Impeach the Pope?
So there was a fascinating editorial in The Washington Post today by that title. Robert McElvaine suggests that instead of being currently outraged at AIG and the like, we should be directing it at the Pope. He lists the Pope's insults to Muslims and women, his acceptance of a Holocaust denier, and his recent remarks on condoms, AIDS, and Africa as reason enough to be outraged. He writes -
I am a Catholic and the idea that such a man is God's spokesperson on earth is absurd to me.
There are, of course, no provisions in the hierarchical institution set up, not by Jesus but by men who hijacked his name and in many cases perverted his teachings, for impeaching a pope and removing him from office. But there ought to be.
I am, of course, not Catholic. So some might say I shouldn't care the least what the Pope has to say about anything. But it got me thinking about what response the church does have when it appears a select, but vocal, few have hijacked our religion. Granted the Pope is in a place of power, so the world hears whatever he has to say. With others though, its generally the media that places them in such positions of power. The media loves extremes and gives a platform to the loudest and most obnoxious voices, hence giving them power. Would a Falwell, or Robertson, or Dobson, or Driscoll have anywhere near as influential of a voice if the media didn't parade them around as the worst possible example of Christianity? I'm not surprised in the least that Time named the "new calvinism" as a important idea of our time – they are the perfect media draw, sure to sell magazines as they fill the spots vacated by the old ranks of fundamentalists. But however they got there, these voices have power and represent Christianity to the world.
Where does that leave those of us who feel like our faith has been hijacked by extremists? Do we call them to account for themselves like McElvaine suggests, saying with him "If this be heresy, make the most of it."? Do we leave them alone and simply be faithful witnesses in our own spheres? I truly am torn. I know there are tons of people out there whose only exposure to Christianity are these voices the media reports. Mike tells me that over at the Friendly Atheist blog most of the atheists simply cannot accept that other sorts of Christianity even exist. To them the close-minded, sexist, racist, extremists they hear about on the news represent the whole of Christianity. It's similar to how most of us, knowing nothing about Islam, choose to believe that the Taliban represents the whole of Islam.
So that's where my hang-ups are. I don't want to echo the extremists and call for their excommunication or impeachment as it were, but I have a hard time with the Talibanesque image they give to the faith. I'm not a fan of infighting, but I feel the need to say at times "that man (always a man) doesn't speak for me, and I don't believe he speaks for Jesus Christ either." Earlier this week I asked why more of weren't out there speaking truth to power about the financial crisis and I ask the same question of this situation. But I find it very interesting that when anyone attempts to stand up to one of these voices, we get criticized for being unholy, unloving, and unfaithful. Is the church truly the last place where the freedom to speak honestly and hold others accountable is denied? I know we have all seen the Catholic priests get away with heinous crimes in recent years, but we seem to be okay with letting others get away with the crime of stealing our faith.
So I'm getting sick of the "just be a quiet witness" solutions – I think there needs to be a place for holy outrage. Perhaps not impeachment, but outrage nonetheless.
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
Julie, I can relate to the frustration of the "just be quiet witness" solutions. In my world, my Atheist friends and friends of other religions can see firsthand that I'm not the "close-minded, sexist, racist, extremist," but it's hard to breakthrough the media bias to present that image in mass. I'm always encouraged when the media get's a hold by people like Claiborne and others.
Seems like Christians waffle between wanting to be darlings of the media, and being a dissenting/opposing voice against abuses of power. I guess you can't always have it both ways.
I'm glad you raised the issue!
Julie, longtime reader, firstime commenter!
Every time you speak up and offer righteous anger, you are painting a more nuanced picture of Christianity for the people. Every time you go out of your way to just tell one person that God is bigger than Dobson's (g)od, then that makes a difference.
Regarding your quote about if the church is the last place where freedom is denied, I think it is harder to call colleagues and friends to accountability and thus freedom is stunted not so much by theology but by group psychology.
thanks for making me think! (and including Bad Boy Calvinist Driscoll in your list…ha!)
The problem here, although I fully agree with you, is that the forces on the other side feel the same way about Emergent, et. al.
They feel our pronouncements are offenses against the gospel, the values we teach injure the image of the church, etc. People like Driscoll, the Pope, and Dobson would all agree on this.
But when they put forward criticisms, Emergent decries their critique, debating absolute vs relative truth claims, etc. It becomes a challenge to critique the practical or theoretical theology of another, throwing out words like impeachment, when we strongly decry harsh criticism based on competing truth claims ourselves.
For what it's worth, I think the Pope is a tool.
I understand what you're saying Joe, and you have a point, but there is a difference, I think, between the dissent and critique that comes from the marginalized (as the emerging church still is) against those in positions of power, and when those same voices of power and authority (as people like the Pope, Dobson, Driscoll, etc. are) use their overwhelming influence to further suppress those who disagree with them. It's not the same thing at all to compare the complaints of the weak against the powerful with the condemnation of the weak by the powerful.
Mike, I understand your sentiment, but don't think I can go along with that idea.
The validity of a complaint should be based on the accuracy of the complaint, and not in any way on the perceived "status" of the one complaining. If the facts of the complaint are valid, so be it. If not, so be it as well. If we decide that the complaints of the weak against the powerful have some particular greater validity, we would then need to affirm the opposite perspective that the complaints of the wealthy, worldly, knowledgeable and successful clearly have more validity than those of the poor, unsuccessful, ignorant, or weak. That seems to open an ugly bag of worms.
Identifying the emerging church with the marginalized seems a big stretch as well. Clearly, most statistical breakdowns identify emergent largely with white, affluent, college-educated, urban and suburban-dwelling young people…hardly a marginalized group by any reasonable measure.
I don't think we need to bring marginalization or class issues into the issue to resolve it. The Pope is wrong on the simple facts. Condoms do not promote the spread of AIDS…they help to prevent it. Driscoll's presentation of a violent Jesus who might have foregone Caesar's methods the first time around, but is eager and willing to deploy them in the Second Coming, is again just ridiculous on the facts alone. It reminds me of an old Weird Al Yankovic movie concept, "Gandhi II: Vengeance! This time it's no more Mr. Passive Resistance!"
Post-modernism simply has a hard time dealing with the conflicts arising from dealing with those asserting absolute and knowable truth. The very concept of context and meta-story means we can't really get to right and wrong…merely more right or more wrong than the other. It's like fighting covered in taffy.
Actually Joe I agreed that in many ways the fingers could very well point back at us in the EC on this issue. The biggest difference I see though is the intent. Disagreeing is fine – we need decent theological debate and differences. Condemning in ways that demean, belittle, or hurt others is different in my book. So I am fine with the new Calvinist saying they disagree with my theology and pointing out why. It is when they mock me as a women for even daring to think theologically and say that if a pastor is an Armenian he should be excommunicated that I have issues.
I'll go along with you there, Julie. The cruelty gets old and ugly. I find it interesting that both Mars Hill Bible Church, under Bell, and Mars Hill Church, under Driscoll, are both showing tremendous growth, while preaching two very different messages. Clearly, there's some real bifurcation in the desires of the "market", so to speak, among Christians.
Good point about the two Mars Hills Joe. I wonder if a lot of that has to do with their respective settings. People often tend to react against what they're coming out of, so in conservative evangelical Grand Rapids, most of Bell's people are reacting against their Dutch Reformed background and wanting a more wholistic and progressive expression of the gospel. Whereas in post-Christian Seattle, where most of the young people come from broken families and feel alienated from any sense of community or belonging, a lot of them respond positively to a strong, hyper-masculine daddy-figure who will be the voice of authority that they never had in their lives but always subconsciously longed for.
Julie,
Thanks for Your thoughts. However, Dr. McElvaine's article "Impeach the Pope" is not a factually based, reasoned criticism of the Pope, but rather a venomous screed which repeatedly distorts facts into a club for thrashing the Pope.
I'm all for open and honest discussion of opinions and facts. But I don't find McElvaine's anti-Catholic tirade helpful in any way. It detracts from real dialogue.
Cheers, JR
"nd say that if a pastor is an Armenian he should be excommunicated that I have issues."
I doubt the are saying someone should be excommunicated because of their race.
Arminian with two is Armenians come from Armenia
Do you know about the Matthew 25 organization (http://matthew25.org/)? They are a progressive group of evangelicals that are trying to provide a counterpoint to the loud mouths of the Religious Right.
This may not be what you are looking for, but it is an interesting group doing some important work.
Julie, I had never given a moment's consideration to the issue of setting which you bring up as regards Bell and Driscoll, and yet it seems so obvious when you mention it! That's a brilliant insight. Thanks!
I can't say I'm thrilled with seeing how much reactivity is involved in the selection of theologies, but the concept certainly looks solid.
John – I mentioned the piece was an editorial – an opinion not a nuanced critique. But that said – he is representing popular perception which is reality for many. Is questioning the Pope (ever) automatically anti-Catholic?
Jim – guess I should proof my comments better…
Amen, amen, amen.
I don't actually have anything original to say – just want to echo all your frustrations (particularly as someone ministering in Seattle…) and encourage you with my head-nodding as I read this.
You write, "I’m not a fan of infighting, but I feel the need to say at times “that man (always a man) doesn’t speak for me, and I don’t believe he speaks for Jesus Christ either.”" Thank you, thank you.
Julie,
Just curious: How many of the Pope's many, many scholarly books have you actually read? A dozen? six? one?
Please, please tell me you didn't simply rely on biased and tendentious mainstream media reporting to form the basis of your excoriation the spiritual leader of a billion Catholics.
Please tell me that you didn't charcterize a decent man and a widely respected (albeit conservative) scholar who sits within the mainstream of the Catholic theological tradition as one of " a select, but vocal, few [who] have hijacked our religion" based on second or third-hand reports of his views or, worse yet, a few two sentence snippets taken out of context.
I'm new to this site, so please tell me I'm reading this article incorrecly.
Sean, I gotta say, I don't see how whether Julie has read Benedict's greatest hits has much to do with this particular issue. No one doubts he may have many fine, scholarly thoughts on many subjects, and perhaps many a kind, devout, or pious pronouncement on various topics.
He has stated in uncertain terms that he opposes the use of condoms as a measure to stop the spread of AIDS. He has stated this unequivocably, and has furthermore proposed the idea that condoms actually promote the spread of AIDS.
He has lifted the excommunication of a bishop who openly and vehemently denies the Holocaust, and has been tied to numerous anti-Semitic comments and behaviors.
He has stated that in technical terms, non-Catholic Christians do not belong to "churches", as this term may only be applied to the "one, true Church", which is of course his.
He has on more than one occasion greatly offended the Muslim community with various pronouncements that are hard to characterize as other than exclusionary and triumphalist.
The first three of those are simply not open to debate. They are known facts, which the Vatican itself would acknowledge. The last could be debated, but is widely seen as being a reasonable representation of the events in question.
Those of us who consider ourselves Christian, but consider his positions to be in direct opposition to our understanding of Christianity, obviously see him as "hijacking" the faith. Of course, those who agree with his positions see it otherwise.
All this clutching the pearls "Could you really have said that about the Holy Father" nonsense is simply disingenuous.
I come from Northern Ireland which has generated so much hatred, violence and bigotry on Roman Catholic v Protestant issue to the shame of Christianity in general issue – this conversation saddens me!!
Rodney
Sean – did you read my post? My intent was not to attack the Pope or Catholics. No, I have not read Benedict's writings, and I think Joe gave a great answer as to why that isn't necessary here. As I mentioned before this is all about perception. There are many, as evidence in the article I was discussing in the post, who do think the Pope has hijacked their religion. Will they ever read his writings – no. They will, like most of us, only know the aspects of his belief that are made very public. Are they not allowed to disagree? Or if non-Catholics disagree are they therefore anti-Catholic? If you read my post you would see that I was not bashing the Pope or calling for his impeachment, I was reflecting on another article that brought up those questions and was personally trying to understand what Christians are to do when it seems like a vocal leader no longer represents what they believe. I mentioned I wasn't Catholic and so then turned my focus to Protestant leaders I know.
Rodney – what saddens you? The fact that it is happening? The fact that one cannot question the Pope without being called a hater?
Joe,
I'm not sure I understand the intent of your comment: "All this clutching the pearls 'Could you really have said that about the Holy Father' nonsense is simply disingenuous."
I'll have to take your word at face value and assume you have the ability to look into another person's heart and decide how sincere their arguments are.
I can assure you, however, I don't wear pearls (although it's a good fashion suggestion now that you mention it) and I never refer to the Pope as the Holy Father (I'm not Catholic and I don't owe him any ecclesiastical or personal allegiance). Moreover, I don't think the Pope (or anyone for that matter) should be above criticism.
I guess the point of my posting (which was clearly inartfully stated) is that it troubles me when people malign the reputation of another person based upon very limited and selective information from sources that have an ideological axe to grind against that person.
With all due respect, there's still nothing in your posting that would indicate you've done anything other than read (without any critical distance, it would seem) a few newsapepr accounts of the Pope's remarks or watch the Daily Show's take on it and check out a blog or two. To regurtitate those sources as proof of your argument kind of proves mine, if you think about it a little
By way of personal example, the newspaper accounts of the Pope's controversial remarks on Islam were very disturbing to me. When I read the Pope's speech from which these remarks came, however, I found his position to be measured and respectful. I was grateful I didn't jump on the hatewagon and impugn his character based on what I could only characterize now as a half-truth.
Since I haven't read anything about the context of the Pope's comments on condoms, I am reserving judgment. I guess I was hoping for the same from others, absent serious study of the issue.
Having said that, I think the pearls comment was a great idea. I promise to rush out tomorrow and get some. Should I go with flats or heels to accessorize? I'll toss and turn about this decision all night. You've given me much to think about!
Peace
Julie,
Thanks for your comment. I'm sorry if I was unclear. I wasn't suggesting that you're anti-Catholic, although when you put the sentence about "a select, but vocal, few have hijacked our religion" right after the comment about the Pope, I did in fact draw the natural inference that you were referring to the Pope as one of those select, but vocal few. If that wasn't your intent, you might want to tighten up the writing a bit.
Anti-catholicism isn't my issue here. Anti-intellectualism is, whether it's in the form of passing judgment on a scholar whose writings you haven't read or passing judgment on church leaders of any denomination based on vitriolic media caricatures. I just thought the article could use a little less holy outrage and a little more intellectual rigor. But it was just a thought.
One final word of advice, when you don't perceive yourself as owning a religion, you never have to worry about it being hijacked by others. You'll realize you don't own it any more than they do.
Again, this is all unsolicited (and I'm guessing from the responses, unwelcome) advice, so you won't get any more postings from me.
Take care,
"There are many . . . who do think the Pope has hijacked their religion."
That may be true. Indeed I expect it is true. But IMO that says a lot more about those who think so, than it does about the Pope. When was Catholicism ever more like N. Pelosi than like John Paul II and Benedict on these issues? Answer: it wasn't ever, and isn't now – certain elements within American Catholicism notwithstanding.
Western liberal Catholics who think "their religion" has been "hijacked" are the ones who have chosen not to be in step with their religion – not the other way around. This is true regardless of whether they are "more right" about more things than Benedict.
I think Sean makes a great point about the danger and unfairness of judging people by sound bites, excerpts taken out of context, and editorialized reportage from people ideologically opposed to them. Emergent people don't like it when that is done to Brian McLaren or Tony Jones. I don't blame Catholics (or any other fair minded folks for that matter) for objecting when it's done to the Pope.
Sean and Karl – On one hand I do agree that we should familiarize ourselves with the fuller works of others before we question. But as I pointed out in my post, if the majority of people only perceive a person through the public soundbites, or their "popular" works, then that is (for better or worse) the reality. I fully understand the frustration since it lets stupid people make even dumber assumptions – even with this post the number of links I've received saying "Julie says the Pope is part of the Taliban" is astounding (didn't they ever learn the concept of analogy???). It happens to all of us, and yes of course to Emergents.
What I find really curious is the trend among Catholics especially for it not to be done by outsiders, but by insiders. Perhaps it is the advent of widespread media, but now more people are aware of the views of their religious leader and find themselves uncomfortable with them. These are the faithful questioning the person they are supposed to follow. I understand that the Pope has never held certain "liberal" views, but more people were far more okay with Pope John Paul 2, than they are with Benedict. There has been a perceived change, a taking back of the changes many thought were good. The perceived hijacking is based in some reality.
But the larger question, Karl, that your thoughts raises is the question of the right to question faith itself. If a majority of people within a religion think one way, and the leaders simply guard traditional manifestations of the faith – who are the hijackers so to speak? Is religion or more importantly faith contained within its tradition or its people? As I keep saying – what really matters is perception, how people see the whole thing.
People can get pissed at me and call me names all they want, but that doesn't change the reality that there are a lot of people who think the leadership of both Catholic and Protestant churches no longer speak for them. If my post has demonstrated anything though, it is that it is still highly unacceptable to question religious leaders. No wonder people simply leave the faith if this (or more specifically the comments at God's Politics) is how their questions are received.
Julie,
I came across your blog and read the most recent posts regarding your entry "Impeach The Pope." It seems the your dialogue partners are trying to encourage you to explore your positions with greater analytical rigor. If I have interpreted their positions correctly (and I may not have done so), they are not offended that you have criticized the Pope but, rather, that the arguments you have employed have a series of rhetorical and logical deficiencies. Issues such as theological orthodoxy an ecclesiastical authority are fascinating subjects worthy of serious discussion. What would enrich the discussion, inasmuch as it concerns Christian self-definition, is a better understanding of how you believe Christians can adjudicate among competing theological positions.
The discussions in which we are presently engaged are nothing novel. The creeds, the Reformation, and the rise of denominationalism are a few of the many examples where Christians have had to debate and defend the intellectual sources and processes that result in theology. Scriptures, historic forms of worship, ministries, ecclesiastical organizational structures, and artistic expressions have all contributed to Christianity's ability to protect its original message as well as reform that message in the face of compromise, syncretism, heresies, and other threats.
With respect to your comment "No wonder people simply leave the faith if this (or more specifically the comments at God’s Politics) is how their questions are received," I certainly pray no one would leave the church from the comments we all shared. However, I will contend that we put congregants at risk of leaving the church when we lead them to believe that Christianity is co-extensive with our culture and that an intuitive and unreflective combination of political, social, and spiritual beliefs of people largely abstracted from Scripture and spiritual discipleship should serve as a normative expression for Christianity. In other words, I don't fear that Christianity's theological traditions will be judged and found wanting by people in the pews. Instead, I fear that many people occupying our churches' pews will be presented with our prevailing cultural ethos, told this is the gospel, and realize that time could be better spent sleeping in on a Sunday morning.
Julie, from what I understand Benedict and John Paul II were pretty much on the same page theologically. Benedict was perceived (perhaps fairly, perhaps not) as being a little more hard-edged about it but can you point to any major stance on Catholic doctrine or practice where Benedict has actually reversed a course that John Paul II set? They both seem from afar to want to preserve the good that came out of Vatican II, but at the same time to correct any misperceptions or unhealthy interpretations of Vatican II. To the extent the last 2 Popes have undone or sought to (in their eyes) correct some harmful liberalizing of the church, they might be accused of regression, and of "hijacking" the church from the trajectory that many thought it was on. I think they would reply somewhat along these lines:
“We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.” – C.S. Lewis
My impression has been that because John Paul II was old and a beloved figure (like Billy Graham in his later years to many evangelicals, but obviously more so for Catholics), those Catholics who wanted their church to change generally didn't attack him but were kind of biding their time for him to die, expecting that the new pope would be someone who thought more like a western liberal and less like John Paul II, and the Catholic church through the ages. They were sorely disappointed to get Benedict but he didn't reverse course on them – he just stayed the course set by his predecessor.
On your "larger question" – since we're talking about Catholics, you also have to acknowledge what it means to say one is Catholic. Not that one can't disagree or be part of the "loyal opposition." But it's not like being a part of a protestant denomination. Look at Catholic doctrine about the magisterium, church tradition and teaching, and the authority of the Pope. If you are Catholic, you've signed on to those things as part and parcel of *what it means to be Catholic, simply by definition*. An inability to sign on to them might mean you should quit being Catholic – or might form a good reason for someone like Julie Clawson (or me) to NOT become Catholic. But if you're Catholic you can't say "I'm Catholic but I reject all those things about the magisterium, tradition, the authority of the Pope that are pretty much essential to Catholicism." At best IMO, one in dissent needs to take the long view of a Stanley Hauerwas who observed that "sometimes, these things take centuries" when dealing with a church that has Catholicism's ecclesial structure and beliefs. And the humility of Anne Rice, who continues to disagree with her church's teaching about substantial things like homosexuality and the role of women, but who prays in patience for her church to change on those issues, while submitting to the church in the present and remaining open to the possibility that she herself may be wrong.
Joseph,
When I read your post, I see a lot of big words and fancy philosophical mumbo jumbo. What I don't see is someone who embraces the wonder of those who form their theology without the benefit of so-called "systematic thinking" but rather are guided by that unfailing intuition within. Some of us call it love. Others call it justice. To all, it must remain a mystery.
Thank you, Julie, for the courage to live the mystery.
Quincy, is the "intuition within" really unfailing with nothing further to guide it? If so, why have so many people's intuitions led to so many different and contradictory beliefs and practices?
Your post reminds me of this that I recently read:
"In their 1985 bestseller, Habits of the Heart, sociologist Robert Bellah and his coauthors introduced America to a peculiar new religion: "Sheilaism." Its founder, Sheila Larson, was a young nurse who had concluded after many rounds of psychotherapy that she believed in God, but not the God of organized religion. Instead, her deity was virtually synonymous with herself and he demanded little more than that she love herself and "listen to my own little voice." Marveling at this radically individualistic faith, Bellah concluded that there could be potentially millions of Sheilas in America, each following his own invented belief system that "elevate[s] the self into a cosmic principle."
"The recently released results of the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey suggest Bellah was right . . . "
For all the failings and shortcomings of systematic theology and organized religion, I respectfully believe that we need more than just the intuition within.
Quincy's satirical post (which I thoroughly enjoyed) has provided me with food for thought. In response, I am allowing my cat Smitty to offer her thoughts on my previous post.
Quincy & Fellow Travelers,
Despite the decorum and diplomacy with which Joseph writes, I can assure you that his underlying agenda is nothing short of sinister. By suggesting that numerous elements, ranging from Scripture to worship traditions to creeds, fund Christian self-definition and contribute to its on-going interpretation and governance, he has undermined the foundation of what we all want to achieve, namely, a God that is an uncritical extension of our beliefs, appetites, and biases. Man is not the measure of all things so long as its divinity can define existence and its direction in opposition to man's instincts, whims, and desires. Any normalizing theological elements, however benign and trivial in appearance, ultimately erode our ability to treat our religious faith like a Rorschach test. In seeking knowledge of God, we will inadvertently trade the freedom to define God as we need God to be. No longer will we be able to answer the question "Who is God?" with the courageous conviction "It is I!" Our habits, whether intellectual, economic, or personal, will be open to a judgment not of our own making.
In support of my brief analysis, I offer the following observations about Joseph and relevant ad hominem attacks:
1) He assigns me the status of chattel in his household. I have no input into budgets, entertainment expenditures, new pet acquisition, or the grocery list. My repeated requests for a more democratic form of house governance have fallen on deaf ears.
2) He enforces Draconian codes of conduct concerning my treatment of the furniture, plants, and the curtains. His rules on the proper place for 'bathroom breaks' show little to no imagination.
3) No effort is made to spare my feelings when he expresses his opinions regarding my hairballs and techniques for personal grooming.
4) He regularly eats like a king before my eyes while leaving me to sustain myself on hard nuggets of gruel.
This is not a thinker but a mad man.
Follow not this false prophet or you too may find yourselves on the road to forced servitude and privation. Sadly it is too late for me. Save yourselves.
Truth to power.
Smitty
okay guys play nice.
Joseph – for many of us, this isn't about going with the flow of culture. It is based on theological reflection and a desire to live out our faith. When we hear leaders saying things that seem to directly contradict the bible, or that simply fail to show love to neighbors we are bothers by that. Not because we might think it's more fun to sleep in on Sundays, but because we love God.
Karl – I think there is a fairly big difference between Pope's if one is willing to admit the salvation of Protestant and one is not, but maybe that's just me. That said, I find any system or religion that prohibits the questioning of leadership to be suspect in the extreme. Which may just be why I could never be Catholic, but the pain that has caused the families of abused boys stands as testimony to the inherent danger of too much power.
Joseph,
Your sarcasm and your cat are both unwelcome visitors. Let me go over the ground rules. Julie’s questioning of other people is good. Other people questioning her is suspect in the extreme. Don’t you realize that? And by you, I meant you, Joseph, not you Julie. No, no, I wasn’t questioning you, Julie, I swear!! I’ll be good, I promise!!!
Julie wrote: "I think there is a fairly big difference between Pope’s if one is willing to admit the salvation of Protestant and one is not, but maybe that’s just me."
Julie, I think you might be making Sean's point for him again. If Benedict had in fact said that I'd be quite concerned. Thankfully for my own peace of mind and for Christian unity, I am pretty sure he didn't. Did you know the same document that was widely reported in the media as saying what you wrote above, also contains the following:
“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation . . . According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense."
Nothing new there. Maybe I'm wrong and Benedict has actually said somewhere that Protestants are going to Hell rather than simply reaffirming the teaching of Vatican II and the beliefs that Catholics including JP II have held about their church for a long, long time. Please point me to where he has done so if that's the case.
Julie wrote: "I find any system or religion that prohibits the questioning of leadership to be suspect in the extreme."
Yes, so do I. So does the Catholic church! So which religion are we talking about here that prohibits questioning of its leadership? Anne Rice freely questions the leadership of her church in widely published print, and is celebrated. So do enormous numbers of other Catholics, with no fear of excommunication. The issues are how one questions the leadership, what one expects the process to be, and maybe most importantly what one does when one's questions have been heard but the results aren't what one wanted. Also what is the nature of the question – are we talking questioning settled doctrine, scriptural interpretation and historic teaching or are we talking about questioning people in power acting contrary to the church's teaching, as in the abusers and those who covered for them?
I will only defend the Catholic church so far – some of these issues of Papal and magisterial authority are among the reasons I'm not Catholic. But I at least would like to be fair to the Catholics and the Pope when criticizing them.
Yes to all of the above. Why should anything in one's faith be off-limits for questioning? I couldn't possibly be a part of any church that put a "thou shall not question this… ever!" sign on any aspect of their beliefs, no matter how "settled" or "historic".
Dear Friend Julie,
I apprediate your quandary, but I hasten to recall to you that Jesus, when faced with similar questions of morality and behavior in the "church," made a scourge of a cord and over-turned the money-changers' tables (probably setting free the sacrifical animals in the process).
We are HIS hands and feet in this, HIS Creation. Ought we to do less than our Master, who told us to "go and do likewise?"
The pope is simply the Bishop of Rome and he has neither more nor less power and authority than we are willing to allow him. Like any political figure, if he is not reigned in, he will push and push to grasp at more control.
This silliness of popes talking for God is horse-radish. Who are they?
As I know from my many readings of the Prophets, God has NO problem speaking for HIMSELF, when the need arises. OUR task is to listen for HIS voice! I am hearing it loud and clear – aren't you?
Since I find no Gospel authority for what the bishops of Rome have claimed for nigh onto 2,000 years, I marvel that anyone pays them a moment's notice. Like naughty children, if one steels one's nerves and ignores them, eventually, and usually very quickly, they tire themselves out and go to sleep or find some useful occupation, like stacking blocks. I wonder if it isn't time Benedict XVI began stacking blocks!
Mike posted: "Yes to all of the above. Why should anything in one’s faith be off-limits for questioning? I couldn’t possibly be a part of any church that put a “thou shall not question this… ever!” sign on any aspect of their beliefs, no matter how “settled” or “historic”."
Of course asking questions should be permitted. But do you not see any difference between challenging abuse of children and asking whether a centuries or millennia-old understanding of the faith ought to be overturned? I would suggest again that the answers to how one questions the leadership, what one expects the process to be, and what one does when one’s questions have been heard but the results aren’t what one wanted
. . . are just a wee bit different depending on which of those scenarios we are talking about.
At some point as an ecclesial body you need to get on with things (i.e. the mission you believe you've been called to), and in order to get on with things some issues need to be treated as fairly settled. I doubt an emerging church with strong leadership would continue ad infinitum to have patience with someone who kept questioning (not just questioned once but kept arguing about it week after week) whether the poor aren't really responsible for their own plight and whether the starting-point Biblical text for the poor shouldn't be 2 Thessalonians 3:10 and wouldn't the church be better off buying a truckload of Chick tracts and going out and doing street evangelism in all their free time. Especially if that person wanted to be in leadership, or expected the leadership to stop everything they were doing for the poor until his "important" question had been fully heard and answered to his satisfaction. Even you Mike, have told me and others online at times that you have no interest in revisiting such-and-such an issue or debate, because even though "we" haven't discussed it before, you decided what you think about it during your undergrad days or whenever and don't want to waste time re-hashing it for our benefit. You have better and more important things to do, arent' going to change your mind about postmodernism (or whatever) anyway, etc. An ecclesial body has to be able to do the same.
Mike and Julie,
From the posts I’ve read, Karl strikes me as a thoughtful, learned Christian gentleman who actually seems to be trying (in a very patient and gentle way, whether you can recognize it or not) to help you both engage in some critical thinking and faithfulness to the Christian tradition as you search for God.
I’m guessing that because of this, you might perceive him to be a thorn in the side, but he’s actually being a great friend to your souls. You might not be looking for him to play that role for you at this point in your lives, and that’s fair enough. We all have our paths to follow. But you really should take a moment or two today to thank God that a stranger would take such an interest in your spiritual development.
You might even want to thank Karl.
Grace and Peace
Thanks for the reminder Nathan. Karl has been around our sites for some time now, and we definitely appreciate his contributions. I hope neither of us gave the impression that we didn't.
Nathan's post although kind, makes me sound kind of pedantic and condescending, which I don't mean to be and hope I am not. I found Mike and Julie's pages via a google search on the name of a former professor of mine, who as it turns out was also a professor of Julie's and whose name was mentioned on Mike's blog.
I have stuck around because (a) I share a lot of their concerns, even if I don't always agree with them on the source of or what to do about those concerns, (b) I think these are important things to talk about and I enjoy talking about them and hearing other perspectives, and (c) one of the complaints I picked up early on after discovering Mike and Julie's blogs, was their saying things to the effect of: "evangelicals who disagree with us won't stay in dialogue with us – they either ostracize us or else do a nasty drive-by that lasts at most for a few posts and then we never hear from them again. They aren't interested in being in dialogue." I took them at their word that they welcomed continued dialogue even if we're coming from different places on a lot of issues.
I'm sure at times they have replied to me through clenched teeth as it were, but they have continued to surprise me by the generally civil and irenic tone of their replies even when we disagree.
I am a simple American Catholic woman. I think that if Jesus wanted to have a perfect church, he should have stayed on earth after he rose. As it is, Jesus told the church to carry on with imperfect human beings. This is a very hard time for the church. I know it will survive. If that is not a miracle, I do not know what one would be.