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

neuro_nurse

I have a great deal of respect and admiration for this pope. He has said and will continue to say things that make people uncomfortable - including me, but I’ve found that much of the furor in the press about what the pope has said has been based on comments taken out of context or even so blatantly misinterpreted as to directly contradict what he actually said.

As a public health professional, I disagree with his statements about HIV and condoms. Contrary to a very popular misinterpretation of Catholic doctrine, those statements were not made ex cathedra and are therefore not infallible.

Let the pope-bashing begin - I'm out of here!

kevin47

You know, I think this pope might besupreme after all.

canucklehead

yeah, what's with the skirt?

MarkGordon

Did I really just read a blogger on God's Politics call Pope Benedict XVI "extremist," "obnoxious," "sexist," "racist," and "close-minded." Did she really compare him to the Taliban?

Did she really write that "the Catholic priests" have been guilty of heinous crimes? Not "some Catholic priests," much less "a tiny minority of Catholic priests," but "the Catholic priests?" Did I really read such a bigoted, hate-filled, and irrational column on God's Politics?

Julie Clawson looks young, very young, so perhaps one can forgive her for an intemperate, arrogant, and ,yes, deeply uncharitable rant. But there is no forgiving Jim Wallis and the editors of God's Politics for posting what wouldn't even be allowed on many explicitly anti-Catholic polemical sites. Well, this is one Catholic who won't be back here, and every time I read about Jim Wallis prattle about ecumenism and respectful dialogue, I'll remember this one.

Shame.

BlueDeacon

In fact, if you read again, you will find that she did no such thing -- she wasn't referring to any specific church or religion. She was complaining only that the extremists who have hijacked religion often find themselves the spokespeople for such and thus make faith look bad.

MarkGordon

Since you can write, I'm going to assume you can read, BlueDeacon. So, please read the title of the piece, as well as the first paragraph and the pull quote. Then read these lines: "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." She then goes on to characterize those "select, but vocal few" - including by context the Pope - as sexist, racist, etc. It is a direct and deliberate insult aimed at Pope Benedict XVI.

Palosaari

Actually, since she's talking in the general sense about what we as Christians do when we "feel" our faith has been hijacked, rather than it actually being so, this piece can equally be read as a condemnation of those condemning the Pope. Or more likely, not a condemnation at all, but rather a general exploration of what one does when you feel that others are speaking for your faith that don't represent. As a Quaker, where the third smallest Quaker group is Universalist but also tends to get the most press and has the biggest voice, this article hits home indeed.

BlueDeacon

I did, and the fact that you take what she said as a deliberate insult to the Pope speaks volumes -- and not about her. Your accusation is completely baseless, in part because she was quoting someone else.

nuclearferret

Dead on. Typical Catholic-bashing done by evangelicals whenever Church position doesn't fall in line with a humanist agenda.

BlueDeacon

And since when do evangelicals commune with humanists? Heck, in the 1980s in the evangelical community "humanism" was akin to atheism!

derelicte

I would disagree. Not all of us Evangelicals are like that. I might overall disagree with something the Pope says, but seriously, its been the Roman Church's teaching for a long time, so what's the big upset? Quite frankly I think its stupid for someone to get angry at the Pope for being Catholic. He's freaking, THE POPE! What do you expect!

derelicte

I'm posting here because I don't want to scroll down, this is not actually replying to Mark.

I don't know what it is with liberals comparing anyone and everyone theologically/politically to the right of them with to the Taliban.

And what the heck does the new calvinism have to do with anything? How does Mark Driscoll fit in with Falwell? Falwell would've had a heart attack hearing Driscoll preach or going to his church. Driscoll doesn't get involved in politics except for maybe saying something about abortion, which is pretty tame, basic stuff for an evangelical. He's not part of the Religious Right or the Religious Left.

As for the use of the term "fundamentalist", philosopher Alvin Plantinga has a useful discussion worth quoting at length:

"I fully realize that the dreaded f-word will be trotted out to stigmatize any model of this kind. Before responding, however, we must first look into the use of this term ‘fundamentalist’. On the most common contemporary academic use of the term, it is a term of abuse or disapprobation, rather like ’son of a bitch’, more exactly ’sonovabitch’, or perhaps still more exactly (at least according to those authorities who look to the Old West as normative on matters of pronunciation) ’sumbitch.’ When the term is used in this way, no definition, no definition of it is ordinarily given. (If you called someone a sumbitch, would you fell obligated first to define the term?) Still, there is a bit more to the meaning of ‘fundamentalist’ (in this widely current use); it isn’t simply a term of abuse. In addition to its emotive force, it does have some cognitive content, and ordinarily denotes relatively conservative theological views. That makes it more like ’stupid sumbitch’ (or maybe ‘fascist sumbitch’?) than ’sumbitch’ simpliciter. It isn’t exactly like that term either, however, because its cognitive content can expand and contract on demand; its content seems to depend on who is using it. In the mouths of certain liberal theologians, for example, it tends to denote any who accept traditional Christianity, including Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Barth; in the mouths of devout secularists like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, it tends to denote anyone who believes there is such a person as God. The explanation that the term has a certain indexical element: its cognitive content is given by the phrase ‘considerably to the right, theologically speaking, of me and my enlightened friends.’ The full meaning of the term, therefore (in this use), can be given by something like ’stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine.

It is therefore hard to take seriously the charge that the views I'm suggesting are fundamentalist; more exactly, it is hard to take it seriously as a charge. The alleged charge means only that these views are rather more conservative than those of the objector, together with the expression of a certain distaste for the views or those hold them. But how is that an objection to anything, and why should it warrant the contempt and contumely that goes with the term’” (Warranted Christian Belief, pp. 244-245).

SisterMarie

Huh?

derelicte

Eh, I referenced the quote to simply point out the uselessness of the epithet "fundamentalist", in the context of one of these debates, except as a way of saying you don't like someone's beliefs, or that they're more conservative than you, which, doesn't really say anything about whether or not they're wrong. Sorry if it was kinda off.

SisterMarie

Sorry if my remark sounds critical, but up to the time that I read it, I thought that I had a crude understanding of what a fundamentalist is.

derelicte

:) No worries. Plantinga's definition is a bit quirky, (on purpose), so I like pulling it out from time to time. Its also the reason I rarely use the word as a descriptive anymore.

________________________________

Eric77

Well done. Continue to pull it out!

Palosaari

Well, I think the use of the term "Fundamentalist" can easily be simply honoring people with the term they want to be called. I completely disagree with the Fundamentalists, but they prefer that term for themselves. Those that don't call themselves something different, like Evangelical, and they tend to think a bit differently than Fundamentalists as well.

I'm not sure how Mark Driscoll came into this conversation, but having been to his church, I'd say he quite definitely falls into the camp of the Religious Right.

derelicte

The original term "fundamentalist" came from a series of works called "the Fundamentals" early on in the 20th century, referring to the "fundamentals of the faith." There were 5 or so main doctrines like the divinity of Jesus, authority of Scripture, virgin birth, resurrection, trinity, etc. (basically the contents of the creeds) which were being defended against the newly-rising theological modernism. The term originally simply meant someone who held to these views. It then morphed into a derogatory epithet somewhere in the range of what Dr. Plantinga explained above. (Sorry if this is review for you, I don't mean to be condescending.)

The term fundamentalist is now applied so imprecisely that it is attached to Muslims and people from other faiths who certainly wouldn't hold to those doctrines, as a way of describing them as overly-conservative, radical, etc. My point is that simply labeling someone as a fundamentalist in this sense, which is the sense that seems to be in use here, is just kind of ad hominemish and not helpful for furthering discussion. Evangelicals take that term because it is historically older and has been more useful until lately for avoiding the ideological baggage that has attached itself to "fundamentalist."

As for Driscoll, I would agree that he is Theologically to the right or conservative, but as for being part of the Religious Right, I think you're wrong. Driscoll doesn't attach himself to political campaigns, endorse candidates, come out for or against the War, etc. You won't see him at a Republican rally or at any of those kinds of events. His church took a lot of heat for declining to participate in a "defense of the family", anti-gay marriage events or something like that a while back.

Palosaari

I guess I don't link the Religious Right to only political campaigns. But I have heard many really anti-gay comments from Mark (and not just against their actions, but real homophobia).

Yes, we agree on the history of Fundamentalism. I'm actually reading a rather interesting books at the moment, Saving Darwin, where he points out that the majority of the articles on origins submitted to the seminar on the Fundamentals of Faith were pro-evolution. And I agree, the term has morphed. It was initially a response to historical criticism, and asking what are the inherent fundamentals of our faith, that we *must* have, leaving aside all others. I think most self-proclaimed Fundamentalists today would not recognize such ideals, as there appears to be an over-reaching to declare an answer on everything and say you must believe everything to truly be a Christian, within their faith. But in it's original form, I might very well have been a Fundamentalist, in 1910.

I agree, the term is imprecise, as is the term Evangelical. I'm not even sure what the latter is anymore, except I don't think I am one. (I prefer Campolo's Red Letter Christian.) And I agree, it's totally inappropriate to apply it to Muslims. But I say that because the term has a place within the Christian religious tradition, and in Western culture, and it's anachronistic to apply it to Muslims. Islam is an inherently fundamentalistic faith. If you aren't fundamentalist- pursuing the fundamentals - you aren't a Muslim. Better to use terms like "Islamist", as Islamicists tend to do.