more papal ponderings
If you're not already sick of hearing reactions to the Cardinals' choice of Ratzinger as Pope...
some more reactions- attempting to be more coherent and more serious.
Now, I'm seriously disturbed by the choice of Ratzinger to be Pope for lots of reasons, as you probably all know. But the thing is, it's not because I'm Catholic that I'm disturbed- or at least not only because I'm Catholic.
I'm probably more interested and more concerned over the election of Pope Benedict XVI because I still consider myself to be Catholic. (I'm still not sure exactly why I do, but that's another story. Although, come to think of it, it's probably that 1. old habits die hard and 2. leaving the Church would be like giving up on it, as if I don't believe that it will ever change to become more like what I think it should be. Which isn't true. Only going back to Vatican II would be quite enough for me- for now.) But that aside, I do still consider myself to be Catholic so I am disappointed and disturbed that the man the Cardinals chose to lead "my" Church is one whom I so thoroughly disagree with and think is downright wrong on a number of issues, not all of which have to do with religion.
Yes, I'm upset because this is a guarantee that instead of moving closer to Vatican II, the Church will be moving farther away from it. Because this is a guarantee that women are not going to be ordained any time soon, or even allowed to be deacons. That's all upsetting but in all honesty, I knew it really wasn't going to happen. Given the composition of the College of Cardinals, I knew any real doctrinal change was a very slim (if not absolutely nil) possibility. What I was hoping for was another Pope whose obvious holiness would transcend dogma in the way that JPII's did, another Pope who could unite people if only by the force of his personality rather than divide them because of doctrinal differences. I doubt (and I may be doing him an injustice here) Ratzinger can do that. What we got is God's Rottweiler- a man who's basically spent the last 20 years of his life stifling any sort of dissent in the church. The Catholic Church was never, perhaps, very open-minded; it's certainly going backwards rapidly though. (*looks out the back window* Oh look, I see the church of the Medieval, pre-Reformation times already... /silliness).
Catholic and religious issues aside, I'm disturbed because of what this will mean on front of gay rights. Now, I'm not, what was the phrase Ratzinger uses, oh, yes- I'm not 'inherently disordered' (in that way, at least) but I'm upset that this new Pope demonizes homosexuality the way he does. Terming it 'inherently disordered' is insulting in the extreme. frankly, there's quite enough homophobia in the world already without the Pope calling homosexuality something that makes it sound like a disease only complete and utter psychopaths have. I'm not saying I expect the Catholic Church to suddenly open the doors to same-sex marriage (it'd be nice- but I'm not that blind to reality) but not practically encouraging homophobia would be a good thing. What does it say that the Pope is basically encouraging hatred and prejudice of that sort? Gay rights has quite enough opposition to deal with; it doesn't need the Pope practically sanctioning homophobia or at the very least, adding fuel and ammunition to the opponents of gay rights' arguments.
I really rather hoped the new Pope would be from the 3rd world, either Latino or African American. Partly because it would be a nice gesture that the Church recognizes where its growing strength is and all that but mainly because I think it would have also been a really nice boon in the fight against racism. There are still so many people in this world and this country who think that anyone who's not white is inferior- and not just neo-Nazis. No, if racism were only confined to neo-Nazis, I'd be thankful. No, it's the otherwise good people, the regular Joe's out there who are- whether they realize it or not- racist that really disturbs me. It would, I think, have really helped to have a world leader on the scale that the Pope is, be a non-white person. It becomes more difficult to believe that other races are inherently inferior if the Pope is a living breathing, very public, example that it's not the case. Now, I realize prejudices don't go away because of evidence to the contrary; humans seem to be innately skilled at denial and repression. But it would help. And it certainly wouldn't hurt.
In short, I'm disturbed and disappointed (and yes, angry) at the choice of Ratzinger not only because I'm Catholic but because I'm a woman, (not to mention what he'd probably term a heretic), a person, a world-citizen if you will. Because, let's face it, the Pope is much more than just the leader of Catholics. He's the head of a country, too, but more than that, he is a true world leader. His 'domain' doesn't have boundaries really; he's an international leader, something like being, oh, Head of the UN or some other international body. It's a position unlike any other in the world, pretty much. Bottom line, though, he's an Important Person. In world affairs- political as well as religious- he is one of the biggest players there is. (This is, I'm pretty sure, a legacy solely of JPII, God rest his soul, but it's important to consider especially in JPII's successor.) And there's the rub.
I could go out into the street with a bull horn and proclaim all the changes I'd like to see in the world and why- heck, I could go into St. Peter's Square with a bull horn and say that women should be ordained, etc etc. And I could speak 'in the tongues of men and angels' or with all the pithy, moving eloquence of the Gettysburg Address and the I Have A Dream speech and every other great piece of oratory- but I rather doubt I'd get much media coverage or have much effect at all. I'd probably be dismissed as a lunatic pretty damn quickly come to think of it. Not because 'normal' people don't proclaim their beliefs using a bull horn (although there is that) but because, to be blunt, I'm not an Important Person. Not in any sense that the world will recognize. I do not have an impressive title; I don't have power or authority or a respectable position which basically requires that people listen to what I say without dismissing me off-hand as a leftist, radical, completely insane person. I won't be convincing anyone to change their beliefs or change any laws or customs or anything because I told them to. My opinion has no weight behind it.
In contrast, the Pope (for example- the president of the US is the same way- which is one of the truly terrifying things about George W) CAN go out into St. Peter's Square or anywhere in the world basically and speak- even without a bull horn- and guess what, people will listen to him. I'm not saying everyone who listens is necessarily going to rush out and change their opinion but he'll certainly have more influence than I would saying the exact same words. He can say something like 'women shouldn't be priests' and I could say (if I went completely and totally insane and stupid) the exact same words- but people will listen to him. Conversely, any Pope could say 'there is no real reason, doctrinal or otherwise, preventing women from being priests in every sense of the word' and lo and behold but I'm willing to bet it'd make people- especially Catholics, priests, bishops and cardinals- a lot more open in general to the idea of women's ordination. For a more general example that may mean more, the Pope can say that all religions besides Catholicism are inferior (oh wait, he already did say that) and that Jews are completely to blame for the crucifixion and should be hated (he hasn't said that-- yet) and he won't be dismissed. His opinion can't be dismissed as the closed-mindedness or anti-Semitism of just anyone- his opinion (even without the force of Papal Infallibility) has a moral authority behind it that is really almost awesome to think about. He's the Pope, for heaven's sake; I think people in general believe that anyone holding that title is a good, holy man and someone whose opinion they should respect and listen to and probably even believe. (Again, much thanks is probably due to JPII to increasing the moral authority of the office of the Papacy- although I admit to being less than thankful for it now because I don't like that Ratzinger has that sort of moral authority.) And in a world where there's already so much violence going on because of religion (the Middle East, anyone?) what kind of good is it going to do to have a Pope who appears to believe that all other religions are inferior? That's really going to lead to increased religious toleration and inter-religious dialogue. /sarcasm. Seriously, what kind of leadership-by-example or leadership of any kind is that to have at this time- or any other time?
And just to complete my grim picture (aren't you loving how exhilarating this is?), a list of some other things that are concerning me right now thanks to Ratzinger, in brief because this is already quite long enough (too long, probably- excuse my verbosity): abortion, euthanasia, opposing stem-cell research, opposing the use of condoms, the spread of AIDS as a result, opposing any kind of birth control in an already over-populated world.
And that's not even mentioning any of the specifically Catholic issues.
Therefore, yes, I think the election of Ratzinger is a case of 'be afraid, be very afraid' for everyone who *coughs*thinksrightly*coughs*. (If you happen to think he's right, well, to borrow a line from 'West Wing', then 'God, I don't even want to know you.') And this is no joke and if it's hyperbole, it's a small one, I think.
My hope is in his age. His age and the stress of the office combined with the health problems he's already had in the past. Yes, I feel guilty about basically wishing for the death of anyone (maybe that's why I'm Catholic- guilt is almost automatic) but honestly, I'll live with the guilt and say again, I'm wishing Pope Benedict XVI a very brief and very unproductive papacy- right around the length of John Paul I's would be nice.
More cheerfully and more optimistically and less morbidly, my hope, too, is in the real church with a small 'c', in groups like Call to Action, in people like Edwina Gateley and Fr. Dan Berrigan and Sr. Joan Chittister and Martin Sheen and everyone else who isn't going to let this setback make them give up. And after all, the church has weathered bad popes before; it can weather this one. I think I've got more faith in the Spirit and its work for good than to completely give up. Still not happy about it but hope spriings eternal and all that. God's Rottweiler can't silence everyone and he hasn't silenced me, for what it's worth.
some more reactions- attempting to be more coherent and more serious.
Now, I'm seriously disturbed by the choice of Ratzinger to be Pope for lots of reasons, as you probably all know. But the thing is, it's not because I'm Catholic that I'm disturbed- or at least not only because I'm Catholic.
I'm probably more interested and more concerned over the election of Pope Benedict XVI because I still consider myself to be Catholic. (I'm still not sure exactly why I do, but that's another story. Although, come to think of it, it's probably that 1. old habits die hard and 2. leaving the Church would be like giving up on it, as if I don't believe that it will ever change to become more like what I think it should be. Which isn't true. Only going back to Vatican II would be quite enough for me- for now.) But that aside, I do still consider myself to be Catholic so I am disappointed and disturbed that the man the Cardinals chose to lead "my" Church is one whom I so thoroughly disagree with and think is downright wrong on a number of issues, not all of which have to do with religion.
Yes, I'm upset because this is a guarantee that instead of moving closer to Vatican II, the Church will be moving farther away from it. Because this is a guarantee that women are not going to be ordained any time soon, or even allowed to be deacons. That's all upsetting but in all honesty, I knew it really wasn't going to happen. Given the composition of the College of Cardinals, I knew any real doctrinal change was a very slim (if not absolutely nil) possibility. What I was hoping for was another Pope whose obvious holiness would transcend dogma in the way that JPII's did, another Pope who could unite people if only by the force of his personality rather than divide them because of doctrinal differences. I doubt (and I may be doing him an injustice here) Ratzinger can do that. What we got is God's Rottweiler- a man who's basically spent the last 20 years of his life stifling any sort of dissent in the church. The Catholic Church was never, perhaps, very open-minded; it's certainly going backwards rapidly though. (*looks out the back window* Oh look, I see the church of the Medieval, pre-Reformation times already... /silliness).
Catholic and religious issues aside, I'm disturbed because of what this will mean on front of gay rights. Now, I'm not, what was the phrase Ratzinger uses, oh, yes- I'm not 'inherently disordered' (in that way, at least) but I'm upset that this new Pope demonizes homosexuality the way he does. Terming it 'inherently disordered' is insulting in the extreme. frankly, there's quite enough homophobia in the world already without the Pope calling homosexuality something that makes it sound like a disease only complete and utter psychopaths have. I'm not saying I expect the Catholic Church to suddenly open the doors to same-sex marriage (it'd be nice- but I'm not that blind to reality) but not practically encouraging homophobia would be a good thing. What does it say that the Pope is basically encouraging hatred and prejudice of that sort? Gay rights has quite enough opposition to deal with; it doesn't need the Pope practically sanctioning homophobia or at the very least, adding fuel and ammunition to the opponents of gay rights' arguments.
I really rather hoped the new Pope would be from the 3rd world, either Latino or African American. Partly because it would be a nice gesture that the Church recognizes where its growing strength is and all that but mainly because I think it would have also been a really nice boon in the fight against racism. There are still so many people in this world and this country who think that anyone who's not white is inferior- and not just neo-Nazis. No, if racism were only confined to neo-Nazis, I'd be thankful. No, it's the otherwise good people, the regular Joe's out there who are- whether they realize it or not- racist that really disturbs me. It would, I think, have really helped to have a world leader on the scale that the Pope is, be a non-white person. It becomes more difficult to believe that other races are inherently inferior if the Pope is a living breathing, very public, example that it's not the case. Now, I realize prejudices don't go away because of evidence to the contrary; humans seem to be innately skilled at denial and repression. But it would help. And it certainly wouldn't hurt.
In short, I'm disturbed and disappointed (and yes, angry) at the choice of Ratzinger not only because I'm Catholic but because I'm a woman, (not to mention what he'd probably term a heretic), a person, a world-citizen if you will. Because, let's face it, the Pope is much more than just the leader of Catholics. He's the head of a country, too, but more than that, he is a true world leader. His 'domain' doesn't have boundaries really; he's an international leader, something like being, oh, Head of the UN or some other international body. It's a position unlike any other in the world, pretty much. Bottom line, though, he's an Important Person. In world affairs- political as well as religious- he is one of the biggest players there is. (This is, I'm pretty sure, a legacy solely of JPII, God rest his soul, but it's important to consider especially in JPII's successor.) And there's the rub.
I could go out into the street with a bull horn and proclaim all the changes I'd like to see in the world and why- heck, I could go into St. Peter's Square with a bull horn and say that women should be ordained, etc etc. And I could speak 'in the tongues of men and angels' or with all the pithy, moving eloquence of the Gettysburg Address and the I Have A Dream speech and every other great piece of oratory- but I rather doubt I'd get much media coverage or have much effect at all. I'd probably be dismissed as a lunatic pretty damn quickly come to think of it. Not because 'normal' people don't proclaim their beliefs using a bull horn (although there is that) but because, to be blunt, I'm not an Important Person. Not in any sense that the world will recognize. I do not have an impressive title; I don't have power or authority or a respectable position which basically requires that people listen to what I say without dismissing me off-hand as a leftist, radical, completely insane person. I won't be convincing anyone to change their beliefs or change any laws or customs or anything because I told them to. My opinion has no weight behind it.
In contrast, the Pope (for example- the president of the US is the same way- which is one of the truly terrifying things about George W) CAN go out into St. Peter's Square or anywhere in the world basically and speak- even without a bull horn- and guess what, people will listen to him. I'm not saying everyone who listens is necessarily going to rush out and change their opinion but he'll certainly have more influence than I would saying the exact same words. He can say something like 'women shouldn't be priests' and I could say (if I went completely and totally insane and stupid) the exact same words- but people will listen to him. Conversely, any Pope could say 'there is no real reason, doctrinal or otherwise, preventing women from being priests in every sense of the word' and lo and behold but I'm willing to bet it'd make people- especially Catholics, priests, bishops and cardinals- a lot more open in general to the idea of women's ordination. For a more general example that may mean more, the Pope can say that all religions besides Catholicism are inferior (oh wait, he already did say that) and that Jews are completely to blame for the crucifixion and should be hated (he hasn't said that-- yet) and he won't be dismissed. His opinion can't be dismissed as the closed-mindedness or anti-Semitism of just anyone- his opinion (even without the force of Papal Infallibility) has a moral authority behind it that is really almost awesome to think about. He's the Pope, for heaven's sake; I think people in general believe that anyone holding that title is a good, holy man and someone whose opinion they should respect and listen to and probably even believe. (Again, much thanks is probably due to JPII to increasing the moral authority of the office of the Papacy- although I admit to being less than thankful for it now because I don't like that Ratzinger has that sort of moral authority.) And in a world where there's already so much violence going on because of religion (the Middle East, anyone?) what kind of good is it going to do to have a Pope who appears to believe that all other religions are inferior? That's really going to lead to increased religious toleration and inter-religious dialogue. /sarcasm. Seriously, what kind of leadership-by-example or leadership of any kind is that to have at this time- or any other time?
And just to complete my grim picture (aren't you loving how exhilarating this is?), a list of some other things that are concerning me right now thanks to Ratzinger, in brief because this is already quite long enough (too long, probably- excuse my verbosity): abortion, euthanasia, opposing stem-cell research, opposing the use of condoms, the spread of AIDS as a result, opposing any kind of birth control in an already over-populated world.
And that's not even mentioning any of the specifically Catholic issues.
Therefore, yes, I think the election of Ratzinger is a case of 'be afraid, be very afraid' for everyone who *coughs*thinksrightly*coughs*. (If you happen to think he's right, well, to borrow a line from 'West Wing', then 'God, I don't even want to know you.') And this is no joke and if it's hyperbole, it's a small one, I think.
My hope is in his age. His age and the stress of the office combined with the health problems he's already had in the past. Yes, I feel guilty about basically wishing for the death of anyone (maybe that's why I'm Catholic- guilt is almost automatic) but honestly, I'll live with the guilt and say again, I'm wishing Pope Benedict XVI a very brief and very unproductive papacy- right around the length of John Paul I's would be nice.
More cheerfully and more optimistically and less morbidly, my hope, too, is in the real church with a small 'c', in groups like Call to Action, in people like Edwina Gateley and Fr. Dan Berrigan and Sr. Joan Chittister and Martin Sheen and everyone else who isn't going to let this setback make them give up. And after all, the church has weathered bad popes before; it can weather this one. I think I've got more faith in the Spirit and its work for good than to completely give up. Still not happy about it but hope spriings eternal and all that. God's Rottweiler can't silence everyone and he hasn't silenced me, for what it's worth.