Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
In answer to the OP's specific question, the specific reaction amongst my Catholic colleagues is that Pope Benedict XVI is fleeing.
It's oft quoted that this resignation is the "first in 600 years," but no pope has voluntarily resigned since Pope Celestine V in 1294.
He's fleeing??? He's going to live in the Vatican...just in different quarters. And fleeing what -- from a sovereign state where he will continue to live?
Fleeing controversy or stress. I don't have the exact quote, but he said himself he couldn't deal with the issues that have come up.
In answer to the OP's specific question, the specific reaction amongst my Catholic colleagues is that Pope Benedict XVI is fleeing.
It's oft quoted that this resignation is the "first in 600 years," but no pope has voluntarily resigned since Pope Celestine V in 1294.
He's fleeing??? He's going to live in the Vatican...just in different quarters. And fleeing what -- from a sovereign state where he will continue to live?
Fleeing controversy or stress. I don't have the exact quote, but he said himself he couldn't deal with the issues that have come up.
That I can believe, but I thought Sile's implication was fleeing from the legal ramifications, which Sile followed up with in the later post.
And this: "By remaining in the Vatican, Benedict has immunity under a 1929 agreement that was struck between Italy and the Catholic Church. The Lateran Pacts protects him while he’s inside the Vatican and even when he makes trips into Italy, as the agreement established Vatican City as a sovereign state." ("The Blaze").
And this: "By remaining in the Vatican, Benedict has immunity under a 1929 agreement that was struck between Italy and the Catholic Church. The Lateran Pacts protects him while he’s inside the Vatican and even when he makes trips into Italy, as the agreement established Vatican City as a sovereign state." ("The Blaze").
Right. I posted that bit about the immunity, with a link to the article, and a comment about his avoiding potential liability.
It happened in 1294 and it has happened again, personally I do not see what the big fuss is about, then again I am not Catholic. I am sure he has his reasons and he is human after all, that is something everybody should realise.
As far as the religion being in decline, 99.9% of the people I come in contact with on the internet (not here), are either angry hate filled atheists who have science as their religion if you will, or hardcore Christians who think I am going to die because I have not accepted our Lord Savior. Either way they don't come across as very pleasant people most of the time..
I've read that by retaining quarters within the Vatican proper (which is a sovereign city in and of itself) the former pope can never be questioned, prosecuted or legally held accountable for any implications, accusations, or cover-ups in the hundreds - if not thousands - of abuse scandals that have crossed his desk -- both secretly and with some public knowledge, while he was in the position of Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1981–2005).
But if justice is not involved, bringing all this murky slop up to the surface of the consciousness is just a hue and a cry from voyeurism.
@Nirvana -- A spiritual life that fails to look at what is unpleasant strikes me as a useless pipe dream. Does it partake of voyeurism? Yes, probably. But writing it off as pure voyeurism strikes me as escapist ... a kind of comic-book spirituality that lacks foundation even as it lays a smarmy claim to that foundation.
Still I have to admit there was a time when I thought comic books were the cat's meow.
Well, I lack the plug-in to see your clip, but Bill Maher is hardly an objective onlooker, being an overt atheist. I myself have always liked atheists, since they are generally smarter than the rest of the herd and see things in a clearer light, generally. But I have also known some saints, both in the flesh and by the clear light of reading them. St. Bernard Clairvaux is among my favorites. Bill Maher, I believe, is a thoroughgoing journalist, so I shall try to view the clip. Is it available on Youtube, @hermitwin?
As to the relevance of the Catholic Church in today's world I'd say mainly one thing: If it does not confront the issues in a realistic and noncondemnatory way, it might do more harm than good. The church should not wed itself to the power of the state as it has always done before. The state should have the monopoly on the "public law," (the ethical PUSH) and religious groups should mostly concern themselves with the PULL of the Truth. In other words, the individual is pushed by the state (and incarcerated if he offends greatly) and is pulled by the Magnet of the Truth of Holy Religion.
I think the change in the status of the Catholic Church is no different -- to some extent -- than the change in status of most churches. People today (and I have seen surveys about this) look more toward their own personal faith than at a church hierarchy. So while they may operate within the larger framework of the Catholic Church (or whatever faith), they individualize their faith more than rely on edicts from the Pope (or whoever).
I think it would be hard to state with certainty that this resignation is voluntary; the Church itself has most to lose, overall, with a sitting pope being indicted. They say it came as a surprise to the inner circle, but if you look at the life of Ratzinger, he has seemed to me to operate with a palpable conviction in his own invincibility. I find myself wondering whether he would believe the court incapable of indicting him, and would therefore have to be pressured to resign rather than do so voluntarily.
Here's an interesting comment from outgoing Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti: "It seems like an epoch is changing on both sides of the Tiber and we feel robbed of points of reference."
And from Vatican author and political commentator Massimo Franco: "The Church which was a source of stability is now a major source of instability."
But I think we have to be careful there. We can read all sorts of things into situations -- be armchair conspiracy thinkers -- when perhaps the truth is just as it appears to be on the surface.
I sometimes think we (society as a whole) are less well off as we constantly try to look for the secrets in everything. He's 85, has had a pacemaker for a long time, is almost 10 years beyond the life expectancy for someone born today (yet he was born in 1928 (?)). I'm only 63, and I couldn't do a full days work anymore. Not saying there isn't something else going on, but let's look at the obvious, as well.
A spiritual life that fails to look at what is unpleasant strikes me as a useless pipe dream. Does it partake of voyeurism? Yes, probably. But writing it off as pure voyeurism strikes me as escapist ... a kind of comic-book spirituality that lacks foundation even as it lays a smarmy claim to that foundation.
I thought one of the points of spirituality was compassion for others. If we avoid looking at unpleasant realities, we deny ourselves the opportunity to practice compassion, and we deny others the opportunity to experience it.
A spiritual life that fails to look at what is unpleasant strikes me as a useless pipe dream. Does it partake of voyeurism? Yes, probably. But writing it off as pure voyeurism strikes me as escapist...
wow! I might have used better ways of expressing myself , but "a hue and a cry from voyeurism" does show at least some nuance of difference from the "pure voyeurism" you say I write off such scandalmongering as. I look at unpleasant wounds and sufferings every day and I don't turn away. I will glance at unpleasantnesses and if possible try to address them. However I WILL NOT allow these poisons to seep into me. It's so easy to be a Bill Maher and rejoice at the Ship of the Catholic Church taking on a lot of water, as it were, but who can really say that he is put in a happier state by doing so? I'm aware he makes his money by making fun of others, but it's all becoming so tiresome to me. Now, when Maher said that the Pope's resigning might be good for the church in giving it a fresh face, and one hopefully not in a priest's lap, I thought that was more than OK. Although it was in exceptionally bad taste (but not for Maher), the Roman Church has a lot of paying to do for its grievous sins against the unsuspecting children and their families... But, on the other hand, Maher always has sensible things to say, too. HOWEVER, spiritual bankruptcy is more evident in one not extending goodwill to others than in one not caring to find fault with others, IMO. How is any "life that fails to look at what is unpleasant " possible? Sounds to me like what Siddhartha's father had in mind for him. Seems very foreign to my lifestyle.
BTW and FYI, I, for one, do not enjoy this tiresome thread and could kick myself for partly keeping it on topic the last few times I've written. The best threads are the dead threads!
Well, I lack the plug-in to see your clip, but Bill Maher is hardly an objective onlooker, being an overt atheist. I myself have always liked atheists, since they are generally smarter than the rest of the herd and see things in a clearer light, generally. But I have also known some saints, both in the flesh and by the clear light of reading them. St. Bernard Clairvaux is among my favorites. Bill Maher, I believe, is a thoroughgoing journalist, so I shall try to view the clip. Is it available on Youtube, @hermitwin?
As to the relevance of the Catholic Church in today's world I'd say mainly one thing: If it does not confront the issues in a realistic and noncondemnatory way, it might do more harm than good. The church should not wed itself to the power of the state as it has always done before. The state should have the monopoly on the "public law," (the ethical PUSH) and religious groups should mostly concern themselves with the PULL of the Truth. In other words, the individual is pushed by the state (and incarcerated if he offends greatly) and is pulled by the Magnet of the Truth of Holy Religion.
For anyone interested in an attempt to unravel the power structure of the Vatican, here is a well-written (but longish) piece from The Washington Post.
Comments
And this: "By remaining in the Vatican, Benedict has immunity under a 1929 agreement that was struck between Italy and the Catholic Church. The Lateran Pacts protects him while he’s inside the Vatican and even when he makes trips into Italy, as the agreement established Vatican City as a sovereign state." ("The Blaze").
As far as the religion being in decline, 99.9% of the people I come in contact with on the internet (not here), are either angry hate filled atheists who have science as their religion if you will, or hardcore Christians who think I am going to die because I have not accepted our Lord Savior. Either way they don't come across as very pleasant people most of the time..
I've read that by retaining quarters within the Vatican proper (which is a sovereign city in and of itself) the former pope can never be questioned, prosecuted or legally held accountable for any implications, accusations, or cover-ups in the hundreds - if not thousands - of abuse scandals that have crossed his desk -- both secretly and with some public knowledge, while he was in the position of Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1981–2005).
@Nirvana -- A spiritual life that fails to look at what is unpleasant strikes me as a useless pipe dream. Does it partake of voyeurism? Yes, probably. But writing it off as pure voyeurism strikes me as escapist ... a kind of comic-book spirituality that lacks foundation even as it lays a smarmy claim to that foundation.
Still I have to admit there was a time when I thought comic books were the cat's meow.
As to the relevance of the Catholic Church in today's world I'd say mainly one thing: If it does not confront the issues in a realistic and noncondemnatory way, it might do more harm than good. The church should not wed itself to the power of the state as it has always done before. The state should have the monopoly on the "public law," (the ethical PUSH) and religious groups should mostly concern themselves with the PULL of the Truth. In other words, the individual is pushed by the state (and incarcerated if he offends greatly) and is pulled by the Magnet of the Truth of Holy Religion.
Here's an interesting comment from outgoing Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti: "It seems like an epoch is changing on both sides of the Tiber and we feel robbed of points of reference."
And from Vatican author and political commentator Massimo Franco: "The Church which was a source of stability is now a major source of instability."
I sometimes think we (society as a whole) are less well off as we constantly try to look for the secrets in everything. He's 85, has had a pacemaker for a long time, is almost 10 years beyond the life expectancy for someone born today (yet he was born in 1928 (?)). I'm only 63, and I couldn't do a full days work anymore. Not saying there isn't something else going on, but let's look at the obvious, as well.
I might have used better ways of expressing myself , but "a hue and a cry from voyeurism" does show at least some nuance of difference from the "pure voyeurism" you say I write off such scandalmongering as.
I look at unpleasant wounds and sufferings every day and I don't turn away. I will glance at unpleasantnesses and if possible try to address them. However I WILL NOT allow these poisons to seep into me.
It's so easy to be a Bill Maher and rejoice at the Ship of the Catholic Church taking on a lot of water, as it were, but who can really say that he is put in a happier state by doing so? I'm aware he makes his money by making fun of others, but it's all becoming so tiresome to me. Now, when Maher said that the Pope's resigning might be good for the church in giving it a fresh face, and one hopefully not in a priest's lap, I thought that was more than OK. Although it was in exceptionally bad taste (but not for Maher), the Roman Church has a lot of paying to do for its grievous sins against the unsuspecting children and their families...
But, on the other hand, Maher always has sensible things to say, too.
HOWEVER, spiritual bankruptcy is more evident in one not extending goodwill to others than in one not caring to find fault with others, IMO. How is any "life that fails to look at what is unpleasant " possible? Sounds to me like what Siddhartha's father had in mind for him. Seems very foreign to my lifestyle.
BTW and FYI, I, for one, do not enjoy this tiresome thread and could kick myself for partly keeping it on topic the last few times I've written. The best threads are the dead threads!