Church or Sect?

1. ‘Benedict XVI... has always remained shut up in the Vatican – which is rather similar to the Kremlin of one time -, where he is sheltered from criticisms... The Secretary of State, Tarcisio Bertone, who could be a counter-weight, was a subordinate of his at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; he is a man of doctrine, completely submissive to Benedict XVI. We are facing a structural problem. There is no democratic element in this system, no corrective. The Pope was elected by the conservatives and today it is he who nominates the conservatives...

'He is faithful to the Council, in his way. Like John Paul II, he always insists on continuity with “tradition”. For him, this tradition goes back to the medieval and hellenistic perios. Above all he does not want to admit that Vatican II has brought about a rupture, for example as regards the recognition of religious freedom, opposed by all the Popes before the Council... Basically Benedict XVI has an ambigious position on the texts of the Council, because he is not at ease with modernity and reform... 

'I think that he defends the idea of the “little flock”. It is a little the line of the integrists, who think that even if the Church loses a lot of its members, there will remain in the end an elitist Church, made up of “real” Catholics. It is an illusion to think that one can go on like this, without priests or vocations. This evolution is clearly a restoration, which is manifested in the liturgy, but also in acts and gestures, such as telling the Protestants that the Catholic Church is the only true Church... The Church risks becoming a sect. Many Catholics no longer expect anything of this Pope.

'When he received me in 2005, it was a courageous act and I really believed he would find the path to reform, even if slowly. But in four years he has proved the contrary. Today I wonder if he is capable of doing anything courageous. For a start he would have to recognize that the Catholic Church is traversing a deep crisis.'

 Hans Kung (Le Monde, 24 February, 2009; La Stampa, 25 February)

Cardinal Sodano replies:

The dean of the College of Cardinals… said that regarding the lifting of the excommunication of the Lefebvrites, the Pope “who has been placed by the Holy Spirit to govern the Holy Church of God, is working a lot for unity in this important hour of history.” The cardinal said he was “hurt” by reading the interview, and contended that the accusations were “unproven, generic affirmations.” The prelate declared: “Fraternal critique is always possible in the Church, since the times of St. Peter and St. Paul. A bitter critique, on the other hand, and more if it is so generic, does not contribute to the good of the Church.” “Personally,” he added, “I am a witness of the determination of the Holy Father to make the Church a family, the family of the children of God.” And the cardinal reflected, “I don't understand how an Italian newspaper, well up to date on the work of the Pope, has wanted to offer so much publicity to this interview.” http://www.zenit.org/article-25209?1=english

Cardinal Poletto and the bishops of Piedmont have reprimanded the Turin newspaper for publishing Kung’s interview. La Stampa’s reply: ‘noi siamo laici.’ It does not seem that the human rights of freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press  are highly valued by the Catholic hierarchy in Italy ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers’ (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, par. 19)

Of course what really hurts in Kung’s words is their truth.

There is an excited discussion at http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/hans-kung-papal-criticism-draws-vatican-ire

Anonymous says: “The Pope is not only a religious figure - he is also an international political figure; his words and actions can produce potentially dangerous ramifications on a global scale - and that possibility frightens me, with so many unstable fanatical sects in the world. Benedict's actions reflect extreme irresponsibility. His apologies mean nothing - the damage has already been done. He should have made himself aware of the issues before opening his mouth. I have no sympathy for Pope Benedict's feelings or for Cardinal Sodano's being hurt by Hans' words. Our bishops have made the lives of so many Catholics miserable through their abuse of power - and in feeling hurt, they are experiencing a little of what they have inflicted on so many. It is really difficult to be empathetic toward others, until you have first experienced what they have…

“Lay people have a right and a responsibility to play significant roles in helping the Holy Spirit in the renewal of and shaping the direction of the Church. The Second Vatican Council ratified this point. Yet, in this respect, Benedict and our other bishops play only lip service to the Council; they pick and choose what suits their need to retain control… This abuse of power could not happen without lay people handing over their own authority and power over to our clergy. For those of you who defend doing this, I will say to you, that you possess an immature faith.”

Matthew Sheprow, PhD, says: “Cardinal Ratzinger has been urging for a smaller, holier church for decades and continues toward that goal today as pope. The sad part is Vatican II was never fully realized and, being stopped midstream, the struggle has paralyzed the church; it won't move forward and can't move backward. Fr. Kung has always challenged the absolute authority of the Vatican, and has done so respectfully. The church belongs to the community, it is our church, and our responsibility. To not speak up is shunning our responsibility, and that challenge is what differs us from a nothing more than a cult.”

2. Those who frequent the comboxes of newspapers will know the Bishop Williamson is now a hero and martyr in the eyes of thousands of Holocaust deniers worldwide. He has given new heart to the cause of Holocaust denial. [An ironic proof of this: I just received an email from a negationist who is thinking of joining the Lefebvrites, thanking me for my defense of Bp Williamson! If my attacks on this dangerous eccentric are taken as encouraging negationists, how much more so the weasel words of the Vatican, at the very same moment as they are stamping on liberal and progressive Jesuits worldwide.]

It is rather scary to see neocaths buying into Holocaust denial. I think the reactionary policies of Benedict XVI may now have let a genie out of the bottle. 

Far from being a passing embarrassment, the stink of the Williamson affair may be with us for a long time. Not only will Williamson in all likelihood stick to his guns, but he will have a throng of supporters, for what position of traditionalist Catholicism was so popular as its antisemitism? The Argentine Government does well to worry about the Argentine youth brainwashed in the seminary of the crackpot Archbishop.

A sample of what some Catholics now think is honorable discourse: ‘Let the Jewish nation produce the verifiable names to justify the official figure of those who died in the camps, so that those who wonder can assess the facts and will be in a better position to do so.’

http://stephenhand2.blogspot.com/2009/02/title-legal-charges-leveled-against.html

[Mr Hand has replied to this, accusing me of being an enemy of free speech. For the record, I prefer the USA approach to our European criminalization of Holocaust denial, which not only savors of Orwell's thought-crime but makes martyrs out of eccentrics like Williamson. Hand then says I give no proof of the "official" (his scare quotes) numbers of those directly killed in the Nazi camps, and suggests I am indifferent to the agony endured by the people of Gaza and to other, more numerous victims of World War II. This "whataboutery" is on the same level of insensitivity as his doggedly obtuse and insulting demand for proof of the Holocaust, and merits no response; it reminds me oddly of a famous antisemitic caricature, of Shylock demanding his pound of flesh. http://stephenhand2.blogspot.com/2009/02/worry-of-neo-modernists-over-bishop.html. I take Hand's state of mind as a sad reflection of how neocath reactionaries have degenerated, following the logical momentum of their refusal of modernity, rationality and dialogue, eerily paralleled in the implosion of the Republican party under Limbaugh-Palin.]

Does Benedict XVI yet realize the gravity of what he has done? Is he still scolding Chancellor Merkel (along with his brother) for her cheek in speaking out of turn? Does he think it is all just a problem in PR and not an issue that calls for deeper soul-searching? Robert Fisk has written an intemperate rant about this, which makes Hans Kung's much-resented criticisms look bland in the extreme:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/robert-fisk/robert-fisk-pope-will-demean-other-religions-to-prove-christianityrsquos-lsquosuperiorityrsquo-14208500.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fiskrsquos-world-examine-the-popes-words-and-theres-only-one-thing-to-conclude-1634266.html

Meanwhile church leaders are laboring mightily to restore the Church's credibility: 

 http://the-tidings.com/2009/030609/statement.htm

http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c36_a14990/News/New_York.html

3. Benedict has the reputation of being a great intellectual; yet who more than he has shut down the intellectual life of the Catholic Church, turning it into a sect for the brain-dead? See: http://bilgrimage.blogspot.com/2009/02/collusion-of-catholic-and-political.html

The stereotype of Benedict now is that he lives in an icy solitude, totally out of touch, sheltered from criticism by his solicitous secretary: http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com/2009/02/solitary-life-in-ivory-tower.html

But in a sense this is a coherent part of a strategy of  mummifying the Church or turning it into a fossilized sect. Indeed this may be the historical destiny of Catholicism. The momentum in that direction is certainly terrific.

Mummification is not such a peaceful process as one might imagine. It is a little bit like being buried alive. The distraught Cardinals complaining about the surreal atmosphere in the Vatican and the huge multitudes of Catholics in all developed countries quitting the Church both formally and informally, along with the rise of nasty, zany, vocal antisemites, homophobes, Rush Limbaugh types, Holocaust deniers, are all symptoms of what mummification really means: not preservation or continuity but death and decomposition!

4. But wait! Perhaps I hear the rumble of marching feet... Perhaps there is some prospect of resurrection... Perhaps the Church will have its Obama turn-around just as the USA has...

"One of the things which have been happening since the rescinding of the excommunications of the SSPX bishops is that liberal Catholic blogs have seen a large upsurge in hits. This blog is no exception as readership has doubled and is not decreasing as time has passed. Other liberal bloggers have noted the same phenomenon. It's like something burst in liberal lala land with the SSPX announcement. Progressives are finding their voice, so much so, that finally a bishop has spoken out about his own harassment by the 'temple police' and their Vatican enablers.

 

'It's almost like Benedict kept poking and poking at progressive Catholicism and has finally managed to wake the dog. He's going to find out it's a very large dog. A far bigger dog than the yappy little terriers he's used to dealing with and he's not going to like it. He's also going to find out that the muzzle he has worked to keep on that dog for the last twenty five years finally came off because he couldn't resist poking that dog one too many times...

 

'I suspect in the coming months we will see more initiatives coming from both the laity and clergy calling for real and sustainable change in how Catholicism conducts it's business. It will be coming from people who also really love this Church, even the ones who have left in frustration. It's way past time for these voices to be heard. The conservative wing of this Church has had their say for the last forty years. The results have been disastrous in the West and placing the blame for these results on those who have left is rather self serving.'

http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com/2009/02/finally-bishop-speaks-out.html

5. Benedict is of course unfazed by the bad impression made by his crusade against the proposed UN declaration on gay rights:

‘African countries, Islamic countries and the Holy See formed a bloc on February 18 against the recognition of homosexuality, categorically opposing the mention of the concept of sexual orientation in the project of an international declaration... The western countries, including the USA, and the Latin American countries mounted the battlements to defend the mention of sexual orientation in the text... Egypt and Nigeria argued that the conference could not “internationalize a concept not agreed on by the UN instances concerned, whether the General Assembly or the Human Rights Council.” The Netherlands replied that the “growing challenges” created by discrimination based on sexual orientation “had not received sufficient international recognition.” In the absence of an agreement the discussions have been adjourned to a later date.’

It is encouraging to see that the USA, under President Obama, has reversed the obstructionist position it took on December 19, 2008. (Ah, 'if Obama were Pope!')

‘On the advice notably of a Tony Anatrella... and of an ultraconservative American priest of the Congregation for Bishops, Mgr Andrew Baker, the Vatican has also chosen to close the doors of the priesthood to boys presenting a homosexual tendency that is present and deep-rooted. This discrimination is odious, apart from the fact that to follow it would result in emptying some seminaries. As if to further harden the tone, Rome envisages calling on psychologists to sound the sexual orientation of candidates for the priesthood. How far will they go?... The Vatican seems to be relinking with its strategy at the 1994 Cairo conference on women, of building a front against social advances even if it means allying themselves with disreputable partners such as Islamicist regimes. The discredit that this attitude is causing, already far advanced, will not be slight in Europe and America.’

http://www.golias-editions.fr/spip.php?article2683#Forums

(Golias is an interesting publication, but I do hope that they will correct a stridency of tone that leads to exaggerations and inaccuracies.)

It turns out that the Vatican have something in common with hip-hop rappers:

http://thewildreed.blogspot.com/2009/02/homophobia-its-so-gay.html

For an antidote to the confused Fr Anatrella, whose writings had a devastating effect on a friend of mine when he was a vulnerable adolescent, see http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng23.html.

.

Alison read the 2005 instruction literally: 'The instruction is clear, straightforward and logical and I don't think any service is done by anyone attempting to represent it as saying other than what it does. If they are tempted, then Cardinal Grocholewski’s elucidations on Vatican radio and Msgr Anatrella’s commentary in L’Osservatore Romano should give them pause for thought.'  However the anagogic reading of Timothy Radcliffe OP, taken up by a host of bishops, has won the day, and the reference to the instruction in the recent document on seminaries is distinctly muted. Cardinal Grocholewski is left growling from the sidelines. Alison is a man of extreme honesty, who has taken hard knocks as a result. The delicate card-castle of pretence that he could not abide is now toppling around our ears.

Comments

[evagrius]

I know this is rather a stupid question but why should there be any concern about a seminarian's sexual ordination if he is supposed to be celibate, that is, non-sexual?

Shouldn't the concern be about how seminarians deal with sexual desire?

Are they being taught to channel them, ( kundalini etc;), or just ignore/ repress them?

All in all, it seems to me that there's a lot of confusion going on.

The Orthodox Church doesn't, at first glance, seem to have this problem.
Yet, having a married priesthood is not a panacea since the bishops are required to be celibate, ( and theoretically monks).
So, they too face the same situation but, of course, pretend otherwise.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

Celibacy was rather taken for granted in seminaries, I think. The promise of celibacy was administered in a rather shabby ceremony some time before the subdiaconate. Many priests regard it as an invalid promise, and I suppose a lawyer could make that case. Rhetoric about celibacy from retreat directors tended to the bluff, sometimes with put-downs of romance and marriage. I suspect that the taken-for-grantedness had a lot to do with the number of seminarians who were thinking, "since I'm gay, celibacy is prescribed anyway."

In the seminary environment, sexual desire could be put on hold; an issue left over until after ordination, one might say. Some of the sort of monastic sublimation you mention would no doubt have circulated in the spiritual lore the seminarians picked up. All in all, I think it was a flawed policy that made the Church anxious to make all monks priests and all priests "monks" (and from what you say, it appears that Orthodox bishops are monks in a more literal sense).

[evagrius]

For quite a while I've thought that the requirement of celibacy for priests was confusing the role of a priest versus the role of a monk.
It's logical for a monk, (monos), since a monk, ( or nun), is a person who has decided to "abandon" all for the sake of all.
It's not necessarily the same for a priest. A priest, ( as far as I understand it at present), represents the bishop who represents Christ before the altar. A priest also represents the people of the local Church, especially if there's no deacon who does fully represent the people-( all this is the Orthodox notion of priesthood). There is no need for the priest to actually be celibate.
At any rate, priests aren't required to be monks. Why should they be?

If they are, then the seminaries should really be monasteries.

[evagrius]

Pawlikowski isn’t so sure Benedict fully comprehends the concerns of Jews who suspect Pius XII ignored their plight. For Benedict, the concept of complicity simply does not compute, he said.

He sees [the Holocaust]as a horrible event. No question about that," Pawlikowski emphasized. "He views the Holocaust as a pagan, anti-human phenomenon but doesn’t really want to deal very clearly and explicitly with the Christian complicity that was also there."

Pawlikowski said the notion that the church might have been an intentional or unwitting accomplice in war crimes "clashes with [Benedict’s] ecclesiology."

"His vision of the church is very ahistorical. Really, the essence of the church is not within history. It’s transcendental and is not really impacted as such by the realities of human history," Pawlikowski said. "This is part of the issue ... He sees the church primarily as a victim of the Nazis and not in any way a collaborator."

From Chicago Tribune;

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_theseeker/2009/02/whats-next-for-german-pope.html

I think the observation that the Pope sees the Church as ahistorical is correct.

In fact, this view of the Church isn't unique to the Pope. It's quite prevalent in Orthodoxy also.

I find it perplexing- a Church teaching that God "entered" human history, ( the Incarnation), also teaching that It itself is not in history.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

Yes, his ideas of the Church's historicity were formed in his doctorate and post-doctorate studies of Augustine and Bonaventure on this topic. The Bonaventure book is worth looking at for an example of dreamlike talk about history that has no relation to modern understanding of history.

Today's Japan Times carries a critical article on Benedict by the former editor of "The Universe". He makes much the same points as Kung (though he is unnecessarily dismissive of Merkel's intervention). See http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20090301a1.html

It seems that the old clerical pastime of nagging about Ratzinger has now become a worldwide craze, sometimes degenerating into Ratzinger-bashing.

It is encouraging to see BISHOPS now speaking up for common sense, and reclaiming their collegial authority: http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com/2008/12/interview-with-pastor-who-actually-gets.html

[evagrius]

The two Catholic blogs you've linked to, (Bilgrimage and enlightenedcatholicism), certainly point to a real crisis in, at the very least, the U.S. Catholic Church. I suppose the reason the crisis seems to be focused in the U.S. is quite simply, money. (A similar crisis is occurring in the Orthodox Church - though it is split among a number of different ethnic jurisdictional lines - there was the Greek fiasco with Archbishop Spyridon, appointed by Constantinople, whose style of authoritarianism rankled both clergy and laity - just recently, the OCA (Russian), had a fiscal scandal, etc., etc. - in all this, money was involved).

The blogs do a good job of linking all this with right-wing politics. (The same links can be found in the Orthodox but since they're so small it's not noticed.)

As the current U.S./world fiscal crisis deepens, I wouldn't be surprised to see more attempts to silence any views but the "correct" ones, theologically and politically.