Beliefnet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Jesus: Was He a Gay Rights Activist?
Lesbian Methodist minister Beth Stroud is probably a very nice person. But it's a shame that the United Methodist Church
has chosen to reinstate her
, reversing an earlier decision. Stroud was defrocked because she was in violation of the church's rule against openly gay ministers.
From CBS:
"The church is not free to disregard the standards of justice and inclusiveness that are preached by Jesus Christ ... and are a part of church law," Stroud said after church authorities read their decision at a hotel.
Yes, Christ is inclusive--but it's hard to see him as a gay rights activist. Ms. Stroud is really twisting Christ's preaching. Moreover, it's sad to see the church of the Wesley brothers heading into the trendy irrelevance of their Episcopal brothers and sisters.
A Different Path
Unlike the Methodists who reinstated Beth Stroud, the cardinals who elected Benedict XVI did not choose a path of accommodation. George Weigel
suggests that this is the real meaning
behind the elevation of Cardinal Ratzinger to the papacy:
"Ever since the Second Vatican Council, some Catholics and most of the world media have expected--and in certain cases, demanded--that the Catholic Church follow the path taken by virtually every other non-fundamentalist western Christian community over the past century: the path of accommodation to secular modernity and its conviction that religious belief, if not mere childishness, is a lifestyle choice with no critical relationship to the truth of things....
"[I]t was expected that the Catholic Church would, indeed must, take the path of accommodation: that has been the central assumption of what's typically called 'progressive' Catholicism. That assumption has now been decisively and definitively refuted. The 'progressive' project is over--not because its intentions were malign, but because it posed an ultimately boring question: how little can I believe, and how little can I do, and still remain a Catholic?
"In choosing a pope with an unparalleled command of ancient, medieval and modern theology, the College of Cardinals has sent a clear signal to the entire Catholic Church: The really interesting question is, how much of this rich, vast, subtle tradition have I made my own? At the same time, the College of Cardinals, by electing Pope Benedict XVI, has told both the church and the world that the evangelical adventure of dynamic orthodoxy launched by John Paul II will not only continue, but be deepened."
Why They Don't Like Us
Theoretically, we admire the person or nation courageous enough to do the right thing in the face of public opprobrium. Theoretically. In reality, of course, politicians and journalists fret incessantly about why people abroad don't like us. Ever think it might be because we're doing the right things?
Historian Victor Davis Hanson
suggests that this is the case
:
"The Egyptian autocracy may have received $57 billion in aggregate American aid over the last three decades. But that largess still does not prevent the Mubarak dynasty from damning indigenous democratic reformers by dubbing them American stooges. In differing ways, the Saudi royal family exhibits about the same level of antagonism toward the U.S. as do the Islamic fascists of al Qaeda - both deeply terrified by what is going on in Iraq. Mostly this animus arises because we are distancing ourselves from corrupt grandees, even as we have become despised as incendiary democratizers by the Islamists. Is that risky and dangerous? Yes. Bad? Hardly.
"At the U.N. it is said that a ruling hierarchy mistrusts the United States and that a culture of anti-Americanism has become endemic within the organization. No wonder - the Americans alone push for more facts about the Oil-for-Food scandal, question Kofi Annan's breaches of ethics, and want investigations about U.N. crimes in Africa. If we are mistrusted for caring about those thousands who are inhumanely treated by a supposedly humane organization, then why in the world should we wish to be liked by such a group?"
Bad News for Condom Nation
Swami
and the gang had a big har-de-har-har about reports that teen abstinence programs are counterproductive. Now hear
this
.
One Day It Could be a Grade-A Relic
A metallic gray Volkswagen Golf, circa 1999, that is said to have belonged to the former Cardinal Ratzinger
is for sale on the German ebay site
. "It drives like heaven," the current owner is quoted saying.
It Started at Sinai...
Loose Canon loves going to the movies, but more and more Hollywood belittles what she holds dear. So I am delighted to learn that a
group of Jewish intellectuals
is coming to the rescue. Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation, organized by some of my favorite columnists, held a press conference in Washington earlier this month:
"JAACD President Don Feder observed, 'Jews Against Anti-Christian Defamation was organized because we understand that Christians are the last remaining obstacle to the moral deconstruction of America.'
"Feder continued, 'Christians are under assault because of the values they embrace. But the morality of Christianity is also the morality of Judaism. By maintaining their loyalty to the eternal values revealed at Sinai, Christians have become pariahs in the eyes of the establishment but heroes in our eyes.'"
Why Are the Dems Still Dissing Religious Voters?
Loose Canon is still reeling from the fallout from "Justice Sunday"--which, if you are a blue state sophisticate, I'm-so-angry-I-could-spit-Sunday might have been a better name. But I don't think the hysteria (including the New York Times'
overwrought editorial
about the falling wall between church and state cited yesterday) bodes well for the Democrats.
Mort Kondracke of Roll Call also
took note of the Democrats' high-decibel reaction
to Justice Sunday:
"[T]he level of outrage expressed by Democrats and various liberals over the rally could only lead religious conservatives to conclude that, despite their 2004 vows to respect people of faith, the Democrats still don't get it.
"Some liberal commentators, led by New York Times columnist
Frank Rich
, were contemptuous of the rally, its participants and, by implication, religious conservatives in general. Rich dubbed the rally 'humbug,' dismissed participants as a 'mob' and likened [Senator Bill] Frist to Sinclair Lewis' 1920s evangelist phony, Elmer Gantry."
The Democrats began denouncing Frist--who actually made a measured statement devoid of religious content on the show--as a radical the second he agreed to be on the broadcast. Like the authors of the New York Times editorial, Democrats seem to believe that, anytime somebody expresses religious values, the republic is in danger:
As Kondracke noted:
"[Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama] said that, with exceptions, it's 'totally bogus' that religious voters want to 'impose their views on everybody.' Rather, 'they feel disrespected and misunderstood, especially by the media.' And, they think that the courts are determined to 'secularize America far beyond what the people want to do.'
"In the last election, he said, Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, "seemed to say, 'I am a religious person. I have religious values, but I am not going to let them impact what I do.' President Bush said, 'I have religious values. They are important to me and they help guide my decisions.' It became a big deal in the election."
Thank Heavens Not All Mayors Are Like Gavin Newsom
Kudos to a
brave mayor in Spain
who plans to act on his Catholic conscience.
Oh, Grow Up!
Columnist Suzanne Fields says that Democrats are "
supping at the children's table
:"
"It's a cliche of punditry that Republicans are the Daddy Party and the Democrats are the Mommy Party. The metaphors are out of date. We must look at the Republicans as the Adult Party and the Democrats as naughty children sent to sup at the children's table.
"Republicans lead, Democrats rebel. George W. nominates serious judges and the Democrats throw tantrums. Conservatives, dominant in the Adult Party, who try to conserve traditional ideals are, ironically, in the vanguard. Conservatives have come to the majority by expressing new ideas with passion and the liberals at the children's table throw tantrums: 'Look at me, look at me.' The betting here is that the new liberal radio and television talk shows and celebrity blogs won't catch Rush Limbaugh, Fox News or Matt Drudge any time soon."
Cardinal Ratzinger's "Secret" Letter
Swami
had a post the other day about an
article in England's Observer
newspaper alleging that Pope Benedict XVI had obstructed justice in the investigation of sexual abuse cases. As Cardinal Ratzinger, then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he ordered bishops to investigate allegations of the sexual abuse of children in secret. The report came from a "confidential letter sent to every Catholic bishop in 2001."
Swami quoted from the Observer piece (which I suggest you read in full):
"[The letter] asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week."
As a proponent of the Why-Didn't-They-Call-the-Cops school of thought on sexual abuse by priests, I was disappointed. But I longed to read a copy of the confidential letter, which was not included in full in the article. My wish was immediately granted: In a package of
four articles on the confidential letter
, Catholic World News reports:
"[T]he CDF letter is so secret that it's been
posted on the Vatican website
for some time now. I noticed it months ago. It's in Latin because it is addressed to all the bishops of the world, and it is common Vatican practice to send out important communications in one common language rather than in umpteen vernacular versions. For those whose Latin is rusty, some versions of the CDF letter include links to websites that translate Latin vocabulary."
A canon lawyer explained the purpose of the letter:
"[T]he CDF letter had as one important aim to settle certain procedural questions among canonists as to which canonical crimes are 'reserved' to CDF per 1983 CIC 1362, that is, which ecclesiastical offenses are considered serious enough that Rome itself could adjudicate the case instead of allowing the normal canons on penal jurisdiction to operate (e.g., 1983 CIC 1408, 1412). These canons were on the books long before the clergy sexual abuse crisis erupted, but their interpretation had been disputed. CDF's letter cleared up much of the confusion."
This is where, in my opinion, Rome erred: The Vatican acted as if the Church had the right to adjudicate certain cases instead of allowing the normal penal system to operate. This is the very issue over which Thomas a Becket and Henry II quarreled, and if you remember, Henry was actually the winner.
I hope that Church has learned that in the case of sexual abuse cases the best policy is always to let the cops and courts operate without interference.
But the charge that this was a sinister plot contained in a secret letter is false.
Yes, the Pope's Catholic
Loose Canon regrets that she's just now getting around to plugging
Phil Lawler's excellent piece
last Friday on why some are so dismayed by the election of Benedict XVI. "Yes, the pope is a Catholic," writes Phil. "Yet that unsurprising result has clearly shaken many secular liberals--and more than a few liberal Catholics--who feel that they have been somehow cheated of an opportunity."
For those who'd like to delve into our Catholic pope's thoughts on the liturgy
here is an excellent spot
. Read it to find out why Benedict believes that singing comes ultimately from love and why "modern theo-ries of art think in terms of a nihilistic kind of creativity."
Will Benedict Revive Latin?
The
word is out
: Pope Benedict XVI loves to chant in Latin. He has even preached his sermons in the language that the Church customarily used until the mid-1960s:
"Now scholars such as David Jones, chairman of the classics department at Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Mich., wonder: 'Is this pontiff riding a trend -- or pushing it?'"
Loose Canon has always felt that the liturgies of the Church should be in a language "understanded of the people." But I wonder: Isn't it quite possible that people comprehended the Mass better before it was put into graceless vernacular translations?
As long as the vernacular remains an option, I hope that Benedict will push Latin, and I suspect he is going to do so. LC has taken to attending a Latin Mass lately, and the quiet and beauty are to be recommended.
But I'm not just thinking about the Church. Benedict's advocacy of Latin might trigger more interest in secular education. The classics in their original languages of Latin and Greek were once the staple of education, as if modern civilization called across the abyss to what was great in ancient civilization.
There are so many reasons to study Latin. It helps one with English vocabulary, and it helps one learn to organize thoughts. But these are not the best reasons to study Latin. That reason was summed up in an article in a magazine I once edited, The Women's Quarterly, (sadly not online) by classicist Susan Kristol, who wrote, "The best reason to study Latin (and Greek, for that matter) is to confront the amazing truth that some of the best literature of all time is also the first literature of all time."
"The Right Bull for the U.N. China Shop"
The most amazing thing about the opposition to John Bolton for the job of U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. is where it's coming from--first, there's
Melody Townsel
. Ms. Townsel wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee to say that eleven years ago Bolton got mad and chased her through the hotel corridors in Kyrgystan. But now it turns out that Ms. Townsel has
"a plagiarism problem."
"Tonight, my deepest fears regarding my pending testimony in the John Bolton nomination process have come true: Republicans have dredged up an unfortunate chapter of my life and, clearly, are about to announce it to the world," Ms. Townsel writes on the Daily Kos.
The "unfortunate chapter" concerns plagiarism-and actually, there seem to be
two
unfortunate chapters. But let Melanie continue:
"I want to tell you all this story, first and personally, before the Bush camp works its special brand of magic -- and I would deeply appreciate your help in posting this letter as many places as you can in advance of my testimony. Even as I write this, the Bush team is working overtime to destroy my life and business, telling and retelling the things I'm writing here. I just received a phone call from a Christian newspaper reporter."
"Horrors! A Christian newspaper reporter!"
exclaims my colleague Charlotte Allen
, who did a good exegesis of the Melody saga.
Another person who has stepped forward to vilify Bolton is Frederick Vreeland, who is described simply as a
"former colleague" of Bolton's
by the Associated Press. Actually, the invaluable
Powerlineblog
studied the resumes of Bolton and Vreeland and concludes that it is just possible that their paths
did
cross briefly at some point.
Further study of Vreeland by Powerline turned up
a piece he wrote
that blamed the U.S. for bombings in Morocco by Islamic terrorists in 2003 on the United States:
"The irony is that these terrorist acts, like the similar ones a few days earlier in Saudi Arabia, are collateral damage from the U.S. strategy designed to rid the world of terrorism. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, anti-terrorism has become a vital and valid national objective, but if it is pursued in a counterproductive manner, Americans could soon find themselves living in a perpetual state of red alert."
By the way, if the name Vreeland rings a bell, he is the son of legendary Vogue editor Diana Vreeland. Perhaps Bolton also offends Vreeland's fashion sensibilities, as he clearly
did in the case of Washington Post fashion scribe Robin Givhan
, who was quite merciless about Bolton's "geek" glasses.
Even though the fashionable people are against Bolton, he's
"The Right Bull for the U.N. China Shop."
More on Scary Conservative Christians
The New York Times was definitely riding the theocracy's-a-comin' train yesterday with an
overwrought editorial
about "Justice Sunday."
"To the dismay of many mainstream religious leaders, the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, participated in a weekend telecast organized by conservative Christian groups to smear Democrats as enemies of 'people of faith.' Besides listening to Senator Frist's videotaped speech, viewers heard a speaker call the Supreme Court a despotic oligarchy. Meanwhile, the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, has threatened the judiciary for not following the regressive social agenda he shares with the far-right fundamentalists controlling his party."
I agree with
Charles Krauthammer that DeLay was wrong
to attack the judicial branch of government. But, frankly, the New York Times was almost as hysterical as DeLay yesterday.
Just because Christian activists don't want anti-abortion candidates automatically deemed unfit for the bench doesn't mean they are about to breach the wall between church and state.
A young Protestant blogger named Travis McSherley, who presides over
Filling Up Space
, suggests that
any
invocation of religious values in society is scary to the editorial writers at the Times:
"For all this harsh criticism, I fail to see anything that constitutes an 'establishment of religion' by the US government. Tom DeLay and his 'far-right' friends are entitled, I would think, to share however 'repressive' a social agenda as they want, without having charges leveled that they are smashing America's constitutional foundation.
"The Times' problem seems to be that this agenda for a conservative culture coincides with a faith in a real, sovereign God and His inspired Scripture. While they accuse the right of taking bricks out of the 'wall of separation,' they would apparently prefer the wall to be made with reinforced steel. Yet such an impenetrable divide between faith and society finds no support in the US Constitution or in our political or legal traditions."
I Think Therefore I Dissent?
A
provocative thought from Catholic historian James Hitchcock
on why Benedict annoys the media: "For forty years it has been customary in the media to equate 'thinking Catholics' with dissenters, and the new pope annoys his critics in part because they cannot dismiss him as intellectually deficient not only he is more learned and intelligent than practically all of his critics, he also understands modernity better than they do."
Whose Life Is It Anyway?
"Whose Life is it Anyway?" was originally a London play about a male quadriplegic who wanted to end his life. Now it's being revived with (as film critic
James Bowman puts it
) a sex-change: Kim Cattrall, who adds a certain fillip to the role because audiences will remember her as sexy Samantha from 'Sex in the City,' plays the quadriplegic. But the title question is the same: Whose life is it anyway? Does the quadriplegic have the right to end her life because she can't bear to live in her current state?
It's a profound question, of course. I'd submit that on its answer hinges much of the reason for
Swami
and Loose Canon's being so at odds over the movie "Million Dollar Baby" (in which a friend "helps" a paralyzed friend by ending her life). Swami loved MDB; LC was appalled.
For most contemporary theatre goers, of course, it isn't even a question: Whose life is it? Well, the answer is almost certain to be an indignant or perplexed
my
life:
"Atheists," notes Bowman, "will naturally assume that their lives are their own--Who else's would they be?--while theists will with somewhat less predictability assume that, as they have learned to regard their lives as gifts from God, they cannot therefore be their own to do with as they wish. From the answer to this question all else follows. Belief in a Creator-God entails belief in a purpose to His creation. And if creation, particularly the creation of life, has a purpose then it is very hard indeed not to suppose that our lives are given to us with the purposes of the Creator in mind and not as absolute possessions to do with as we like."
The Fourth Great Awakening?
Loose Canon is frankly amused by the ravings of the theocracy-is-nigh crowd. There's no way I can convince Swami and others that theocracy is not creeping up on us. But it may be that America really is in the midst of something almost as bad in their eyes: a totally unexpected religious revival.
As
columnist Michael Barone notes
in a piece on the future of religion in America:
"No religion is going to impose laws on an unwilling Congress or the people of this country," writes Barone. "And we have long lived comfortably with a few trappings of religion in the public space, such as 'In God We Trust' or 'God save this honorable court.' The real question is whether strong religious belief is on the rise in America and the world. Fifty years ago, secular liberals were confident that education, urbanization and science would lead people to renounce religion. That seems to have happened, if you confine your gaze to Europe, Canada and American university faculty clubs. ...
"America has not moved in the expected direction. In fact, just the opposite. Economist Robert Fogel's '
The Fourth Great Awakening
' argues that we've been in the midst of a religious revival since the 1950s, in which, as in previous revivals, 'the evangelical churches represented the leading edge of an ideological and political response to accumulated technological and social changes that undermined the received culture.'"
What? No Reference to Torquemada?
Nice to be able to insult the new pope and Delay in one tidy paragraph: Loose Canon is reserving judgment on Tom DeLay until she knows how many other esteemed solons have had tacky trips to Europe paid for by a lobbyist. But, if you want to see the mentality that's really behind the movement to hammer the Hammer, just unpack
these sentences in a column in today's Washington Post
:
"The avuncular Dennis Hastert may be speaker of the House, but DeLay is known as the man who really runs the Hill, enforcing discipline and keeping the troops in line--our own Cardinal Ratzinger, without the vestments. At the moment, he's being kept in power by two things: gratitude, because so many congressional Republicans owe their seats to his smart political machinations; and fear, because you don't attack the king unless you're sure he's going down."
"Vee Haf Vays of Making You Pray"
Journalist Michael McGough, writing in the Los Angeles Times,
claims credit for one of the pope jokes
making the rounds:
Have you heard the one about the German pope? If so, you may have me to thank. After Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected to the papacy Tuesday, a friend e-mailed me: 'A German pope? Yikes!' To which I replied: 'Vee haf vays of making you pray!' Little did I know that this frail jest, which would soon make its way back to my inbox from other correspondents, would be among the better jokes about the changing of the guard at the Vatican. ...I have been listening to - and making - Catholic jokes since my days at Sacred Heart Grammar School in Pittsburgh, where a beloved young priest broke us up by referring to a visiting friar as a 'Capuchin monk-ey.' At my high school, a Christian Brother (one of the most devout Catholics I ever met) told our class that he had been leaked the contents of the Third Secret of Fatima vouchsafed to Portuguese children by the Virgin Mary in 1917: It was, he said (wait for it!), the bill for the Last Supper.
Why are there so many Catholic jokes? I have a couple of theories. Catholicism, even post-Vatican II, is otherworldly, sublime - and juxtaposing the sublime and the ridiculous is the essence of a certain kind of humor. The late Johnny Carson joked about a Catholic church in Beverly Hills that was so trendy there was a salad bar next to the communion rail.
Moreover, Catholicism with its vestments and candles is rich with resources for a prop comic. Father Guido Sarducci with his broad-brimmed Vatican cleric's hat wouldn't have been nearly as funny if he had been dressed like Billy Graham.
Writer Hilaire Belloc once wrote: 'Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine / There's always laughter and good red wine.'
Or a stein of Bavarian beer."
Advertisement
Advertisement
|
About Beliefnet Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet. |
Help |
Media Kit |
Subscribe |
Legal Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet. |
|
Advertisement
|
| beliefnet |
Comments
Add Comment »To comment on this content you must be a registered user:
Sign-Up or Log-In