When Denial Goes Wrong ... Very Wrong

So, Pope Ratzinger has sent out one of his minions to "explain away" his latest homophobic/transphobic dog whistle remarks.

He also said that Pope Benedict's comments were "quite difficult to interpret" and as a result of this that he had been "very much" misrepresented in the media.

Horsefeathers - one only has to take other statements the Pope, and other members of the RC Clergy have made - to realize that the Pope wasn't being at all obscure.

The cardinal went on to say that the pope was only trying to emphasise the importance of the family, and the responsibility on humans to procreate.

Oh lovely - from this, one might conclude that rape is acceptable behaviour - after all the rapist is merely trying to procreate. Give me a break. (No, I don't believe the Pope meant any such thing, but this Church is so hell-bent on regulating sexuality that they've lost sight of reality)

We should also consider that sex does not necessarily result in pregnancy, so even if one were to view its purpose as primarily procreative, one still has to recognize that it serves other purposes. If it were purely procreative, then one would expect that the probability of conception as a result of sexual intercourse would be a lot higher. (Of course, nobody is supposed to question the Vatican's interpretation of "God's Design" ... goodness knows, we might have a point)

The Pope said behaviour beyond traditional heterosexual relations is "a destruction of God's work."

He also said man must be protected "from the destruction of himself" and urged respect for the "nature of the human being as man and woman."

I see. So, as I have repeatedly pointed out in the past, what about intersex individuals? Or are they supposed to be celibate as well? The other problem I have with this Pope's logic here (and the pathetic attempt at "unwinding the damage") is that it makes the horrendous mistake of assuming that sex == love. Anyone with any real experience in an adult relationship will have long ago realized that love is quite apart from any sexual relations involved.

"The Vatican has already reinforced its anti-gay reputation by strongly opposing a UN declaration calling for an end to discrimination against gays, but this latest Papal outburst is clear evidence of an obsession about homosexuality which is tantamount to paranoia."

Now then, given that this Pope has repeatedly shown himself to be overtly hostile towards GLBT people, is it any surprise that when he says something that can be interpreted as hostile, it is seen as such? (including by the wingnuts)

[Update 31/12/08]:
Apparently there are also theologians who see the Pope's rant as unreasonably hostile as well: The Pope has forgotten Christ's word.

H/T: AE Brain
[/Update]

Shorter Vatican: The Guy At The Top Is Clueless

Apparently a few people in the Vatican are starting to awaken to the reality that the current Pope is somewhat less than beneficial to the Catholic Church's image.

Another Vatican insider described Pope Benedict's four-year-old papacy as "a disaster", recalling the pontiff's previous inflammatory remarks on Islam and homosexuality.

"He's out of touch with the real world," the Italian insider said. "On the condom issue, for example, there are priests and bishops in Africa who accept that condoms are a key part of the fight against Aids, and yet the pope adheres to this very conservative line that they encourage promiscuity. The Vatican is far removed from the reality on the ground."

No kidding. The rest of us who live with reality on a daily basis figured that out ages ago. Before Benedict ascended to the papacy, really, but we also recognize that the Church has backslid an enormous distance since Pope Benedict took over.

The pope's spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, also wears two other hats – he is also the head of Vatican radio and of its television service. Observers question whether he can effectively handle such an onerous workload.

"He's got too many jobs. There's talk that he is going to go," said a third Vatican source. "You have people around the pope who seem to be out of their depth. There needs to be a major re-think of the operation, not the structure necessarily but the people."

The Vatican's press office works to a timetable from a gentler era, closing each day at 3pm, and familiarity with the internet appears barely to have penetrated the Vatican's cloistered confines.

No kidding. This is a pope whose fossilized thinking is still aware (and barely) of the wire services, much less the speed with which stories get around on the Internet.

"I think there's a good story to be told about this pope but it just doesn't get out because of the colossal ineptitude of the Vatican in terms of communications," said John Allen, a veteran Vatican analyst with National Catholic Reporter who is travelling with the pope in Africa.

It's hard to imagine what that 'good story' might be, when the pope consistently opens his mouth and demonstrates to the world how amazingly out of touch with reality he is.

This is a pope who might be a good man, but he is not a man of the times by any stretch of the imagination ... and he repeatedly demonstrates it.

Memo To Pope Ratz:

Get your nose out of my nation's politics - NOW!

According to the Pope, Canada is suffering from the pervasive effects of secularism” and pointed to “the plummeting birth rate” as proof..

Perhaps the best evidence possible of this being the Pope playing at politics is this statement itself. It's a classic "talking point" style from the political right wing - take two topics that are utterly unrelated and then presuppose a connection between them. The argument that the declining birth rate in "Western" countries is connected to secularism is deeply flawed. First of all, it supposes that secular society discourages children - it does not. Second, the argument quickly degenerates into a line of thinking that supposes that a woman's primary value in society is to give birth to children, and does not value them as children. Such arbitrary valuations arise not out of enlightenment, but out of the ignorance of those who have a need to perpetuate a "masculine hierarchy" of power. (Take a close look at the RC Church and its long held stance with respect to female clergy)

There's a few things about this that really irritate me - first of all is the blind presupposition that the Pope has that he can dictate law and political policy to entire nations - nations that he has never lived in, nor attempted to understand. Just as I think it is deeply flawed thinking on BushCo's part to "export democracy", I take similar umbrage at the Pope's attempt to export his morality to the rest of the world.

The second thing that annoys me is this bit of blatant stupidity:

“In the name of tolerance your country has had to endure the folly of the redefinition of spouse, and in the name of freedom of choice it is confronted with the daily destruction of unborn children,” the Pope said.

Both of these are arguments buried in the logic of ignorance and a dramatic failure to comprehend the legal structures of this nation.

The legal notion of spouse changed in this country as soon as common-law couples became "equivalent to married" for the purposes of property and divorce. I didn't hear the Popes complaining about this since over the years, largely because that one small change in law was something that specifically works to the benefit of women and children - who otherwise found themselves left destitute should the relationship collapse. The second aspect of the error in the Pope's argument is the failure to recognize the distinction between personal morality and legal relationships. There are many places where secular law is obliged to diverge from the desires of individual faiths. In fact, the very fact that Canada has no "official" religion means necessarily that our laws cannot legislate based upon the arbitrary moral declarations of a religious leader.

The second part of the Pope's comments is the classic whinge about abortion rights for women. I find this particularly offensive on several levels. First, the Catholic Church's prohibitions against abortion ignore the risks that a woman takes when she is pregnant. Second, it ignores the consequences of rape and incest on women. Last, it reduces women to being little more than baby bearers who are held hostage to the "madonna/whore" contradiction by their husbands. In the last century or so, women have become much more in control of their fertility. We understand the biology of conception fairly well, and women have availed themselves of that knowledge quite actively to gain a degree of control over their own destinies.

While there are aspects of abortion that disturb me, I think that the Pope errs in assuming that a woman is unable to make an intelligent, moral decision for herself. Unwanted pregnancy impacts women disproportionately to men, and in the past condemned the woman to both poverty and social ostracization - for the "sin" of getting pregnant. It seems to me utterly reasonable that a woman can make a moral decision on such a matter, in either direction.

If the Pope is so worried about the "evils" of secularism, I suggest that he focus his attentions upon the decision making that goes on in the boardrooms of the corporate world. Business has become amoral to a degree that should positively frighten the pope, and it has done so in ways that are truly damaging to people's well being. It strikes me that attempting to regulate people's sex lives, and reproductive lives, is not merely foolish, it is doomed to fail.

Fundamentalism - Catholic Style

Back here, I was talking about the increasingly vocal actions of religious leaders in the political dialogue of various nations.

One commenter took me somewhat to task for criticizing the Catholic Church's recent revival of the "Tridentine Mass" (Latin) because of its prayers specifically calling for the conversion of Jews.

Although I would not accuse the current Pope of being a biblical literalist, I do accuse him of being a fundamentalist (and likely highly regressive).

Where most Popes since Vatican II have been pretty careful about alienating other faiths outright, we see in Pope Benedict (aka Pope Ratz elsewhere in my writings) a man who is clearly not worried about returning the Church to a pre-Vatican II state - including the feuds with other denominations.

Roman Catholics better Christians, Vatican says:

A 16-page document, prepared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Pope Benedict used to head, described Christian Orthodox churches as true churches that suffer from a "wound" since they do not recognize the primacy of the Pope.

But the document said the "wound is still more profound" in the Protestant denominations – a view likely to further complicate relations with Protestants.

"Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress ... it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to them," it said.

The Vatican text, which restates the controversial document Dominus Iesus issued by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 2000, said the church wanted to stress this point because some Catholic theologians continue to misunderstand it.

Yes, yes - I know - all of these various religions think they have some monopoly on a "higher truth", but you have to admit that it takes some nerve to flaunt it the way that this Pope is.

Perhaps that statement also reflects the Vatican's stance towards Jewish people under the current papacy as well, since the recent revival of the Latin Mass didn't call into question any of the content of the rituals. Regardless, this most recent statement is very telling about the direction of the Roman Catholic Church under the current Pope.

Church modernizers interpreted the Council as a break from the past while conservatives, such as Benedict, see it in continuity with 2,000 years of Catholic tradition.

The document said the Council's opening to other faiths recognized there were "many elements of sanctification and truth" in other Christian denominations, but stressed that only Catholicism has all the elements to be Christ's Church fully.

Even as a Cardinal, this Pope was a hard line conservative, and it seems to me that in his own way, he is a form of fundamentalist. While his fundamentalism is not the biblical literalism that we see commonly held as "fundamentalism" in North America, it is nonetheless every bit as damaging because of its rigidity.

There is little to be gained by balkanizing the world along the lines of faith - we've already been there, done that - and it wasn't a very pretty picture when faiths crossed with each other. (A little reality check - every religion tries to deal with things metaphysical to our world, and as such deal not just in the mystical, but in the ultimately unknowable - a fact which should give us pause anytime one tries to claim a monopoly on "The Truth"(tm))

Now, whilst this may seem like I'm being "critical of the faith", that's not entirely my point. I don't much care what the Catholic (or any other) Church believes - as long as they don't insist that I must believe/conduct myself as they do.

There is a definite pattern in recent years of the Catholic Church attempting to inject itself into the politics of the nation - not in a merely ecclesiastical sense, but in a very direct "exercise of power" sense. (Look, for example, at some of the rantings of Bishop Henry, which have wandered into the realm of outright public threats at times)

Not only does this Pope seem to represent a return to the Church in it's pre-Vatican II form, but his very actions suggest a desire to return the Church to the kind of influence it held when Pope Urban II triggered the first Crusade.

Dear Pope Ratz:

[Update 29/12/08]
I see that the wingnuts heard the Pope's 'dog whistle' all too well:

Unless we "listen to the language of creation" he said, we end up with "destruction of the work of God." The Pope suggested that the gender ideology which seeks to redefine the sexes to allow for homosexuality, transgenderism and such things are examples of mankind separating himself "from creation and the Creator.

I believe this makes my point for me.
[/Update]
There are some subjects where it's painfully obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.

In this case, the subject is transsexualism.

Without actually using the word, Benedict took a subtle swipe at those who might undergo sex-change operations or otherwise attempt to alter their God-given gender. Defend "the nature of man against its manipulation," Benedict told the priests, bishops and cardinals gathered Monday in the ornate Clementine hall. "The Church speaks of the human being as man and woman, and asks that this order is respected." The Pope again denounced the contemporary idea that gender is a malleable definition. That path, he said, leads to a "self-emancipation of man from creation and the Creator.

So just what does the Pope think about people with various Intersex conditions - or has the Vatican given them some kind of a special dispensation? For that matter, the Pope has no idea whether or not transsexuality is a perfectly normal (if rare) aspect of human experience.

His selective condemnation is based on a highly debatable understanding of "natural law" - it is one that assumes that the inner person is defined by their outer appearance. As we all know, it is folly to 'judge a book by its cover', and for this Pope to condemn an entire class of people on the basis that "god-given gender" is fixed and immutable is deeply problematic. How does this Pope claim know what goes on inside the heads of someone who is transsexual? How does he know that a 'female soul' did not wind up in a male body (or vice versa)? The fact is that he doesn't.

For him to claim that 'God doesn't make mistakes' is ridiculous, for one only has to turn to the physically intersexed and realize that such a claim is ludicrous. For the Pope to claim that gender is "immutable" is to claim that it resides only in the genitalia, and yet we know that so much more of the human experience - social, sexual and romantic takes place between the ears - which other than what someone finds a way to express in words or actions is largely inscrutable. There is also a small, but growing body of evidence that suggests that there are physical as well as psychological factors at play with transsexuals.

In short, Pope Ratzinger knows not what he speaks of, and has proven to the world that he is truly a fool for opening his mouth. He would do far better for the world to focus his attentions on the horrors in Africa, rather than spouting off about identities that he is so clearly ignorant of.

Broken Pope...Record...Whatever

I see once again that Pope Ratz is taking the seasonal opportunity to bitch, moan and bash people he chooses not to understand.

Pope Benedict spoke out on Friday against legal recognition for unmarried couples and "dismal theories" on the rights of gays to marry which he said stripped men and women of their innate sexual identity.

Holy crap! What an amazing screed of illogic. Sexual identity has so little to do with marriages or legal recognition of "common-law" couples it's not even funny. Perhaps the Pope would like to return to the days when marriage was a property transaction? Does he not recognize that the legal recognition of common-law relationships benefits the children of those relationships?

The Pope said granting legal recognition to unwed couples was a threat to traditional marriage, which required a higher level of commitment.

But he saved his strongest words for those who suggest gay couples should be put on the same level as a husband and wife.

"This tacitly accredits those dismal theories that strip all relevance from the masculinity and femininity of the human being as though it were a purely biological issue," the Pope said.

Theories "according to which man should be able to decide autonomously what he is and what he isn't," end up with mankind destroying its own identity, he said.

Recognizing the reality of common-law couples is called being practical. They happen, and children are born into these relationships. The change comes out of a recognition that when those relationships fail (and like all human relationships, they do from time to time), the spouse and offspring have a right to a reasonable division of the property. This protects children ... period.

As for the Pope's pronouncement on "

theories that strip all relevance from the masculinity and femininity of the human being

", he's so far off in left field it's not even funny. He's making pronouncements that disregard, or even attempt to discredit, the changes in understanding of the diversity of human behaviour made in the last 100 years.

The Pope's declarations only serve to illustrate why the Church has become more and more irrelevant among the educated parts of the world.

Merry #!%@#$'ing Christmas, Pope!

"I was quoted out of context"

Or at least so Pope Ratz in this "apology", which comes on the heels of giving this speech at the University of Regensburg.

Here is a snapshot of the controversial part of the Pope's speech. I've provided a fair bit of context around it so that you can start to assimilate the Pope's line of argument:



It is not the quote itself that I see as the problem. A quote of anything from several centuries ago is going to ring quite differently in modern ears. It is certainly a phrase that in today's world is little more than a ringing condemnation of a particular faith. I find myself much more troubled by the way in which the Pope has paraphrased the source material he is referring to. In paraphrasing the way that he has, the Pope has created the impression that he is in fact adopting the argument itself.

Typical of this Pope, reading his writing is like going back to some of the Medieval era writings I studied in an undergraduate course on the evolution of science. The arguments are often quite circuituous. (Basically, the arguments often depend on citing some other authority who cites numerous predecessor authorities - often with the appearance that those authorities are necessarily correct because of who they are). While his intent may not have been to offend Islam, when he turfed out Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald from a position running a department that fostered inter-faith communication, the Pope certainly removed one of his faith's authorities on Islam. The very man who could, and likely would, have pointed out the danger of the Pope's speech.

I'm not so sure that this was an "out of context" thing for the Pope. He has shown himself on other matters to be something of an absolutist. It's his way or no way on quite a number of issues, something that suggests that this is more of a "slip of the veil", letting us see what he would otherwise attempt to hide.

Pope Ratz - Time Should Go Backwards

I'm sure that if the current Pope had a "time machine" in some vault underneath the Vatican, he'd happily use it to dial humanity back in time a few centuries.

While I think Gwynne Dyer has an interesting perspective on this Pope and his philosophical stance, I find it increasingly difficult to grant any merit to the Pope's utterances when he makes statements like "Man is not the fruit of chance or a bundle of convergences, determinisms or physical and chemical reactions".

The Pope reiterated a plea, made in many speeches since his election in 2005, for mankind to be "respected as the centre of creation" and not relegated by more short-term interests.

Uh? By what unholy arrogance would we possibly grant ourselves status as "center of the universe"? Not only have such statements of faith been demonstrably false every time they are made, there is considerable evidence to the contrary with respect to man's place within the biosphere of our little world. While we might well be the dominant species in terms of affecting our environs, the consequences of our manipulations keeps showing up in all sorts of ways.

Given our unique ability to change our environment to suit our needs, it should come as little surprise that we hold an increased responsibility to conduct ourselves in a measured way.

Scientific investigation should be accompanied by "research into anthropology, philosophy and theology" to give insight into "man's own mystery, because no science can say who man is, where he comes from or where he is going", the Pope said.

Dear lord, who does this man think he is? While individual researchers may be deeply focused in their fields, it's not like they are unaware of other disciplines and their relevance. What few scientists do is try to mix theology with science, however. Usually because it results in getting swatted around for sloppy reasoning (at the very least).

I'm amazed at the blunt thickness that this pope continues to exhibit. His perspective on all matters harkens back to the era when the R/C church still held sway over the leaders of the world's major powers.

Pope Benedict XVI has done more to attempt to dismiss the relevance of science than any of his predecessors in my memory. His image of science in general is deeply flawed and largely based upon supposition rather than actual understanding of the tension that exists by nature between faith and the school of rational thought that permeates much of scientific endeavor these days.

While one might claim that matters of faith are about "Truth"(™), there is a significant difference between a spiritual "truth" and the kind of "truth" that scientific research seeks. Sadly, this Pope seems more interested in repeating the monumental errors of the Church in centuries past.

Thoughts on a new Pope

With Canada's Parliament on the verge of self-destructing amid the allegations of the Gomery Commission, it seems an odd time to be reflecting on something as remote as the election of a new Pope. However, in the midst of Canada's governmental upheaval, events in the Vatican have gone ahead oblivious to our more local crisis. Last week, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elevated to the Papacy by his peers in the College of Cardinals.

I'm not a Roman Catholic, so it's not as though I feel any personal "bond" to the Pope. Frankly, I've often viewed the Papacy as substantially irrelevant to me. The edicts from the Vatican in Rome have often left me feeling that the Church leadership was so out of touch with my reality that it was largely irrelevant. However, the Roman Catholic Church holds an enormous political weight on the world stage, and the Pope is the man who sets the policy of the church, and directs its Cardinals, Bishops and Arch-Bishops who act as its representatives on the rest of the world. The Vatican's status in the United Nations as an Observer State gives it a political weight on the world stage, and one that influences all of us, Catholic or not.

Pope John Paul II did wonders for the Roman Catholic Church among the youth of the world. He was an eminently capable "show man" who seemed able to establish a connection with the youth generation. However, at the same time, it was under his direction that the Church policy hindered a great many otherwise positive movements in the world. The policy of pushing abstinence in Africa, and denying people in those countries the knowledge of how condoms could help prevent the spread of AIDS is one of the more glaring misuses of scriptural teaching in the context of the human price to be paid. Cardinal Ratzinger authored the following Letter about AIDS in his capacity of Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Cardinal Ratzinger, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, oversaw the very body that has its roots in what used to be the Inquisition. If there was ever a body created by the Roman Catholic Church that abused its position and authority, it was the Inquisition. The never-ending search for "heresy" led the church to dispossess people of their lives, livelihoods, and worldly goods on the word of others whose self-interest was either preservation or aggrandizment. Although redefined and reconstituted many times over the centuries, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is hardly a body that stands tall in the Church's accomplishments. In University, I spent a good deal of time learning about the Inquisition and its work. After that experience, I came to the personal conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church owes the world an apology for its conduct during this period. (An apology that has never been made)

As the man responsible for "the purity of the faith", Cardinal Ratzinger has written many documents over the years that speak loudly to where he is going to lead the church. As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger has held perhaps the most inherently conservative part of the Church hierarchy. If past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour, then the world is in for a rocky period with Ratzinger in the Papacy.

Why? Consider the following list of writings, all of which are Ratzinger's own:

Dominus Iesus

This is a long document, but it essentially argues that "salvation" can only occur in the greater context of the Roman Catholic Church. Although Pope Benedict XVI has spoken of "listening" to the world, but it hardly makes it seem likely that the Roman Catholic Church under this Pope will make positive progress in its relationships with other faiths. If Pope Benedict XVI believes as Cardinal Ratzinger believed that other Churches are essentially "wayward children", there is little or no chance of any meaningful theological reconciliation between the different branches of the Christian faith, much less with practitioners of Islam.

Pastoral Letter on Homosexual Persons

This document refers to homosexual acts as "evil". It references back to documents that were written in the Church in the mid-1970s and earlier. Although the letter very cautiously hedges around the notion of "evil", claiming that homosexual acts are "evil" simply guarantees that most readers will read into it that homosexuals themselves are evil, and therefore should be persecuted/marginalized etc. (As Bishop Fred Henry has argued in the very recent past)

The letter I referenced earlier about AIDS is another example of how the good Cardinal has taken stances which are completely out of touch with the realities of the human experience.

You will observe, quite correctly, that these letters are quite old, dating back to the mid-1980s. Therefore, one could argue that perhaps Cardinal Ratzinger has moderated his views on the road that has led to his elevation to the Papacy. In response, I refer you to two more recent publications that bear his name:

1) A "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World"
2) "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons"

Cardinal Ratzinger is also known to have spoken out very strongly against "moral relativism", continuing the Church's ongoing stance of absolute "right and wrong" in the world. Unfortunately, the Church's absolutism is precisely the reason that there is a problem today. The Church continues to assert positions and believes based on archaic and disproven assumptions. It defends those positions on the basis of scripture and ignores the cold reality of the world that we live in today. A thousand years ago, it was a rare thing for someone from Europe to travel into the Middle East. Today, a journey like that is a plane ticket and a mere few hours away. The Internet allows people all around the world to communicate more readily than ever before, further reducing barriers. It is only in regions where the leadership actively supresses such open communication that the rigid belief systems of the Church continue to truly flourish in the day to day lives of the people.

Unless there is a serious change of heart happening as he settles into his new role as Pope Benedict XVI, the world is likely to be subjected to an ongoing, and ever more rigid interpretation of Catholic faith. The special status of Vatican State as an observer nation in the UN gives it a voice in the political and secular world of government. That voice is very troublesome. The Roman Catholic Church will continue to attempt to assert political sway over the laws and policies of the governments of the world. Religion has all too often served as a justification for war, aggression and abuse of people. To characterize people as evil, as the Roman Catholic Church has done repeatedly in the past (recent and distant) is not just troubling, but frustrating indeed.

I will refrain from the "Darth Ratzinger" gags that have been rippling about ever since he was elevated to Pope, however, I will watch his acts as Pope very carefully. I can hope that this man is capable of growing beyond what he has expressed this past year, but I have my doubts. Non-Catholics as well as Catholics have a legitimate reason to watch the leadership of the Catholic Church carefully.

Was I Really MisInterpreting The Pope?

Remember The Pope's tirade to the Curia that I accused of being blatantly anti-GLBT? There are those in the blogosphere who claim that people who read the Pope's message did so "wrongly" or that we overreacted.

Well, I'm not convinced. In fact it would seem that some theologians have more or less the same interpretation:

While the pope never mentioned “homosexuality,” it was his explanation of the nature of man and the order of the natural world that caused gays to react so harshly, Fr. George William Rutler, a leading Catholic theologian, told CNSNews.com.
...
The pope was saying that man is made in the image of God and is therefore “unique” among all species and has authority over nature, Fr. Rutler told CNSNews.com, adding that realities such as gender – man and woman – are not arbitrary developments in biology, or accidents, but are clearly defined in the natural world for a reason.

If a person rejects nature’s assigning of gender, or tries to change it, then that is disruptive to nature and destructive, said Rutler. The natural environment must be responsibly protected, as the pope mentioned in reference to rain forests, but so must the natural order in men and women, said Rutler.

Ah yes, the classic argument from the clergy - if you are gay or transsexual, it's all your choice and you are "rejecting" God's divine order. I guess that "God's plan" for the world didn't include the Intersexed, or those who are simply infertile for whatever reason either.

This is why homosexuals see the pope’s remarks as threatening, said Rutler. “The homosexual is a classic Gnostic,” he said, “because the homosexual does not understand how gender is intrinsic to God’s will for the human race. Male-ness and female-ness are not arbitrary categories.”

Oh yes, the Pope may well have been speaking in allegorical terms or just plain riddles, but his message was plenty clear enough. Using the "but you don't understand ..." argument doesn't cut it. It's not hard to understand the Church's position. When the line of reasoning being used essentially tells an entire population that they are for one reason or another "immoral", "evil" or "invalid" as people. The message is the same, and it doesn't take much to pick up on it, even when it is carefully concealed in riddles.

The second point is that the "Natural Law" that the RC Church works from does not account for a great deal of the evidence that is available today. (Unsurprising, since Aquinas has been dead for several centuries. Consequently, the understanding of GLBT people as surprisingly ordinary human beings isn't reflected in there. In the following article, a point is made clearly that appropriately raises the kind of problem that the Church's "Natural Law" interpretation faces:

Perito questions both the validity and the reasonability of such an interpretation of natural law. A more person-centered view of human sexuality is explored by Perito. Telling gays that God loved them into existence and treasures them as people and simultaneously telling them that it is wrong to act on their feelings to act and love sexually is inconsistent. To many it appears either that God made us as we are, with all that entails about our sexuality because God loves us, or God has done something rather strange, created natural impulses (for homosexuality is as natural in the animal world as it is notable in human society) in order to frustrate them at every turn.

Convincing gays never to act on their sexuality because an interpretation of natural law theory believes the only purpose of sexuality is procreative, is comparable to telling gays to go play in traffic or to find somewhere to die. There the inherent sexism of this interpretation of natural law is apparent, and it is also socially acceptable heterosexism.

While I view homosexuality as quite distinct from transsexuality, the fact that the leadership of the Catholic Church insists on lumping the two together by using the term gender as a synonym for sex, and thus sexuality, so chances are pretty good that what is said about the GLB applies equally to the T.

Secularism Bites Pope

Every so often, religious leaders come up with a real doozy. This week's award-winning bit of illogic comes to us straight from the Vatican.

According to the Pope, "secularism" is undermining democracy because it doesn't follow natural law.

That isn't the grand irony here - in fact this Pope has made similar comments in the past.

However, there's two absolutely lovely tidbits in Lifesite's synopsis that are quite hilarious when you think about them:

Because it is not a matter of faith, but a form of moral reasoning that is "accessible to all nations creatures," the natural law can form the basis for dialogue in civil society, the Pope observed, and society can reach a consensus on fundamental moral questions.

Okay - if natural law is not a "matter of faith", then why does the Pope think the following claim holds even a cup of water?:

The crisis can only be overcome, he said, by restoring an appreciation for the natural moral law "in conformity with right reason-- which is participation in the eternal Reason of God."

Now, if I read this logically, the Pope has just invalidated himself - first his argument claims that natural law is not a matter of faith, and then he turns around and argues that natural law in fact must be interpreted through a faith.

It's not quite an outright contradiction, but it is nonetheless contradictory. Either it is true that natural law can be understood outside of faith, or it is not. Claiming that it must be "understood through faith" is like trying to thread a camel through the eye of a needle.

Thanks Pope Ratz, but I think I'll stick to my own "secular relativism" that enables me to actually consider new ideas and evidence. I might have to think a bit harder before I decide on something, but at least I'll have actually thought about it for myself.

Earth To Pope Benedict XVI

... Message Follows ...

Please go and invent that time machine that you so clearly want and zap yourself back to the 10th Century AD or so. While you're at it, please take these nitwits with you.

In his year end address Pope Benedict once again has demonstrated a rigidity of thought and philosophy that can only be called shameful.

At his first "Te Deum" service of year-end thanksgiving, Benedict praised deepening dialogue with those of other faiths but he restated his concern that the traditional Christian family was in crisis.

The 78-year-old German-born Pope recalled a June 6 speech in which he condemned same-sex unions as fake and expressions of "anarchic freedom" that threatened the future of the family.

He had also condemned divorce, artificial birth control and trial marriages.

I hate to point out the painfully obvious, but there is nothing about any of these issues that "puts the family in crisis". The only crisis is manufactured in the calcified minds of people who want to write the rules for the rest of the world. (Notably, by his vows, the pope is a non-participant in marriage, family rearing etc...)

Of course, by condemning divorce and birth control, the Pope has signalled that he'd be very happy to return to his idealized 10th century world - where women were chattels, and birth control was restricted mostly to herbal creations, and "rhythm methods". Of course, the genius that wrote this piece of intellectual manure is similarly out of touch with the reality of the modern world (not to mention basic biology).

In case the Pope hasn't noticed, the world's population is in serious danger of outstripping the available resources - if it hasn't already done so.

I am not entirely sure what he means by "trial marriages" - I assume he refers to what is better known in Canada as a "common law" marriage. If that's the case, I hate to point out the obvious to him, but it's been happening a lot longer than he's been alive - not unlike pre-marital sex (anyone else care to explain the bride that amazingly produces the first offspring in less than 9 months from the date of marriage?).

I'm sure that people like James Dobson must be positively in love with Pope Benedict XVI - after all, they seem to be similarly inclined to ignore the realities of the world, clinging to social fantasies that never have existed.

Of Power and Popularity and the Media

But yesterday, Terri Schiavo passed away - ending a life at the center of what could be the defining moment in the civil rights discussion of the 21st Century. No matter where you believed the Schiavo case should have wound up, it is unquestionably a matter of discussion for quite some time.

But, Terri's unfortunate demise is overshadowed, almost in the same day, by a sudden turn for the worse in the health of Pope John Paul II. The Pope is an old man - frail and infirm, suffering through the final stages of old age - an affliction that none of us escapes, even if we survive all of the other things that may kill us sooner. Nobody should be surprised that he is on his deathbed, yet the coverage on the radio has been like a play-by-play of a sporting event.

Most of us pass http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.giffrom this world more or less unnoticed by all but our closest friends and family. A few rare people attract a bit more attention when they finally die (for example, Pierre Trudeau)

Yet, at a time when Terri Schiavo has yet to even be buried, the world's attention turns away from her and the plight that was her life. The media is suddenly focusing on the unremarkable passage of the Pope's final hours. It appears that attention in the media is like my parrot's - short lived at best, until something shinier shows up. I realize that the Roman Catholic church is huge, and that they possess the spiritual lives of a lot of this world's people. The death of a Pope is a major event in the scheme of things - and for the next few weeks, we will no doubt hear about all of the good that Pope John Paul II did for the world - repeatedly. For all that I disagreed with the man on many topics, I do admire him for his intellect and what he did contribute to the spiritual community. This is not my point at all. The Pope's death is very average - insignificantly so - he will die as many of us do, ending a long, public life. Does he leave the kind of society shaking questions that Terri's passage did? No.

Instead, we have a situation where the media is attracted not to the real issues of the world, but like a magpie to the shiniest thing in sight. The powerful and popular get the focus. Cases like Terri's quickly become back page news - taking the back seat to ailing Popes, and celebrities like Michael Jackson - who is on trial for behaving like a Priest.

Terri Schiavo's case opens a whole raft of questions about disabled rights, quality of life, wishes of the severely ill, the right to die, rights of family - both by marriage and by blood, the government's involvement in those decisions. The world needs to take these issues seriously.

I can only hope that once the Pope is dead and buried, that the media does the world a service, and once again turns its attention to the issues that Terri Schiavo's life - and death - came to represent.

So Sayeth The Pope

His words are elliptical, but his meaning isn't. Pope Benedict XVI was in Spain this past week, and as expected has made still more pronouncements upon how families should be.

If there was ever an irony in the world, it is people taking the word of a man who has isolated himself from the world for decades of his life to guide them in how they conduct their family lives.

Consider this:

"This is the best way to counter a widespread hedonism which reduces human relations to banality and empties them of their authentic value and beauty," he said, to waves of applause.

Ah, I see - so a young, heterosexual couple making like rabbits is "cute" and "fulfilling god's will", but a gay couple is "hedonistic". Does anyone else here see a double standard? Oh - waitasec, of course it's not a double standard - the Pope, along with a lot of other people assume that GLB relationships are all focused entirely on sex, and a heterosexual relationship is built on something else.

Or this:

Dressed in green and white vestments, Pope Benedict praised the traditional family, founded on "indissoluble marriage between a man and a woman".

This is a double swipe - the first goes after anyone who lives in a non-traditional family (e.g. Mom, Dad and 2.8 children) - whether that is by adoption, single parents or both parents are same gender. The second swipe is at Spain's recently liberalized divorce laws. Of course, Roman Catholic dogma has always denied divorce - except with the "correct" dispensation from the Vatican...

I find it amazing that the church organization that spent decades concealing child molestation among its clergy, and still believes that the offenders should be "turned over to church authorities" rather than local law enforcement, can spout off about the "hedonism" of others.

Contrary to what the Pope believes, "no fault" divorce laws are a good thing. They bring about a degree of honesty to a process that happens all the time - whether or not the R/C clergy want to admit it. In Canada, not so long ago, there was quite a little industry running about where "Private Investigators" would take staged pictures of a couple engaged in romantic activity - just so that a divorce could be filed for on grounds of "adultery" - with all of the fallout from the resulting fiction.

As I've said before, and I'll continue to state, the Pope - along with a lot of other people are confusing the religious/spiritual notion of marriage and family, defined by whatever scripture you follow, with the legal notion of marriage which is a legal contract between two people and the state. These aren't the same thing, nor should they be.

What is the Vatican Up To?

There's been an amazing amount of press around the Vatican recently - and in particular Pope Benedict XVI.

Earlier this week, I found myself reading an article in the National Post which was talking about the direction that Pope Benedict XVI wants to take the Catholic practice of the Liturgy. Sadly, I cannot find that article online, but its gist is this:

1. A return to the Mass in Latin
2. A move away from contemporary music as part of the Liturgy

From the perspective of an observer, this is an interesting development. Pope Benedict XVI has made it quite clear from the start that he's what we might euphemistically call a traditionalist. More and more, it appears that he desires a return to the Church of the High Middle Ages. It provokes an interesting question - why?

Then, poking around the Calgary Sun's editorial pages, I found the latest ranting from Bishop Fred Henry - Calgary's own "mini-Ratz". Once again, he is making all sorts of irrational assertions about same-gender marriage (SGM) which have exactly nothing to do with any reality. (Starting with trying to link it to some Hindu woman who married a snake in India - he gets less rational from there)

This morning, we start hearing the fears the RC Church has about being sued over their opinions about SGM, stem cell research and a host of other topics. Considering that the church has yet to take any real steps to deal with pedophiles in the priesthood, I find that worry on the Vatican's part both suspect and somewhat outrageous.

From a precedent standpoint, there's certainly risk that members of the clergy could find themselves in some serious hot water if they don't learn to couch their statements about things in terms of the scripture. Bishop Henry has already been the subject of a couple of complaints before the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal, and there's probably going to be more if this most recent column of his is any indication.

A couple of things are becoming quite clear to me. First, the Pope is clearly bent on being far more politically active than any of his predecessors in recent memory. Second, is that the word is clearly being sent down the hierarchy for the ordained priesthood to become much more politically active. (Yes, Bishop Henry has a much longer track record of political activism than Pope Ratz, but I think we can look forward to seeing an awful lot of the RC clergy trying to inject themselves into the political dialogue of the land)

Why?

I suspect that the Pope has been watching the rise of conservative fundamentalism in the United States, and perceives that the world is "ripe" for a reintegration of church and state. From his point of view, the Church will be far more effective working from the top - the heads of state - down. Then he doesn't have to persuade the general population of his beliefs, but only a handful of legislators.

The Pope, Condoms and Next Generation Media

Apparently the Vatican has its feelings all hurt by the coverage of the Pope's anti-condom remarks on a recent trip to Africa.

It said the remarks had been "used by some groups with a clear intent to intimidate, as if to dissuade the Pope from expressing himself on certain themes of obvious moral relevance and from teaching the Church's doctrine."

Apparently, the Pope thinks that condemning people to a slow death as a result of ignorance is "moral".

It's time that this pope realize that in the era of the Internet, news travels fast, and the daft ramblings of an old man in a cassock will be picked up on even faster - especially when they are so obviously rooted in dogma rather than the reality on the ground.

H/T: Canadian Cynic

Shorter Pope: Dogma Always Trumps Reality

The current leadership in the Vatican just doesn't have a clue about reality. Every time we turn around one of these idiots opens their mouth and says something that is beyond patently stupid.

Today, it's the Pope's turn:

Before arriving in Cameroon's capital, Yaounde, the Pope said HIV/Aids was "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem".

The solution lies in a "spiritual and human awakening" and "friendship for those who suffer", the AFP news agency quotes him as saying.

While in Africa, the pontiff is expected to talk to young people about the Aids epidemic and explain to them why the Catholic Church recommends sexual abstinence as the best way to prevent the spread of the disease.

He gave a similar message to African bishops who visited the Vatican in 2005, when he told them that abstinence and fidelity, not condoms, were the means to tackle the epidemic.

Hmmm...let's think about this from a perspective grounded firmly in reality, shall we?

First of all, condoms are one of the few means known to prevent, or at the very least, minimize, the chances of HIV transmission. The Pope's addlepated logic that distributing condoms can make the problem worse is completely false. As the GLBT community in North America demonstrated during the 1980s and 1990s, condom use can and does reduce the rate of transmission from sexual contact.

I won't even begin to describe my revulsion with the dogma of "noble suffering". This is nothing more than a way to wash one's hands of a topic that is uncomfortable or unsettling. Instead of taking action, it becomes far too easy to simply blame the person suffering from HIV/AIDS and call their suffering "consequences" and "God's will". Intellectually speaking, this is sloppy reasoning.

Lastly, while the concept of abstinence works in theory, it completely ignores the very real and human reality that people have sex. Just as the unreasoning "abstinence only" policies of Bush II failed miserably (with evangelical teens having sex just as often - and ending up pregnant more often - as their peers.

Condoms are not a solution in and of themselves. This is true enough. However, the rabid anti-condom stance of the Pope is rooted not in reason but in dogma ... and like the dogma of the church around abortion, it is completely divorced from reality.

Dear Pope Ratzinger: WTF?

How utterly, ideologically blinded can you possibly be?

Pope Benedict XVI says in a new book that condoms can be justified for male prostitutes seeking to stop HIV, a stunning turnaround for a church that has long opposed condoms and a pontiff who has blamed them for making the AIDS crisis worse.

Okay ... that's sort of a step in the right direction - at least the Pope seems to be acknowledging that condoms do have an effect on the spread of HIV. However, to limit the use of condoms to male prostitutes is stunningly short sighted.

Condoms have the same effect for women, but it would seem that under this Pope, women are not considered important enough to protect from STIs. Does this man think that women do not get infected by STIs? Or is it just that fertilizing an egg is so much more important than the risk of a life-shortening disease like HIV/AIDS? Has he not clued in yet that the vast majority of Catholics in developed countries ignore him entirely on the subject of birth control? Not to mention the moral vacuity of his insistence that women must always take the risk of not just pregnancy but also of STIs? (I would argue that it is an immoral act to demand that someone take such risks without their full knowledge and consent regarding the consequences)

The double standards and misogyny that are so clearly embedded in this Pope's theology are disappointing to see in this day and age.

Activist Clergy

In the last few years, we've seen an increasing level of religious figures engaging openly in the political dialogue of their respective nations. (Or, in the case of Pope Ratz, all nations)

Whether we are talking about Bishop Henry in Calgary, Pope Ratzinger's various declarations, or Bishops demanding "reviews" of a nation's laws on Abortion.

I do not for a moment wish to argue that being a member of the clergy means that one does not have a legitimate interest and voice in politics. Far from it.

However, the clergy enjoys a unique, and privileged position in many Western countries. We grant Churches exemption from taxation, a privilege granted to no group that acts as a political lobby. In a nation where no official religion is recognized, this privilege is extended to any organization that can describe itself as a "church". By definition, a church's clergy are privileged people - given unique access to a regular platform for influencing the views of a great many people.

To what extent should we grant clergy the right to use their position as influential public figures as a platform from which to engage in political activism? We've seen Bishop Henry in Calgary make some pretty awful statements in the past, and others have attempted to influence our politicians through what I have come to call "spiritual blackmail" - such as denying communion to a politician who doesn't legislate according to what the Church demands. (It is not the denial that is significant, it is the often public statement of that threat/punishment)

Churches are not neutral parties - and in fact they can be amazingly rigid and (by modern standards), bigoted. One example is the anti-semitic overtones of Catholic Tridentine Mass recently "reapproved" by the Pope should concern many in a society that claims that all people are equal.

The Latin, or Tridentine rite contains a prayer that is read on Good Friday calling for the conversion of Jews. The U.S.-based Anti-Defamation League has criticized Benedict's decision, calling it a "theological setback" and a "body blow to Catholic-Jewish relations."

The 16th-century mass is traditionally delivered by a priest in Latin with his back to the congregation throughout the service.

How lovely. In essence, we have a pope here who is approving the revival of a pattern of prayer that is politely described as hostile to another faith. Coming from this particular pope, I'm hardly surprised by that revelation, but I don't think it reflects anything positive either.

When religion can foster conflicts and grudges that are ages old, and we already grant Churches a significantly privileged status in our society, should we allow them a free voice, or perhaps it is time to start demanding to "follow the money", and whatever percentage of their resources that is spent on political lobby/activism becomes taxable just like any other political lobby. (For example, I would argue that Bishop Henry's "pastoral letters" of a couple of years ago, and the distribution thereof would represent political activism. The costs of that activism come out of Church coffers, and whatever that cost is becomes taxable income.

Let's Look At The Other Side of This ...

So, we have Calgary's Bishop Henry expounding upon the Roman Catholic Inquisition's treatment of Galileo.

I'm going to start with Henry's conclusion and then work backwards from there, because this piece of sophistry is offensive in the extreme.

Alfred North Whitehead, a noted historian of science, concluded: “that the worst that happened to men of science was that Galileo suffered an honourable detention and a mild reproof, before dying peacefully in his bed.” The traditional picture of Galileo as a martyr to intellectual freedom and a victim of the church’s opposition to science is little more than a caricature.

Henry's conclusion here is that the Church was being oh-so-kind-and-just towards Galileo. But let's think about this for a moment. It doesn't matter how you slice this one, the Church fundamentally imprisoned the man - even if it was in his own home. A cage, no matter how guilded it may be remains a cage nonetheless. We should not lose sight of this.

The historical record is not quite that simple.

Galileo took his observation to the Jesuits who were among the leading astronomers of the day and they agreed with him that his sightings had strengthened the case for heliocentrism. The Jesuits told him that the church was divided, but the question was still open, and they did not think that Galileo had clinched the case.

When Galileo was reported to the Inquisition, Cardinal Bellarmine met with him. This was not a normal Inquisitorial procedure, but Galileo came to Rome in 1616 as a celebrity with great fanfare, where he stayed at the Medici Villa, met with the pope more than once, and attended receptions given by various bishops and cardinals.

Bellarmine wrote: “While experience tells us plainly that the earth is standing still if there were a real proof that the sun is in the centre of the universe ... and that the sun does not go round the earth but the earth around the sun, then we should proceed with great circumspection in explaining certain passages of scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But this is not a thing to be done in haste, and as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me.”

Let me summarize this briefly - essentially, Cardinal Bellarmine told Galileo to shut up because he wasn't willing to consider Galileo's proposal. Regardless of what instruments of inquiry the Inquisition used, the end conclusion is the same, the Church took specific steps to quash an idea because it offended their ideas, in particular with respect to scripture.

Henry then claims the following to justify why the Church imprisoned Galileo:

Galileo was confident now that he could openly preach heliocentrism and in 1632 he published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. This created a threefold problematic.

First, his so-called demonstration of the truth of heliocentrism was faulty. One of Galileo’s main arguments was that the rapid motion of the earth around the sun was responsible for the ocean tides. Galileo also assumed that planets move in circular paths, even though Kepler had shown that the planetary orbits are elliptical. Galileo contended that Kepler was wrong.

Okay...let's consider this in terms of scientific inquiry in general. Last I checked, investigation of the natural world in which we live tends to lead down lots of 'dead ends' and comes up with the odd gem of insight. This is why science gets published in journals and is often severely critiqued by peers. Flaws in theories happen all the time. Successful theories - no matter how you look at them - adapt and change as new evidence refines them. Yes, Galileo and Kepler disagreed on the orbital behaviours of planets. Given the era, that's a matter of interpreting the available evidence. By no means is this adequate reason for the Church's heavy handedness towards Galileo.

Secondly, Galileo embarrassed the pope by constructing his dialogue between two figures, one representing himself and the other representing the pope, who was given the name “Simplicio.” Of course, the foolish claims by Simplicio were refuted by the character speaking for Galileo.

Considering that dialog was a common way of expressing and arguing for a new idea at the time, I don't see any particular surprises in this. If the church interpreted "Simplicio" as being the Pope, well, all I can say there is that's a well-placed needle - especially given Galileo's treatment by the Inquisition a few years prior.

It's pretty hard to see this as anything other than someone smarting from being slapped around intellectually. Embarrassment of the Pope is hardly reason for imprisonment, is it?

Thirdly, Galileo’s writings were not confined to scientific issues; he argued that the Bible was largely allegorical and required constant reinterpretation to excavate its true meaning. The Jesuits had warned him not to venture into this territory as Scriptural interpretation was the church’s area but he ignored the advice and was once again reported to the Inquisition.

In 1633 Galileo returned to Rome, where again he was treated with respect. However, during the investigation, someone found Bellarmine’s notes in the file. Furthermore, Galileo had not told anyone about his previous agreement. Now Galileo was viewed as having deceived the church as well as having failed to live up to his agreements. Incredibly, for some strange reason, Galileo maintained that his Dialogue did not constitute a defence of heliocentrism.

Again, let's consider this further. The Church has decided in its finite wisdom that Galileo was arguing about more than just the science of astronomy (or astrology as it was understood at the time - astronomy arose from astrology). Apparently, he is making statements about how scripture should be interpreted. Big deal. The Church might consider this to be heresy or worse, but really, what he has done is present a challenge to church dogma. Whether it is the dogma of heliocentrism, or the dogma that the Catechism is the only valid guide to interpreting scripture, it doesn't really matter.

Galileo was still imprisoned for expressing ideas that the Church found offensive. In short, the Church acted with a very heavy hand to squelch thought and discourse.

Galileo was never charged with heresy, and never placed in a dungeon or tortured in any way. Technically he was under house arrest in his villa in Florence but enjoyed considerable freedom. The church also permitted him to continue his scientific work on matters unrelated to heliocentrism. He died of natural causes in 1642.

Why, how magnanamous of the Church. They only imprisoned him in his own home for the rest of his life for daring to challenge the Church's assumptions and dogma.

Sorry, Bishop. No matter how I look at it, this is another case where the Church blew it and is now trying desperately to justify its actions. Like the Church's current dogmas about human sexuality, the Galileo case is about controlling people and controlling what they think and believe.

... and we won't pay too much attention to the fact that it took the Church until 1992 to even express regret. A mere 350 years after Galileo died in Church custody. I'll remind myself of the Church's generosity in justice every time I hear another story about the Church excommunicating people for doing the right thing.

The Galileo story is really one that tells us how the Church ceased to be a source of enlightenment and wisdom, and became a political power out to squelch any dissent that would weaken their control over humanity.