One Conclave Away
The decision to appoint Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the papacy seems to have come a time when America and Europe are close to falling off the Catholic map. It also seems that in light of this, the selection of Pope Benedict XVI may be a sign that the Catholic Church neither is ready to change nor, indeed, wants to change. America is no longer a bastion for Catholicism. Even more so, Europe has gained in what is being termed “secular” thought. What does this mean, though? Is it really secular or just separatist?
In this very young 21st century, unchallenged Catholic dogma seems to have a deep foothold in Africa and South America. It is within these continents that a majority of papal support seems to flow forth freely. Hence, I believed that the next papal selection would arise from these Catholic strongholds. Yet, he did not. For the first time in over a thousand years, we have again a German pope (“we” meaning the world and, perhaps, the Catholic portion of my religious self), which truly confounds me. Germany? Really? What I know of modern Germany is that if it is even religious at all, it is mainly Protestant. So, again, why Germany? I think there are several possible reasons for this. Pope Benedict XVI was Pope John Paul II’s “enforcer,” if you will. He was the hound that was unleashed when Catholics went astray. He is dogmatic, indeed. Conservative? Yes, by default. His concern for the minutia of staunch Catholicism probably can’t be challenged. But, is it the minutia that needs attention paid to? The questions that are yet to be answered concerning peace in the face of war, poverty in the face of fascism and empire, and the general health of the Catholic church around the world are the deciding factors of this future papacy.
American Catholics, whether they like it or not, have been and are being left by the wayside. Catholics here cause too much trouble with their lax attitudes toward the rules of the church. The Vatican looks down upon this, but, personally, I think this is good. But does this mean that American Catholics can expect to stay Roman Catholic? I don’t know. I’m leaning more to the fact that in order to be Catholic, followers need to follow the dogma of the church. It may sound this simple, but it isn’t. This is why I say that the selection of Pope Benedict XVI spells the beginning of the end for American Catholics. It may also bear the final blow for Catholics in Europe, who, through a long and drawn out process, have filtered themselves away after the Reformation. Is this the end of Catholicism? More than likely, no. Is this the end for American Roman Catholics? I think so.
This brings us back to the papal criticism (brought on by Pope John Paul II) of “secular” America and Europe. Catholicism has absolutely no bearing on those of us that are secular in nature. None. The reverse is true, as well. No, when the Vatican criticizes the secularists, they are speaking in code. They speak of separatists, not secularists, but do not want to describe those Catholics as reformers for fear of spreading the idea that change is possible but is greatly feared by the old guard. The separatists, more well known as pro-choice Catholics, Catholics for married priests, Catholics for the ordination of women, are radicals in the eyes of the Vatican and, therefore, cannot and will not be dealt with. So, in a manner easier to define, the separatists are called secularists so as to strip them of their spirituality and their religion. There is strength in revolution. The Catholic Church knows and greatly fears this.
So, here we are again at a crossroads. At stake is American Catholicism. As my wife put it earlier today, I was “one conclave away from returning to Catholicism.” It saddens me that a chance at renewing the vigor of an ancient religion is being surpassed under the shadow of what can only be termed fundamentalism. Refusal to change and evolve while still grasping the strings of religious tradition is completely possible. It may not be easy (ask the Episcopal Church of America), but it is possible. Perhaps Benedict XVI is only a holdover while the church rethinks its position in the world. Perhaps he is not. Here we are again; a new beginning, a new struggle.
Cas, the main tenet of Catholicism as a hierarchical body is that the Pope is infallible. So, those who go against the Pope’s edicts are by definition, non-Catholic, including those who are pro-choice, for married priests, for the ordination of women, for contraception, proponents of gay marriage, etc. The Pope and therefore the Church are under no obligation to change with the times, even if membership suffers and the image of Catholicism seems archaic. You appear to believe that the Church should “update” it’s positions on certain issues if for no other reason than to fall in step with certain progressive and increasingly popular views (which you just so happen to hold, I believe). If I am not misinterpreting you, how do you justify your position. Why do feel the Church is obligated to elect a progressive Pope? I personally don’t think that the Church leaders are in fear of losing power as much as they are firm and uncompromising in their beliefs. I respect this very much because they know as well as you and I that maintaining conservative doctrine is often unpopular and almost certainly will cause the power and influence of the Church to decline, as you point out. Pope JP II probably would have said to you that it is not worth compromising one’s morals in order to restore the popularity of the Church and renew the vigor of Catholicism becaue religion is not a popularity contest. (Please bear in mind that I am not in any way critcizing your beliefs regarding the aforementioned social issues.)
This is a bit out of the context with your question Tony but as you probably know there have been plenty of times in which the church has changed “with the times” or at least soon after.
Copernicus was one of the original theorists behind the heliocentric nature of the universe. But the Catholic Church was absolutely against him because of the many scriptural references to a geocentric universe. Copernicus pissed off both Protestant and Catholic churches so much that he was damned by Martin Luther, “only a fool would advance a thesis in direct contradiction of the Holy Scriptures.”
I could go on with more (especially scientific) changes the church has moved to (such as accepting carbon dating) but I’m sure you’re more than familiar with the contradictions.
Also, correct me if I’m wrong but the fact that the Pope is infallible doesn’t necessarily mean the church negates change. It just has to wait for the Pope to accept the change.
I see your point, Randy, but it’s important to note that while it can be proven using empirical evidence that the universe is not geocentric or that carbon dating works or that the universe is older than four thousand years old, it cannot be scientifically proven that priests or gays (or gay priests) should be allowed to marry, for example. In other words, your examples involve scientific facts whereas as the examples Cas brought up and I referenced are matters of “policy”. When confronted with empirical evidence, the Church has often changed its official position, eventually if not always immediately. That’s why I think these social issues are distinct from matters of science.
“Also, correct me if I’m wrong but the fact that the Pope is infallible doesn’t necessarily mean the church negates change. It just has to wait for the Pope to accept the change.”
This is correct. And my question to Cas was why does he feel the Church is wrong or foolish for not purposely electing a Pope who would make the changes that some would like to see. Yes, conservatism might be the undoing of the Church in America and elsewhere, but how can one criticize the Church for simply not doing the popular thing? Without a doubt, the cardinals (and the Pope) weigh their concept of morality more heavily than the “success” of the Church. I think this is obvious based on who they just elected. And they are 100% right to think and act as such. And you and I are 100% right if we disagree. It’s about being entitled to believe what you believe.
If I were fine with gay marriage, pro-choice, and fine with gay priests could I still consider myself Catholic?
I can’t help but feel the answer is no according to the above sentence.
As both you assumably know I wasn’t raised Catholic (not even religious) so my ignorance peaks on these types of things.
“If I were fine with gay marriage, pro-choice, and fine with gay priests could I still consider myself Catholic?”
Well, you could consider yourself whatever you wish, but strictly speaking the answer would be “no” I believe.
A great many of those who took on the Church throughout history by challenging doctrine considered themselves reformers, not dissenters or heretics. Probably all of them did at first. Even Luther. And especially those who were at odds with specific dogmatic issues like the Gnostics, Donatists, etc. Cas termed these types “radical” Catholics. But if these radicals didn’t have the Pope on their side, they wouldn’t be Catholics for long. In the old days, after rendering a decision, the Pope would issue offical edicts not only condemning the beliefs in question but revoking the Church membership of (excommunicating) anyone who adhered to them. And there was a time when being excommunicated was a BIG deal, for kings and peasants alike.
So, yeah, you are exactly right, Randy. The Catholic Church is one and the same as the dogma of the Catholic Church and the Pope establishes and maintains that dogma. If you don’t buy into it, you’re not a Catholic. That’s why Cas can rightly say that he was one conclave away from becoming a Catholic again – if a Pope were elected that gave his seal of approval to all the things Cas believes in, Cas would no longer be at odds with Church doctrine.
Now, don’t expect to see the Pope on TV excommunicating millions of heretics en masse. That wouldn’t benefit anyone. But to me, that’s essentially what happens when the Pope issues an edict reaffirming that the Church is pro-life, for example. From that day forward, anyone who preaches that abortion is ok and anyone who has an abortion undergoes a de facto excommunication. That’s my interpretation.