|
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Au revoir 
| | Flying to France today. Won't hit connectivity, probably, until late tomorrow, Paris time. Meanwhile, blog amongst yourselves. |
The upper and lower catholic case
| | I like to think I fit in more than one defiinition of catholic (with a lower case C): 1. Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive: "The 100-odd pages of formulas and constants are surely the most catholic to be found" (Scientific American). 2. Including or concerning all humankind; universal: "what was of catholic rather than national interest" (J.A. Froude). And also that I fit, in a practicing (if not a practical) way, in a third defiinition: Catholic — 1. Of or involving the Roman Catholic Church. 2. Of or relating to the universal Christian church. 3. Of or relating to the ancient undivided Christian church. 4. Of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church. |
| | Lot of ground covered there. |
| | I go to mass at a Catholic church every Sunday (that I'm home, at least) with my family. But I'm not a confirmed member. Not yet, anyway. My wife is. She comes from a large Irish Catholic family. Our son is, too (or will be, after he's confirmed). |
| | I grew up in a New Jersey neighborhood that was mostly Catholic, I'd guess. Lots of Irish and Italian families. My father was raised Catholic, although none of his family was still practicing by the time I got to know them, including his mostly-Irish mother. |
| | I've been around a lot of religions in my life. Studied them a great deal, too. I went to a Lutheran High School and a Quaker college. (To this day I find Quaker theology and practices most agreeable, for what that's worth.) |
| | I like the Catholic church, mostly for the good it does in the world. And there's plenty of that. I like its deep and formal spirituality. I like its embrace of our family. I like the Catholic communities we've belonged to, both in the Bay Area (where we used to live) and here in Santa Barbara — a Catholic (and a catholic) city founded in the 1700s. |
| | I also respect (even when I don't like) what William F. Buckley many years ago called the church's "dogmatic constancy." Fifteen years ago I heard a priest say that he had no doubt one day the church would open the priesthood to women and make celibacy for priests an opt-in choice. But, he added, not in the next fifty years. Or longer. Change in the church has a geological pace. Forces of stasis are stronger than forces of change. |
| | And yet, Andrew Sullivan adds, |
| | The response of some non-Catholics to those of us who are appalled by the selection of the new Pope goes something like this: What did you expect? The Church never changes. Having a new Pope who adheres to doctrine is not a big deal. Expecting big changes in a church whose main selling point is eternal verities is stupid. All these non-Catholics like their Catholic church authoritarian, unchanging, eternal. All I can say is: what would they have said about, say, John XXIII or even John Paul II? In the last forty years or so, the Church has officially revoked its previous anti-Semitism, it has changed the very structure and vernacular of the mass, it has doubled the number of saints in heaven, it has shifted its position on religious and political liberty, it has apologized for the Inquisition, it has declared that homosexuality is innate and without sin as a condition, it has ordained married priests, it has innovated a new policy against all forms of artificial birth control, and dramatically strengthened its teachings against the death penalty. |
| | There is also something big and sloppy and loose about the Catholic church as well. I remember when a young man complained to a priest (the same one as in the last paragraph) about the insensitivity of another priest, the first priest said "It's a big church. Find another priest." |
| | Some of the wisest men I've ever known are Catholic priests. Some of the wisest women I've ever known are Catholic, period. (Since one of them is my wife, I'm glad she's not a priest.) |
| | I love reading the struggles of committed Catholics with what Richard Rodriguez calls "the dry old men" of their church. That's why I love reading Richard, and Andrew Sullivan. Their catholicism is equally upper and lower case. And they're both terrific writers. |
| | Not speaking of which, how much will the name "Ratzinger" submerge beneath "Benedict XVI"? (Remember the given names of any previous pope? Me either, except for the one Tom Lehrer sang about — anybody have the lyrics? Giovanni Battista Montini, who lives in the Vaticalini...) I ask because Andrew is still calling his pope "Ratzinger." He adds, |
| | I was trying to explain last night to a non-Catholic just how dumb-struck many reformist Catholics are by the elevation of Ratzinger. And then I found a way to explain. This is the religious equivalent of having had four terms of George W. Bush only to find that his successor as president is Karl Rove. Get it now? |
| | The name helps. At least in English. A zinger of rats... |
| | By the way, was I the only one to observe the irony in reports of xtreme high-tech in a conclave that swore absolute silence and communicated decisions by smoke signals? |
| | [Later...] David Singer says it's a song by Patrick Sky. Hm. Wonder if Lehrer still wrote it. Pacifica radio stations played it way back in the early 70s, as a Lehrer bootleg, sort of. |
There are responses to this message:
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
