The New Pope Is Dangerous, Says Lerner
Rabbi Michael Lerner has some important words about the new pope:
http://www.tikkun.org/rabbi_lerner/current_thinking/news_item.2005-04-19.4230239892/newsitem_view
http://www.tikkun.org/rabbi_lerner/current_thinking/news_item.2005-04-19.4230239892/newsitem_view
posted by PeaceBang at 8:26 AM
4 Comments:
I can sympathize with people who think badly of Pope Benedict XVI. But at the same time it's frustrating when Catholic leaders actually believe and teach what Catholics are supposed to believe but the world calls them anti-semitist, or anti-women, or whatever.
The Catholic Church is only doing what the Catholic Church is supposed to be doing: teaching their historic faith. It is Christian tradition that Christ came to fulfill the Jewish scriptures, yet this is called anti-semitism? Please. It is Catholic tradition that single men only are to be ordained into the priesthood, yet this is called anti-women's rights? Please. (Catholics actually honor the religious heritage of women more than any other Christian group).
And another thing: true, Benedict XVI was part of a Natzi Youth group, but he was FORCED to join it, and then later on he ended up DESERTING it. So using that to make him seem even more evil is stupid.
Besides, I think it's very odd when people who believe in religious freedom demand other religions to CONFORM to THEIR views. Sorry, but the Catholic Church will not bend wherever the wind blows. The Catholic Church is intellectually strong, theoligcally consistent, and culturally dynamic. It is a force that cannot be written off as just a repressive old-timer religion.
"The Catholic Church is only doing what the Catholic Church is supposed to be doing: teaching their historic faith."
Is that all? They have no higher calling or responsibility, for example, to sincerely discern the divine will for the world in light of the new human knowledge gained since the first pope was installed?
My Protestant critique of the church isn't a casual accusation of the typical liberal trifecta of anti-Semitism, misogyny and homophobia. It is grounded in a sense of horror that the apostolic Church has made an idol of tradition, has placed the Church Fathers higher than Christ himself, and has continually denied the evidence of ongoing revelation to the point of criminal neglect and abuse of the faithful.
I am not offended by the Christian belief that Christ came to fulfill the Hebrew Scriptures; that is, after all,what caused the family rift in the first place.
You're right. There is a strong Catholic tradition of intellectual excellence, which I do not deny -- while reserving the right to critique the way some Catholic scholars use scholarship to defend and reinscribe ancient prejudices. The Catholic Church is also certainly culturally dynamic. However, for you to claim that the Catholic Church is "theologically consistent" is off the mark. There is a broad conversation between dissenting parties within Catholic theological tradition today. Much of this rich dialogue and conversation has been suppressed by conservatives like Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessor. The Catholic theological tradition is not monolithic, but some of the Vatican leaders would very much like to have us think so.
Which is a more respectful treatment of the Catholic Church: to shrug off its massive corruptions and harmful oppressions as excusable "business as usual" (ie, tradition), or to expect of it a far more life-giving, truly Christian presence and ministry in the world?
We will have to watch and wait and see what fruits this papacy will bear.
"Is that all? They have no higher calling or responsibility, for example, to sincerely discern the divine will for the world in light of the new human knowledge gained since the first pope was installed?"
...Yeah, they do that too.
"the apostolic Church has made an idol of tradition"
...that may be your assessment, but from a Catholic point of view it sounds like nonsense. Catholic faith is structured as such: Faith, Tradition, Scripture. First is the Faith, which has existed since the time of Christ, then out of Faith came the Tradition of the Church, the community of Christ's followers after his death, and third comes Scripture (Bible), which came out of tradition. The Protestant mistake is making the Bible the rule of faith when the Bible was never the basis of the faith, but rather an outgrowth or product of faith.
"...has placed the Church Fathers higher than Christ himself"
...this is not true. The Church Fathers are given much respect only because their wisdom is Christ-centered. Their wisdom helps us come closer to understanding Christ, but they are by no means a replacement of Christ.
"...and has continually denied the evidence of ongoing revelation to the point of criminal neglect and abuse of the faithful."
...believing that the Faith, Tradition, and Scripture of the Church is all that is necessary is not the same thing as denying evidence for ongoing revelation. Catholics have alwyas been free to seek God's revelation wherever it is found: in Scripture, Nature, Art, Music, Prayer, etc.
"Which is a more respectful treatment of the Catholic Church: to shrug off its massive corruptions and harmful oppressions as excusable "business as usual" (ie, tradition), or to expect of it a far more life-giving, truly Christian presence and ministry in the world?"
...the majority of Catholics already believe that the Church is "a far more life-giving, truly Christian presence and ministry in the world." It's a matter of perspective I guess.
Greetings, Anonymous. Please allow me to offer some perspectives on this conversation.
I do not believe it is as simply as you assert when you analyze perceptions of anti-Semimitism. ("It is Christian tradition that Christ came to fulfill the Jewish scriptures, yet this is called anti-semitism?") The accusation of anti-Semitism does not come from the theological rift between the Jews and the Jews who would be called Christians. It has to do with the development of discriminatory, hateful, and oppressive behaviors towards Jews as Christianity became Empire. This is not simply my own observation; let me quote the Roman Catholic Church: The history of relations between Jews and Christians is a tormented one. His Holiness Pope John Paul II has recognized this fact in his repeated appeals to Catholics to see where we stand with regard to our relations with the Jewish people. In effect, the balance of these relations over two thousand years has been quite negative....when the Emperors themselves converted to Christianity, they at first continued to guarantee Jewish privileges. But Christian mobs who attacked pagan temples sometimes did the same to synagogues, not without being influenced by certain interpretations of the New Testament regarding the Jewish people as a whole...Sentiments of anti-Judaism in some Christian quarters, and the gap which existed between the Church and the Jewish people, led to a generalized discrimination, which ended at times in expulsions or attempts at forced conversions. (We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah, March 17, 1998). I hope you can see that the accusations of anti-Semitism are far more nuanced--and far more rooted in history--than you would have suggested, and is even recognized by the Roman Catholic Church itself.
On the role of tradition, there will be no reconciliation between you and Peacbang. Because I was raised Catholic (though I am not now), I understand what you say when you argue of the primacy of tradition. (Personally, I have come to prefer the balance suggested by the Wesleyan quadrilateral: tradition, reason, scripture, revelation.)
Regardless, I hope you will be willing to admit that there are many within the Catholic Church who decry any change as doctrinal error. They think that tradition means "does not change" and are not willing to consider that tradition can guide and include change. (These are mirrored in the Protestant tradition by those who all but think that Jesus Christ spoke in King James English.) I wish I could remember where I saw the quote from the student at Christendom College who asserted that the Catholic Church does not and cannot change--a statement in support of the unchanging nature of tradition and yet bereft of any historic knowledge. (Council of Trent? Second Vatican Council?) And it seems that when the Church institutes a major change, there are those within the Church who are aghast, and some who splinter off (e.g., those who think the Church is in apostasy because Latin is no longer used and the rite of the Mass has chnaged). Catholicism as a culture does tend to enshrine a fetishism (I don't mean in the sexual nature; simply an unhealthy obsession) with tradition that can quite often go beyond what the Church's actual teaching of what tradition means.
Finally, on the role of women. You almost have a point, but you're at least a hundred years off. Let me explain. With the Protestant Reformation and the evisceration of women's religious orders, it is true that the Protestants treated women religious worse than the Catholics. While women's religious orders were lesser in authority than the male church leaders, it was better than the situation which the Protestant Reformation created.
However, in the past two centuries, the prophetic authority of women has been recognized by Protestants, and while there are still some who will not ordain women, for the most part mainline Protestantism, with its ordination of women, has granted women the authority and leadership which the Catholic Church still denies them. This is the basis of anti-womanist accusations.
Post a Comment
<< Home