Catholic Church doesn't allow that sort of thing. Problems arise. A major moment in church/state relations was Henry IV standing in the snow asking for forgiveness to ensure a lifting of excommunication. What power do the laity have to force a comparable act here?
Moving path matters of doctrine (not just sexual; not a big fan of papal infallibility either), this is a major problem I have with the Catholic Church. And, I am not alone. Other religions find a means for the laity to have more control over the hierarchy, but I guess this is a bit too "Protestant" for the Catholic Church. In fact, it is not merely the power to vote. Surely not in my diocese when I was younger, there does not seem to be a means for the laity to state their opinions. It is my understanding the the laity does have a role in the Church per the doctrine, some (I must say) opaque means to influence the doctrine. There needs to be a more direct role for the laity, even if you are not going to give them a vote.
The child abuse scandal was just a blatant result of this separation of the laity from the hierarchy. I am sure that it is not the case in all areas and that the separation is not as total as might be inferred from these comments. Parents at a parochial school, e.g., have means of feedback, especially as they pay the tuition. Still, I really don't recall that being encouraged when I went there. Maybe, that has changed -- if so, there should be a major effort to make it clear. Show the laity and the community at large how members are involved in the day to day matters.
Statements that the PPACA contraceptive mandate, one with various compromises to balance interests, is some sort of religious tyranny doesn't help me have much faith that the hierarchy have their perspectives straight. Either way, if the Church wishes to have a successful future in this country (and elsewhere) it needs to change. I know it is a conservative institution, but it has changed repeatedly over its history. Never going to be totally onboard, particularly since I don't agree with its theistic doctrine, but for the well being of millions of its members, sincerely wish it would change for the better. Will the new pope help?
---
* Ronald Dworkin (RIP) gave a series of lectures on a "religion without god," religion here ultimately a position on the basic questions of life, one of ethics and values. I agree with the sentiment but think he undersold somewhat the ceremony aspect. His definition of "religion" focused on a person's beliefs, but ceremony/practice is also part of the equation. See, e.g., the concurring opinion here.
It is my understanding (from reading a draft) he supported the Smith ruling, acceptance of neutral regulations that burden some faiths. But, religion involves not just belief but action, even if you define it broadly. A broad definition does require some line drawing on action, since at some point the alternative is unworkable. Still, peyote use there was an individual private ceremony that provides a concrete symbolic practice of faith. Such things are a basic human need in some sense and a "freedom of religion" should take it into consideration.
** Marriage as a sacrament is an example of the above note -- many give it a religious, sacred, meaning. But, specific ceremonies and other concrete actions/symbols (down to the wedding ring) are important. Those who ridicule those who believe and/or feel a need for such things, beyond some acceptance of impersonal principles and standards have a certain lack of empathy about the human condition. "Religious" here need not just mean a priest or rabbi, but something more than just "a piece of paper."
It also is not merely the word "marriage," but the overall enterprise. So, I am somewhat confused by those who want to "take the state out of the marriage business." What? Deny the couple as a couple specifically benefits? A few say this. Others focus on the word as if calling it a "civil union" will suddenly satisfy everyone, even if the state continues to give benefits to a union so many provide with sacred significance. It won't. This is why most states do not give equal benefits to same sex couples but call it something else ("equal" here means "not quite equal" but will let that go for the moment). "Marriage" is used by the government because that is society's understanding of the union.
The "religious" meaning given to the word is a result of society. The word is not inherently religious. One person who offered the idea agreed that even if the government didn't use the term, ultimately those with a government civil union license who did not undergo some other ceremony would be considered "married," since the two groups basically look the same. Exactly!
[MHP covered this issue too, including more directly focusing on needs of inclusion and better priorities. Her husband is Catholic and they go to mass .. um her second husband.]
Chris Hayes covered the matter today, he and his panel of Catholic speakers mainly focusing on the child abuse scandal and how the elite hierarchy did not do enough to handle it. This was said to be a primary driver of dissatisfaction and often abandonment of the laity. One journalist for a Catholic publication noted that the Church focuses so much on sexual purity (me personally, I think the focus on the contraceptive mandate, said by some religious leaders as some grand line in the sand for religious freedom should have been addressed here -- it is a glaring symbol of the problem) while not properly handling this one.
A member of the clergy noted that the pope's official statements on the faith often were quite beautiful, just not very topical. He also noted that there were various things that could have been the focus of the conversation for which there could have been more disagreement. After all, the conservative writer took a line many liberals might -- little chance the new pope (with the same hierarchy, appointed by them in fact) will change things in the short term. First thing you have to do to show you mean business is to take the offices away from top officials who enabled things, allowing some of them to be arrested for their crimes.
It is helpful to focus on a point of agreement and the discussion hinted at wider problems. I was raised as Catholic (Irish-Italian) but though I went to Catholic school because it was deemed the best education available locally (well, it was better than the not totally safe public school options; I went to public elementary school), the faith part wasn't really drill in me. This is fairly common and not just for Catholics. A religion often is as much a culture as a matter of doctrine* and that is surely the case here.
But, and let me say that there is a strand of Catholicism that is great and all, especially the individual members and clergy, really -- I find chunks of their doctrine as ... dead wrong. So, do many average Catholics, which is why when you piss off (e.g., a clip on the show involving a report from Ireland on the child abuse cover-up) on such a basic issue as protecting children is liable to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. The Church ALREADY is not concerning itself enough with really matters while making things that quite a few Christians (the conservative writer cited the empty tomb etc. -- that isn't what makes one a Catholic, specifically) think not very important at all lines in the sand. Contraceptive mandate?
The Catholic Church, sadly to many liberal Catholics, comes off as something Rick Santorum would love. Birth control. Divorce. No women priests. Homosexuality. All of these things in some way seems to turn around sex, both the act and the gender. I find each of the positions dead wrong or at best missing the forest for the trees. Take marriage and divorce. The Notorious Elizabeth Tuttle (see a few days back) noted how Puritans in New England had for the time a liberal view on marriage, seeing it as a civil contract and some members of the clergy defined the divorce rules loosely. So "abandonment" can in effect be "constructive" abandonment, that is, even if the spouse was still around, s/he might make the marriage so hard that they "abandoned" their spouse.
Would the Catholic Church take that tack? I think it reasonable, for a religion, to put up some degree of barrier of entry and exit to marriage. Also, to favor it (given it is also a sacrament,** the union ultimately of concern not just to the couple, but to the faith community as a whole) as the ideal for a couple, including for raising children. And, the Church has moved on -- marriage is not just for procreation, some would not be, but also (underlining why SSM fits here) for companionship. See again the book cited, which (back in the 1600s) showed how Puritans understood sex as an important part of marriage for both parties.
Anyway, not supporting all the lines drawn, the due care there is fine. Problem is when it is taken to wrongful conclusions like not supporting artificial contraceptive use (as seen in the 1960s, this was in no way compelled even if you accept Catholic doctrine) or divorce once it is clear the couple no longer can happily be married. Also, women in the priesthood and homosexuality. A literal reading of Pauline epistles could lead to not allowing sisters from speaking in church and that is allowed to my knowledge (as I recall, it was done). Some scholars will also point to evidence of women leaders in the early church from references in the New Testament. As to homosexuality, the couple verses involved can be gotten around just as a few others troublesome ones.
But, the show went beyond such sexuality issues to the basic elite nature of the Church, its separation from the laity. This is particularly questionable though the New Testament justifies some degree of hierarchy. [Note though that the clearest references, such as in the Timothy and Titus, probably came late -- the epistles were likely not actually written by Paul.] Jesus' ministry was known for its popular appeal. The church grew in large part because it served the needs of the disenfranchised. Its ethics, including sexual ethics, helped, yes, by showing its purity. But, there were ascetic philosophies and religions out there. Its appeal was in large part its appeal to the masses.
In time, as it grew in size and importance, it set up a hierarchy and complex organization, one copacetic to their new benefactors -- Roman Catholic Church -- and, it provided an independent means of survival and means to thrive. Nonetheless, in time, the masses felt they were too separate and isolated. This is not unique when elites are involved, but a major problem here is that there was less of a means of redress. We in some fashion have power over political officeholders -- we vote for them, after all. But, the Catholic Church doesn't allow that sort of thing. Problems arise. A major moment in church/state relations was Henry IV standing in the snow asking for forgiveness to ensure a lifting of excommunication. What power do the laity have to force a comparable act here?
Moving path matters of doctrine (not just sexual; not a big fan of papal infallibility either), this is a major problem I have with the Catholic Church. And, I am not alone. Other religions find a means for the laity to have more control over the hierarchy, but I guess this is a bit too "Protestant" for the Catholic Church. In fact, it is not merely the power to vote. Surely not in my diocese when I was younger, there does not seem to be a means for the laity to state their opinions. It is my understanding the the laity does have a role in the Church per the doctrine, some (I must say) opaque means to influence the doctrine. There needs to be a more direct role for the laity, even if you are not going to give them a vote.
The child abuse scandal was just a blatant result of this separation of the laity from the hierarchy. I am sure that it is not the case in all areas and that the separation is not as total as might be inferred from these comments. Parents at a parochial school, e.g., have means of feedback, especially as they pay the tuition. Still, I really don't recall that being encouraged when I went there. Maybe, that has changed -- if so, there should be a major effort to make it clear. Show the laity and the community at large how members are involved in the day to day matters.
Statements that the PPACA contraceptive mandate, one with various compromises to balance interests, is some sort of religious tyranny doesn't help me have much faith that the hierarchy have their perspectives straight. Either way, if the Church wishes to have a successful future in this country (and elsewhere) it needs to change. I know it is a conservative institution, but it has changed repeatedly over its history. Never going to be totally onboard, particularly since I don't agree with its theistic doctrine, but for the well being of millions of its members, sincerely wish it would change for the better. Will the new pope help?
---
* Ronald Dworkin (RIP) gave a series of lectures on a "religion without god," religion here ultimately a position on the basic questions of life, one of ethics and values. I agree with the sentiment but think he undersold somewhat the ceremony aspect. His definition of "religion" focused on a person's beliefs, but ceremony/practice is also part of the equation. See, e.g., the concurring opinion here.
It is my understanding (from reading a draft) he supported the Smith ruling, acceptance of neutral regulations that burden some faiths. But, religion involves not just belief but action, even if you define it broadly. A broad definition does require some line drawing on action, since at some point the alternative is unworkable. Still, peyote use there was an individual private ceremony that provides a concrete symbolic practice of faith. Such things are a basic human need in some sense and a "freedom of religion" should take it into consideration.
** Marriage as a sacrament is an example of the above note -- many give it a religious, sacred, meaning. But, specific ceremonies and other concrete actions/symbols (down to the wedding ring) are important. Those who ridicule those who believe and/or feel a need for such things, beyond some acceptance of impersonal principles and standards have a certain lack of empathy about the human condition. "Religious" here need not just mean a priest or rabbi, but something more than just "a piece of paper."
It also is not merely the word "marriage," but the overall enterprise. So, I am somewhat confused by those who want to "take the state out of the marriage business." What? Deny the couple as a couple specifically benefits? A few say this. Others focus on the word as if calling it a "civil union" will suddenly satisfy everyone, even if the state continues to give benefits to a union so many provide with sacred significance. It won't. This is why most states do not give equal benefits to same sex couples but call it something else ("equal" here means "not quite equal" but will let that go for the moment). "Marriage" is used by the government because that is society's understanding of the union.
The "religious" meaning given to the word is a result of society. The word is not inherently religious. One person who offered the idea agreed that even if the government didn't use the term, ultimately those with a government civil union license who did not undergo some other ceremony would be considered "married," since the two groups basically look the same. Exactly!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!