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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment