Impeach the Pope?

by Julie Clawson 03-19-2009

So there was a fascinating editorial in The Washington Post yesterday by that title. Robert McElvaine suggests that instead of being currently outraged at AIG and the like, we should be directing it at the Pope. He lists the Pope’s insults to Muslims and women, his acceptance of a Holocaust denier, and his recent remarks on condoms, AIDS, and Africa as reason enough to be outraged. He writes –

I am a Catholic and the idea that such a man is God’s spokesperson on earth is absurd to me.

There are, of course, no provisions in the hierarchical institution set up, not by Jesus but by men who hijacked his name and in many cases perverted his teachings, for impeaching a pope and removing him from office. But there ought to be.

I am, of course, not Catholic. So some might say I shouldn’t care the least what the Pope has to say about anything. But it got me thinking about what response the church does have when it appears a select, but vocal, few have hijacked our religion. Granted the Pope is in a place of power, so the world hears whatever he has to say. With others though, its generally the media that places them in such positions of power. The media loves extremes and gives a platform to the loudest and most obnoxious voices, hence giving them power. Would a Falwell, or Robertson, or Dobson, or Driscoll have anywhere near as influential of a voice if the media didn’t parade them around as the worst possible example of Christianity? I’m not surprised in the least that Time named the “new calvinism” as an important idea of our time — they are the perfect media draw, sure to sell magazines as they fill the spots vacated by the old ranks of fundamentalists. But however they got there, these voices have power and represent Christianity to the world.

Where does that leave those of us who feel like our faith has been hijacked by extremists? Do we call them to account for themselves like McElvaine suggests, saying with him, “If this be heresy, make the most of it.”? Do we leave them alone and simply be faithful witnesses in our own spheres? I truly am torn. I know there are tons of people out there whose only exposure to Christianity are these voices the media reports. Mike tells me that over at the Friendly Atheist blog most of the atheists simply cannot accept that other sorts of Christianity even exist. To them the close-minded, sexist, racist, extremists they hear about on the news represent the whole of Christianity. It’s similar to how most of us, knowing nothing about Islam, choose to believe that the Taliban represents the whole of Islam.

So that’s where my hang-ups are. I don’t want to echo the extremists and call for their excommunication or impeachment as it were, but I have a hard time with the Talibanesque image they give to the faith. I’m not a fan of infighting, but I feel the need to say at times “that man (always a man) doesn’t speak for me, and I don’t believe he speaks for Jesus Christ either.” Earlier this week I asked why more of us weren’t out there speaking truth to power about the financial crisis, and I ask the same question of this situation. But I find it very interesting that when anyone attempts to stand up to one of these voices, we get criticized for being unholy, unloving, and unfaithful. Is the church truly the last place where the freedom to speak honestly and hold others accountable is denied? I know we have all seen the Catholic priests get away with heinous crimes in recent years, but we seem to be okay with letting others get away with the crime of stealing our faith.

So I’m getting sick of the “just be a quiet witness” solutions — I think there needs to be a place for holy outrage. Perhaps not impeachment, but outrage nonetheless.

Julie Clawson is the author of the forthcoming book Everyday Justice (IVP 2009). She blogs at julieclawson.com and emergingwomen.us.

Categories: Diversity, Faith and Politics

Tags: AIG, atheist, atheists, calvinism, Catholic, catholic priests, Christianity, church, dobson, driscoll, extremes, extremists, faith, falwell, fundamentalists, hate, heresy, holocaust denier, Islam, Jesus, Media, Muslim, muslims, Politics, pope, racist, Religion, spokesperson, Taliban, voices, Women

PSherwood

"Teddy Begs Holy Father With Faustian Bargain"

Many Americans may not have seen the last few moments of the graveside rites
for the old liberal lion. In case you did not, I would relate some of it here.

As the evening sky darkened and grew black the Cardinal read over the casket
words that Teddy penned as he lay dying to the pope.

We may never know just how unuusal this was and we do not know if everything was
revealed in the correspondence between TK and Rome. Curiously, the Vatican
scrambled for two weeks but the pope surely... with curial advice... chose not to respond
in his own hand. So much for a "minor" U.S. senator who endorsed freedom of choice
for women.

Kennedy and the Church in effect were asking for the right to "define" health care in
the United States.

A future headline might thus read:

"U.S. Supreme Court Justices Vote 6 to 3"

Washington

"Today the court handed down its decision in Father Fitzpatrick vs
the AMA that a moral definition of correct health care procedures
is both logical and in keeping with Western tradition.

Thus, all 194 diocesan offices of the Catholic Church in the U.S.
will advise hospitals and healthcare professionals as to which
procedure may be performed so that Roman Catholic medical
professionals will not be religiously compromised in practicing
medicine".

OR

American Medical Care A Patchwork Quilt

Washington

"With the recent Supreme Court decision favoring Roman
Catholic teachings as to morally acceptable
medical procedures further rulings are expected.

The Jehovah Witnesses have demanded that no blood
transfusions will be administered to anyone under age 25.
Muslims had requested certain halalic rulings...once the Immans
finish their rulings... in Alleppo. Mormons are also insisting
that the ancient...according to the Angel Moroni...LDS rite
of spilling blood as "steam rising from the earth"
(for heinous crimes) be honored as well. Seventh Day Adventists
are also insisting that neither wine nor coffee be served in U.S.
hospitals to patients or guests in keeping with the teachings
of Mary Ellen white.

Most interesting will be the details of expected rulings with regard
to the Appalachian International Church of God and Holy Jesus
which it is reported insists that all hospitals and emergency care
facilities within 500 miles of mountainous communities have a
6 day (the Lord rested on the seventh) supply of anti-venom for
common rattler and copperhead snakes (coral snakes excepted).

At this time it is not known whether the 'Homasmookala Society
of the Sacred Black Widow' and its American Church Wing will
make similar demands".

One observer noted that "the Americans while pretending to
seek universal health care for all citizens has arrived at a
healthcare plan that had been created at an old fashioned
quilting bee."

All of these provisions are now being called affectionately
across the U. S. "TeddyBenedict Plans." LDS people will just have
to live with it (multiple wives included).

Palosaari

Yes, I agree. There is a disconnect between official church doctrine, the beliefs of Catholic theologians, catechism, and what the average American Catholic believes. I have found this personally true when I have taken classes in Catholic doctrine from a priest, and then in further study.

neuro_nurse

It sounds to me as if “what Catholic theologians have said of late" may not accurately represent Church doctrine.

“Therefore, I ask the Church's Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms.” John Paul II, 1992.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/...

Palosaari

No, no. That limbo thing is a different deal, and has a different history. I'm referring to what Catholic theologians have said of late.

Yes, I was referring to an argument that Benedict made when he was still Ratzinger. I'm not implying he still believes it.

Your right. I misspoke. It's the center of mass- what I meant was that American Catholics don't always like to see it as the center of theology, as you've expressed here.

Don't know what was written in the press in 2007, but yes, many Catholic theologians and laity have made that claim, that Protestants are not saved.

I liked what Jean Paul said, that Protestants are lost sheep who will one day return to the fold. (I'd like to think he included the Quakers too in that, if he even thought of us.)

Huh. I certainly don't believe that salvation comes through faith alone.

Catholic doctrine has certainly evolved. You should read the Early Church Fathers. Good reading. And personally I believe instructive to us all today, still. That of course, is originally an argument of the Roman Church.

My statements were about the present and the past. Again, as I said, you brought up the past with your quote about the past.

neuro_nurse

"Witness the claim by some that Purgatory is no longer believed as a doctrine, when in truth it has merely been reinterpreted but is still held to be true."

I believe you are confusing Purgatory with Limbo. See the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" paragraphs 1030-1032 http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chp...

The current pope has written nothing that is on the fringes of Catholic doctrine – check the Imprimi Potest of the Catechism: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/copyright.s...

One of the reasons Benedict has been criticized is that he has unapologetically reaffirmed Catholic doctrine.

“It is quite clear that the sacrament is the center of both mass and theology, and this not only for the Roman Church but for all the Eastern Churches too, up until this day. I know American Catholics don't like to see it that way…”

The Eucharist is absolutely the center of the mass. My wife is the daughter of a Baptist pastor. Out of respect for her, she and I go to a Baptist church. I always left those services feeling empty and spiritually unfed. Now I get up and hour earlier so I can go to mass before attending church with my wife. I’ve come to realize how central the Eucharist is to my life in Christ.

“Without the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist, one can not be saved.”

That would mean that Catholics believe that Protestants are not saved – and that is not true, contrary to what was written in the press in July 2007.

Being married to a non-Catholic, I was very disturbed by the report that the pope had said that Protestant churches ‘lack the means to salvation.” When I read the document to which that report referred, I found that the pope had said exactly the opposite – that Christ most certainly uses non-Catholic churches as “instruments of salvation.”

“Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: "We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation." CCC 169

“The purpose of the sacraments is to sanctify men, to build up the Body of Christ and, finally, to give worship to God. Because they are signs they also instruct.” CCC 1123

I can’t find anywhere in the Catechism that salvation is conferred through anything but faith.

I haven’t read the Early Church Fathers. Whether or not Catholic doctrine has evolved really isn’t relevant to my objections to your statements about Catholic doctrine and beliefs.

Your statements about Catholic teaching have been in the present tense. If you want to discuss what the Church may or may not have taught in the past, please make that clear.

neuro_nurse

Right.

I cringe when I hear the way some kids talk back to their parents now. If I had spoken to mine that way, I would have gotten knocked upside the head!

derelicte

Right. Sorry about that.

________________________________

canucklehead

yeah, what's with the skirt?

canucklehead

sobvious Neuro weren't spanked enough as a kid!

canucklehead

George Marsden.

MikePC

My take exactly Renacier.

derelicte

I'm sure Plantinga is well aware of more formal definitions of the term, but he wasn't working towards a definition of the phenomenon. Plantinga's definition is more of a playful, definition of the term as commonly used by contemporary academics, not specifically engaged in sociological analysis of religion. He's not attempting a proper definition of the phenomenon, but rather the implied meaning in the mouths of the vast majority of those who use it. In this sense, I think he's right. It usually does have a sort of fuzziness to it that points to the indexical element which he speaks of, with disapprobation for views that are theologically to the right of the user. Honestly, most of the people who the term in these sorts of discussions aren't aware of the work by Marty and Appleby.

In any case, classic Fundamentalism had to do Specifically with the fundamentalist/modernist controversy in the early 1900s. A series of works were put out defending "fundamental" doctrines of historic Christianity, or at least protestantism, such as the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, authority of scripture, etc. You were a fundamentalist if you held to these. Nothing more, nothing less. Since then the meaning of the term has morphed and, in my opinion, become functionally useless.

By the way, if you mean that Driscoll is a Fundamentalist in the classic sense, then I'm sure you're right. Any other sense, maybe. In any case, I wasn't saying he wasn't a fundamentalist. I was saying that he wasn't a member of the Religious Right. Although there is significant overlap, you can be one and not the other.

________________________________

squeaky

Don't patronize me! Unless, of course, I own a business, and I need you to be a patron. Then, please, patronize me!

Franco

Looks like all this just proves the point.

One person: "Hey, you know, some christians act like jackasses. Maybe we should go ahead and call them jackasses."

Everyone else: "How dare you say that! You're the jackass!"

Congratulations, Mrs. Clawson. You're clearly right.

squeaky

ah, very good then.

letjusticerolldown

Your communication was not lacking. I was just doublechecking my listening.

squeaky

Not at all. I was just adding to what you said--the only reason I put it here was because it seem to fit best here.

Ironically, the fact you read something into my post that I didn't intend helped make my point that our words can easily be misunderstood by the readers of them.

JamesM

Don, would you please get your definitions right? I have been after you for quite some time over your constantly confusing the term "condescending" and "patronizing".

letjusticerolldown

Is there a point you believe was lost on me??

kevin47

"Or is your point simply that since she believes other things you
disagree with, that therefore invalidates anything else she might have
to say and relieves you of the responsibility to consider viewpoints
that differ from your own?"

My point is that she make incendiary statements without considering their ramifications. I would argue that throwing around the term "taliban-esque" demonstrates precisely the attitude you describe. Apparently, you don't disagree with Julie Clawson on condoms.