Mort Kondracke and Andrew Sullivan are among the pundits I’ve heard express outrage today that new Pope Benedict XVI actually believes his religion enough both to profess it’s truth and condemn those who stray from its teachings. Essentially, both Kondracke and Sullivan would like their religion inclusive — and so each eschews orthodoxy in favor of a, well, a…living Bible. One that isn’t so picky about who it excludes.
Now, I’m no Catholic—and I ain’t really religious—but I suspect the point of following a religion in the first place is to actually believe in the thing. And so were I gay, and you decided from your perspective as a Catholic that because I put my thingie into the Devil’s slot, I will burn in a lake of fire for eternity, that’s cool by me—just so long as you don’t drop a stone wall on me in order to hasten the process.
The problem with the kind of boutique multiculturalism advocated by both Kondracke and Sullivan is that it pretends to celebrate diversity and “open conversation”; what it really does, however, is refute the “Other” at precisely the point where it matters most, the point at which beliefs genuinely diverge.
Kondracke is upset that, should Pope Benedict XVI stay true to form, he will attempt to fight back a tide of cultural relativism with ecumenical certitude. But really, should anyone be surprised when a worldview that itself relies on a leap of faith sees fit to express that faith in a form of prescribed metaphysical certainty?
I’m not. But then, I’m a Christophobic pagan, so what the hell do I know.
****
More here.
“The problem with the kind of boutique multiculturalism advocated by both Kondracke and Sullivan is that it pretends to celebrate diversity and “open conversationâ€Â; what it really does, however, is refute the “Other†at precisely the point where it matters most, the point at which beliefs genuinely diverge.” – Well said!
The point is to tolerate people who you disagree with, as long as they don’t try and force you to agree with them.
P.S. Threats of hell don’t count. Force must be earthly, not heavenly.
Hey! Not bad for a Jew!….
Actually that was excellent.
Amen…, er, um, I agree. Too many people seem to think the new pope should have been a liberal Democrat. It’s a church, for Christ’s sake.
I would think more highly of Andrew’s concerns about Pope BXVI’s positions if I didn’t think there was an underpinning of jealousy to Mr. Sullivan’s writings – the new Pope looked fabulous in those robes.
And that scarf … to die and be resurrected for.
________________________________________________
Oddly enough, the Church that Andrew longs for is not the Church of the 19th Century, as he writes about, it is the Church from about 1100 through 1500, where 18 year old debauchers could be elected Pope and anything went … with anybody … at any time.
.
Blogosphere Rule of Inquisition #23: “When Sully squeals, just let him squeal. That’s what he does. After all, you don’t kick a dog for pissing on a fire hydrant, do you?”
I am a little puzzled by Mort’s reaction to BXVI, but Sullivan was going to piss and moan about any pope who didn’t get up there and State Unto The Masses, right after donning the robes, “Boy-girl, boy-boy, boy-animal, it’s all good!”
Some people are actually shocked that the College of Cardinals, the great majority of whom were selected by JPII, would choose as his successor an individual in whom they would put trust to carry on JPII’s legacy. To them, I would say the following: “Well, there’s always the Episcopalians.”
Yeah, JD, that always confused me. Say someone (hypothetically) decided that being circumcised was a pain in the youknowwhere and that all that Talmud was just too much information to handle. There’s no reason that someone should HAVE to stay a Jew. So why the hell is Sullivan whining?
I’m an atheist, or agnostic if I’m trying to avoid an argument, and I’m not whining that they didn’t elect Robert Smith of the Cure as Pope.
And all this time I thought ”Is the Pope Catholic?” was a rhetorical question.
You know the world would not be so screwed up today if you Joooos wouldnt have been so indecisive.. If you’d just stuck to your guns when Moses came back with the tablets and told him “You know Mo.. we’re already pretty invested in this Golden Calf religion.. We’ve put a lot of effort into sacrifices and orgies and stuff while youve been up on the hill supposedly speaking with this God of yours.. So what, now were just supposed to drop everything and switch horses in the middle of the race..? Oy Gevalt ! Sorry Mo.. no can do..”
See how easy that was ? And today most of the civilized world would be united under one common Golden Calf religion.. and between blood sacrifices and orgies, we wouldnt have time for all this war and terrorism and stuff.. (and there’d be a use for bums.. but not in the orgies)
You guys had your chance and you screwed up.
Plus, the Cardinals could wear big hats with steer horns on them.. Kinda like the Water Buffalo Lodge in the Flintstones.
But then, I’m a Christophobic pagan, so what the hell do I know.
Don’t be so hard on yourself, Jeff. (Insert hardon joke here.) Just because your people killed our Lord and Saviour doesn’t mean you’re a Christophobic pagan. For sure, you’re gonna burn in Hell, but while we’re here, hey, let’s party!
I really enjoyed Andrew Sullivan’s statement that no dissent will be allowed under the new Pope. Gee, where have we heard that before? Hey Andrew, ever thought of, you know, praying for the man?
I don’t know what Sullivan’s so upset about. I mean, it’s not like we can expect BXVI to resume the Spanish Inquisition.
Oh, wait…
Well, no one expected the German Inquisition!
But do you expect something more than the pillow from the Comfy Chair??
Actually, an excellent post.
If Sully wasn’t so bitter, and had any sence of humor at all, he’d realize he always sounds like Groucho Marks: “Any club that would have me as a member, I wouldn’t want to belong to anyway!”
I’m strangely reminded of the book Snow Crash by Neil Stephenson. Which, if you haven’t read it, Jeff, and you don’t mind the cyber-punk genre, I’d highly recommend.
Boutique multiculturalism.
Nice turn of phrase, that.
Well said Jeff.
I always understood that selectively accepting a portion of tenents from a religion or group of religions is pretty much how a new religion is created (unless created out of thin air for the tax breaks).
Which is all fine and dandy; but, how arrogant do you have to be to bully the faithful of the original religion(s) to accept your Reader’s Digest version?
Move on Sully. Maybe the Catholic faith isn’t for you.
Pretty good points Jeff. Would be an interesting topic for the radio program.
As with most things, liberals expect everything to conform to their lifestyle- religion, values, etc, all must bend to whim of a “progressive” lifestyle and those who don’t drink the koolaid are labeled religious wackos and racists.
I found it interesting that most of the liberal punditry, which loudly speculated that the new Pope would be much more accepting of liberal social and religious agendas, ended up being 100% wrong on the choice.
TW – Hell. How funny.
The new pope, being a hidebound asshole, ought to be quite acceptable to the morons who read this blog.
The idea that there is no room for dissent in the modern Catholic church is simply wrong. There are very few points of doctrine that are “make or break” for Catholics. (Things like the real presence in the sacrament, etc.) There’s a great deal of room for differences of opinion because Catholic doctrine places a high value on individual conscience. If I believe, after a careful examination of my conscience, that homosexuality is not a sin, then the Church can disagree with me, but it can’t say that my belief is sinful or places me outside the fold because my conscience has dictated it.
Belief doesn’t necessarily lead to intolerance of dissent or difference either. Here’s what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about intolerance:
The intolerant man is avoided as much as possible by every high-minded person, both in society and in daily intercourse. The man who is tolerant in every emergency is alone lovable and wins the hearts of his fellowmen. Such tolerance is all the more estimable in one whose loyal practice of his own faith wards off all suspicion of unbelief or religious indifference, and whose friendly bearing towards the heterodox emanates from pure neighbourly charity and a strict sense of justice.
I meant that to be a blockquote not bold, but I guess bold will have to do
Not Catholic = no skin in this game = me.
But I did learn an interesting thing that surprised me: the Catholic Church allows married priests! Under unique circumstances certainly, but one article says that in the US alone there are about 200.
Fascinating.
Good post, Jeff. It expresses a fundamental disconnect when people talk about this stuff. When Sullivan and the like talk about “diversity”, what they’re really talking about is power. On the other hand, what folks like the new Pope are concerned about is truth. Thus each side pours a different meaning into “tolerance”; the truth-folks think it means restraint on their part because of the possibility of error, but the power-folks think it means restraint on the part of others so they can do whatever they want.
So Sullivan isn’t upset because there’s a disagreement but rather because other people won’t do what he wants them to do. Such is the imperialistic narcissism of the modern age.
BLT, my pastor explained that clerical celibacy is a matter of Church discipline, not of Church doctrine, and would be much easier to change than, say, the all-male priesthood, which is based on the doctrine of the Apostolic succession. Not only are there married priests in the US, but there are whole elements of the Catholic church internationally, for instance, the Maronists, who have always had married priests as a general rule.
Beautifully stated, slarrow.
Sully’s about as Catholic as a yenta at an open buffet: “I’ll have that, and that…ooh, not that, it gives me gas.”
Astute post, Jeff. The idea that a faith, Catholic or otherwise, is fluid and dependent upon outside factors or trends seems really odd.
Very well said. Some people, such as Ann Coulter’s alleged ballsack (as seen above), can not conceive of a faith that ignores the changing tides of time and culture and holds to its teachings. Correct or not, it is the right of the Catholic church to be “hidebound” when it comes to doctrinal matters deemed essential to the faith. As others have mentioned, to attack them for holding to their beliefs is remarkably intolerant.
Gail, not sure that “belief” is sinful, the “action” is.
Why do Andrew Sullivan et al insist on remaining Catholics? There is plenty of wiggle room for them, and not a whole lot of your basic difference in liturgy and the other outer trappings, right across the aisle in the Anglican church. Heck, Sullivan could even become the Bishop of South Polesmoke in the Anglican church.
Sparkle, That’s what I said–the church doesn’t consider such dissent to be sinful, or incompatible with church membership, so having dissenting views is no reason to leave the church. As far as actions go, well, there are lots of actions that the church considers sinful–if everybody left who had committed a sin, there would be no one left.
Ann Coutler’s ballsack is, well, nuts.
Reminds me of a George Burns story (from this book) from when he was young and growing up in the city. There he was a little Jewish kid passing through an Irish neighborhood one day, when some young toughs start gathering around him. After a few moments the try backing him into the wall, and one of them starts asking “Hey you—you Catholic? Are you Catholic, kid?”
George’s reply: “Am I Catholic??? Hell, my father’s a priest!”
From the fact that he survived to tell the tale I can only surmise that young Master Burns was a fast runner.
With all the wailing and end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it histrionics from the Left, you’d think that, oh, I don’t, Bush got elected over Kerry or something!