Hitler Youth Pope got Bush elected in '04

[thebullet]

Holy Warriors
By Sidney Blumenthal
Salon.com

Thursday 21 April 2005

Cardinal Ratzinger handed Bush the presidency by tipping the Catholic vote. Can American democracy survive their shared medieval vision?

President Bush treated his final visit with Pope John Paul II in Vatican City on June 4, 2004, as a campaign stop. After enduring a public rebuke from the pope about the Iraq war, Bush lobbied Vatican officials to help him win the election. "Not all the American bishops are with me," he complained, according to the National Catholic Reporter. He pleaded with the Vatican to pressure the bishops to step up their activism against abortion and gay marriage in the states during the campaign season.

About a week later, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent a letter to the U.S. bishops, pronouncing that those Catholics who were pro-choice on abortion were committing a "grave sin" and must be denied Communion. He pointedly mentioned "the case of a Catholic politician consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws" -- an obvious reference to John Kerry, the Democratic candidate and a Roman Catholic. If such a Catholic politician sought Communion, Ratzinger wrote, priests must be ordered to "refuse to distribute it." Any Catholic who voted for this "Catholic politician," he continued, "would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion." During the closing weeks of the campaign, a pastoral letter was read from pulpits in Catholic churches repeating the ominous suggestion of excommunication. Voting for the Democrat was nothing less than consorting with the forces of Satan, collaboration with "evil."

In 2004 Bush increased his margin of Catholic support by 6 points from the 2000 election, rising from 46 to 52 percent. Without this shift, Kerry would have had a popular majority of a million votes. Three states -- Ohio, Iowa and New Mexico -- moved into Bush's column on the votes of the Catholic "faithful." Even with his atmospherics of terrorism and Sept. 11, Bush required the benediction of the Holy See as his saving grace. The key to his kingdom was turned by Cardinal Ratzinger.

With the College of Cardinals' election of Ratzinger to the papacy, his political alliances with conservative politicians can be expected to deepen and broaden. Under Benedict XVI, the church will assume a consistent reactionary activism it has not had for two centuries. And the new pope's crusade against modernity has already joined forces with the right-wing culture war in the United States, prefigured by his interference in the 2004 election.

Europe is far less susceptible than the United States to the religious wars that Ratzinger will incite. Attendance at church is negligible; church teachings are widely ignored; and the younger generation is least observant of all. But in the United States, the Bush administration and the right wing of the Republican Party are trying to batter down the wall of separation between church and state. Through court appointments, they wish to enshrine doctrinal views on the family, women, gays, medicine, scientific research and privacy. The Republican attempt to abolish the two-centuries-old filibuster -- the so-called nuclear option -- is only one coming wrangle in the larger Kulturkampf.

Joseph Ratzinger was born and bred in the cradle of the Kulturkampf, or culture war. Roman Catholic Bavaria was a stronghold against northern Protestantism during the Reformation. In the 19th century the church was a powerful force opposing the unification of Italy and Germany into nation-states, fearing that they would diminish the church's influence in the shambles of duchies and provinces that had followed the breakup of the Holy Roman Empire. The doctrine of papal infallibility in 1870 was promulgated by the church to tighten its grip on Catholic populations against the emerging centralized nations and to sanctify the pope's will against mere secular rulers.

In response, Otto von Bismarck, the German chancellor, launched what he called a Kulturkampf to break the church's hold. He removed the church from the control of schools, expelled the Jesuits, and instituted civil ceremonies for marriage. Bismarck lent support to Catholic dissidents opposed to papal infallibility who were led by German theologian Johann Ignaz von Dollinger. Dollinger and his personal secretary were subsequently excommunicated. His secretary was Georg Ratzinger, great-uncle of the new pope, who became one of the most notable Bavarian intellectuals and politicians of the period. This Ratzinger was a champion against papal absolutism and church centralization, and on behalf of the poor and working class -- and was also an anti-Semite.

Joseph Ratzinger's Kulturkampf is claimed by him to be a reaction to the student revolts of 1968. Should Joschka Fischer, a former student radical and now the German foreign minister, have to answer entirely for Ratzinger's Weltanschauung? Pope Benedict's Kulturkampf bears the burden of the church's history and that of his considerable family. He represents the latest incarnation of the long-standing reaction against Bismarck's reforms -- beginning with the assertion of the invented tradition of papal infallibility -- and, ironically, against the positions on the church held by his famous uncle. But the roots of his reaction are even more profound.

The new pope's burning passion is to resurrect medieval authority. He equates the Western liberal tradition, that is, the Enlightenment, with Nazism, and denigrates it as "moral relativism." He suppresses all dissent, discussion and debate within the church and concentrates power within the Vatican bureaucracy.
His abhorrence of change runs past 1968 (an abhorrence he shares with George . Bush) to the revolutions of 1848, the "springtime of nations," and 1789, the French Revolution. But, even more momentously, the alignment of the pope's Kulturkampf with the U.S. president's culture war has also set up a conflict with the American Revolution.

For the first time, an American president is politically allied with the Vatican in its doctrinal mission (except, of course, on capital punishment). In the messages and papers of the presidents from George Washington until well into those of the 20th century, there was not a single mention of the pope, except in one minor footnote. Bush's lobbying trip last year to the Vatican reflects an utterly novel turn, and Ratzinger's direct political intervention in American electoral politics ratified it.

The right wing of the Catholic Church is as mobilized as any other part of the religious right. It is seizing control of Catholic universities, exerting influence at other universities, stigmatizing Catholic politicians who fail to adhere to its conservative credo, pressing legislation at the federal and state levels, seeking government funding and sponsorship of the church, and vetting political appointments inside the White House and the administration -- imposing in effect a religious test of office. The Bush White House encourages these developments under the cover of moral uplift as it forges a political machine uniting church and state -- as was done in premodern Europe.

The American Revolution, the Virginia Statute on Religious Liberty, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were fought for explicitly to uproot the
traces in American soil of ecclesiastical power in government, which the Founders to a man regarded with horror, revulsion and foreboding.

The Founders were the ultimate representatives of the Enlightenment. They were not anti-religious, though few if any of them were orthodox or pious.
Washington never took Communion and refused to enter the church, while his wife did so. Benjamin Franklin believed that all organized religion was suspect.
James Madison thought that established religion did as much harm to religion as it did to free government, twisting the word of God to fit political expediency,
thereby throwing religion into the political cauldron. And Thomas Jefferson, allied with his great collaborator Madison, conducted decades of sustained and intense political warfare against the existing and would-be clerisy. His words, engraved on the Jefferson Memorial, are a direct reference to established religion: "I have sworn eternal warfare against all forms of superstition over the minds of men."

But now Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay threatens the federal judiciary, saying, "The reason the judiciary has been able to impose a separation of church and state that's nowhere in the Constitution is that Congress didn't stop them." And Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will participate through a telecast in a rally on April 24 in which he will say that Democrats who refuse to rubber-stamp Bush's judicial nominees and uphold the filibuster are "against people of gaith."

But what would Madison say?

This is what Madison wrote in 1785: "What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not."

What would John Adams say? This is what he wrote Jefferson in 1815: "The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"

Benjamin Franklin? "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."

And Jefferson, in "Notes on Virginia," written in 1782: "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion
to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to
coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desireable? No more than of face and stature. Introduce the bed of Procrustes then, and as there is
danger that the large men may beat the small, make us all of a size, by lopping the former and stretching the latter. Difference of opinion is advantageous in
religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."

The Republican Party was founded in the mid-19th century partly as a party of religious liberty. It supported public common schools, not church schools,
and public land-grant universities independent of any denominational affiliation. The Republicans, moreover, were adamant in their opposition to the use of any public funds for any religious purpose, especially involving schools.

A century later, in 1960, there was still such a considerable suspicion of Catholics in government that the Democratic candidate for president, John F. Kennedy, felt compelled to address the issue directly in his famous speech before the Houston Ministerial Association on Sept. 12.

What did Kennedy say? "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President
(should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any
public funds or political preference ... I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public
acts of its officials."

Now Bush is attempting to create what Kennedy warned against. He claims to be conservative, but he seeks a rupture in our system of government. The
culture war, which has had many episodes, from the founding of the Moral Majority to the unconstitutional impeachment of President Clinton, is entering a new and far more dangerous phase. In 2004, Bush and Ratzinger used church doctrine to intimidate voters and taint candidates. And through the courts the president is seeking to codify not only conservative ideology but religious doctrine.

When men of God mistake their articles of devotion with political platforms they will inevitably stand exposed in the political arena. When politicians mistake themselves for men of God, their religion, however sincere, will inevitably be seen as contrivance.

As both president and pope invoke heavenly authority to impose their notions of tradition, they have set themselves on a collision course with the American political tradition. In the name of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, democracy without end. Amen.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Always looking for who got Bush elected. It had to be the pope, it had to be someone, it had to be a fluke.

Let me simplify it for you. Here's why a president that is mediocre at best got re elected.............The Dems put a horrible candidate up against him. Kerry wasn't even the most popular candidate within his own party. When polled, Democrats repeatedly named another candidate that they would have rather seen get the nomination over Kerry. If he wasn't the favorite within his own party, how do you expect him to be the favorite among the entire population.

This was an election that the Dems could have won in a landslide if they had brought forth a decent candidate.

So you can continue with the wailing and gnashing of teeth, while looking for someone or something else to blame. OR you can start by looking within the Democratic party itself. That's where the answer is as to why Bush was re-elected. Hopefully the Dems learned their lesson in this election, but somehow, I don't think so.

 

[KarenAM]

I was chatting with a Catholic friend about this issue, and he pointed out that the church's position on abortion (absolute opposition) was the same as the church's position on the death penalty (absolute opposition). And yet it was considered no sin to vote for a candidate who favored execution.

Whether or not we believe that this action by the church changed the outcome of the 2004 presidential election, the growing influence of religious organizations in American politics, particularly when those organizations seem so willing to abandon their most basic principles in exchange for political power, should be seen as very troubling by all of us.

 

[mlady_france]

Why is it that people are so open to the fact that religious politicians are open to change their standings slightly to get the votes, but they don’t see that non religious politicians do the same thing? Is it just more visible? Politicians are in the game of getting elected. The fact that they do or do not believe in God is beside the point. If you take a close look at the election race, you will see many things that Sen. Kerry did that contradicted himself as much and Mr. Bush did. Kerry didn’t mention any religious affiliation until the fact that religion was going to play a big role in this election was mad apparent. All of a sudden he was catholic, or at least he started proclaiming to be. And what about the fact that Sen. Kerry said his running mate (prior to choosing him as such) did not have what it takes to be president, but then chose him to be his VP? Politics have not changed all that much. The only thing that has changed is that the religious majority have finally taken a stand for what they believe in.

And while I’m on the subject, I’m really sick of people telling me that I’m infringing on other peoples rights when mine are being taken away. I’m not aloud to pray in school because it might offend some one else, but doesn’t that mean that you are taking away my right to worship freely?

I usually try to stay away from political debate here, because I know my opinions are very unpopular here, without even saying them. But I am really sick of people apologizing for the election, and saying it was rigged and some such. The election is over! There will be a new one in 3 years and Mr. Bush can’t run. Until then the majority has spoken, either live with it or leave.

You may now commence the beating.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

What did Kennedy say? "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote

Do you know what i really funny, though? One of the main things that Cardinal Ratzinger was always accused of (including in this very same article) was his oposition to Catholic priests having declared political stances.

 

[BigAndTall]

Here we go again.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Here we go again.

Here we have an opinion piece titled "Hitler Youth Pope got Bush elected in '04". What were you expecting?

 

[Liar]

I thought he was German. How'd he get to vote?

 

[rgraham666]

My reaction on seeing this thread.

Sorry, bullet. We just had one of these, and it started a civil war on the AH.

I would appreciate it if it was taken down, please.

 

[KarenAM]

Why is it that people are so open to the fact that religious politicians are open to change their standings slightly to get the votes, but they don’t see that non religious politicians do the same thing? Is it just more visible? Politicians are in the game of getting elected. The fact that they do or do not believe in God is beside the point. If you take a close look at the election race, you will see many things that Sen. Kerry did that contradicted himself as much and Mr. Bush did. Kerry didn’t mention any religious affiliation until the fact that religion was going to play a big role in this election was mad apparent. All of a sudden he was catholic, or at least he started proclaiming to be. And what about the fact that Sen. Kerry said his running mate (prior to choosing him as such) did not have what it takes to be president, but then chose him to be his VP? Politics have not changed all that much. The only thing that has changed is that the religious majority have finally taken a stand for what they believe in.

The willingness of politicians to prostitute themselves for votes is, of course, part of being a politician. What I hoped to point out was that by taking a direct role in politics (in this case by issuing what looked to me to be a direct threat against its parishioners), religious organizations taint themselves with the same hypocrisy that politicians have. Perhaps the best reason for the seperation of religion and state is this very one. As institutions whose purpose is to deal with moral issues, churches, mosques, temples, etc. do themselves and the broader society harm by being overtly political.

And while I’m on the subject, I’m really sick of people telling me that I’m infringing on other peoples rights when mine are being taken away. I’m not aloud to pray in school because it might offend some one else, but doesn’t that mean that you are taking away my right to worship freely?

As I see it, the question is this: will taking away the rights of others ensure the survival of your own? The historical intolerance found in Christianity, which dates back to at least the time of Constantine and which was itself shaped by the intolerance of the Roman state against new religions, has made many people (including myself, I'm sorry to say) afraid of Christianity, and as a result many of them have responded with their own intolerance. The result is a cycle in which everyone loses. Perhaps rather than adoping a confrontational stance of mutual accusation (such as the ones which regularly poison threads on this board) those who are religious and those who are not should take the time to actually listen to each other in an environment of respect and tolerance. Perhaps I am a foolish idealist, but it seems to me that if this attitude were adopted in our broader society, the extremists on both sides who currently seem to be setting the agenda would be less influential and you would be able to pray aloud in school as you wish and I wouldn't be afraid that you were trying to extort a conversion out of me.

I usually try to stay away from political debate here, because I know my opinions are very unpopular here, without even saying them. But I am really sick of people apologizing for the election, and saying it was rigged and some such. The election is over! There will be a new one in 3 years and Mr. Bush can’t run. Until then the majority has spoken, either live with it or leave.

You are wise to avoid the political debates here, not because of your views but because these debates are usually so poisoned. As to the election, please do keep in mind that a democracy must be constantly active in order to survive. This means that people must be willing to continually express their political views and to analyze why things happen the way they do. The reason is not to change the past but to hopefully avoid the same mistakes in the future. The particular involvement of religion in politics that was discussed in the original post of this thread is seen by many, both religious and not, as a danger to both church and state and therefore something that should not be repeated.

Yes, the majority has spoken. But remember that the USA was founded on principles of free speech and the right of peaceful political action by all, not simply the majority. This is precisely why it has been one of the most brilliant social experiments in human history. As a citizen in this experiment, I feel an obligation to participate whether I am in the majority or not. This means I will speak my mind, election or no, and it means that unless my life is actually threatened I don't plan to leave. I'm afraid you're stuck with me, and a lot of people like me.

As I said above, this means that we'll all be better off tolerating each other and working together.

You may now commence the beating.

Not my thing, I'm afraid.

 

[mlady_france]

The result is a cycle in which everyone loses. Perhaps rather than adoping a confrontational stance of mutual accusation (such as the ones which regularly poison threads on this board) those who are religious and those who are not should take the time to actually listen to each other in an environment of respect and tolerance. Perhaps I am a foolish idealist, but it seems to me that if this attitude were adopted in our broader society, the extremists on both sides who currently seem to be setting the agenda would be less influential and you would be able to pray aloud in school as you wish and I wouldn't be afraid that you were trying to extort a conversion out of me.

That I can agree with.

I'm just getting a little fed up with hearing the same things over and over again. I love the fact that we are free to express our opions and that many do. But I do think enough is enough. There comes a time when it's just time to move on and look towards the future.

 

[BlackShanglan]

The historical intolerance found in Christianity, which dates back to at least the time of Constantine and which was itself shaped by the intolerance of the Roman state against new religions, has made many people (including myself, I'm sorry to say) afraid of Christianity, and as a result many of them have responded with their own intolerance.

I'd have to argue, then, that those afraid of Christianty are missing the big picture. It's been quite a short period of time since anyone, Christian or otherwise, started having major problems with the "they're different to us, so let's kill them" approach to civil and international relations. The Romans, since they've been mentioned, dealt with the rise of a new religion (Christianity) by persecuting and killing its members. They dealt likewise with others they conquered. And so did the Huns, the British Empire, Hitler, Pol Pot, the Japanese, the Chinese, American settlers, African tribesmen, Australian colonists, and pretty much anyone else you care to touch on in the course of history. Destroying politicial, religious, or racial groups who stand between you and power has been SOP for most of humanity for most of history. While delighted that we live in one of the rare moments in which at least a vocal minority are starting to shout loudly that this is not a good idea, I think it's unreasonable to suggest that Christianity is the root of intolerance. Humanity is the root of intolerance, and when they can't find a religion to make into their dividing line, they find any number of other things. Eradicating the power of the church will do nothing to advance tolerance or communality of spirit in humans, and seems to me likely rather to retard it. Whatever the church - and all of the rest of humanity - got up to a hundred or five hundred or a thousand years ago, no one in the institution is from that time and no one in the institution is suggesting that we go back to torturing the heretics. In fact, the only connection to past wrong-doings of the church - and of the rest of humanity - is persistant attempt by those not in the church to force the church back into a position that they have not held in modern times.

Shanglan

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Well, I don't get it. It was a whole bunch of people who won the election for Bush, not just Catholics. There were Evangelicals and conservative Jews and Mormons and the whole Capitalist cabal. Why just single one of them out? Why not pick on, say, the oil lobby?

 

[minsue]

Well, I don't get it. It was a whole bunch of people who won the election for Bush, not just Catholics. There were Evangelicals and conservative Jews and Mormons and the whole Capitalist cabal. Why just single one of them out? Why not pick on, say, the oil lobby?

Now don't go bringing logic into it, Dr Z.

Humanity is the root of intolerance, and when they can't find a religion to make into their dividing line, they find any number of other things.

You have a knack for distillation, Horsey. That there is about as pure as one can find.

 

[mismused]

Whatever the church - and all of the rest of humanity - got up to a hundred or five hundred or a thousand years ago, no one in the institution is from that time and no one in the institution is suggesting that we go back to torturing the heretics. In fact, the only connection to past wrong-doings of the church - and of the rest of humanity - is persistant attempt by those not in the church to force the church back into a position that they have not held in modern times.

Shanglan

==================================================

In a departure from my previously combative mode, I wonder if perhaps you are not a little bit wrong on the above part of your post. May I with all due respect?

All of modern day humanity is tied to the past, especially now, both by culture (which is obviously inherited, therefore from the past), and by our ultra modern educational system, knowledge enhancing inventions like books, libraries, and the internet with google, et.al., therefore, I suggest that in a great sense, we are all "from that time."

It is well said that those who ignore their history are doomed to repeat it. Yes, it doesn't have to be this/that way, but unfortunately it is.

We, society, civilizations, cling to our revered past, thus we do what we can to protect those monuments that are from those times, as well as many of our customs.

It is politically correct to say that we're all against torture, yet isn't the bombing of abortion clinics a form of torture, or at least the threat of it? No, not here to raise the abortion issue, just that many hold with how some operate, ala Eric Rudolph, and the many who support him, or helped him, and others too, most likely.

Saddam wasn't the only one to torture, nor the Sudanese, or the Hutu who slaughtered men, women, and children indiscriminately. "Oh," one may say, "that is all in the third world."

But is it, now? We have the seeds of it in us here, and it is seen in racial intolerance on all sides, and in the mayhem is has brought about. "Oh, but we have laws now," others may say, but do they keep the senselessness from occurring again. Not just history, but newspapers tell another story, as do television, radio, and the internet.

The seeds are there, and only by the exposing of them to the light of knowledge can we ever hope to overcome it all. We MUST be willing to look, to admit, and not to hide from our seemingly killer culture. Can you see that, Shang?

It all comes down to putting it all in the light for all to see, and for all to admit to, and not let fester in the dark of our psyches like mushrooms proliferating in the darkness and an abundance of manure.

Hope I made sense to you.

mismused

 

[KarenAM]

I think it's unreasonable to suggest that Christianity is the root of intolerance. Humanity is the root of intolerance, and when they can't find a religion to make into their dividing line, they find any number of other things. Eradicating the power of the church will do nothing to advance tolerance or communality of spirit in humans, and seems to me likely rather to retard it. Whatever the church - and all of the rest of humanity - got up to a hundred or five hundred or a thousand years ago, no one in the institution is from that time and no one in the institution is suggesting that we go back to torturing the heretics. In fact, the only connection to past wrong-doings of the church - and of the rest of humanity - is persistant attempt by those not in the church to force the church back into a position that they have not held in modern times.

Shanglan

I hope I didn't convey the impression that I felt that Christianity or any other religion is the root of intolerance; such was not my intent. You are quite right that human failings are human failings and that they manifest themselves in a wide variety of ways.

I also hope I didn't convey the impression that I felt any religion should be destroyed; my concern is that churches (mosques, synagogues, temples, etc.), like any human institution, can be corrupted by exposure to political power, and I think the case that inspired this thread is an example of this.

As to fear, I think we must remember that fear is not a rational thing. The fact that the perpetrators of the Crusades or the Inquisition are long dead is something I can acknowledge rationally, but the emotional effects of such violence can long outlive the violence itself. When people talk about "defending their religion", it brings to mind the same arguments made by the Crusaders and Inquisitors so long ago, and it prompts a fear response in those who identify, for whatever reason, with the victims of those acts. When I am told, to my face, that I must agree with someone or be cast into a lake of burning lava forever, my response is one of fear, not because I believe in that lake of burning lava, but because the tone and imagery of the statement are violent, and there is an instinctive part of me that responds as though I am being attacked.

The same is true for those like mlady_france, who feels, and not without reason, that her personal religious activities and opinions are being denied her by the government and by people who are in many ways not unlike me.

It is our mutual fear, and how we respond to that fear, that makes us threats to each other.

I think that if there is to be a solution to this cycle of escalating fear and confrontational response, it has to lie in a willingness to acknowledge not only our own fears but the fears of those who we fear. I feel very much excluded from the Christian tradition (and religious traditions generally), and am very afraid of many Christians alive and operating in the political and social spheres today. But they are very afraid of me, too, of my beliefs. What I can do to ramp down this dangerous situation is to be more aware of what I am saying about Christianity, and what effect my words may have on Christians. What Christians can do is much the same.

Peace takes far more courage than war.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

When knocking Christianity, it's nice sometimes to step back and look at some of the good things that have some from it as well. It's kind of interesting to try and figure out what life would be like had Christianity never happened, and had the religion of pagan Rome, say, been handed down to the present.

Some Christian ideas that we take for granted:

--Equality. The idea that all human beings are equal and that every life is valuble is a uniquely Christian idea. You won't find that in the Judaism of Christ's time or in ancient paganism, either Roman or European, Indian or Chinese, Native American or African. The religions of the east say nothing about equality. In fact, the ancient and pagan world believed quite the opposite. People not of your ethnicity and culture were not even human.

--Love as a divine attribute. The idea that God feels love for mankind is again an entirely Christian idea. There's nothing like this in paganism, where the gods have to be paid off or bought, nor do you find it in Judaism, where man is bound to God in a kind of feudal arrangement.

--Universal Justice. Again, this can only follow if you accept the idea of equality in God's sight. In pagan Rome, it was assumed that the strong preyed on the weak. That was the way of the world, and if you were poor or low-born, you were just screwed.

--Charity and Mercy. While charity is known in every culture within tribes or kinship groups, charity to strangers is kind of rare. Jesus made it a central pillar, on a par with prayer. That was unheard of. Mercy too was in rather short supply in the pagan word. It's still a virtue we seem to have a very hard time with.

--Humanism. The idea that we serve God by serving our fellow man was taken from the Jews, but they only applied it to other Jews. Jesus made it universal, and it was a pretty outrageous concept at the time. In most religions, serving God means turning your back on humanity. Christianity sees that as a moral failing.

--Peace. Pagan religions are notably warlike. In some, war is considered a holy duty. Peace as a kind of spiritual strategy comes from Christianity. WHile this had probably been abused more than any other Christian idea, the fact remains that in principle, Christianity places a very high value on universal peace.

--Afterlife. The old testament says nothing about an afterlife. While some pagan religions believe in a land of the dead, it's not guaranteed to everyone, usually just the wealthy and the strong. Nor ws it an especially attractive place. In religions that didn't focus on a loving God, how could they be? Christianity made eternal life available to anyone who lived a Christian life.

So yeah, there've been a lot of fuck-ups along the way, but it's good every so often to think of some of the positives that have come out of Christianity.

And for those of us who are outraged by some of the abuses perpetrated by the Church in the past, how many are equally outraged by the injustices being perpetrated in the present by our own government, our new, secular church. It's one thing to complain about things that were done 1000 years ago. What are you doing about the same things being done today? Are they any less egregious because they're being done in the name of National Security than in the name of Doctrinal Purity? Torture, murder, and injustice are being carried out this very day in our name, and it's Christian values that tell us that that's wrong.

--Zoot

 

[BlackShanglan]

I think that if there is to be a solution to this cycle of escalating fear and confrontational response, it has to lie in a willingness to acknowledge not only our own fears but the fears of those who we fear. I feel very much excluded from the Christian tradition (and religious traditions generally), and am very afraid of many Christians alive and operating in the political and social spheres today. But they are very afraid of me, too, of my beliefs. What I can do to ramp down this dangerous situation is to be more aware of what I am saying about Christianity, and what effect my words may have on Christians. What Christians can do is much the same.

Peace takes far more courage than war.

Amen to that.

 

[Pure]

To what extent is the world indebted to Christianity

Those are interesting points, mabeuse, and each could be the subject of extended discussion, but briefly:

Some Christian ideas that we take for granted:

--Equality. The idea that all human beings are equal and that every life is valuble is a uniquely Christian idea. You won't find that in the Judaism of Christ's time or in ancient paganism, either Roman or European, Indian or Chinese, Native American or African. The religions of the east say nothing about equality. In fact, the ancient and pagan world believed quite the opposite. People not of your ethnicity and culture were not even human.

The mainstream of Xtianity never had a problem with inequality, and with slavery for more than a millenium. Small Christian sects preached and practiced equality, e.g., the Beghards, the anabaptists, but were persecuted (even to the extent of death) for these beliefs. Even a majority of Quakers were not put off by inequality till the 19th century. John Woolman, an early objector, was not particularly welcome. Calvinism, a state church of Massuchusetts was certainly not egalitarian, even in spirit, since one block of humanity was destined, from birth, for Hell.

As is well known, "All men are created equal" as articulated by the founding fathers included restrictive definitions of 'men,' excluding women, Indians and blacks. Jefferson himself, deist and, in ethics, Christian did not hold to racial equality.

Somehow there were seeds of egalitarianism in certain ideas of the West, including radical Xtianity, Locke's doctrines etc.

--Love as a divine attribute. The idea that God feels love for mankind is again an entirely Christian idea. There's nothing like this in paganism, where the gods have to be paid off or bought, nor do you find it in Judaism, where man is bound to God in a kind of feudal arrangement.

Love as a divine attribute is in Judaism in the form of 'hesed', usually translated 'steadfast love.' It is clearly found in the book of Hosea (Tanach). It is, incidentally, unconditional in some respects, as the central metaphor of loving a prostitute makes clear.

--Universal Justice. Again, this can only follow if you accept the idea of equality in God's sight. In pagan Rome, it was assumed that the strong preyed on the weak. That was the way of the world, and if you were poor or low-born, you were just screwed.

As you note, dependent on equality. Certainly justice is a central concern in Isaiah.

To take a modern example, the Catholic church is officially mostly against capital punishment, as are some other churches, including Anglicans and Quakers. Yet 'evangelical Christians', like Catholics before 1950 have no problem with capital punishment, and defending it in terms of Paul's statement about God giving the magistrate his sword, for use against evildoers.

I believe the most that can be said is that Xtianity created a ferment from which a number of ideals arose, and were sponsored by minorities of Xtians. It might equally be argued, along the lines of Marx, that industrial capitalism breeds equality, e.g., worker's rights (while at the same time fighting such rights).

Incidentally, considering the present period, Pope Ratzinger is noted for his suppression of 'liberation theologians' like Boff, who preached to the poor and held that Christianity is for the poor and dispossessed. He and JP II blocked the beatification of Romero, a radical Bishop, who was assassinated. JP's appointments of bishops and cardinals in Latin America has favored the politically uninvolved or conservative--i.e., those condoning inequality.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Incidentally, considering the present period, Pope Ratzinger is noted for his suppression of 'liberation theologians' like Boff, who preached to the poor and held that Christianity is for the poor and dispossessed. He and JP II blocked the beatification of Romero, a radical Bishop, who was assassinated. JP's appointments of bishops and cardinals in Latin America has favored the politically uninvolved or conservative--i.e., those condoning inequality.

I understand why you say this, and I understand that it can be seen this way. However, I believe that the main impetus in the choices in Latin America, including Romero, was a clash between those who believe in the seperation of the church from politics and those (liberatian theologists) who believe that it should be actively involved in politics. I see no suggestion that Christianity is not "for" the poor and dispossessed (for whom, of course, it has a great deal to say).

I confess that I betray my American bias for seperation of church and state when I say that I strongly favor the Vatican's stance on direct involvement in politics. While I recognize that many of my fellow countrymen feel that the church is involved in US politics, I would point out that it's only through the mediating influence of the voting members of the church and their exercise of individual conscience. That, of course, is a right open to everyone. What I would really not want to go back to is priests and bishops running for office, holding direct political power, and personally tabling and passing legislation. I think that this is very bad for politics and also very bad for the church. When politics and religion become intertwined, they are both corrupted and defaced. I think that religion has an important role in guiding individual conscience, from which we hope people will pass just laws and behave morally in public office. I would not, however, wish to see church members personally leading political parties.

One interesting commentary appeared on NPR the other day. They were discussing John Paul II's interactions with ... I believe it was Pinochet, but my memory is dodgy with names. The pope evidently met with him several times while he remained in power and eventually extracted from him a promise that there would be elections and that he would hand over power if he lost - which did happen, and fairly peacefully despite his control of the military and his long record of human rights abuses. The commentator noted that this was one of the only power handovers in the area that hadn't involved a bloody coup or civil unrest. I'd argue that that's the act of someone who does think that the poor and oppressed matter.

Shanglan

 

[Pure]

The Boff episode was summarized by a pro Boff, but I think trustworthy source, as follows.

ttp://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1045

Leonardo Boff: Theologian for All Christians
by Robert McAfee Brown

Robert McAfee Brown, whose name is symbolic for engaged theologian and ethicist, is perhaps best known for being able to write clearly, for example, in Theology in a New Key: Responding to Liberation Theology and Saying Yes and Saying No: On Rendering to God and Caesar. This article appeared in the Christian Century, July 2-9,1986, p. 615. Copyright by the Christian Century Foundation and used by permission. Current articles and subscription information can be found at www.christiancentury.org. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted & Winnie Brock.

The Vatican’s recent lifting of the "silencing" of Brazilian Franciscan theologian Leonardo Boff for writings deemed injurious to the faith means that his voice and pen once more have their full power. This happy outcome provides an occasion to examine the broad sweep of Boff’s writings -- not only those that got him in trouble. Whatever Boff’s ongoing difficulties with Rome may be, he is an important theologian for all Christians, both Protestants and Catholics.

A review of Boff’s writings does not make him seem like a "dangerous" theologian. Christology . . . grace . . . stations of the cross . . the Lord’s Prayer ... St. Francis -- what could be more appropriate subjects for a Catholic theologian? But Boff’s unyielding insistence on a theology with two eyes -- relating the gospel to the contemporary scene -- finally overstepped the presumably appropriate boundaries.

In 1981, not caring to quit while he was ahead, Boff published a collection of essays, Church: Charism and Power (Crossroad, 1985) , which, in the original Portuguese, carried the exquisitely descriptive subtitle, Essays in Militant Ecclesiology. There is a message here for theologians who want to stay out of trouble: if you must write, don’t write about ecclesiology; and if you must write about ecclesiology, don’t write militantly. Boff did. And he got into trouble.

Boff’s troubles actually have their roots in his doctoral dissertation, which he wrote in Germany under a fellow Franciscan, Bonaventura Kloppenburg. Interestingly enough, his other Doktorvater was Joseph Ratzinger, present prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. When a summary of Boff s dissertation appeared some years later as a chapter in Church: Charism and Power, Kloppenburg -- who, in the interval, had become an ardent foe of liberation theology -- wrote a long review charging Boff with heresy.

Understandably startled by this about-face on the part of his former teacher, Boff sent a copy of the review and the book to Ratzinger -- his other former teacher -- asking for advice. Ratzinger suggested that he reply to Kloppenburg’s charges, which Boff did.
That, one might have presumed, would have been the end of the matter -- save, perhaps, a series of exchanges in some learned theological journal. It wasn’t.

In May 1984, Boff received a six-page letter from Ratzinger, detailing charges against him and summoning him to Rome for an accounting. Ratzinger charged Boff with distorting old doctrines by reinterpreting them in new contexts. Boff’s language lacked "serenity" and "moderation," and, more substantively, he employed "ideological" perspectives from history, philosophy, sociology and politics that were not fully enough informed by theology. Thus, Ratzinger asked, is Boff guided by faith or by "principles of an ideological nature"?

Ratzinger was deeply disturbed by three areas of Boff’s book. He first accused Boff of suggesting that Jesus did not determine the specific form and structure of the church, thus implying that other models besides the Roman Catholic one might be consistent with the gospel. A second charge was that he is cavalier about dogma and revelation. Boff responded by acknowledging that dogma is needed to protect against heresy, but not in the same way in all times and places. It is ultimately the life of the Spirit in the church that protects faith against encrustation in "timeless truths" that can only negate spiritual progress. Ratzinger feared that such a doctrine of the Spirit would legitimate the theological whim of the moment.

Finally, Boff is charged with being unnecessarily polemical and disrespectful in his comments on the church’s use and abuse of power. Boff certainly does not mince words, and in one place even offers a kind of Marxist analysis of institutional church life, citing "the expropriation of the religious means of production" (forgiveness, sacraments and so forth) as means by which the clergy deny power to the people. Such excessive concentration of power, Boff believes, leads to domination, centralization, marginalization of the faithful, triumphalism and institutional hubris -- an extensive laundry list of aberrations from which not even the Sacred Congregation itself is exempted.

In the notorious Chapter 12 -- the precis of his dissertation -- Boff offers an alternate model of power for the church -- a model based on the "service" of a living, changing church in which theological privileges are not concentrated in the few, but shared among the many. [Brown comments:]It is clear that the congregation’s main fear with Boff is not Marxism (as it is with many other liberation theologians) but his central emphasis on the Holy Spirit, which could challenge the validity of present ecclesial structures. (One is reminded of a comment by Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini during a debate at Vatican II, when, after a number of speeches about the Holy Spirit, he responded, "We don’t need the guardianship of the Holy Spirit; we have the hierarchy.") [[my emphasis, pure]]

Boff met with the Sacred Congregation in Rome in September 1984. Though the curtain of secrecy is drawn over such meetings (one of the abuses that Boff had criticized in his writings) , Boff emerged from the encounter smiling, believing that he had made the point that, when dealing with liberation theology, the church ought to consult people directly involved in the struggle, rather than relying solely on European theologians who, as he told reporters, "look on poverty from the outside, from a position of security, in a paternalistic way."

One reason that Boff may have escaped censure on this occasion is that (in a move indicating that Franciscans know how to combine the wisdom of the serpent with the gentleness of the dove) he had chosen as the theologian to defend him at the closed-door proceedings His Eminence Cardinal Alois Lorscheider, head of the Brazilian hierarchy -- neither a person nor an office that the Sacred Congregation would instinctively care to challenge.

Boff seemed to be home free. He wasn’t. Some months later the unexpected order came, consigning him to "silence" for "an opportune period."

//Through this analysis we hope to nourish faith in the strength of the Spirit that is capable of awakening the dormant heart of the institutional Church, encouraging the living presence and the dangerous yet powerful memory of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ //[p. 48].

[end excerpt]
Note: Boff was eventually forced from the priesthood.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Boff sounds interesting and I'd definitely like to take a look at his work. I think he's got some points about the problem with an entrenched church hierarchy, although I think I am less optimistic than he about the likelihood of finding a better system. Marxism is excellent on pointing out the flaws in hierarchical and production-consumptive systems, but it's never been long on workable solutions. IMHO it relies too heavily on changing human nature. That's been a popular solution for several thousand years, but has met with little success thus far.

Boff met with the Sacred Congregation in Rome in September 1984. Though the curtain of secrecy is drawn over such meetings (one of the abuses that Boff had criticized in his writings) , Boff emerged from the encounter smiling, believing that he had made the point that, when dealing with liberation theology, the church ought to consult people directly involved in the struggle, rather than relying solely on European theologians who, as he told reporters, "look on poverty from the outside, from a position of security, in a paternalistic way."

Let me offer a second possibility for the European perspective on liberation theology. They may currently be on the outside of poverty, but they have a long memory for being on the inside of religious persecution. Things like the stake, the Inquisition, and the penal laws have a way of sticking in the mind. I'd suggest that the church has actually learned from the mistakes it and others have made in the past and is trying to avoid a return to the devil's bargain that is the union of ecclesiastical and political power. If we accept the old saw about power corrupting and absolute power corrupting absolutely, the last thing we want is to pave the way to more people taking both political and religious control. Then we're back to Henry VII.

Shanglan

 

[thebullet]

To Pure, BS, and Dr. M:

When I saw Dr. M's post I immediately felt his logic was full of holes. But the thought of addressing his many stimulating and thought-provoking statements just made my head ache. Because my history degree just keeps getting older as my memory keeps getting worse, effectively countering Dr. M's ideas was a daunting task.

But we appear to have theological scholars among us. It's enlightening when an inflammatory little article like the one I posted (along with the admittedly ultra-inflammatory thread title - I was just trying to prod you guys a little bit), can develop into a thread of scholarly thought. Between Pure and Black Shanglan, I'm damn impressed.

And of course, Dr. M always has the ammo to stir the pot thoroughly. You guys have made this thread into a fascinating read.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

There's been plenty of inequality under Christianity, just as there's been plenty of sin, and there were still Christian theologians in the last century who were still preaching that African-Americans weren't fully human. However, the revolutionary philosophical idea that all men are equal requires that all men must be equal before God, which is a Christian concept. Mankind being what it is, it's a principle that had to be rediscovered several times, and Jefferson's deist ideas and Rouseau's ideas on the rights of man came largely through the Reformation's rediscovery of Christian principles.

You've got me on Hosea, which, as a minor prophet, I'm not very familiar with. All I can say is Hosea's not in the Talmud, so I don't know how much weight he carries. The concept of Chesed that I'm familiar with comes from the Qabbalah, which was strongly influenced by Christian and Platonic ideas.

As for Justice and Isaiah, Isaiah was talking about the judgment on Israel. The Jews have always been big on God as a vengeful judge. But I can tell you this, if I had to appear before the heavenly court, I'd want to have my case tried before Jesus rather than before Jehovah.

There's no doubt that Christians have been pretty terrible at living up to Christian ideals, but these are the ideals nonetheless, and they're what most of us profess to believe. Maybe you think that the ideas of equality, charity, love, redemption, grace, and forgiveness come out of some sort of "ferment", but I think they're spelled out pretty clearly in the New Testament.

 

[SummerMorning]

...no. I'm not getting in on this one. I have to go running.