Pope attacks Love

[spd]

Jn, the article does not have a direct of so much as a single complete sentence from the pope's speech. At best there is one direct quote of a partial sentence, and that quote includes an elipse. All the other quotes are three-word or one-word quotes.

Leaving aside the pope for the moment, are you trying to tell me that that constitutes responsible coverage of any speech, much less one like this that deals with such a controversial subject matter?

I pasted the transcript that Faramond linked to (thanks, Faramond) into a Word file and it goes to nine pages. Nine. It is 4,727 words long. Yeah, the word count will vary depending on what language you translate it into, but you're still left with what is basically a 4,700-word speech in any language.

I don't read Italian, but I can see just by skimming it that Benedict delves quite deeply into the mysteries surrounding holy matrimony and quotes from numerous sources, including scripture, other Church documents, the writings of previous popes, and his own encyclical, Deus Caritas Est.

And you're trying to tell me that an article that cannot find room for so much as a single complete sentence from a speech such as this provides a sufficient representation of what the pope said?



Frelga, I explained what I meant in the post just above your last one. And in this post.

[Frelga]

I would just like to observe that if I came to a debate without knowing anything about the subject matter except that it related to choices of competent, consenting adults, and one side was drawing from profound personal experience while the other brought up bestiality, incest, dogs and fire hydrants that do not direcly enter into subject matter, then, pending personal research into the subject I would be more inclined to be moved by the arguments of the first side.

Which I think was the longest sentence I typed on a messageboard.

[spd]

I said nothing about beastiality or incest. I claim credit for the dogs and fire hydrants, but I do so only because of a writer's right to write with flair.

[Frelga]

Your flair is undeniable.
Lurker mentioned the other subjects, IIRC.

[spd]

I'm sure his reasons for doing so were honorable. And thou art flair-ful too.

[Jnyusa]

Leaving aside the pope for the moment, are you trying to tell me that that constitutes responsible coverage of any speech, much less one like this that deals with such a controversial subject matter?

Yes, what Frelga said. I find the insistence that the Pope was not talking about gay marriage to be a smokescreen.

I don't read Italian, but I can see just by skimming it that Benedict delves quite deeply into the mysteries surrounding holy matrimony and quotes from numerous sources, including scripture, other Church documents, the writings of previous popes, and his own encyclical, Deus Caritas Est.

Well, this is going to be sharp, I'm afraid, but people who quote their own selves do not impress me. Nor do I believe for a minute that this speech failed to pile on additional negative descriptions of homosexuality not found in scripture or in previous encyclicals. Nor do I believe for a minute that it was not aimed at the Italian legislation under consideration which would grant some modicum of civil rights to homosexual couples.

And I have to say that every time this Pope says something incendiary the Catholic response (on this board at least) is to whip out a theology book, and this in my opinion has zero to do with the topics at hand. No one (on this board at least) questions the right of the Catholic Church to forbid Catholic homosexuals from expressing physical love. If you're practicing Catholic and homosexual, or Orthodox Jewish and homosexual, and you are willing to live by those precepts of your religion, more power to you! You don't have to gloss an encyclical to prove why this is right from a religious point of view - it's your choice and will always be your choice and if that's what you want to do I will defend your right to do it.

But we are not talking here about the religious practices to which people choose to adhere; we're talking about the civil rights of people who are not practicing Catholics, who do not choose to follow the precepts of that faith, but who will be forced to live as if they were practicing Catholics because of the Pope's urging the rest of the populus to vote a particular way on civil legislation. And because people who believe that the fate of their immortal souls depends upon their following the authority of the Pope will not feel free to vote otherwise, this is a usurpation of secular power by the Pope.

We saw the same thing in the last Presidential elections here, with people being denied the sacraments to secure their vote. According to my ethical and religious beliefs, this is ten times the abomination that homosexuality is to you. It is a form of terrorism.

Likewise the issue concerning the Pope's speech about the inherent violence of Islam was not about nitpicking, scholarly, theologically correct interpretation of his statements. It was about his tendency to inflame the secular world by his choice of words, which are beginning to systematically reflect a world view that I like not one whit.

I too had not read the article completely when I first posted here, and the excerpts looked to me very much "business as usual" for a new Pope, although this Pope's choice of words, references and analogies is about as misfortunate as any could be, in my opinion. But now that I've read the article the situation is much worse than I originally imagined. This speech was given with a secular objective, to defeat a particular piece of legislation being drafted (apparently), to deprive a particular group of people their civil rights in a very specific way. It was not just a reiteration of an historical position, though this Pope has a gift, it seems, for dressing bigotry in the robes of scholarship. I am too familiar with that gift in my profession, and I am profoundly saddened when people are snowed by this.

Unless, of course, you believe that he speaks for God and that by following him you speak for God as well, and have therefore the right to force your religious beliefs on everyone else. That too is a perspective on the world, but not one likely to make friends or to promote non-violent solutions to people's differences. One hopes, you know, that a religious leader will be a promoter of peace and not busy himself hammering fiery wedges into existing fault lines.

Jn

[Faramond]

When I first had the idea of starting this thread, I didn't imagine it as primarily being about the Pope or Roman Catholicism. My thesis was the way to destroy prejudice against homosexuals is for us to observe what the love between a homosexual couple is really like. This is the most powerful light against homophobia, I believe.

The thread started as a reaction against the idea that homosexual love is a priori inauthentic. I recoil from the idea that this light against intolerance is covered and called darkness before it has a chance to illuminate. Judgement, if it comes, must come after observation and experience, not before.

I believe now it would have been better if I had started this thread not as a reaction against something, but as the advancement of a positive idea. I do find the Pope's remarks troubling, so long as they are quoted accurately. ( I have little doubt that they are quoted accurately, I should add. I read that article and saw no sign of deception. The arguments of Jn are much more persuasive to me than the arguments of spd. Nevertheless, I would like to read the speech for myself. ) But I think this thread should have been more about observations of love as a light against intolerance and less about Catholic dogma and the nature of the current Papacy.

Nevertheless, I did start it the way I did, and this thread does now legitimately cover the topic of the secular power of the Pope ( or lack of such power ) and other topics relating to Catholicism.

[Frelga]

But we are not talking here about the religious practices to which people choose to adhere; we're talking about the civil rights of people who are not practicing Catholics, who do not choose to follow the precepts of that faith, but who will be forced to live as if they were practicing Catholics because of the Pope's urging the rest of the populus to vote a particular way on civil legislation. And because people who believe that the fate of their immortal souls depends upon their following the authority of the Pope will not feel free to vote otherwise, this is a usurpation of secular power by the Pope.

Emphasis mine.

Jny, thank you for expressing what I was trying to get at.

[MithLuin]

And because people who believe that the fate of their immortal souls depends upon their following the authority of the Pope will not feel free to vote otherwise, this is a usurpation of secular power by the Pope.

Ummm....the people of Italy do not believe this. Most of them do not even go to church, and abortion is legal in that country. They vote how they see fit. They certainly consider themselves Catholic, but the pope is not some demi-god. Just sayin'. "The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful." Lumen Gentium (While it may seem inappropriate to quote yourself - he was quoting an official Church document. Encyclicals are not speeches, but are written by the pope in collaboration with others in the Vatican. They are teaching documents.)

The pope may speak out on any world issue. He does have a secular position - he is a head of state. He has a Secretary of State, and receives foreign diplomats. The current US President has sought audiences with the pope, as did Gorbachev. The pope met with both of them at the Vatican (though not at the same time, of course).

JP II was in Kazakhstan on Sept. 11, 2001 (that would be next door to Afghanistan, btw). While every single other world leader offered their condolances and support for the US, he offered his prayers...and a warning to the US not to react with war. Many other countries said that afterwards - but he said it that day. I recall reading it at the time, though I do not know where to look for the quote now. His prayer from the next day.

Jny, I do not think JPII was ignorant of the situation in Latin America. He was deeply concerned by it, as was made evident by his frequent trips to the region. His first trip outside Italy as pope was not his homecoming in Poland, but rather was to the Dominican Republic and Mexico. The following year he went to Brazil. In 1982, Argentina (the Holy See was involved in mediating the Beagle Channel boundary dispute between Argentina and Chile in 1978 - another secular duty). Central America in 1983; Santo Domingo in 1984. Venezuela, Ecuador and Peru in 1985; Colombia in 1986. Uraguay, Chile and Argentina in 1987, followed by Uraguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Peru in 1988. Brazil in 1991 (the only other country he visited that year was Portugal, and he took no international trips in 1990). Guatamala, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Venezuela in '96. I think it would be fair to say that he gave the most attention to that part of the world, and was very concerned with the situation there. He did not approve of religious holding political office, nor of priests with guns. He had grave concerns with communism, of course, as well as with Liberation theology. What he was advocating was a peaceful resistance rather than an armed one - one built by mobilizing the people culturally, making them aware of their worth and dignity...not by arming them. It worked in Poland; it did not work in Latin America. There are a lot of reasons why that was; this is probably not the place to get into them. The pope was not an uncritical ally of the United States, though.

But this is what JP II said on his very first trip to Mexico:

The depressed rural world, the worker who with his sweat waters also his affliction, cannot wait any longer for full and effective recognition of his dignity, which is not inferior to that of any other social sector. He has the right to be respected and not to be deprived, with maneuvers which are sometimes tantamount to real spoilation, of the little that he has...He has the right to real help - which is not charity or crumbs of justice - in order that he may have access to the development that his dignity as a man and as a son of God deserves....It is necessary to carry out bold changes...[and] urgent reforms without waiting any longer. as quoted in George Weigel's biography

The full speech in Spanish

I obviously think that Pope John Paul the II was a wonderful man, and a saint. I have a huge amount of respect for him, personally, not just as pope. But that does not mean I will not listen respectfully to those who do not share my view of him. After all, being a world leader is a big job, and even a good one can't do everything right. There are certainly areas where he did some good, but the job wasn't done when he died, so to speak. I understand your timidity in sharing your opinion on this topic, but I hope that I will not discredit his memory by being disrespectful in his defense.

[Jnyusa]

I understand your timidity in sharing your opinion on this topic, but I hope that I will not discredit his memory by being disrespectful in his defense.

I'm sure you would not, Mith! Your conversations are always a delight.

When I said that JPII was not aware what his priests and bishops were doing, I was referring to those who were actively supporting the dictatorships of the countries in which they lived, excusing the murder of peasants, refusing sacraments and threatening with excommunication those who opposed the government.

Certainly JPII could not himself have supported those dictatorships - so many priests and nuns were murdered by those dictatorships because of the aid they were giving to the poor, the Pope cannot have been unaware of that. But in spite of his support for the poor in speeches, his public rebukes were reserved for priests who were doing the very things he called the 'right' things to do - demanding justice and calling their governments to task.

I understand, and even agree with, the Pope taking a position that a priest's job is spiritual, not political. Certianly priests should not be carrying guns (in my opinion), though I don't personally know any priest who did that. But accepting a government position is an obvious political act, easy to identity and point at. Less obvious but no less political is blessing the torturers for their good deed of protecting the government and promising absolution in advance to those who went from village to village cutting fetuses from the wombs of mothers who gave tortillas to the revolution. It is the political nature of this latter kind of priestly action that I think the Pope missed, and I think he missed it mainly because he was more sensitive to the threat of communism than to any other threat. We truly do not perceive the full horror of abuses committed by the side we consider to be 'good enough,' or 'the lesser of two evils.' None of us do, really.

The sad truth is that the Pope's vocal opposition to liberation theology and his public rebuke of activist priests and his choice to ignore the tacit approval given by other priests to real atrocities ... all this was perceived by those governments as a green light from the church for wholesale slaughter, including the slaughter of priests and nuns, particularly in El Salvador. They did in fact feel that the Pope himself would approve of what they were doing.

If the Pope had embraced with enthusiasm Cardinal Romero and shook his finger at Cardinal Obando e Bravo instead, not only would Cardinal Romero still be alive today, but countless thousands of Nicaraguan and Salvadoran and Guatemalan children would still be alive today.

There are situations where one must choose a side, you know. And it needs to be on the basis of reality, not imagination, not wishful thinking, not pure abstraction, not political expedience. Murdering children is always wrong. It's always wrong. The Pope needed to say that this was wrong, and the priests who needed to be removed were the ones who were blessing it, not the ones who were opposing it.

Then the other thing where there seemed to be willful blindness at the expense of the innocent was the situation here in the United States. It took a criminal court to get those priests removed from their positions, and I felt that JPII could have set a better example where that issue was concerned, though it started to heat up rather late in his reign and he might simply have not been up to it at that point.

I have friends in the priesthood and in the brotherhood, and in the sisterhood in Central America. They have remained in the Church. I envy them their conviction. I could not have done it, personally. There would have been no end to the stink I would have made ... and having made such a stink in the synagogue over the first Israeli invasion of Lebanon I can assure everyone that these are not idle words ... but then, my religion allows me a very different view of religious authority, so I guess comparisons aren't really germaine.

Jn

[MithLuin]

My sister is currently living with nuns in Honduras.

I know that you know about these things...why do you think JPII was ignorant of them? I mean, come on...the man was not naive, and he had plenty of advisors.

Part of the difference between Poland and Latin America was that in Poland, the Church had been traditionally allied with the people, even when they were abandoned by the gov't. (Church leadership stayed in the country for the duration of WWII, while the civil leadership fled in 1939.) It was more natural for the Church to support the freedom of the people, and more natural for the people to accept this from the Church. And of course, in Poland in the 1970s, the oppressors were communists who would have nothing to do with the Church.

In Latin America, the Church was traditionally aligned with the wealthy, and had been party to many compromises over the years (many of which were not at all helpful to the poor). The track record and details varied by country, but over all it meant that it was very difficult for JPII to waltz in and change everything from the ground up. The people he was admonishing didn't understand what he was asking them to do. He did not condone the actions of the regimes. He worked with them to get into the country, but that was all. Of course he didn't support killing babies! It would be absurd to even suggest such a thing. He said many, many times that that was wrong, and spent his entire episcopate preaching about the dignity of all human life. The first country he visited was Mexico, which was very anticlerical. Other Central and South American countries sabotaged his visits, with riots and burning tires at the papal mass, or broadcasting over him on microphones that they had set up. The regimes were very antagonistic towards him, and did not feel supported at all! Yes, there were priests who supported these regimes, but JPII did not support or advocate that. The pope in Rome can admonish, and he can call bishops to task...but he has very little ability or authority to intervene in affairs with local priests. He was not against all aspects of liberation theology, though he did not support communism or a communist world view (that it was all about class struggle). But it would be very wrong to suggest that he ever took a "lesser of two evils" approach to world politics. He saw it as his job and duty to identify which course was right, not to turn a blind eye to those who were "not as bad."

To tie into the other thread....there were Catholic priests who supported the Rwandan genocide. It couldn't have happened on the scale that it did without the support of Hutu community leaders (including religious leaders). I am certainly not proud of that fact, just as I am not proud of the priests who helped...well, make a mess of Latin America. But I do not blame JPII for that, either. [He visited Angola, Nigeria, Tunisia, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Madagascar, Mozambique, Botswana, Togo, Benin, Gabon, Ivory Coast, Cameroon, CAR, Equitorial Guiana, Zaire, Congo, Ghana, Burkina Faso, Kenya and Morocco over the course of his pontificate, but never Rwanda (just its neighbors)] I cannot read Italian, but he prayed for those in Rwanda shortly after the genocide began: April 10, 1994. I think his message is about peace and mercy, though, as I said, I do not know Italian.

I know your words are not idle, Jny - I am sure you would stand up against injustice and not sit idly by. And that is a very good thing!

[Jnyusa]

Of course he didn't support killing babies! It would be absurd to even suggest such a thing. He said many, many times that that was wrong, and spent his entire episcopate preaching about the dignity of all human life.

Yes, and I do not suggest that he personally condoned this. But general statements about the value of human life instead of the explicit condemnations that some were calling for, was read to mean that the Church was not going to intervene. By some that was interpreted as a green light.

In Latin America, the Church was traditionally aligned with the wealthy, and had been party to many compromises over the years

Yes, this is really true, and certainly not the doing of JPII because it goes all the way back to the 16th ce. And it accounts in part for the difficulty of accomplishing social change in Latin America, and also for the intense anticlericism in some countries.

The paradox in those countries is that the people who are working the hardest for social change are ... devout Catholics! And the people working hardest against it are ... devout Catholics!

He did not condone the actions of the regimes. He worked with them to get into the country, but that was all.

Right. This is understood. And I guess that's the part I question, as I question all expedient actions, and at the top of the list would be the recent horrendous behavior by Israel and by the United States, countries where I certainly have a personal obligation to express my condemnation.

It is fetching to suppose that if we straddle the fence and remain on good terms with both sides, we will be more effective in the long run than if we state point-blank whom we consider to be the enemy. And I'm criticizing the current Pope for doing the latter, while criticizing the former Pope for doing the former. I realize that there is a contradiction here ... a sticky wicket. But I do think there are differentiators that have to be employed, and they have once again to do with this concept of group identification and group loyalty.

Not to get too esoteric, but I think that the ideas of Chomsky have some bearing on this. He says that it is inappropriate to apply the concept of morality to a government, because governments cannot be moral or immoral. Only individuals can be said to possess morality. I do agree with this ... at least, I think it is a very useful distinction to keep in mind. Exhortations can be made at a personal level but not at a group level or at a governmental level, so if exhortations are the tool in your possession, then they have to be aimed properly. I criticize the current Pope for aiming moral exhortations at a group - at individuals based on their membership in a group - because I consider this to be divisive and not fruitful in the long run. JPII aimed his moral exhortations at individuals - the activists priests - but he did it presumably so as to be in a position of influencing a government, and I consider that also divisive and not fruitful in the long run. The one place where JPII could have had influence was by enforcing the priestly code upon those priests who were violating it - living in wealth, giving inappropriate absolutions, violating celibacy in public ways ... There his admonishments would have had meaning because they carried the force of the Church, and he certainly had the power to simply remove those bishops.

In the same way - so as not to make this all about Cathlics because these considerations apply to all of us - in the same way I think that people who oppose Israeli policies on moral grounds need to stop donating to the World Zionist Organization. And I did so. My husband and I used to have arguments about this (!) because they call once a year, you know, asking for donations, and my husband would always say, "Don't answer the phone! It's useless to argue with them." But I always felt like it was my obligation to answer the phone and tell them exactly why were withholding a donation, and of course that starts a fight with the person on the phone, but ... they need to hear why you are doing what you are doing. They need to be able to pass along to the Israeli government the news that policies have consequence. I cannot personally exhort the Prime Minister, or demand moral behavior from the Israeli government, but I can say to them that if they continue to pursue certain policies I will not pay for it. To whatever extent they rely on me to pay for it, they are stopped in their tracks.

This is a big deal for us, because at the same time I am refusing to give money to Israel (this was during the first Lebanese invasion) I also rely on Israel psychologically to save me if need be! So what would happen if push came to shove? - if Israel were engaging in acts that I consider crimes and a persecution broke out in the US? I guess I would have to find some other solution for myself and my children. And we thought about this and talked about this. I have friends here in the US who are tax refusers, and it's a huge commitment on their part to take on the government in this fashion. It was a huge turning point for us to say that no matter what the consequences to ourselves, this country that was supposed to be our ultimate haven had stepped over a line that we could not condone.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that one's strategy has to match the situation. One has to evaluate what is really going on and find the right lever. It never felt right to me that because I may have some concern for my own safety and the safety of my children in the future (or whatever the goal might have been) it would be ok to overlook crimes committed today, excuse them, hope they'll go away, whatever. It is wrong to bar the gates and hold the searchlights for people who are murdering children. The Israelis did this and it was wrong, wrong, wrong. How could I turn around and pay for it and live with myself afterwards? I don't think any rationalization I could have come up with would have been sufficient to let me sleep at night. And what I saw myself, and heard others tell, in Latin America made me feel the same way. It was one of those situations where one could brook no quarter.

That's why it is so hard for me to accept the idea that it is acceptable to temporarily ignore some of those abuses for the sake of a larger, and more abstract, and more uncertain goal. And I know that world leaders do this all the time. They temporize. But it is disheartening to think of a religious leader allowing himself to be swayed by this consideration. But in some ways, you see, I am a very black-and-white person. I have a bottom line.

Jn

[vison]

Well said, Jnyusa.

[MithLuin]

Hmmm...

I think I wholeheartedly agree with you that the Church in Latin America is in need of reform. (Of course, the church everywhere is in constant need of reform, but there are some old corruptions there). I guess where I disagree is in what part JP II played in bringing some of those reforms about.

Yes, he's the pope, he can say and do what he wants...but the reality is he'll only be in town for a week, so if the local people don't buy into it, his message falls on deaf ears and nothing happens. He can defrock priests and remove bishops...and he did. But what bishops was he going to put in their place? And how would they do things differently?

There was nothing vague about his message. He preached for 9 days in Poland, and Solidarnosc happened. But of course he was prepared by his whole life to talk to the people of Poland. I think he tried to translate that message to Latin America, but he did not succeed nearly as well. I mean, at least he went, repeatedly. And preached in Spanish. That was much, much more than any other pope ever did. JPII visited lots of countries that were (effectively) anti-Catholic. He always had to negotiate for an invitation. The same was true with the Latin American regimes...but it didn't mean he endorsed them, any more than he endorsed his communist hosts in Poland or the Marcoses in the Phillippines. He went to these places for the people, and his message to them was always one of hope and dignity. In the Phillippines, it paid off - they had a peaceful revolution (Church-sponsored).

[Jnyusa]

He preached for 9 days in Poland, and Solidarnosc happened. But of course he was prepared by his whole life to talk to the people of Poland.

Yes, I think that the inherent understanding of his own country made his message and his presence very effective there. And I'm well aware that this is not the sort of thing that one can repeat everywhere one goes. It was a unique constellation.

Also, Walensa was a fantastic organizer and committed to peaceful progress himself. So everyone involved in that was of like mind, and that is not the case in Latin America.

In Nicaragua, the guerrillas ran to catch up to the revolution, the people themselves were so fed up. And those among the Sandinistas who had urged caution and democracy building were ridiculed afterwards as being the most out of step. But we see now that it takes more than one administration to transform a country, and all the revolution did was make possible the real work of putting in place the institutions of democracy. It did not automatically accomplish them.

I mean, at least he went, repeatedly. And preached in Spanish. That was much, much more than any other pope ever did.

Yes, that's all true and very much to his credit.

Jn

edited to add one more thing ... I can't really argue that the Church in Latin America is in need of reform .. I mean, I can't really know whether it is or not. The Catholics living there have to decide that for themselves. Bad priests are just bad people who happen to be priests and they can inhabit any country. I don't think that the the dictatorships of Latin America are the fault of the Church, and anyway that would be naive because most of them were put in place by the US and their terrorist forces were trained by the US and when that's not enough the US invades or hires mercenaries to invade ... so it would be boht naive and prejudicial to blame this on the Church.

But the governments of Latin America are in need of reform, and I think that the Church is probably in a better position than any other organization to bring the necessary pressure. And of course there are some organizations within the Church that are bending every effort in this direction, and the people who are doing that work sometimes die for it.