I know that some of the things said here were a bit incendiary but I quote them in the course of the exchange in the spirit of full reportage, to lay out the issues fully:
HURLBURJ, a Democratic Underground website user, quotes my posting, pasted from the one here below, and responds:
To start off, I am an agnostic of Jewish background/traditions of
authentic progressive political leanings. So first off, one might wonder
what standing I have to say ANYTHING. Well, in the mutuality of social
existence, I might SAY something about the elections in the Ukraine, the
conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, the Varela project in
Cuba, or Hindu nationalism in India, just as they have every reason and
right to protest my government's neocolonial venture in Iraq. Of course,
as in those issues, I have opinion, but my standing is different from a
Ukrainian or a Cuban or a national of India.
Progressives around the world, especially but not only progressive
Catholics, need to make their voices heard. For a quarter of a century,
the Catholic Church has been led by its right wing, with the pope
appointing many of the Cardinals who will select his successor, with a
built in massive trend toward the right. Many are concerned about issues
like the ordination of women or a more advanced view about homosexuality
and such. My main concern is for a Church that does not build a
self-perpetuating rightward trend at a time when it is, after all, the
largest private civil institution in the world. The question is what
forces in the Church REALISTICALLY are the most progressive that could
predominate?
The squeaky wheel gets the grease and the rightwing in the US as in the
Church is very good at squeaking, and SQEAKING STRATEGICALLY.
Progressives tend to spin wheels on issues that seem tailored to not be
effective. So the time is for progressives to insist that, given the
political bent over the past quarter century, some 'balance' is needed,
with a pope more along the lines of John XXIII, with a greater social
conscience, a proper perspective on at least the theological and other
changes that are POSSIBLE within the Church, and so forth. A pope from
the third world, a good idea all other things being equal, is no step
forward if they are just as conservative as John Paul II. A Vatican
Clarence Thomas we don't need. But a progressive, within the bounds of
the Church -- who need not promote married priesthood -- from the Third
world or at least a non-Caucasian should be the general demand, with an
emphasis on the politics and not on the ethnicity.
The squeaking must continue, whoever is selected, about the selection of
cardinals. Progressives within the Church should continue to emphasize
the issue of "balance", given a rightward trend in an institution where
the world itself, including Catholics, have not be overall moving
spiritually in that direction. A lengthy list of (relative)
realistically possible progressives within the Church for high positions
including cardinal should be constantly pursued and very vocally and
publically. As the controversy brews, there will be pressure at least to
balance the appointments to meet the disaffected progressives.
Ordination of women and married priests, I suspect, are some ways off --
and politics has to do with what happens over the next 15 years first
and the long term afterwards. The better position someone is in now, in
terms of power, the better position they will be in in the longer term
too. This is indeed the credo of all opportunists, but it is one reason
opportunists tend to dominate the world of power.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Catholic church has political ramifications, but your email is
offensve. The papacy is not an office to be "won", and the positions of
the church are not whim to what "progressives" feel like. Nor what
"conservatives" feel like. It is a church. It carries on the will of
God as best it can, through tradition, research, and debate.
Had you done any, ANY, research at all, you would already know that
Cardinals are appointed through the Church, and every appointment must
be signed by the Pope. Since there are Cardinals from every large
Catholic country on earth, blaming the US for the current crop seems
especially ignorant.
The Pope is chosen by God - not by you, not by me. You are incredibly
ignorant and insensitive to suggest otherwise. You are further
arrogantly suggesting that because the methods of the Church don't agree
with your ideals that it needs to be changed in a manner more agreeable
to you.
The Church is not yours to change. It it not yours to manipulate. It
belongs to myself and every other Catholic out in the world. We will
change it, follow it, believe it, and love it as we see fit. You will not.
And you most certainly will not use it to forward a political argument.
We won't do you that favor. God willing, He won't do us that favor,
either. We will hunt for the proper balance, do His will, and plead
forgiveness if we fail.
*****************************************************
FURTHER EXCHANGE OF LETTERS
from me:
Dear Hurlburj, from Cloudy (rsvp):
I am not sure which of the places to which I sent emails you are writing from, as you did not identify yourself. I will suppose you are from a Catholic organization, but I am not sure.
First, nowhere do I "blame the US for the current crop" of cardinals, having reread my email. I DID say that in the Church, as in the US, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but that in no way could be reasonably read to say what you suggest is the case. I know that the cardinals are appointed by the pope. I know that all but three of the voting Cardinals are appointed by John Paul II (and one of those three is Ratzinger).
Some are offended by any suggestion of politics in the selection of the pope. Evidently you are one of them. But reality is reality, and while it is the doctrine that the pope is selected by the Holy Ghost, there are plenty of Catholic writers and prelates, including one figure (I mention in the added email below) who have engaged in extensive speculation about the "politics" of the current choice, on the radio, while condemning any suggestion that pressure from progressives would be a good idea. I have read about effective mobilization from the Opus Dei wing of the Church; it seems that it is progressives who are admonished with especial verve to remain silent.
It is difficult to argue with someone arguing from the point of ANY religious doctrine, be it fundamentalist Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, or a Catholic insisting that God alone makes the choice and human, let alone heathen intervention has nothing to do with it. Just as an atheist is not easily convinced of the existence of God, so anyone subscribing to a doctrine that suggests that there is no "politics" in the selection of the pope will be appalled by consideration of that issue. It is not "ignorant" and "insensitive" to suggest a perspective that differs from the doctrine regarding the Holy Ghost.
What we do have is often a political struggle where all parties INSIST that there is nothing political about the choice. Psychiatrists and other professionals like to wrap themselves similarly, shielding their political decisions from secular political scrutiny. If I were religious, which I am not, I would consider such a doctrine idolatrous, but you are entitled to it and I do NOT become indignant.
I agree that the Church is not "mine" to change. I also pointed out in the first paragraph quite clearly that neither is the government of Ukraine, or any number of other venues where people have no problem expressing views. My views, however, are mine to express, and if some Catholics listen to them, great (from my point of view).
I am not "manipulating" the Church, although I suspect other powerful interests, precisely those NOT in such a position to be scolded, have done so in the past and do so in the present and future. We should not be more royalist than the king, so to speak, on these questions. Do I advocate that the Church be changed in a manner more suitable to me? Well, anyone inside or outside the Church advocating anything is doing so, and the same is true in politics. Are not people advocating for a Cuba that is free "more agreeable" to them? Did not Pope John Paul II do so, regarding Cuba and regarding moral issues the world over, including issues of institutions outside the Church? I am not criticizing that practice at all, by the way -- I am emulating it. Just as John Paul had plenty to say about issues outside the Church's 'jurisdiction' in the secular world, issues within the "moral jurisdiction" some might say of the Church, by the same token authentic progressive humanists have the same right to extend their "moral jurisdiction" -- without some sense that our morality is inferior to yours. This is not arrogance -- it is citizenship and politics.
I include for your further critique a tempting second posting responding the the discussion, including the 'open conclave' raised at the OpenDemocracy website:
Here is a follow up of a recent posting I made at OpenDemocracy's forum on "Democracy in the Church"? Although it makes specific references to the discussion there these seem to be self-explanatory. There are only TWO days left for progressives to try to be EFFECTIVE in addressing these issues, and to raise a PUBLIC voice of protest around the world for a pope for the PEOPLE. This is important for the cause of peace, the environment and social justice.
I would also commend readers to the argument along similar lines by Rabbi Waskow from the Shalom Center, posted at
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-5-127-2424.jspThe point is that progressives need to act EFFECTIVELY AND SOON -- and if past pattern and present momentum hold up, neither will be the case. Even if the protests are ignored, they would set the stage for future politics in this area for progressives.
{perhaps you will want to contact Rabbi Waskow and excoriate him}.
POSTING ON WHAT PROGRESSIVES SHOULD REALISTICALLY DO ABOUT PAPAL SUCCESSION -----------------------------------------------------
Much of the discussion on the various topics suffers from a kind of 'reality exclusion'. First, even when supposedly discussing the future of the Church and the issue of democracy, long discussions ensue about the blame, eg of John Paul II for the Church's inadequate response to the pederasty scandal. Let us remember that the scandal, by the way, indeed WAS a result of the 'new morality' that has emerged since the 60s, namely that 100 years ago, a child reporting on pederasty (re: the Freud issue) would simply be whipped or worse, and no professional backing such charges in, say, Vienna, stood a chance. Now we pay closer attention to problems that were simply tolerated in ages past and swept under the rug.
But the real issue is the FUTURE of the Church, and the possibilities of democracy. Clearly, those including myself who put democracy first before loyalty to institutions like the Church either leave the Catholic faith or, like myself, have never been tempted to convert. But the Catholic Church IS one of the major institutions of our world and will continue to be for some time. The question is not what individuals might do to live according to their own beliefs, merely. The question is the future of this powerful institution, and its billion adherents, and its impact over the next century on the fate of the whole of humanity. ('Not for ourselves but for the whole world are we born' I believe is a Catholic doctrine, somewhat too extreme for my nevertheless socialist views. But surely one is concerned about the impact and potential impact of the Church and a new pope on the 'whole world')
In this context, the question is what difference THIS selection of a new pope could make, given who MIGHT be chosen, and what progressives should do about it. I spoke with a Catholic Prelate on WNYC on April 8 who presumably sought to move the Church in a progressive direction. (He was the national US Church's muck-a-muck on Latin American affairs, for the cognoscenti to figure out who he was). He insisted that pressure would have NO effect or possibly even a perverse one -- recollecting a statement I once saw in the SF (Arch?)Diocese Peace and Justice Newsletter about 15 years ago that "Clearly, Catholic politicians" can take any position they wish on political issues, "except on the issue of abortion, where the Church's position is clear"
. Now I notice that Opus Dei people and such are mobilizing quite effectively to push for a rightwing successor to John Paul II. Progressives are failing to think as practically. Pressure seems to be OK for the right, and only likely to backfire for progressives. This and other points need to be made OPENLY through OPEN protest and mobilization. Note that the 'open conclave' sounds more like a consideration for long-term concerns about what kind of Church progressive Catholics want, rather than a focus on who is the most progressive minded Cardinal, not merely on doctrine but, as in the EXCELLENT article by Rabbi Waskow quoted at length in David Belden's April 12 posting under the "Making sense ..." discussion, a matter of placing an emphasis on putting into practice the more progressive aspects of existing doctrine.
This prelate and the NY Times seemed to quietly favor Cardinal Hummes. On the other hand, Ratzinger, a rightwing Italian choice and Arinze are favored by the rightwing. Lustiger (France) seems a more progressive minded European choice, although the logic for a Latin American pope seems pretty overwhelming; yet at Intrade, the oddsmakers say that the greatest likelihood is of an Italian successor, (as of today) at 34%, with 62% betting on a European successor to JPII).
Both Intrade and Paddypower (both oddsmakers) place Ratzinger in the lead with 17% at Intrade and 3-1 odds (33%) at paddypower. Lustiger is a high ranking contender with 10.5% at Intrade and 9-2 (a little over 20%) at Paddypower. Hummes is given about 10-12% odds by both, with Tettamanzi or Martini (Italian) seen as strong contenders at both. Remember that Tierney stated the common sense in the NY Times op-ed page recently when he said these were more reliable sources than press pundits.
I raise this perspective to throw the cold water of realism on progressives' thinking. Progressives ought to be thinking of WHICH Cardinals are most likely to be the BEST POSSIBLE choices and publically demonstrating and raising a hue and cry BEFORE April 18 in support of them and exposing and opposing openly the "clearly" bent of Church politics that suggests that rightwing mobilization is beneficial to them while progressive mobilization is perverse -- a catch-22 on TOP OF the widely encouraged penchant of progressives for ineffectuality.
Note that the idea that oddsmakers were better predictors than pundits was the subject of a Tierney recent column in the NY Times. Also, please note closely the point from the SF Church based newsletter about "clearly"...
RSVP
cloudy
-**************************************************
Hurlburj's 2d letter
Rabbi Waskow, respectfully, is urging change within the church without demanding that the papacy be turned into a circus election that yields to the opinions of non-catholics worldwide. The Catholic church doesn't even yield to all catholics worldwide. That's why it is a church. It holds tenets that fall into the strictly religious realm, the same as Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. also have. Those tenets, like any tenet of religion, are frequently hard to swallow. Some, like God choosing the Pope, are almost impossible to argue with, since the whole crux of the argument is based on belief. Most religions require faith in something unprovable, which is why it's a religion, not a committee.
The papacy is chosen by an election, albeit not one that any American would find agreeable. Since the governmental structure of the Catholic church is still feudal, everything runs down from the top, and a Pope who is in office for a very long time will have the opportunity to select the Cardinals who will elect his successor. If Rabbi Waskow was Pope for as long as JPII, then he would find himself in the same position. I've found in the past few weeks the only reason people bring up the large number of cardinals selected by JPII is because they didn't like the cardinals he chose. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of argument against the methodology of getting them there in the first place.
There are politics to be played out in the papal election. Where you are mistaken, however, is believing that a demonstration or two is going to swing the conclave before they are locked away. The politics for this election have been playing out in Catholic churches throughout the world for the last two decades. A demonstration from a group of non-members will have little effect, as it should.
As for Opus Dei, they are a very, very small, and very, very vocal subset of the church. They lean towards conservative theology, but not in any manner you (or even I) would think. The one Opus Dei member I've met in my life was an aggressively liberal man in terms of US politics, and very conservative in terms of church doctrine (he was of the opinion that Vatican II should have gotten all involved booted out of the church). However, they aren't any more powerful than any other subsets of the church. There are one or two cardinals who are members, but there are quite a few European cardinals who would fit the mold of "progressive", so it will even it out in the end.
In 50 years, perhaps, the church will begin swinging in a direction you find agreeable. It is large, it changes slowly, and every change must be thought out, researched, reflected on, prayed on, and finally implemented. You have every right to criticize the church for positions you don't agree with, you have every right to protest the selection of a Pope who doesn't share your views, you have every right to think church traditions are backwards, oppressive, and simply wrong. I have no dispute, and I don't think the church is above "secular review". I also, for that matter, don't think you, or anyone else who isn't Catholic, is a heathen. Debate and differing opinions are welcome facets of the human experience.
Where I took exception was with your urging that a bunch of people who have no connection to the church somehow have a right to inject themselves into the selection process when it is convenient and then disappear once the objective is achieved. Those of us who are trying to change the church from within might get a little irritated at that. We don't choose Popes to forward a progressive or conservative ideal, we choose a Pope to forward the Catholic ideal. Remember, JPII was simultaneously too liberal for half the church and too conservative for the other half.
Anyhoo, have a nice day. The only people who will be influencing the choice of the next Pope are the cardinals. The rest of us can bitch about it afterwards.
-hurlburj
***************************************************
MY second response:
Dear Hurlburj,
I am still curious as to WHICH of the emails I sent out got to you and how, since yours is not one of the addresses on my mass email list. This is not a question asked in bad faith -- it remains puzzling, possibly the result of a forwarding.
You argue that "secular review" is all right but that mine is somehow vastly different from Waskow's "respectfully" "urging" change within the Church. This distinction is based upon a much lesser but still unwarranted set of characterizations of a "circus" election that "yields" to non-Catholics worldwide.
That characterization misses where I am coming from on several counts. First, as a non-Catholic I am mainly urging other NON-Catholics to act as kindling that would inspire like-minded Catholics to raise their voices. Clearly the voices of NON-Catholics, other than, say, media pundits,
is of little intrinsic interest to anyone. The role of non-religious progressives such as myself, I thought it was self-evident, would be to inspire similarly minded Catholics to speak out in great numbers around the world.
The other issue is the word "yield". If a university has students and faculty, say, like Harvard, these have (against my belief as a Harvard alumnus) no power in that institution to make it "yield" to their views. The faculty at Harvard recently voted no confidence in the embarassment of a president who now runs it.
But the institution so far has not "yielded" even to that. Sure, it isn't a "Church". But that is a misleading use of the term "church" as some churches ARE run democratically, while the Catholic Church is run more similarly to universities like Harvard. The hope is that if many Catholics at the grass roots speak out, some priests and others full time in the Church might feel emboldened to cautiously say what they feel is right, even though obviously everyone has to maintain what I consider to be the myth that the pope is chosen not by the Cardinals but by God.
It seems that you suggest that urging change within the Church NOT address the issue of papal selection -- which is logically perverse because, given how the Church is in fact run, that is a truly pivotal element in determining what changes are possible or likely for years and years to come.
Then you say that I have every right to protest the selection of the pope AFTERWARDS, but should not inject myself into the process now. That is perverse. I have always been of the view that if you don't vote (I understand that even Catholics don't have a "vote"), don't complain about the outcome. Here, the role of non-Catholics in influencing Catholics primarily to speak out and not in organizing separate demonstrations specifically of non-Catholics, itself a perverse notion which you assigned to me, is precisely that of "secular review" in the most meaningful way available.
The notion that large numbers of non-Catholics, somehow separate from progressive Catholics, would "inject" themselves into the process and then disappear is really of your own making. You seem to be searching for some basis of distinction between more respectable and presumably more devoted critics outside the Church and those you hold in less esteem. By the way, I have spoken out many times over the years about this issue of the Church's emphasis, as in the 'clearness' passage I quoted in the previous letter, on its politically "conservative" issues much moreso than on its "liberal" ones. I have not "disappeared" with my concerns any more than many millions of Catholics who pay little heed to these issues. Incidentally, for all the distinction between conservative v. progressive and Catholic ideals, I for one do NOT believe that this pattern is coincidental, even though such a belief might be considered blasphemous to some. The progressive ideas of the Church challenge not the Communist regimes that they opposed so much as the capitalist governments that the Church has long been much less willing to challenge. This is a tactical and strategic reality, as well as one of an ideological affinity, but it is not, in my opinion, something in the realm of the purely religious which the secular should not question. The odd thing about the "Catholic" ideal line is that it is not made clear how that squares with your rhetoric of openness to "secular review".
By the way, I was not complaining that John Paul II had appointed so many cardinals, merely remarking on the likely effect that this would have on the future of the Church, and how the choice of pope is so completely crucial to ANY concern for changing the Church.
I agree that a mere "one or two" demonstations specifically by non-Catholics would fail to have an impact. But I have been urging this for weeks -- and if progressives raised a call, appearing in the media and being heard from many, including, cautiously, what I might term "professional" Catholics who are priests or monks or other full-time devotees of the Church, that COULD influence a sense on the part of the Cardinals that the Church needs to be more responsive to its grassroots on these issues, and in the selection of a pope who would be. It is probably too late for such an impact to be mustered now. But the idea, raised now, might influence especially progressive Catholics to raise their voices about the selection of the next pope in a timely way, and not be shy in the face of the invocation of the various ideas you have articulated about how it is all beyond the role of concerned laity. That idea itself is one that many Catholics might see fit to challenge in the context of urging the direction of change Waskow has.
While you positively react to Waskow's "urging" as opposed to my "demanding" (note that as with "inject", "circus", "whim", "blaming the US" and other language, this is something
you have injected into what I have been saying, creating thereby a greater basis for distinction between what I am doing and the non-Christian review of Rabbi Waskow and other "qualified" critics. I have been attacked on purely secular issues on the same grounds, also not articulated, that I am not a "qualified" critic, and have rejected those criticisms on the same grounds that those who make them have no more claim to the 'grace of God' so to speak, than I.
CLOUDY
************************************************
Hurlburj's third letter:
Calm down. Your email (and your address) were both posted on one of the Democratic Underground forums.
In the interest of tidying this up a bit: yes, some churches are run democratically. The Catholic church is not, and the means of influencing its direction would drive an otherwise normal person batty, since there isn't any way to do it fast.
Rabbi Waskow was urging change within the church by hoping the cardinals vote for someone to his liking. Tantamount to wishing out-loud, if you will. Your email was demanding demonstrations to urge the church in a direction more to your liking. To quote:
"This is indeed the credo of all opportunists, but it is one reason opportunists tend to dominate the world of power."
That strikes me as a little off-putting, similar to how I would feel if a foreign government tried to influence US elections. Of course, foreign governments DO try and influence our elections, but that certainly doesn't mean I have to think it is acceptable.
I am protective of my church. This isn't unusual. If I were to lecture a Rabbi or Imam about how they should go about implementing their beliefs, I imagine I would get the same reaction from them you are getting from me now. I'd like the church to move in a leftward direction. I believe it is moving in a leftward direction much faster than it ever has in the past. The Catholic church of 1930 is so radically different from the church today that Catholics are still fighting about it. More changes will be introduced, not in response to outside pressure, but in a reinterpretation of how to properly implement our tenets of faith. Most people have a very hard time understanding why it takes so long.
The papacy will never be a general election, where people like me the world over go to the polls and pick our exalted leader for the next few years. After watching the entire US collectively turn into a nation of screamers during the last election, I think election by cardinal is a good thing. Even if the new Pope is a complete asshat, hated by everyone, he's still the Pope. We know the rules.
There is no rapid means for influencing who will be the next Pope. Those of us in the church working towards getting it moving in a different direction have our own means of sending messages. I married a non-Catholic. My father dropped out of the seminary (good thing). My sister is a nurse and works 20 hours a week as a volunteer for her hospital because they treat a great number of people in Cincinnati who do not have health insurance (who also don't have to be Catholic to receive care). Our parish doesn't say the mass in Latin, a tacit agreement of Vatican II.
Any centrally managed organization responsible for a billion members is going to change slowly. GM can't even get their act together, and they're responsible for a lot less people. JP moved in the correct, humane direction on some aspects of the church: the right to self-determination, care of the poor, and, believe it or not, a healthy contempt for what he called "rampant capitalism". Hopefully, the next Pope will build on those issues and begin to address other ones that concern us.
There is a reason that most any Catholic before 1950 was solidly Democratic. The base tenets of the church lend themselves quite well to a society based on mutual care. Those core beliefs are still there; the friction comes from a disconnect about social issues. I believe in the near future we will have female priests, married priests, and sanctioned birth control. I don't believe the church will ever change their position on abortion. In short, I doubt the church is ever going to parallel a US political party. They like consistency - no death penalty, no abortion, avoid war at all costs, since it always results in death.
So argue and complain all you want. Talk to Catholics and see if you can get them to run complaints up the food chain. Remember, it takes a long time to run up and down that chain. A lifetime perhaps. Sudden change within the church can also hurt, and there is a raging debate among the Catholics I know that JPII's conservative streak was a direct response to disaffected members who did not like Vatican II. A means of applying the brakes a little, if you will.
I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't or shouldn't try and involve yourself before the Pope is selected, I meant to imply that no matter what anyone does at this point, the influence will be minimal. Even if every Catholic in the US took to the streets and demanded a progressive Pope, there are still 940 million other Catholics who would have to do the same before it would register.
It is human nature to be impatient, but I find myself bothered by people who want the church to change NOW. I think we're moving along at a pretty good clip. Outsiders love to point out it took us 400 years to pardon Galileo, but no one ever seems to give us credit for accepting evolution as a sound scientific theory. As a Catholic, I usually find myself in some "middle child" status in terms of politics and religion, since the fundamentalists don't believe we're really Christian and the secularists find the whole concept of the church baffling, if not ridiculous.
It has been a pleasure talking with you.
-hurlburj
**************************************************
MY third response:
Dear Hurlburj,
I was not upset that you had gotten the email, just curious as to where. Democratic Underground is interesting and the fact that it is the source of your communication is useful information for me. I didn't see any comment from you there(?!).
You are wedded to the idea that Waskow's advocacy was OK but not mine. His "thinking out loud" makes little sense if it is not intended to influence the thinking, expression and activism of others. By contrast I was "demanding" demonstrations. (How can one "demand" demonstrations? Demands are made on institutions and the powerful; people who demonstrate are urged to do so. Again you have a semantic basis of condemnation of your own creation.) Demonstrations? That's a good way to get the message out, although not the only way. Would Waskow oppose a series of demonstrations during the selection of the next pope, primarily of Catholics, in different places around the world in support of the kind of priorities he "likes"? I doubt it. The sense is that somehow 'demonstrations' are undignified while 'thinking out loud' by a rabbi is; I reject that notion and I suspect (although I do not know) that Rabbi Waskow might also. The Civil Rights movement was no less 'godly' than an attempt to change the Church by working up the hierarchy.
The emphasis is placed on demanding change NOW, a point that you have stressed not I. The selection of the pope is made "NOW" and both Rabbi Waskow and I and I suspect many millions of Catholics around the world would strongly like to see that selection be of someone more oriented not so much to changing the doctrine of the Church as changing the strategic emphasis to already existing inclinations for protection of the environment, social justice (eg Jubilee), helping the poor and opposing war. Is it a matter of fundamental doctrine that politicians who oppose abortion are threatened with excommunication but not those who foment war or accede to environmental destruction?
The pope is going to be selected, very soon, from among the college of Cardinals. As my SECOND "email" made VERY clear, my focus is precisely on realism, on not only pointing to which Cardinals might pursue the emphases mentioned, but being realistic about who has a chance at selection. It is the antithesis of the demands of a "new Church right here right now" that you impute to me. And it is an emphasis I have been pointing to, among MANY other issues I have pursued as a progressive, over many years.
Here are some ideas for what could follow a papal selection. First, the idea of taking ideas only within the hierarchy of the Church, rather than also within that structure is one area where we differ. Ideas should be expressed out in the open, and subject to organizing and mobilization, the way that anti-abortion activists have done. You will note that I have said virtually nothing addressed to changes in Church doctrine, including on abortion. One idea would be for a religious order (one devoted to opposing abortion has already been bandied about widely as an idea) devoted to protecting the environment, a kind of 'green order'. Incidentally, I am NOT proposing a change in the Church's stance on the issue per se, only that it pursue its lip service by making the environment at least as much a priority as they have abortion.
In fact, JPII's comment about "whales and snails" was very much on point for me, much moreso than much of the drivel that comes out of groups like Earthfirst!. In short, an active role of the Church on the issue, which I advocate as a non-Catholic be taken up openly as well as in more "dignified" ways by Catholic progressives with other progressives vis-a-vis the Church, could not only catalyze change on the environment, which does not involve a doctrinal change and cannot wait another century; the centeredness of the Church on this issue could have a salutary effect on this issue on the whole movement. The same is true about many aspects of the anti-globalization effort, where the Church often has a more reality-oriented approach, and has much more closeness to the problem than many of my fellow secular humanist activists. Thus the issue is cyclical -- influence by progressive Catholics and non-Catholics on the Church as well as vice versa.
A movement or organization advocating an end to absolute poverty ("world hunger") in the US is something I have also advocated for decades; the organization could canvass door-to-door like Greenpeace or PIRG, and build up a national power base. The Catholic Church is one of the few powerful institutions with influence to help make that happen who support strongly an end to absolute poverty NOW. Without any change in doctrine, initiatives in this area, disfavored by the current US power elite, could make a huge difference. Again, this is not a problem that can simply wait 100 years. Frankly, the ordination of women is the Church's problem, and its opposition to abortion, though rankling, is also a doctrinal matter. But progressives, especially Catholic progressives, should be as savvy about influencing the Church's direction as it is clear that rightwing forces are.
It is interesting that you quote "this is the credo of all opportunists ..." but leave hanging what "this" refers to! It refers to the fact that those with power now are in a best position to influence those in power in the future. It was an argument against those, as in the emphasis in the
"open conclave" (women-churchconvergence.org) on the kind of long term reforms you mention but not so much on which cardinal will be selected.
Indeed a posting at the site recently said "amen to that" precisely to this point about strategic thinking. (openDemocracy -- http://www.opendemocracy.net/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=175&threadID=44127&messageID=60237#60237 has a discussion of these issues, where you might want to participate, as well as at the women-church convergence site.
Again, on the semantics, I am not "lecturing" the Church any more than you are "lecturing" me and perhaps less so. I do NOT see the Church as moving "leftward" at all, in fact its social conscience, let alone liturgical issues, has moved backwards since John XXIII (and the immediate aftermath of his papacy) as far as I can see.
In short, I don't see why progressive Catholics and others should restrict themselves to the "food chain"; Waskow doesn't! I think that between the 'fundamentalists' and those secularists who say, as one presumed leftie said recently in response to my comments on the subject on WBAI (WBAI.org) "to Hell with the poop" and that he looked forward to world revolution. There are secular humanists like myself who recognize precisely that the Church is important at this juncture of history because secular humanist progressivism cannot by itself have sufficient impact and leverage on the environment, world peace and social justice. On these struggles, we need MUCH more from those who outline parrallel concerns, and we need it soon as those issues are going down the tubes. Remember that if the imperialists win the kind of total political victory that they seem headed for, all the pragmatism of the Church notwithstanding, they will come after Christianity too, even if only after we secular humanists have been eliminated from the historical mix.
CLOUDY
************************************************
His fourth letter, apparently not realizing among other things that my question "is it a matter of fundamental doctrine..." was rhetorical, part of an argument for a Church leadership that places greater emphasis on its progressive agenda rather than pulling their punches:
And so the debate continues!
It is late where I am, so this will be short. I will concede that there is primarily no difference between your advocacy and Rabbi Waskow's. I took exception simply because his struck me as respectful, and yours struck me as a power grab. Your arguments have plenty of merit, but the first email I read from you gave me (just me) the impression that an anonymous person out there was trying to make the Catholic church into a pawn in a political game. That was my first impression - since you've done a great job expanding on your thoughts I won't argue the point any more, since there is no point to argue.
I didn't quote the sentence before "the credo" quote simply because I thought including multiple sentences which you had already written might be overkill. I read and understood your point, but I thought including an entire paragraph of your own words would seem overbearing to you. There really wasn't any more thought involved than that.
The earth, this universe, all humans, existence - everything is a gift from God according to church doctrine. Environmentalism should be a focus of the church, but there are other matters that seem more pressing. It is impossible to address every concern. In time, however, I think we'll get to them.
Hope has always been the prettier sister of faith, and so I hope in the future we can offer health care to all who need it, we can feed the poor, and we can live in some semblance of harmony simply by showing each other we have one anothers' backs. It will take time. While that time passes, those of us who are helping right now will continue to do so, and just like you will urge others to do the same.
-hurlburj
ps "Is it a matter of fundamental doctrine that politicians who oppose abortion are threatened with excommunication but not those who foment war or accede to environmental destruction? "
A. No. Excommunication is reserved for members whose behavior constitutes, for lack of a better term, treason. Obviously, there is a large gray area there in terms of definition, but even Rome realized that such a position is ridiculous. The quotes came from a few bishops and one cardinal (if memory serves me right), but they were speaking as shepherds of their own backyard. The Vatican did serve up a few other cardinals to explain that they wouldn't be casting politicians out of the church for making laws that disagreed with the church. The church does understand it no longer holds governmental powers outside of the boundaries of the church.
One of the nice things about such central control is that the bishops who thought excommunication was justified had absolutely no means of doing so. Excommunication is handled through Rome, not through every diocese around the world. Granted, a local bishop could recommend it, but doing so in such a political manner would not only get the request tossed but would also result in a firm reprimand for the bishop.
******************************************************************
I know this is a long chain of discourse, but it reflects perhaps how many who consider themselves "progressive" within Catholicism are also eager to drag their feet and resist efforts for change.
COMMENTS??????????????
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
