We run "Islam, the Vatican & the New Christianity", talking about the changes in Christian demographics and the likelihood of more not less traditionalism in future. Later that same day, the traditionalist enforcer of doctrine Cardinal Ratzinger becomes Pope. Andrew Sullivan is beyond shocked, as you might imagine given Ratzinger's views on homosexuality. Meanwhile, the two words that went through my head were: Konstantin Chernenko. Until someone shows me a better interpretation, this email from one of Andrew Sullivan's readers strikes me as a very plausible account of the dynamics involved in the choice.
Meanwhile, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne points to some potentially defining words from Cardinal Ratzinger: "We are moving," he declared, toward "a dictatorship of relativism...that recognizes nothing definite and leaves only one's own ego and one's own desires as the final measure." Dionne thinks it could be an emerging battle cry for the Catholic Church, and he may be right. For a very human look at why that issue matters, I cannot recommend Belmont Club's "Nightfall" enough. Dalrymple's account of his experiences treatimg people in Britain's hospitals and prisons are utterly chilling, in a way you won't soon forget.
On a lighter note, the funniest post I've seen related to the selection is Ace of Spades HQ's very tongue-in-cheek "Top Ten Changes the New Pope Will Enact to Make Christianity More Acceptable to Liberals" (Hat Tip: reader Mike Daley).
Re the dynamic of how Ratzinger was elected....
Few people seem to have mentioned that JPII changed the rules for electing a Pope shortly before he died, in a way that significantly damaged the Church and guaranteed Pope Nazi Youth I the papacy.
As everyone knows, it requires a 2/3 vote of the cardinals to elect a new pope. This has helped to guarantee that the Church leadership would represent a true consensus of the Church.
But JPII, in his egomaniacal desperation to create a church in his own image (rather than a church in the image of Christ) changed the rules when he knew he was dying. JPII had been able to install a tremendous number of his clones as cardinals throughout the Church, and under "majority rules" Ratzinger would have been a lock as a result.
But there were still too many Cardinals that looked to Christ, and not JPII, for leadership and inspiration, and Ratzinger could not get 2/3 majority support.
So JPII changed the rules to state that if no 2/3 majority had been reached after 12 days, a simple majority would elect a pope.
Ratzinger doubtless got the papacy by making it clear that he and his supporters were far more interested in power than they were with the character of the Church, and were willing to wait the necessary 12 days to install Pope Nazi Youth I rather than find someone who could represent the Church as a whole.
Ratzinger is the Tom Delay of the Catholic Church --- far more interested in power and imposing his own will on people than on serving a higher power. We can expect to see more of the hatred and intolerance that is antithetical to the life and teachings of Christ spewed from Vatican City while Nazi Youth I occupies the throne of Peter.
p.lukasiak: your idealization of the Catholic church avoids the early theological disputes which wound up with Sts. Augustine vs Aquinas, and the teachings of Christ were the loser. Which is why the later church became the authority, not Christ's teachings.
Read 'Nightfall' and while it has some truths, the blame it would place on benevolent govt maybe is a little misplaced. Might as well blame the founding fathers for AIDS. Personal responsibility isn't a lost cause, and social security isn't the cause of wastrels and consumer debt.
Hopefully we can find better ways to combat human weakness than to pitch out the social contract, if anyone remembers that early 19th century term.
p.lukasiak: your idealization of the Catholic church avoids the early theological disputes which wound up with Sts. Augustine vs Aquinas, and the teachings of Christ were the loser. Which is why the later church became the authority, not Christ's teachings.
Ruth.... I'm aware of the history of the Church. I see the "modern Church" ungoing a crisis, because the historical church had a hammerlock on literacy, access to sacred texts, and far more political power than it does now. Centuries of encrusted Catholic dogma are being challenged by Catholics who read the bible, then look at Catholic dogma, and say "Hey, wait! Christ never said this! In fact, your dogma is completely inconsistent with how Christ lived, and what he had to say!"
I mean, where did Christ come anywhere close to condemning homosexuality as an "intrisic moral evil?" At least where it concerns a loving and committed relationship between two people of the same sex, such a declaration is completely incompatible with Christ's teachings of love, tolerance, and compassion.
The ascendancy of Ratzinger to the papacy is not about the Church as the representative of Christ on earth, but about a human bureaucracy desperately attempting to maintain its power. Ratzinger is the kind of "theologian" who brought us the Crusades, the Inquisition, and (in modern times) the cover-up of the sexual abuse of children by priests.
"Andrew Sullivan is beyond shocked"
I'm shocked that your shocked.
Sully has become about as predictable as Old Faithful.Pity,he used to have interesting views on issues,now he has one issue,one view.
If you substitute the names and offices, some of the shriller commentary on the election of Pope Benedict XVI looks pretty much the same as some of the shriller commentary last November in the wake of the presidential election.
All the proof I needed that the conclave made the right decision.
You say Chernenko I say Scalia.
p.lukasiak:
I do agree. It was your saying: "But JPII, in his egomaniacal desperation to create a church in his own image (rather than a church in the image of Christ)" that threw me off. From some of the reactions I've heard from the third world especially, this may contra-indicate a worst case for Catholicism. It may well make progressive elements more outright combative, as Christ's teachings (and enlightenment) is more definitively suppressed.
Which coincides with DD's point: when ignorance and ill temper are elevated to power, the humane and/or enlightened element really does become backed into the corner. And either gives up or fights back.
Why was p.lukasiak's slur on the Pope deleted? Let his stand by what he says or ban him, but let's not edit out the parts where people reveal their true selves.
Why the left hates the church.
And that stance in both NAZI Germany and the USSR sent those that opposed the leftist evil of the socialists to their deaths.
Those that hold to moral codes, refusing to join them in evil is why the left hates Christians that refuse to adopt CommuNazi morality, infanticide, Euthenasia, the mass murder of "Capitalist Jews" or "Enemies of the people"
Which is famous historically for how the jews was targeted as scapegoats early on.
The 6 million or so Jews are only a third of the at least 15+ Million non-combatents deliberatly exterminated, of the other 2/3 s, most of them was Christians.
Refusing to embrace evil is why they was killed, its why the left hates them.
Which of course, is what makes the reference to the hard liner Konstantin Chernenko so offensive, because morally, they are polar opposites.
Accepting evil little by little, moving any closer to the Communist butcher hardliner of the state that Butchered 62 Million of their own people, is not a virtue.
Refusing to give in to leftist evil, refusing to pull up your moral anchors so that you can drift twoard and with the left, refusing stedfastly to become like them to any degree, is no flaw.
Not all doctrine of the church equates to moral questions, and not all that are, are the large principles.
But history has recorded where you go when you pull up your moral anchors and join the leftist drift toward their culture of death.
Principles are immutable, or they dont exist at all, once violated, all is lost.
To those that contest this, I would ask, just where is the line of here and no further?
There is no such line, its ever twoard their socialist utopia and the all powerfull state.
The line they cross today is no more of a measure for the principle they will violate tomorrow than the evil they adopted as forced state doctrine decreed yesterday.
Be they Communists in slow motion, or Progressives in a hurry, the end and results are the same.
And those who will not follow, the left hates.
A slander and a smear on them both, example of inversion of morality by the accuser.
To the accuser, refusing to accept leftist evil is a problem, as historically depicted By Einstin above.
Because they refuse to accept leftist evil, the left shows you hatered, and intolerance, and in this case by projecting his hatred and intolerance opon them.
And here is the LIE of omission, not even an inference that it was involuntary, or that he deserted the nazis.
In NAZI Germany, if you wasnt a NAZI you often ended up dead.
Is the accuser, telling us that the man embraced NAZI doctrine or took part in any NAZI crimes ?
By the lie of ommision, he does, because his intent is a negative inference.
The historical record shows the opposite picture of this man.
How so typical of a leftist.
A few points, in no particular order:
1)Its amusing the apoplexy being displayed of late when a conservative president appointes conservative allies to his government, and even moreso when the Catholic Church picks a pope that is apparently 'too Catholic'. Strange and possibly disturbing that anyone should be shocked.
2)Anyone who is shocked by anything the Vatican does hasnt been paying attention. The hypocracy of the Vatican being the richest organization in the world, with its own bank, and a virtual city covered in gold is ripe for anyone bothering to actually read the bible anymore. Mathew 21:12? The first thing Jesus did when he came to Jerusalem was to enter to temple and chase out the money changers. There is enough rank hypocracy in Catholicism (and im catholic) to write a library of books, but I cant get over that one.
3)How did the cop from Quick Change get promoted to Pope? Lambino is King!
I have often wondered if our own Raymond is a 'bot' in the fashion of the Chomsy-bot, set loose on WoC for some unknown transgression.
Sorry Raymond. Couldn't resist posting after the thought entered my underpowered head.
And here is the LIE of omission, not even an inference that it was involuntary, or that he deserted the nazis.
Ratzinger "deserted" only when it became convenient to do so --- literally days before the falls of Berlin and the surrender of the German Government. In other words, there was nothing meritorious or corageous in his desertion --- the entire German military machine was in disarray. Ratzinger fought for the Nazis until it became obvious they had lost --- a smart move for an amoral opportunists who didn't want to spend time in a POW camp.
The Church is trying to whitewash Ratzinger's Nazi past, but there is absolutely nothing in his biography that suggests that Ratzinger was anything but a full-fledged Nazi. And although some German Catholics were opposed to Hitler, the Church itself remained supportive of him, and "Hitler's Pope" (Pius XII) was far more concerned with maintaining his own power than dealing with the threat to civilization that Hitler represented.
One note on the resistance of Christians to Nazism....
That resistance did exist in the early days of Hitler's reign from both "Protestants" and "Catholics". But Hitler dealt with such dissent in the same ways that he dealt with dissent in the Universities and the Press --- arrests and suppression. By the time Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth in 1941, the Christian Churches of Germany had been purged of those who were openly critical of Hitler, and there is no reason to suspect that Ratzinger was anything other than a "loyal" German Catholic Nazi.
(and as an aside, does anyone have the original of the Einstein quote? There are two different versions of the quote.....one which cites the "Catholic" church, and one which cites the "Christian" church. "
Why the left hates the church.
in the recent thread about the quality of comments, I cited this as an example of the kind of crap that should be banned. Raymond doesn't know jack-sh*t about liberals and what they think, and his projection of his own stupidity and illogic onto liberals does not serve any useful purpose.
From some of the reactions I've heard from the third world especially, this may contra-indicate a worst case for Catholicism. It may well make progressive elements more outright combative, as Christ's teachings (and enlightenment) is more definitively suppressed.
The reaction from the third world is probably mixed .... the Latin American Church, which tends to be less concerned with Church dogma and more concerned with the message of Christ, is probably not going to react well. But the African Church is far more conservative (although one wonders what would happen if Ratzinger decided to attack the presence of African apostacy on the issue of married priests and celibacy with the same vigor that he has enforced church dogma on the far less critical issues of homosexuality. It was easy for Ratzinger to spread hate toward homosexuality ('intrinsic moral evil') in the church; but as an opportunist Ratzinger is likely to find ways to ignore the "problem" in the African Church. )
Lurker
No freedomist example of the Postmodern Generator that I am aware of.
Besides, fact and data, substance, dont lend itself to the type of nonsense, that was accepted by the way, as an achedamic paper untill they heard the laughter from those that fooled them.
And of course, his opposition to abortion and Euthenasia is the opposite of the nazis.
During WWII, Stalin also resurected a fake communist church staffed with his stooges, during the "great patriotic war"
Even Planned parenthood has NAZI roots, the founder part of the Eugenics movement and she, Margeret Sanger, saw it as a tool to control the population of blacks.
Other than total lack of evidence that he was either a nazi or Worshiped Horst Wessel
Again, its a smear, not to mention his lifes work in the church is a polar opposite of nazi doctrines. that are inherrent in the left.
Citing the self-serving account of a former Nazi isn't exactly compelling evidence, Raymond.
Even Planned parenthood has NAZI roots, the founder part of the Eugenics movement and she, Margeret Sanger, saw it as a tool to control the population of blacks.
once again, a wingnut repeats the thoroughly debunked lie about Margaret Sanger.
At the same time, these wingnuts never mention the fact that "conservatives" of all stripes from Michele Malkin to David Brooks are perfectly happy using the work (and, in Malkin's case, contributing to) of modern day Eugenicists affilliated with White Power organizations....
and conveniently forget that it was the LEFT that opposed Hitler in the United States and throughout Europe in the early 30's --- while the right-wing was fully supportive of Hilter.
Again, its a smear, not to mention his lifes work in the church is a polar opposite of nazi doctrines. that are inherrent in the left.
polar opposite? Hardly. Indeed, Ratzinger's pronouncements on homosexuality mimic those of the Third Reich....
Ruth, it's rather misleading to refer to "early theological disputes which wound up with Sts. Augustine vs Aquinas". Augustine wrote in the 4th century, Aquinas in the 13th - 900 years later. Agustine is one of the Fathers of the Church, Aquinas a late (and perhaps the most influential) medieval theologian of the scholastic school.
Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas agree on far more than they disagree on, if one looks at their starting principles and their conclusions and not on the mode of logical argument. Both affirm the centrality of revelation and both critique society from that perspective. Actually, their analysis of how language works to get at / fail to get at underlying reality is pretty similar too.
Just a side note to this thread, but if we're going to go citing theologians in order to claim they've distorted Christ's teachings, it helps to begin by not distorting theirs.
Well if Ratzinger isnt a good choice for Pope maybe he can pick up Robert Byrds seat in the Senate.
The sooner Benedict XVI rolls up his sleeves and tosses Andrew Sullivan, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, et al, out the front door of every Catholic church in America, the sooner the Catholic church will experience growth and prosperity again.
Yikes.
Talk about throwing the first rock. And since when is it the Pope's job to discover "truest, deepest humanity"? I'm not Catholic, but I don't think that's how it's written down in the book, unless the book was written by Teilhard de Chardin with an introduction by Alan Watts.
As for "anti-democratic", I'm afraid some American Catholics are in for a dose of Future Shock. If the Church was a democracy, they'd be excommunicated and anathematized so fast it would knock the wind out of them. If anything, John Paul II protected them from that. African, Asian, and Latin American Catholics, who are rising in their influence, might not be so humble and merciful.
I don't see that any of the accusations re: Ratzinger and the Nazis are supported - and this from someone whose view of the Catholic Church's activities around WW2 is a fair bit darker than most people's. P, the explicit point is that while he was drafted into the Hitler Youth like everyone else, he was NOT a Nazi - which was a specific state requiring party membership, and far more dispositive re: one's views or moral caliber.
Stuff like that doesn't help your credibility around here. You can dislike the man without going off the deep end. Try.
Re: Jesus on homosexulality... if he didn't list it explicitly as some kind of exception, the orthodox Jewish Law that he claimed not to come to alter is pretty clear on the subject.
Judaism is now divided on homosexuality, with Reform (#1 in North America, and growing fast internationally) willing to marry gay couples and let homosexuals serve as Rabbis, Conservative Judaism accepting gay congregants without issue but not for marriage or the Rabbinate, and Orthodox Judaism (growing fast as well due to birthrates) saying "the Law is the law". Reform cites other teachings and declared the older teachings on homosexuality of cultural rather than divine origin. So we supplanted them. This still doesn't go down well with the Orthodox, who ask where the process stops on the long road to moral relativism & fashion - a deep and worthy question.
What my Reform denomination couldn't do when we addressed the subject, is pretend that these teachings didn't exist. Must be nice. Folks, are you TRYING to make Ace of Spades HQ's list even funnier?
The long term bottom line is that what Andrew wants, while it agrees with my views, would in fact require the Church to renounce not only its historic teachings, but yes some of the core teachings that Jesus enjoined them to uphold. Now, that enjoinment is indirect and not specific to the issue, which gives the Church wiggle room. But the issue goes theologically deeper than, say, priests being enjoined not to marry. And the trends we covered concerning the worldwide composition of Christianity do not augur well for Andrew's cause (vid. the Anglican schism over these issues).
If you're on the left, I guess you can rationalize it by noting that the cultural practices in the Third world aren't better or worse, just different. I guess that will be comforting.
Personally, I see a very mixed blessing. Moral relativism might be the focus of sustained attack (desperately needed). On the other hand, a consequence of the correlation of forces involved may be that some of our hard-won understandings and teachings that I consider to be more spiritually advanced are sidelined along the way.
In a very long view, I see the loss as something that's both fixable over time and containable in many places thanks to the separation of Church and State (which, note, =/= the abolition of G-d from the public square). Moral relativism/neutrality, on the other hand, is a civilization destroyer. Which means if I'm forced to choose rather than make up my own choice, I have to give one cheer for the Ratzingers of the world. An option that gave the best of both worlds is possible, of course... but is it on the table? Not that I can see, at least so far.
Feel free to point to concrete examples of other options if i'm wrong, of course. I'd be cheered to see them.
So, p.l. and Ruth - this isn't a coup (though the voting rules point has validity). This is a long-term trend. You could change the voting rules back, and it would still be a long-term trend. Andrew will probably have to shop for a friendly (schismatic) Western Christian church in the end, which will have good (religious competition is good) and bad (if you thought the Culture Wars were holy wars now, just wait) effects.
RB:
right, and I should have said Schools of Augustine and Aquinas. Aquinas: "It is peculiar to man that he becomes aware of the good and freely directs himself to it. Of course man is not free to choose the good — any choice is a choice of the good. As to what is really as opposed to only apparently his good, he is not free to make that what it is. He is free to direct himself or not to his true end, however." probably the focus of his relation to the church.
JK:
Sad to say, you may well be right that the present pontiff represents a long term trend. In that case the lights will continue to go out, and the really good facets of the Catholic church will be lost.
Mark Buehner:
Socialists are not necessarily sympathisers with either nazi or communist totalitarianism.
In the UK the Labour Party, an avowedly socialist party, was part of the coalition during WW2. The post-war Labour government was a founder member of the NATO alliance directed against the USSR.
Tony Blair, an avowed Christian, said of his politics :
" I am a socialist not through reading a textbook that has caught my intellectual fancy, nor through unthinking tradition, but because I believe that, at its best, socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral. It stands for cooperation, not confrontation; for fellowship, not fear. It stands for equality".
The left liked Hitler just fine, untill he invaded the USSR. and their praise of the USSR is legion in the historical record. and not just the USSR, the 2nd place holder in crimes against humanity, Mao, was praised, and called an "Agrarian Reformer" by those who overlooked the 27 Million his rule starved to death. and since, not a leftist butcher the left dont make excuses for.
From the left we hear praise about Castro's
"Health Care" and the doctors he sends abroad (while holding their family members under death threat at home) Even Vietnam, you dont hear the left mention that the Vietmihn had a 5% extermination quota of death, just like stalin.
Now the left wants to abandon their praise for the leftist butchers of the past, but notice they still embrace the leftist butchers of the present.
Nope, I know why the pope is being attacked without delay, not being a Catholic (or part of any other organised faith for that matter) i dont have a stake in it. But i know why he is being attacked.
The same reason the cultural marxist have always attacked, to haul up the moral anchors, set us adrift twoard their death camps, and the all powerfull state.
The western ideas of Liberty, is born out of moral values not some utilitarian discusion about who has the best economic model (even tho we win that argument)
Leftism is enforced at the point of a gun of a govt killer. it dont work without the all powerfull state, to impose it upon the unwilling.
be they progressives in a hurry or the incrimental communists, both take you to the same place, where the rights of the individual is denied, where even the right to your own life is a utilitarian question decided at the pleasure of the state.
Immutable moral principles that hold up mans right to his own life in freedom are a roadbock to marxist slavery. and anyone that will not let go of them the left hates.
Btw Joe, how far, just how far are they really, from the next gneration doing away with the elderly because they want to be rid of the burden of supporting them?
In the USSR, where the progressives in a hurry forced marched the people to the same place the incrimental communist are going, overnight. They replaced incentive via compensation with labor at the point of a gun. killing a certain percentage of the useless feeders every year is a good motivator to make your quota.
With the moral values of Britain hollowed out, and the next generation watches their grandparents, then their parents put to death with involuntary euthenasia, all with the same evil propaganda of how humane and peacfull a death it is,
Who is there left with the moral ability to even know that its wrong, and what would happen to the person who objected too strongly?
The USSR murdered 62 million of their own people, but every year the systematic murder declined in numbers. once your population becomes accustomed to their chains, you dont have to kill as many to get the same effect.
That essay shows another thing ive said here already in the past, how impossible leftist decline is to reverse.
Total collapse is the only thing that can do it.
It can take 400 years or more to rebuild a civilisation, as they head down into dark while spewing hate at our unwillingness to follow them, they might keep in mind that the left are making enough progress here there might not be enough people left who gives a damn about their self made hell on earth to care what happens to them.
"Which of course, is what makes the reference to the hard liner Konstantin Chernenko so offensive, because morally, they are polar opposites."
I thought the reference to Chernenko was as short term leader picked to serve until the power struggle between conservatives and reformers was settled.
RE: #28... Raymond still hasn't answered Farren's point in any meaningful way. It is possible to be a socialist and anti-totalitarian - which is self-evidently true given the great debt the anti-totalitarian cause has owed to many avowed leftists.
Raymond, "the left" is more complex than you give it credit for. Just as "the right" is more complex than DailyKos gives it credit for. You can't ever deal effectively with somethng you don't really understand in the first place.
Until you figure this out, people will continue to laugh at you because your ideology doesn't fit with their experienced and observed reality - but you insist on its fit anyway. Why? Because the constellation of ideas in your head says so.
Isn't that what the Marxists and other Politicists do? Why, yes, it is. Lose the habit.
Re: #30... Alan has the Chernenko analogy sort of right.
It's about a short-term leader from an old guard, picked to maintain stability until time puts a new wave (generational, geographical, whatever) more clearly at the helm, and until accompanying doctrinal questions about surviving and thriving in a changed world are settled.
It's a neutral pattern of human politics, expressed with a face and name. "Konstantin Cherenko in Moscow" is like saying "Darmok and Jilad at Tenagra" (Temba! his eyes open!). There is no guarantee that the new guard will be reformers as you or I understand the term.
No, his reference was that he was a hard liner, just like the current pope. something that is leaving a bad taste in my mouth to repeat, because doing so soils the reputation of one man by an unfair compare to the other.
As if being an absolutist is somehow wrong outside of the doctrine or principle you are holding to.
As if true virtue is to accept evil by half.
Such is the offensive garbage that afflicts our society, something far more that touched upon by the Nightfall essay.
Poisoned by leftist toxin, the only evil society will be able to see, is those that dare make others unconfortable by refusing to accept the bebauchery perversions and amoral behavior of others that the ever so fewer responsible left among them are forced to pay for, on pain of death.
And even with 40% of the kids and rising born as wards of the state, remember the population is still declining, because those who are responsible must fund kids other than their own, they cannot afford the same for themselves, indeed the very structure of the family that remains is being torn apart.
But let us remember every leftist state attacks the family, from those that abolished it outright like the red Khimers, to the soviets, even castros cuba, who has his own compulsory hitler youth, called the pioneers.
And with the family goes civilation, and it wont be rebuilt overnight.
And look at history, the path from decandence and euthenasia to totaliarianism is short. Hitler had chosen his new parties name NASDAP and had about 3000 members in 1920. what was left of the Weimar republic by 1938 ?
All it took was a new generation with all the old inhibitions cored out of them, just like Britain has today, and in the whole of socialist Europe, most places are either no better or worse.
The beginning of the end for britain was when their guns were confiscated, other eurostates are further along. with the weak no longer able to defend themselves, the people will demand dicatorship by the all powerfull state for protection.
Their rulers will be just as debauched as those the people are demanding protection against.
They will get their demanded dictatorship, but they are not going to like the manner of the "protection"
I can't see how mainstream Christianity can survive in the west without changing their opinion on homosexuality. (About womensright they are sufficiantly vague)
Moral relativism/neutrality is in my opinion a way to reconcile the "conservative" view about womens right and gays with the "liberal" view. But the liberal view has clearly won out so i expect that moral relativisme will die out with the people who were raised when the "conservative" view was the norm
No it isnt, the only difference between progressives in a hurry or the incrimental communists is the speed they take you there.
The destination is the same, both depend on the all powerfull state and both deny the rights of the individual.
Both are the enemy of the Classical Liberalism that threw off rule by kings to replace it with the idea of a limited goverment, whos only authority over its own people by principle, is to prevent harm to one another, a protector of the rights and property from predations.
Some leftist think they can destroy everything and still be free, they are wrong, they think you can have the govt enforce wealth redistribution, and still have freedom, they are wrong. some think we can kill infants without devolving into euthenasia and tortured definitions of personhood added with the socialist view of useless feeders, and retain the rights of the person to his own life. they are wrong.
Those that think they can abolish everything that makes a free society function and still have a free society, are wrong.
Those who surrender all responsibility to the government, end up in the same place as those that had that taken from them by force.
Either way you end up a slave.
Im saying they are distintions without a difference.
Theodore Dalrymple is only touching this with his essay, its a keyhole view, to something larger.
We have gone from indoor shooting ranges in the schools without problems, to school shootings as one of our problems with 8 year olds handcuffed for drawing stick figures.
Im saying leftism is the path to totalitarianism, they are inseperable, the only difference is the speed in which it arrives.
The problem with leftism is it requires the all powerfull state, its doctrines are enforced at the point of a gun. and its the all powerfull state that is the danger.
Once you grant to goverment the power to enforce socialism you have created the all powerfull state, and the accepted doctrines that state power is the agent to deal with "problems" and your freedom is gone.
Debauched wards of the state who have given up all their freedoms for protection from their fellow debauched, and demanding support for his decadent life by a system of cannibal economics is not a decription of a free man.
He is a slave.
Socialism isnt the only creator of the all powerfull state, from the socialist to the kings to the Tsars Kisers and Ceasar, the evil of the all powerfull state has been an almost constant bane to man.
The founders of America had a better idea, and with the extension of those rights of the individual to all the princple is vindicated.
And here comes the left creating the all powerfull state again, and they think they can avoid the inherent evil of the all powerfull state, and the arrogance and decandence of the civilisation and rulers that comes with it. and the auto decent into totalitariansm that comes with that.
They are wrong.
Its good for the USA that the eurosocialists are so far ahead of us, we will be able to watch their attempt at the "third way" from afar.
The "Third Way" that Hitler had already tried, will be no better than the last way tried by lenin mao, and polpot. they think it will turn out different, this time.
They are wrong.
Progressives in a hurry, or communism is slow motion, in the end, distinctions, without a difference.
Right - now that I've addressed any perceived insult toward my Catholic friends, and taken Raymond to task, it's time to do something unusual...
It's time to point out where Raymond has a good point. A few of them, actually.
Raymond's tendency to look at a continuum and see it as all the same thing is his bane, his white whale. With that said, there is a significant strain of the left that IS totalitarian, and always has been. Raymond's description in #28 of its deep philosophical disjunction with Marxism is flawed in places, but it's also true in many places. In many cases, he isn't saying anything that hasn't been pointed out (correctly) by Hayek and other luminaries - or validated by humanity's experiences of Marxism and other Politicist ideologies.
P.L. vilifies Cardinal Ratinger's motives for stamping out "Liberation Theology" on his Pope's orders, on the grounds that Marxism is truer to what Jesus taught. If he wants to trade in motives, I can easily respond that "Liberation Theology" was simply a sell-out of the faithful as slaves to a Marxist state that had no place for God, but plenty of opportunities for ideologically correct priests to serve as its functionaries. See under "bargain, Faustian" - the main difference being that Faust was on the hook for the price himself, rather than designating the less fortunate for that role. If you want to stay biblical, the analogy is located under "Pharaoh, priestly minion of..."
A Pope who had lived under the results of that worldview and seen it firsthand was uniquely qualified, and entirely correct, to pass judgment on it and do what he did.
Which brings us to a key lesson.
If the last century has taught us anything, it taught us that while G-d was indeed a poor substitute for the State, the State and popular culture are even worse substitutes for G-d.
Those truths stare out at us on both sides of the religious/secular divide, here at the beginning of the 21st century.
John-Paul lived to see that new century dawn, and issued homilies decrying many aspects of modern capitalist society. But his criticism stems from a place that was most definitely not Marxist.
Which brings us back to Raymond again, in #28 & #29.
When you strip away the chaff, in addition to his largely-valid critique of Marxism, Raymond is also thrashing toward an important contrast: the divergence between a philosophy that stresses (a) the intrinsic worth of each individual life, and (b) the corresponding responsibility of each individual, vs. one that (a) speaks of justice in solely material and utilitarian terms and (b) sees individuals whose choices are largely determined by outside forces and the needs of society (sometimes euphemized as "the community," which in practice means the government).
Bill Whittle saw the essence of America's cultural divide as "Reponsibility". He was half right. Stem cells, Schiavo, et. al. highlight a second divide, one that's more problematic because it does not cleave as clearly along political boundaries. "Culture of Life" is a shorthand for one side of it that John-Paul II stamped into modern discourse... and coming advances in biotechnology, plus a rapidly aging population and a closely-linked fiscal crisis, are going to bring this cleavage more and more to center stage in the years ahead.
In the Netherlands, where euthanasia is legal, there are cases of elderly people being pressured by their families to take that out for reasons of money or convenience. When you think about, of course there would be. Think of the folks you know (not just your friends, but people you've known personally). Are some of them rat bastards enough to potentially do something like that? My bet is that your answer comes back at least as a "maybe."
Is this widespread? Not at the moment, no. Not panic time yet. Still, some policy discussions re: euthanasia have involved the cost-savings aspect as an advantage. We all know that people will do odd things under pressure, and the coming fiscal/aging population crisis will apply plenty of it to governments of all stripes. Could euthanasia really become a fashionable norm? I mean, governments wouldn't push anything on their population that was bad for them but good for the government... right?
So yeah, in a world where the (essentially spiritual and unprovable) intrinsic value of life is not a factor or rests on nothing, Raymond's concern about routine euthanasia for reasons of convenience is not wholly misplaced. Nor, as you can see from my reproduction of Nigerian Cardinal Arinze's recent speech, is it unique to Raymond - or John-Paul - or Pope Benedict XVI.
Buckle up, kiddies. The ride is about to get interesting.
Raymond,
The arguments about Marxism and socialism became relevant to this thread, and they remained in the realm of ideas rather than personal slurs, and you did tie in Dalrymple's point about relativism.
I'm going to ask you to let that stand as your argument on the subject of socialism vs. other systems, supplemented by the points I've just made in #36, so we can keep whatever's left of this thread more closely on track re: the Church.
If your future posts on this subject don't deal directly with trends in Christianity and/or Catholocism's future, I'm asking you to accept that you've said your piece and let it rest.
And it seems clear to me that the likes of AL Marc knows im not talking about them, even as threaded in there is stern caution to take notice and beware of those that find common cause with them, for reasons that should make their blood run cold. and should be reason to pause, and reflect.
Joe, really frames well what im getting at, what im warning about, most welcome.
A Pope who had lived under the results of that worldview and seen it firsthand was uniquely qualified, and entirely correct, to pass judgment on it and do what he did.
I must disagree. To suggest that the Soviet Union was not a perversion of Marxism, and that the Soviet experience was an historical inevitability in all states that are rooted in Marxist ideology, is simply and profoundly ignorant of history. One need only look to various nations in Europe to see that Marxism does not inevitably result in Soviet style corruption. One can no more judge Marxism based on the Soviet experience than one can judge the Catholicism based on the Inquisitions and the Crusades. (Nor can one evaluate Marxism in Latin America based on experiences in places like Cuba and Nicaragua --- America's efforts to undermine these nations, including its support of terrorist attacks, resulted in Marxist regimes which reacted the same as any other government regardless of ideology does when it is threatened from outside.)
The tragedy of JP2 is that he failed to recognize that his efforts in Poland, and the efforts of liberation theologists in Latin America, were just two sides of the same coin which had a legitimate theological basis in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Instead of seeking Universal truths, he superimposed his own subjective truth on Latin American clergy, contributing greatly to the continuation of suffering and oppression of millions of poor Latin American Catholics (and non-Catholics) in his efforts to impose political orthodoxy on the Latin American Church.
to p.lukasiak
you are ignorant and at best, bear false witness of the new pope thru your own desecration of his character.
simply put, you are a dick.... you have no clue and I just hope you are not a christian, I sincerely hope so cuz yoru actioins and words are proof of the spirit of fallen beastly man in you
grow up
nuff said
" yoru actioins and words are proof of the spirit of fallen beastly man in you"
And your actions and words are proof of ....?
PL made a good point. Isn't there some way you can deal with that, instead of this kind of scurrility?
"Sad to say, you may well be right that the present pontiff represents a long term trend. In that case the lights will continue to go out, and the really good facets of the Catholic church will be lost."
Such as?
It's like one fire truck is putting out the fire on the first floor, and instead of using your truck to join in and put out the fire on the second (maybe you're right and the fire is worse there), you turn your hose on the other truck. Why?
Good facets of this Pope:
From his Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and the World:
"Through this same spousal perspective, the ancient Genesis narrative allows us to understand how woman, in her deepest and original being, exists “for the other” (cf. 1 Cor 11:9): this is a statement which, far from any sense of alienation, expresses a fundamental aspect of the similarity with the Triune God, whose Persons, with the coming of Christ, are revealed as being in a communion of love, each for the others. “In the ‘unity of the two', man and woman are called from the beginning not only to exist ‘side by side' or ‘together', but they are also called to exist mutually ‘one for the other'... The text of Genesis 2:18-25 shows that marriage is the first and, in a sense, the fundamental dimension of this call. But it is not the only one. The whole of human history unfolds within the context of this call. In this history, on the basis of the principle of mutually being ‘for' the other in interpersonal ‘communion', there develops in humanity itself, in accordance with God's will, the integration of what is ‘masculine' and what is ‘feminine'”.9"
Here is a doctrine of true equality, pointing out the similarities between woman and God, and how to be human is to be "for the other". This is bad how?
He goes on:
"Although motherhood is a key element of women's identity, this does not mean that women should be considered from the sole perspective of physical procreation. In this area, there can be serious distortions, which extol biological fecundity in purely quantitative terms and are often accompanied by dangerous disrespect for women. The existence of the Christian vocation of virginity, radical with regard to both the Old Testament tradition and the demands made by many societies, is of the greatest importance in this regard.17 Virginity refutes any attempt to enclose women in mere biological destiny."
A real sexist, this guy.
From this article:
http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/comment/article.php?id=262
Cardinal Ratzinger focused on teaching the importance of convictions, rather than force. On November 6, 1992, at the ceremony where Ratzinger was inducted into the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences of the Institute of France, he explained that a free society can only subsist where people share basic moral convictions and high moral standards. He further argued that these convictions need not be “imposed or even arbitrarily defined by external coercion.”
"Ratzinger found part of the answer in the work of Tocqueville. “Democracy in America has always made a strong impression on me,” the cardinal said. He added that to make possible, “an order of liberties in freedom lived in community, the great political thinker [Tocqueville] saw as an essential condition the fact that a basic moral conviction was alive in America, one which, nourished by Protestant Christianity, supplied the foundations for institutions and democratic mechanisms.”
Was has De Tocqueville to do with Torquemada?
"When we were on vacation, a cat, a little kitten, would come by, and he'd be giddy, almost giggling with joy," she said." Cats love him; they always go to him straight away. And he loves them back."
Cutest. Pope. Ever.
Catholicism as a force in the West has continued its long side downward. The choice of the head lawyer to an institutions whose product is to bring faith to mankind is the final jumping of the shark. An institution that has decided to market its product as an unvariable product is a result of the same belief that prevented the church from recognizing the fact Galileo presented to them, i.e. the earth revolves around the sun. This belief is, in spite of their belief god created the world et al, if they could not control the knowledge of god's work no one could until they were ready. This continues today in their inablity to deal with the knowledge that science has given all of us. Instead of working with it they reject it calling it relativism.
The knowledge of science as it effects procreation, birth, biological life and death is denied. Belief in their interpetation of science is all that matters. There is no faith that the people can handle the knowledge god has presented to us. It rejects the idea that knowledge, let alone knowledge of god's will, is cumulative and therefore relative to your cumulative experience.
Like all institutions threatened by uncontrolled flow of information hence real knowledge they drop into the bunker. Whom can forget the decrying of the press by this cardinal when the church was exposed as not only denying there was a problem with pedaphile priests but allowing a bishop to cycle them in their community to prey on the weakest members of their faith, their CHILDREN? Whom can forget when exposed they brought the guilty party into the bossom of the churh, Rome and rewarded him with a prestigious position. This is what is meant by the "dictatorship of relativism...ones own desire as the final measure."
#44 Robert M
"the same belief that prevented the church from recognizing the fact Galileo presented to them, i.e. the earth revolves around the sun."
Back then it wasn't a proven fact at all. It was only proven a few hundred years later, via stellar parallax if I'm not mistaken.
"This continues today in their inablity to deal with the knowledge that science has given all of us. Instead of working with it they reject it calling it relativism."
What are you talking about? What does science have to do with moral relativism?
"The knowledge of science as it effects procreation, birth, biological life and death is denied."
Not at all. For instance, the methods accepted by the Church for the regulation of the conception of children are very much based on a scientific knowledge of procreation, birth, and biological life.
"It rejects the idea that knowledge, let alone knowledge of god's will, is cumulative and therefore relative to your cumulative experience."
Partly true and partly false. God's public revelation to mankind is complete. However, we still have theologians who are at work today. The development of doctrine is based on what we have learned throughout history, but it will never contradict the Tradition passed down to us from Christ and the Apostles.
yeah well the new pope i think is a bit different from pope jogn paul but also change is good!
Looks like we have some comment spam. I don't have admin access to this post at the moment, so we'll need to wait for Joe or Marc to come delete it. Sorry, readers!
Robin, we've been doing some anti-spam upgrading on the back end, and it broke some of our traditional systems.
But that's fixed now, and you now have the all-posts, all-comments powers to go with your new Winds Deadwood Marshal badge!
Joe, that sounds like a power that should be granted to anyone named "Robin".