Leonardo Boff

Yipee - more good news from the Pope Francis I Institute of Sensible Catholicism....

Sgr Boff - former Franciscan, priest etc. has written about the environment and apparently (although Wikip doesn't say much about this) on liberation theology - on two occasions he has been silenced by the Church (Ratzy being the main culprit).  The second time, in 1992 when he was prevented from speaking at the Rio Environmental summit  Boff huffed off, and became a lay academic theologian.   Ergo he is, in my eyes, a good egg.

This morning I heard that Francis is planning a new encyclical on the environment and has called for Boff's books to read them in connection with the topic.  I find that incredibly encouraging.  On the same programme this morning, a man, whose name escapes me, was talking about F 1 - the man has written a book about him (journalistic quick and dirty no doubt, but interesting) and was talking about how F1 had been very very anti liberation theology and had denounced former professors of his for it - they were then dragged off and tortured by the Argentinian regime for 5 months.  He has subsequently seen the error of his ways, through his work with the poor, and has actually come to understand the need for liberation theology... hurrah!  I hope this is true and not just some journalistic over-simplification.   What the author also said was that F1 was very stubborn, and had had to learn his humility, work at it and develop it - it was not innate, but something he'd prayed for and become.  Very good.  Calling L Boff back into the bosom of the church, or at least putting him on the Papal reading list, is another sign of him changing his mind, and that is very welcome to.  To misquote Mae West "I like a guy who changes his mind...."

Keith O'Brien update

I'm wrong again - I said the Church didn't worry too much about libel, well, Cardinal Keith is taking legal advice over the allegations.  He's always seemed a pretty pugnacious character - one would expect no less of him.

The "rings true" factor about the allegations is the fact that they all seem to suggest a similar modus operandi.  You might think that night prayer, undertaken in a proper spirit, would be a calming moment to mark the end of the day, and to help one drift righteously off to sleep.  But apparently this wasn't true for the Keith.  I am sorry for him - there's something so desperate about it, a sort of last grasp (sic) - a last chance to squeeze some human warmth out of the day, or ward off the sleepless loneliness of night. One wonders whether occasionally he found priests who were more responsive to his advances, and didn't think they were "inappropriate". Perhaps he even formed one or two lasting relationships?   And then what?  He got old, his carnality declined, he felt self-disgust and went off and had a go at gays... not the first old person to turn moralist as their sexual desires become a mere memory.

 I wonder several things: firstly, how did these priests find each other out to make a joint denunciation?  Secondly, would they have done so if he had been less of a bloody hypocrite?  I assume that they chose to do it in time for his resignation (so it is reported) because they didn't wish to hear all the plaudits that would be heaped on him, knowing what they know.  If it had been me, I wouldn't have bothered to denounce him for whatever it was, if it wasn't for the fact that he went on to make such a career of pointing the finger at homosexuals and denouncing them in various ways.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien - and the rest of it...

I have always despaired at Cardinal Keith O'Brien's furious raging against homosexuality - it seemed to lack any compassion or understanding for fellow human beings.  He did not seem to see gay people as human beings, and seemed to want them excluded from every area of life... I occasionally wondered why he seemed so obsessed with the topic.  Now we understand, it is something he himself struggled with, what he hated was his own "sin" - but while we can feel compassion for him, at the same time one feels enormous fury.

"How very dare he!!??"

How was it, that, finding himself to have homosexual tendencies, he did not try to understand, to come to terms, to see that it was simply part of the way human beings are designed?  Why instead did he adopt this primitive, almost Victorian attitude? Perhaps it is just being 20 years older than my generation and a devout Catholic that he could not allow himself to admit things, he was young in the era of homosexuality being illegal, and he was young in a seminary.  I am sorry for him, but how could he then turn against people who shared his sexuality?  Surely it would have been better and wiser to leave well alone - to speak as little as possible on the topic if it troubled him?  Instead he opted for the "attack is the best form of defence" strategy - it's so typical it's almost laughable - like all the closeted gay men who wolf-whistle and comment on women's bodies.  Surely no one will suspect me?

I am really sad, because last week he actually said something very sensible - that the Pope should review clerical celibacy.  I am not sure that allowing married clergy will put an end to all the sexual scandals in the Church - but it might help a bit.  But I don't think clergy should marry to put an end to scandal - I think clergy should marry because it is widely recognised that a partner, a domestic situation, loving support, make people's lives better.  He said that he "hadn't had time" to think about marriage when he was a young priest - much too busy.   Ah, there he is, disingenuous to the last.

Meanwhile, back in the panting heart of Rome it appears that a group of cardinals have bound together into a faction, united by their homosexuality - and have been being blackmailed.  It would not surprise me to learn that there were gay cardinals, and that they hung around together (I noticed how the gay clergy used to flock together when I was on the Deanery synod in the CoE) would be almost inevitable.  When you have an organisation so tightly "celibate" that no women, apart from supposedly inviolate nuns, are admitted to their quarters, men visiting other men's rooms is totally routine - no one can raise an eyebrow, which would allow gay cardinals easy access to each other.   Then again, I don't suppose these cardinals were actually having relationships with each other.  That would be too good to be true: like the Greek armies of lovers advancing on the modern world - each as guilty and full of self-loathing as Keith O'Brien - each doing his utmost to retain the Catholic Church's commitment to staying in the Middle Ages - or at the very latest the Counter-Reformation!

I see now that the earnest desire "good Catholics" have to write about nice things - the lives of the saints, the generally wonderful things the church does in relieving suffering and poverty around the world, of educating, of giving healthcare, or writing about Catholic writers, and spirituality, and so on - these are just a way of "rising above" the really dreadful state the Church is in... but really, might it not be more effective if they banded together and used their considerable intellectual forces to examine the church in some detail.

For a long time there was a vague feeling that the child abuse scandals were "just a few bad apples" - but it appears now that child abuse is just one of the outworkings of the church's ludicrous attitude towards sexuality.  No one is suggesting promiscuity, or polymorphous perversity should become totally acceptable - but a bit more openness and understanding are likely to prevent quite so many "deeds of darkness".

Something old, something new

Firstly, despite the title of this blog, I am not a Pope, not called Joan and no longer a Catholic.   Some people lapse, but I actually converted out.  However, I've always contended that being brought up a Catholic is a bit like being Jewish - it's in your bloodline - in my case on the maternal side since St. Patrick converted Ireland, so I am culturally Catholic, but theologically decidedly Protestant.  I suppose I could classify myself as a "critical friend" of the Church - but I think most Catholics would find me way too critical and not nearly friendly enough!

I have a great deal of sympathy for the Church, and admiration for some of its clergy and a great wish for it to liberalise - which I believe it can do without compromising unduly with the modern world, if it took a little bit more notice of the Gospels, Jesus's words and the spirit within those words, and less notice of it's own fallible human "custom and practice" - or the Magisterium as it likes to call it.  I would personally abolish the Magisterium and start from scratch.   This is obviously a naive and idiotic view, it cannot be done, the Church is the Magisterium - but a quick straw poll around Catholics of my acquaintance reveals that many are not aware that it exists and what they have signed up to or been born into.

Is it possible for the Church to be reformed again as it was after Vatican II?  I wonder. Would I rather see it reformed or disappearing?  It seems idiotic to believe the Bride of Christ could disappear - but this Church seems less the Bride of Christ, more a rather officious usher or best man, trying to keep everyone in line, and not part of the love fest that the wedding is.

I started this blog today - February 24th 2013, because it seemed to me that I was writing way too much about the travails of the Catholic church on my other blog and because I might want to link this blog to other places.  I might even promote this one a little because I would like to discuss things with other Catholics - old and new, assenting and dissenting.

In the last few weeks I have read a lot of Catholic commentary (i.e. about 4 articles - a lot by my standard) all of which have shocked me at their illiberal views.  It is very different from my experience of Catholicism in my teens, and I am wondering whether I was brought up in an heretical parish!

The articles which precede this one are all articles I wrote in my other blog - and are dated with the date they were written, that deals with the "something old" aspect of the blog.   "Something new" will be, I hope, a little bit of discussion...

The Pope, Pharisees and Ossification

20th February 2013

I woke up in the middle of the night, from another dream in which I was organising a funeral.  I had to take the claws off the corpse.  The corpse was an old man - very important, some sort of leader (a Doge perhaps).  He had hands which ended in cylindrical claws which grew out of flesh covered with grey parrot down... at the base of the claws was a white band of dry skin? and I had to pull the claws out of this.  I had taken hold of the first claw when I was woken by a lamp falling down.  I had the impression that beneath the old claws were new gold claws.

When I woke up I began thinking furiously about the Catholic church.  At the time I had a very forceful, cogent argument about it that kept me awake for sometime.  The gist of it is that the Jewish religion had rather ossified by the time of Jesus - his attack on the Pharisees making yokes for other men's necks always strikes me as being full of relevance for religious people today.  To some extent the Jews had become ossified because of their opposition to the "modern world" - i.e the Graeco-Roman world that they were identifying themselves against.   Christianity, with its inclusion of gentiles moved out into that world and made converts.  Judaism stayed small although there have of course been many reforms in the faith since then - many of them necessitated by the Diaspora and the Sack of Jerusalem in 75 AD - which arguably, might not have happened if the Jews had been a bit less ossified. ("a stiff-necked people!"  God's words, not mine)

The Catholic church, by getting into the business of politics and ruling things, became a dominant world power for a while - it is now in decline in Europe and the "Western World".  It proclaims that it is some sort of unchanging force, and  many people believe this, because they are not aware of how it has changed, have very little knowledge of the church's history.  It has a mechanism which allows a pope to select cardinals, and he will select cardinals of his own stripe, ensuring a conservative legacy for decades - rather like the Supreme Court in the US - except that the US Supreme Court doesn't elect the president.

As a result of this conservatism - it is inevitably under critique from the World - the intelligent media, liberals, radicals and others are asking it to reform.  A lot of Catholics are saying "no, why?  We like it like this!" and after all, the media is hardly equivalent to Jesus.  So, it will continue on its path, it is vast, international but no longer really katholikos - it cannot be universal when it alienates so many.

I am beginning to wonder whether the church will eventually collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.  I am sure Benedict is a good man - on the evidence of what S says about him, nevertheless, questions about him remain: why did the sight of students rioting make him give up liberal theology?  (This is the explanation given in some quarters),  Isn't that an odd response?   I would like to believe that he tried his best to deal with the child abuse scandals - but I am still not clear about the line of command during the time of JP2. What was he up to all those years in the Propaganda Fide dept?  How did the growing weight of evidence about child abuse simply get ignored for such a long time?  Did he loyally keep the Pope out of it and try to battle on with the issue himself.  Was it possible he knew nothing either - that the fault was lower down the management structure?  

It seems to me impossible that neither of them knew anything.  If he didn't tell JP2, he is guilty, if he did, and JP2 did nothing, then he is guilty too.  If JP2 dictated the policy then he is culpable... avoiding scandal is a big motivating factor in organisations, but it is wrong to make it the most important issue.  Owning up and apologising and remorse and restoration are the way to go - I don't think Jesus would have a problem with that policy - why does the Church?

Whatever Benedict's role, JP2 was in charge, he must have known something and done nothing.  So why the hell have they beatified him?  Oh, I forgot, he single-handedly freed Poland from Communism.  It seems to me quite difficult to make the case that Benedict was a goodie without implying that JP2 was not... or vice versa.    Whichever way you look at it, one of them, at least must be culpable.  They can't both be in the right, and sadly, it is more likely that they cooked up a response between them. 

Maybe I really do hate the Catholic Church

This thought keeps recurring.  Due to people I know and love posting articles about the Church on Facebook, I have found myself reading a great deal of uncomfortable material. These articles and the comments they attract are causing me to wonder (a) just how typical are these people of intelligent Catholics? (b) is there any of the spirit of the Enlightenment in the church at all?

These reflections were sparked by an article in the Washington Post written by one Ashley E Maguire.  Here is the extract that annoyed me, and where I stopped...

"So while most Catholics worldwide heard the news of the pope stepping down and gave him a giant, global air-hug, a few dissenting groups used the news to get attention by banging their pans and loudly rejecting church teaching and disrespecting the head of their faith. It was unkind.

Mr. Kristof and friends are wringing their hands about what we call “irreformable, infallible moral teachings of the ordinary magisterium.”

He might want to look that up."

The writer then goes on to say that the magisterium is a jolly good thing and nothing's going to change. He rightly comments on some of the good things the church does - service to others, the poor, etc. but also says how it upholds marriage etc etc.  Also, he cites things about Catholics that are true of all followers of Christ - "be not conformed to the world" is fine, it's a good thing to try and live by, when the world is wrong - but conforming to an historical worldview that was wrong in its attitudes towards women, homosexuals etc. isn't quite so smart.  It is blatantly untrue to say that nothing has changed for 2,000 years - the Church has changed its mind a fair number of times since then.  Eunuchs for the Kingdom of God by Ute Ranke-Hellman is full of examples of this.   The magisterium is what ties the clergy into some of the more repressive teachings of the church, and effectively tries to deny Catholics freedom of conscience on many subjects.  

It may be because I was brought up in a parish run by a man whose early theological education was Protestant - but I always understood that examining your conscience was where you started... and nobody ever discussed what you did if your conscience came into conflict with the magisterium - because there was a strict "don't mention the magisterium" policy in the parish and in RE lessons at school.  If everyone in the church thinks the magisterium is jolly good and everything it says is right, then really I have nothing in common with them, and my Catholic sentiments are purely an accident of birth and a cultural residue.  A pity, since Catholicism's been in my DNA since St Patrick converted Ireland.   The writer of the article cited seems to have that "Catholics are special" attitude which I've heard more of recently.... I am no longer a Catholic, I was not special, and even though I didn't know about it, I would never have wished to obey the ordinary magisterium.  It's a pity, but there it is.

Dude, where's my church?

30th January 2013

This is the title of the endlessly mulled over internal rant I have about the modern Catholic church... of course there were always darkened incense filled corners, stuffed with statues and unquestioning obedience to the Magisterium - but I was lucky to grow up in one of the sunlit uplands of the Church where we were ecumenical, open and questioning - and more interested in the spirit of the Gospels than the 1,000 years or so of intellectual plaque that had built up on the Church's gnashers... I knew gay priests, ex-nuns, ex-priests, discalced Carmelites, theologians and all sorts of people - and no one ever mentioned the Magisterium....

If I were in the mood I could write a Joni-Mitchell parody about the glories of the post-Vatican 2 church... but it's too much like hard work - I met a very nice priest on my way back from the retreat - and of course there's the famous Marcus - who I haven't met, but basically - apart from the retreat - I haven't found my recent brushes with the church especially edifying.  I should ask Russell about this... perhaps Our Lady of Peace was too extreme and wild - David Woodard used to get tsk-tsk'd at by other priest - but it always seemed to me the right sort of Catholicism... I don't remember getting much of the "we are special because we're Catholics" sort of talk that I've heard in the last year.  I think one or two of the nuns at school might have tried it on, and been slapped on the wrists - after all, not everyone was Catholic.

I don't think it's my imagination - the Morgans agree about this, and John, the irritating school governor, used to say that the liberals had left, and all that remained were the nutters...(and the simple faithful I suppose).  I can't help wondering whether the wave of converts influenced this in some way. There was a wave of high-profile converts in the 80s & 90s, chiefly objecting to the CoE's ordination of women.  I wonder if there were larger numbers of low-profile converts as well - who all "went over to Rome" with great zeal to adopt it at all its most ludicrous levels.  What I think was happening at my church in the 60's and 70's and 80's was an attempt to live a gospel-based version of Catholicism - and strip away a great many of the extraneous ritual bits - now it seems that people just want to wrap themselves in the rituals and snuggle up in them.  I liked this quote by a guy called Roberto Riciardelli:

The practical function of religion is to tell us how to transform our mind and align it with God. Outside of this, religion profits little.

I can't help feeling that the Catholic church goes beyond this. It's funny because although I used to love the idea of Latin masses, now I find them rather grotesque - they are detached from the people, it becomes about the style not the content - you don't hear the words in the same way... depressing, even for someone who does understand the Latin.  I guess I've always been a more questioning person than was comfortable for the Church or myself - most people who ask too many questions usually end up reversing out quietly... or not so quietly.