Could we get some quotes of some remarks that would be considered hurtful from within this thread? Im afraid im not sure where the line that was crossed lies. Im afraid i do have some prejudice when it comes to the subject or religion but i assure you all i mean no harm nor do have any animosity toward theists. My animosity is directed toward theism and not its victims. I want to be able to express my beliefs and yet not offend anyone with an opposing belief and that my friends is a difficult task.
Vatican forgives John Lennon for Jesus quip
« » Page 1 2 3 4-
- Rated: 20 ↑
Nov 23, 2008 1:24 p.m. TwangOmatic:
-
- Rated: 37 ↑
Nov 23, 2008 2:00 p.m. MR TROUBLE:
Thanks for reminding me of why I'm an atheist!
-
- Rated: 27 ↑
Nov 23, 2008 2:38 p.m. audiodrome:
Why would someone need to be forgiven for telling the truth?
-
- Rated: 20 ↑
Nov 23, 2008 3:15 p.m. Century Bob:
I dont think this has anything to do with free speach. Y`all can say anything you want but you must accept the consequences of what you say. Those consequences being the alienation of your peers. That could be offending them or reducing your own image in their minds. I do realize that many dont care and thats ok also. Story time... I live in a quiet older neighborhood- mostly Jewish and Catholic. We all seem quite happy with each other. We had a neighbor pass away and leave his house to his son.The guy moved in and had been here about 10 years. His son is a recruiter for the KKK. His face is unrecognizable because of tattoos and piercings. He had the rubber ball sack hanging from his bumper. You get the picture. This guy intimidated the crap out of the residents and had skin head rallies with bands in his back yard. My dad lives behind him and I
m one block away. One day my mom called saying I better get over there before my dad gets killed. I ran over and the guy was calling my dad out to the alley after my dad yelled at them to shut up. I met up with the wizard with the other neighbors looking on (Im 58 150 and not so tough). The guy was yelling at me and going on about Free Speech and his right to say what believes. I told him that I dont care what he thinks or says. But I told him he was a dumb ass for shooting his mouth off in a Jewish/Catholic old people area. I also told him he should move out to the valley (redneck hell around here) where he could be with his own that would put up with him. We shook hands agreed to leave my dad alone and parted ways. They put the house up for sale the following week and moved to ranch near the border with Mexico where the KKK had a compound. The GDP is a nice international diverse neighborhood. I like it here. Im not looking to move out anytime soon, but some neighbors here are not always so neighborly. -
- Rated: 58 ↑
Nov 23, 2008 4:03 p.m. yettoblaster:
People get their undies all in a wad on both sides, then continue to provoke each other.
Strange.
I'm a practicing Christian, and I think some criticism of institutionalized religion squares with my experiences too!
The problem is that people in groups always get it wrong.
I know this because as an individual I'm free to take away from the discussion whatever I like, and leave the rest.
Flack is thrown up by both sides of most any discussion where there are conflicting points of view.
Unfortunately the collateral damage is that people become personally offended and throw down their cards, gloves, or memberships.
-
- Rated: 29 ↑
Nov 23, 2008 4:12 p.m. SqwareKat:
TwangOmatic said:Could we get some quotes of some remarks that would be considered hurtful from within this thread?
OK, I'll take a stab at it. I don't think all of these comments were meant to be offensive or inflammatory, but some of them are rude or ignorant nonetheless. I want to preface this by saying that I've NO INTENTION of fanning any flames here. I don't want to offend anyone. I submit this for general edification from the point of view of someone to whom the Church and its views DO matter.
Proteus said:To whom does it matter that the Vatican forgives Lennon? Was his unforgiven state producing great spiritual anxiety for leagues of Catholics wondering if it's possible to love Jesus and The Beatles both?
Being Catholic, I was offended the first time I heard that statement from John. I thought of him as being a pompous SOB, but never thought that anyone was destined for hell just for listening to the Beatles. Nor did I even think that John was necessarily going to hell for saying it. Everyone says things they come to regret. I can only imagine the stupid things I'd have said, had I been in his position (especially so young). When we err, we say we're sorry, we try to make amends to those whom we've hurt and we move on. The Church has said "it's OK" after the fact. I see nothing wrong about the Church doing that.
We look to the Church for guidance on moral issues, to help us with our own spiritual journey. While it may seem silly to some, it IS pertinent that the Vatican tells us that John was OK. We strive to do what is pleasing to God, not just do whatever we personally feel we should. That involves checking with other people, figures of authority on spiritual matters, particularly the head of the Church.
TwangOmatic said:Yay now i can safely listen to the beatles again without fear of going to hell.
See above. I think listening to the Beatles is among the LEAST of anyone's spiritual issues.
yettoblaster said:Lennon has been in hell and now has been paroled by the Pope?
Purgatory, actually.
No, the Pope does not pass judgment or pardon sins on behalf of God. As Catholics, we believe that a person's salvation is between them and God alone. Neither did the Pope nor the Vatican throw John into hell, nor did they let him out. They're just saying that they're not holding that comment against him.
It also serves as a positive example of how Christians, not just Catholics, should treat people. We should forgive.
J(esse James)D said:IMO. John's statement was really taken "out of context" by the press (as usual) and things went from there.
He simply made a comment about the Beatles popularity then, compared to the popularity of Jesus at his time.
The Beatles were huge............Jesus was looked at like a "goofball" by many.
No one can say for sure. Either way, it really doesn't matter now why he said it. He apologized for it, the Vatican (if no OTHER denomination of which I know) has accepted his apology, it's (past) time to forget it and move on.
I actually haven't met too many people who think Jesus is a goofball. Certainly, I've seen plenty of his FOLLOWERS who are, many of them on the news. I see lots of other people who are "Christian" in name only, who don't even begin to grasp what that really means. That negative example does more damage to the cause of Christ than all the preposterously arrogant statements spoken since the dawn of recorded history. That explains a lot about why John didn't want to be a Christian. It might also begin to explain why John's statement wasn't simply dismissed and forgotten at the time.
Parabar said: Big woop. The rest of the civilized world hasn't forgiven the Catholic Church for the Crusades, the Inquisition, the imprisonment of Galileo, the selling of indulgences, the murder of the Knights Templar (and anyone else who threatened the Church's power), or the suppression and distortion of many of the ACTUAL teachings and facts surrounding the life of that Judean feller they claim to represent. Nor should we.
I couldn't disagree with you more about that. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the generations of people responsible for those blatant abuses have long since faced their judgment. If you must judge the leaders of the Church, then at least have the good sense to judge the current leaders on the basis of current issues and their positions on them. That's only fair and reasonable.
TAG4 said:Don't forget the child molestations and other sexual misconducts!
That's a cheap shot. You're judging the entire Church based upon the abuses of a few. Explain to me how you think that's fair.
SJB66 said:And yes we do have the right to say what we want. but it does not mean everyone has to like it. That's life, you cannot please everyone.
No, we sure can't please everyone. But we can try to be respectful. John did; when he realized his mistake, he apologized for it.
You're free, like everyone else to think whatever you want. However, no one is free to simply go shooting off their mouth however they please. Especially in a forum like this. We're here because Bax says we can be, not because it's our "right to free speech". It is our responsibility to accept that fact, and to respect Bax, his (that's right, Bax's, not our) forum and each other. A few people seem to have momentarily forgotten that. Responsibility isn't always popular, but it is always part and parcel to the whole freedom thing. ANY kind of freedom.
CenturyBob said:I dont think this has anything to do with free speach. Y'all can say anything you want but you must accept the consequences of what you say.
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!
And props to you for standing up for your Dad like that.
-
- Rated: 58 ↑
Nov 23, 2008 4:36 p.m. yettoblaster:
Dang. I'm busted again.
-
- Rated: 30 ↑
Nov 23, 2008 4:48 p.m. Beatles6120:
Imagine there's no religion
-
- Rated: 29 ↑
Nov 23, 2008 4:52 p.m. SqwareKat:
Wah wah wah waaaahhhhhhhhhhhh....
-
- Rated: 83 ↑
Nov 23, 2008 4:54 p.m. Deed Eddy:
G_d forbid.
-
- Rated: 26 ↑
Nov 23, 2008 5:32 p.m. marctrain57:
I can see another squabble broke out while I wasn't paying attention.
Back to the original post, I think the time for the church to forgive Lennon would have been sometime in December, 1980. Seems a bit out of date now.
-
- Rated: 20 ↑
Nov 23, 2008 5:43 p.m. TwangOmatic:
Ok great i like page 3 so far. Century Bob wise words and a good story and thank you sqware kat for taking the time to lay that out the way you did. I can see your points of view a little clearer now but from my point of view most actually all of those comments were fairly mild jokes or statements about something that offends us. None of them were vicious or personal and my comment was at heart nothing more than a little cheers to my atheist gdp mates. The alienation part is unfortunate but it is an unavoidable part of human life. I feel alienated when people bash a guitar or a band i like but i wouldn't leave the gdp over it. I hope the people who plan on leaving change there minds but i can't promise to refrain from taking the odd playful poke at things that oppose my beliefs.
-
- Rated: 212 ↑
Nov 23, 2008 5:51 p.m. Proteus:
I'm sure I'll be sorry for this.
Fair warning: this post is a mess, an edited pastiche of several attempts to respond to this thread, and redundant and confused in structure. I'm tired of trying to munge it all together, and ask that those who are ready to react to previous statements at least try to read it before doing so, and overlook its literary shortcomings and wordy long-goings.
Short version:
I apologize for offending anyone; there was no intention to do so. I was hasty and thoughtless.
I should not have posted so flippantly at first, and so categorically the second time.
I'm in no sense prejudiced against Catholics.
I have issues with Church (not Catholic) history which I shouldn't have taken out on the Vatican's Lennon article.
If immoderate things were said by some in this thread about the Vatican, there's also been an unfair rush to judgment on the part of those whose feelings were hurt.
No one should leave the GDP over another religion discussion gone sideways.
I don't know if it's more stupid or more noble that we keep trying to talk about religion when we all know better.
I haven't spoken before now, or for or against others, because I'm trying to get out of that business, which has made my chest hurt so many times in the past.
I'm a slow learner.
Long version.
I apologize to any and all I may have offended by my comments. They were not directed at individuals or even toward Catholics in general. They addressed specifically (but inexcusably superficially) the actions, inactions, policies, and pronouncements of the upper echelons of the Catholic heirarchy.
If criticizing The Vatican for its past or present actions qualifies as an attack on all Catholics, then I'm guilty and nothing I can say will make amends. But I distinguish between the governance and history of any organization and the individuals who now make it up, as I thought most people do. And I assure you all that there is no anti-Catholic prejudice on my part - at least that I'm consciously aware of.
It's my instinct and policy to exercise no prejudice against ANYone on account of anything other than their own actions - but some prejudice may sneak in unawares from childhood, experience, misunderstandings or interpretations of history. I guess I can't help that, but I mean to root it out if I become aware of it. This thread has shone some light in dark corners.
But don't attack me. I'm a bit taken aback that those who take me to task for pretending to have "The Moral Compass of the World" are also able to judge my attitudes and intentions from a few posts. I think it's reckless conclusion-jumping to assume that because I - or anyone else - implies criticism of the Church, that we are prejudiced, or simple, or ignorant. Aside from my own reckless assumption about what "The Vatican" meant by its Lennon editorial, I pased judgment on no one. So while it's my instinct to apologize when I offend, let me try to make clearer the actual nature and dimensions of my apostasy.
This will involve the reprehensibly navel-gazing act of publicly looking in the reaches of my past for any roots or fruits of the bigotry I'm accused of. I grew up in a small town which, as far as I know, had few if any Catholics. I don't recall hearing Catholic-bashing from parents, friends, other adults, and I was raised to be respectful, tolerant, and compassionate toward all. (My grandmother, from a larger town, often muttered about "those Catholics," but she was referring to the Diocese, which was buying up all the houses on her street and turning them into parking lots for the adjacent church and schoolyard - where I often played with whomever showed up. My grandparents' passionate support for Kennedy is also an early memory.)
Later, I had girlfriends who were Catholic. (I don't call them Catholic girlfriends, because religion was incidental.) Several of my best friends in college were Catholic; including one close friend who converted to Catholicism during college and went on to seminary. (That came apart spectacularly and he did not become a priest, though he's still Catholic.) Best man at my (Methodist) wedding was Catholic - no one asked; it was, as it should be, a non-issue. (Shoot, I feel like an idiot for invoking the specious "some of my best friends are Martians" defense.)
The entire notion that I might have anti-Catholic bias inspired a detailed self-examination (insofar as I'm capable of "searching my own heart," blah blah blah), and has caught me off-guard because I've never even disTINGuished among people I know on the basis of religion. When I meet and talk with, work with, get to know someone – unless they're making a show of religion or wearing garb or symbols – it never even occurs to me to WONder about it.
Truly, I could care less - and if religion comes up with friends or acquaintances and we feel like talking about it, it can make for interesting conversation. They don't offend me, I hope I don't offend them.
We moved to an overwhelmingly and staunchly German Catholic small town in 1989, and lived there 17 years. (How Catholic was it? When we came, there were three Catholic churches and no Methodist!) I worked with people who were Catholic on a daily basis, including monks and nuns from nearby monasteries. I've always had an interest in religions and their history, and had "far-ranging" discussions with some of the brothers about various aspects of practice and church history. No problem. I've attended weddings and funerals and first communion celebrations.
I played in an ecumenical church band - I think it included Catholics AND Baptists! Maybe even some reforming heathens! My son played handdrums for several contemporary services in the local cathedral, and traveled to other churches with those musicians to perform.
So, no...when it comes to individuals, I just can't find any prejudice. I don't FEEL any, and I can't find any evidence of it in my personal history.
Expanding outward from the individual, I have great respect for the practice of local congregations, for the beauty and formality and grandeur of the ritual, and for the sincerity of intention on the part of members. At the local level, I find no more fault with Catholic churches than with any other - and less than some others.
But when it comes to the hierarchy of the Church, to rules and policies and their enforcement, from Diocese on up through the Vatican – much less the entire sweep of Vatican and Church history – I'll confess to some ambivalence. Some of that derives from direct knowledge of local/area circumstances and situations; some comes from my (admittedly inadequate) study of all that history.
Someone asked "what the Vatican has done to me." It's something I'd never thought of. Must I have been personally injured in some way to be aware of, and to comment on, what I might characterize, based on my own instincts, as intolerance or injustice? Then I can't speak, because indeed the Vatican has never directly smote me.
I hadn't thought of it in years, but it's just possible it plays some subconscious role, so let me tell a little story. When we moved to the very Catholic town, my children were 7 and 10. We enrolled them in public school. Several days a week, virtually all the kids in every grade were taken across the street to a Church facility for "religion class." This was very specifically Catholic training, and nearly all students went. (A slight variation on separation between church and state, to be sure, which no doubt the ACLU would have had a field day with. But at the time I was generally positively disposed toward religion, and happy to see a devout community with a lower barrier.)
At the time, I would have identified myself as Pentecostal, though the kids had been to a variety of Protestant churches. In any case, we didn't want them taken from public school for any sectarian religion class – and in fact, I think that as non-Catholics they wouldn't have been "eligible." (On the other hand, a general factual history of world religions, at the high school level, ought to be mandatory.) As a result, my kids were kept - virtually alone - in their empty classrooms while all the other kids went for catechism. No activities were provided for them. Other kids asked them why they weren't Christian; some called them "devil-worshippers" and "Satanists." They came home crying on more than one occasion, wondering what all that was about.
I knew it was just a matter of kids being ignorant kids, but it was the first time I'd experienced prejudice because of religion - even by one remove - and I know it was painful for my children. It also led to complicated discussions with them, trying to explain that Catholics and Protestants are all Christians, and Christianity and other religions are all different expressions of common ideas, ways of understanding ideas of God, and that those classmates just didn't understand and didn't mean to hurt your feelings...
Another tale. As part of my job, I worked with the area Diocesan newspaper. (Their former production manager has now been my business partner for 10 years.) A woman there had been a secretary in the office for years. Her marriage fell apart, her husband moved out, and she tried to make it go as a single mother. She applied for the annulment, which was endlessly and inexplicably delayed. She met a man, fell in love, and wanted to marry him. A devout lifelong Catholic, working across the hall from the local bishop, she could not get the annulment necessary for her to remarry. Eventually she couldn't afford to stay in her house on her salary, and moved in with the man, and was then fired for immorality. But there was nothing anyone could do, because the policies of the Church were inviolable. It didn't happen to me personally, but I remember it when I go looking for anti-Vatican animus in myself.
Living in this community, I know several people who are torn over similar divorce/annulment/dissolution issues. They love their faith, they love their significant others. But there's no relief for them, and they live in that tension, sometimes for decades. They are hurt and confused.
And no one who lives in a largely Catholic area DOESN'T know of someone directly affected by clerical sexual abuse. Even in this rural area, several priests have been implicated, and their victims and their defenders are often the same people. They're all racked with shame (not least the offenders); lives have been ruined, and congregations have been devastated by the fallout.
Are any of these things the fault of "the Vatican"? Certainly not the ridicule my children received; kids are kids. (I'm sure they got their attitudes from their parents.) The woman fired from the Diocese for immorality, when she was in a Catch 22? Well, that does seem to go to Church policy. And the personal failings of fallible individuals lead to the clerical abuse of children. But most Catholics feel, as most EVERYone feels, that the Church could have done more, sooner and more transparently, about the abuse issue - which has been global, and which has been festering for decades.
Those personal associations probably contribute to some instinctive reaction on my part to question and challenge Church hierarchy, going all the way to the top. They probably shouldn't, and I apologize for giving vent. But it's not about Catholics as people, by any stretch of the imagination. It's about the policies and actions of a massive and powerful institution.
For better and worse, that institution - the oldest one in continual operation on the planet - has had a very complicated history.
In responding to one of my posts, Tim fairly said: "To live in the 21st century and pass moral judgment on people in ancient times, foreign cultures and archaic political systems is the height of arrogance in my book."
Point taken, with chagrin, per ancient times, foreign cultures, and archaic political systems – and it's a classic intellectual fallacy to judge other times (and sometimes other peoples) by our own standards. Mea culpa. I recognize that the modern Church is more tolerant and pluralistic than it has been in the past, and has owned up about its need to be vigilant about its own failings.
In trying to be rhetorically consistent with the gist of the Lennon article ("Church forgives Beatle"), I used the concept of forgiveness in my first post. At the same time I pointed out that my opinion of the Vatican is irrelevant: "I haven't forgiven the Vatican for a lot of things, but it's not my job to, nor does it matter." Still, that sentence unfortunately implied I think I have the need, responsibility, or power to forgive a 2,000 year-old institution. I don't. And it doesn't have to apologize to me.
But I should not have posted so quickly in the first place, without trying to find out what the piece in the L'Osservatore was really about, who it spoke for, and what it intended. I've since read many accounts of the article, and they seem to split between characterizing it as "forgiveness" of Lennon and as a simple informal acknowledgement of The Beatles' place in pop culture. I still can't find the entire text of the article, so I'm at the mercy of (a wide range of) the media for an interpretation.
There may be a point of Catholic law involved: if it appears in L'Osservatore (which is characterized as the semi-official daily voice of the Vatican), does that make it official Church policy? If a writer for the L'Osservatore says it, does it speak for the Pope? If the Pope says it, is it the same as absolution? I'm not being flippant; I'm trying to figure out just how much we're to read into an article in the daily Vatican paper.
In any case, I reacted to it (surely without sufficient research) on the basis of what I thought was A) the arrogance of the Church in believing it needed to or had the power to forgive Lennon, and B) what I (probably erroneously) took as the seeming irrelevance of its now doing so. I see now that it was a matter of real importance to some Catholics that the Church and the Beatles be reconciled. I apologize for not getting that.
My first post also failed to acknowledge that the Church HAS apologized, in one form or another, for many of its "sins" (or the sins of its members, as it holds the Church itself to be spotless, a distinction I do understand) over the past 2,000 years. That includes treatment of Catholics and Muslims, the extent of members' roles in The Holocaust, and a number of other specific historical events. Truthfully, I had read of those apologies when they happened and then forgotten them till researching the mess I've helped make here.
I do NOT hold the current hierarchy of the Church responsible for everything in its past, as my enumeration of some of the dark events of that history implied. But it remains that the Church has a remarkable institutional memory, and certainly knows more of its own past than I do. That it occasionally re-evaluates that history and sees a need to make amends publicly for one thing and another suggests that it DOES take at least some responsibility for that past. I should have acknowledged that it has done so.
But since I (and others) made a list of grievances, and we've discussed the extent of the modern church's responsibility for them, let me address some of them more specifically.
It seems to me a little disingenuous to imply that some of these dark episodes shouldn't now be acknowledged and judged at ALL, by standards either archaic or contemporary.
For instance, the extent of papal corruption in the 15th Century was offensive even to the standards of its own time. For another, I don't see how it can ever have seemed consistent with Christ's words and intentions to have murdered people over their beliefs, as was the practice with "heretics" over many centuries, and during The Inquisition. These things are "ancient history," but they ARE history, and Christians are all heir to them. We ought to acknowledge them (as we ought to acknowledge the horrors that came on the heels of the Protestant Reformation, and ongoing strife between Protestant and Catholic in Ireland, with its lethal mix of religion and politics).
Coming forward, the widespread child abuse by clergy, extending over decades and gradually revealed over the past several years, can't be explained by reference to other cultures or eras and still be consistent with the unchanging word of God as promulgated by the Church. The Church HAS spoken out against and censured those involved, and I understand that there's no official tolerance for such stuff. I know it represents aberrant behavior to everyone involved (including, usually, the perpetrators). I don't judge Catholics, or the Church, by that behavior.
But it's fair to regret that the Vatican and Church administrations were not quicker, less equivocal, and more forthcoming in addressing those issues. (Many who wish so are devout Catholics.) Those are current events, not ancient history. That scandal is still playing out, with many still dissatisfied with Vatican action.
I should NOT have included complicity with Nazi Germany in my list, as the history of the Church in Germany during the Nazi years is way too complicated for that characterization to be fair. The Church was itself under fire by Naziism, and the rights, property, and lives of German Catholics and clergy had to be protected: the Concordat which established a formal agreement between Rome and Nazi Germany has to be seen in that light. It has been blamed for helping legitimize Hitler's government, but it was enacted long before the full horrors of Naziism bloomed.
There's much debate, presumably among historians of goodwill, as to whether the Church did enough in the face of Naziism, if it could have done more, etc. I find widely differing perspectives from Church sources and secular sources, all possibly with axes to grind - but it is indeed far too simple to call the Church "complicit," and I apologize for that.
In my view, most of the abuses associated with any religious institution come when that institution is also a worldly power center – a political actor. The Catholic Church was the seat of essential social and political power in Europe for many centuries, and its mission was surely mixed, if not confused. Was it a political force, or was it spiritual? When the Church's worldy political necessities, as seen by its princes, come into conflict with the spiritual principles at its core, the spiritual principles are often compromised. That's probably inevitable.
I make the same observations about Protestant churches - or any other - when they get too involved in the political area. Or, more specifically, when they acquire power in the political arena, rather than speak truth to it. Churches oughtn't to be states, and vice versa.
I think of another likely source of unconscious resentment on my part: the Vatican probably gets some immature energy left over from the disillusionment I felt as a younger man over the history of Christianity.
As I've said, I was raised Methodist by very devout parents, with no overt anti-Catholic bias. When I eventually became aware of church history, I didn't think of it as "Catholic." Up to the point of the Protestant Reformation, Catholic history was Christian history, period. The early Church portrayed in the Bible evolved through the chaos and murk of the first three centuries AD into the church of Rome, which carried the message. If I was a Christian, that was my history too.
And I had lots of Christian education. Every Sunday, many Sunday nights, choir practice every Wednesday, youth groups and church camps and retreats. I had a predisposition to mysticism and religious mysteries, and from Jr High onward, an abiding interest in other religions from other cultures – along with a bit of rebellion against plain ol' Methodism. I had enough interest in religious experience and its expression to make it an undergraduate major, with concentrations in ancient, primitive, and Eastern religions. But by that time I'd had enough of an overview of Christian church history (I did NOT think of it as Catholic, as Protestants have behaved no better) to be appalled by certain periods in that history.
Maybe I felt some hereditary complicity in crimes and atrocities committed in the name of that which I had been raised to believe. It's not logical that I should have personally felt that responsibility – we weren't there, etc – but there's nothing like a disillusioned idealist to turn on the broken idols. Even when the disillusioned idealism of callow youth is outgrown, sometimes the stupid reaction remains.
I never became anti-Christian - but partially because of that history, and the deficiencies and hypocrisies I saw as an angry young man in the Protestant tradition (as nasty a mess as the Catholic, just of shorter running), by my twenties I wasn't regularly attending ANY church. I was, however, still haunted and fascinated by religion (in the wider sense), its symbolic and metaphoric, mystical and ritual components, its attempt to penetrate and make sense of the great mysteries.
Through a series of connections, some of them musical, in my thirties (the 80s) I was attracted to and eventually became part of a Pentecostal congregation. I was re-baptised. I was "born again" (though without an ecstatic experience). But, back in the fold, this time of my own volition, I still had to come to terms with church history – I didn't want to feel myself heir to dark legacies of intolerance, persecution, and violence.
The Pentecostal church gave me a little booklet charting its heritage back through a series of "heretical" movements, carefully skirting any complicity in the ugly parts of church history. That theoretically made it possible to leap back over the centuries to the time of Christ without getting my feet dirty, to pretend to be part of a persecuted minority faithful to Christ's intentions. But I recognized that that history was fabricated and self-serving – that the Pentecostal movement, born in Los Angeles in the early 20th century, was really not a direct descendant of any of the ecstatic heretical groups it cited. (Albigensians, Cathars, Anabaptists, etc.)
So the Pentecostals turned me into a Catholic-hater, right? No. I didn't sense any specifically anti-Catholic bias in the church I attended - it was ALL other chuches who, while they might be well-intended, had doctrinal details wrong. And in any case, it was a remarkable congregation for its inclusiveness and compassion, truly the most Christ-like bunch of Christians I've ever been around. (Unlike other Pentecostal and charismatic churches I've attended since, which can be judgmental and exclusionary at their core.)
But eventually I recognized that all that ancient history – the main trunk of Christianity up till the "Reformation," the ridiculous proliferation of Protestant denominations since, the array of "heresies" along the way – need have nothing to do with a direct understanding of what this guy Jesus was about, as I read it in the New Testament.
Good enough. But at some level, maybe I still hold a grudge over the suppression of "alternative gospels," the politics and machinations involved in establishing the canon in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, the action of human political authority to determine what is divine truth, the ruthless intolerance in defending that institutional position, the impossibility now of knowing what DID happen from 30 to 300, what other perspectives might have been (or still lay) buried – even what the intentions of Jesus were. I reject the authority of any church to establish that for me. If I am ambivalent about the Vatican, it's only because it's the oldest Christian establishment we have - not because it's Catholic.
Every time I've tried to make a deeper study of the history of Christianity (as opposed to its theologies), I've had a hard time finding apparently objective texts, free of ground axes. I find texts written from overtly Christian (sometimes Catholic) perspective; I find texts written from overtly ANTI-religious (sometimes anti-Catholic) perspectives. I read about the same event or period of history in both, and it's hard to believe it's the same stuff. I try to discern the likely truth between the extremes, but it's possible that prejudicial notions have crept into my self-education without my recognizing them.
I wish someone could point me to a reasonably unbiased history of Christianity and its role in social and political domains. I'd read it gratefully.
I don't feel my attitudes here are anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, or even anti-Vatican. Despite the ample mix of evil in the history of the Christian church, I recognize the enormous good it's done, in individual lives, in communities, and in societies. I recognize that despite its human and institutional failings, there are clerics and Christians in every generation who do the good, loving, tolerant, compassionate work of Christ as they understand it. I believe that most people do their best, most of the time. They try to make a church and live lives that measure up to its highest values and intentions.
Our different perspectives – Catholics' respect for and veneration of the Vatican, vs wide Protestant distrust of church governance (not to mention the issues the a-religious and irreligious, agnostic, and atheist have with religion in general) – point up ways we all need to understand each other better. I think we've been too quick to jump to judgment of each other in this thread, when we ought surely by now to know and acknowledge each others' goodwill, generally mutual respect, and apparent desire to understand and be understood (as proven by our ongoing engagement in such discussions on the GDP).
Remember that we don't always communicate clearly here, despite our best efforts. Tone and intention are lost, and we miss cues that would shape our conversations in person. In this environment, we should not be so quick to take offense.
The most painful part of this thread for me (aside from my own stupidity in wading in thoughtlessly) is the notion that I'm taken as harboring some anti-Catholic prejudice. I can't speak for anyone else (though I didn't take anyone's statements in that light), but I hope something in this rambling mess will have softened that impression, which I continue to absolutely deny.
I apologize again to those I offended; there was no intention to do so.
(I also apologize for a long, formless post. But I had to say something, and as usual "something" turned into "too much.")
(You could say I'm one sorry SOB.)
-
- Rated: 20 ↑
Nov 23, 2008 5:59 p.m. TwangOmatic:
we have a new world record for longest post!
-
- Rated: 2 ↑
Nov 23, 2008 6:18 p.m. Nevis:
Yeah c'mon guys let's stick to the subject. Pope play a Gretsch or is he a Tele man? Does he hang it on the wall or use a stand? What kind of mods has he done? Keeps it immaculate I bet.
-
- Rated: 8 ↑
Nov 23, 2008 6:48 p.m. Whofan:
Good job Proteus for being considerate and insightful, and for taking the time to explain yourself. This is a discussion board, and we are all free to discuss topics at any length in any direction, that's the beauty of it.
-
- Rated: 3 ↑
Nov 23, 2008 7:06 p.m. MrMoonlight:
Proteus: I actually did read your entire post (took a while...but I got thru it). Eloquently put.
But I still think this thread should have been locked looong ago.
-
- Rated: 4 ↑
Nov 23, 2008 7:33 p.m. thx712517:
Nevis - Isn't it obvious? Benedict is a Höfner man.
-
- Rated: 8 ↑
Nov 23, 2008 7:33 p.m. Whofan:
One last thought on the topic: Sartre was right - "Hell is other people."
-
- Rated: 29 ↑
Nov 23, 2008 7:50 p.m. SqwareKat:
Thank you Pro. Perhaps you were quick to post, but I was pretty quick to jump on you about it too.
You, as much as anyone, are THE voice to whom people around here look for reason and wisdom. As such, maybe the the power you wield comes with a lot of flak. Maybe that's fair or maybe it isn't. Either way, we should all be grateful for the many contributions and insights you bring, and I shouldn't have been so quick to snap at you. I should have been much quicker to try to thoroughly understand your point of view, to which you're as much entitled as anyone. I'm sorry. Although, that rather lengthy post did provide a lot of insight; thank you for taking the time to write that.
TwangO, you're very welcome, and you certainly have not alienated me. I took your flippant joke for what it was, nothing more. I'm kind of a fan of flippant jokes myself. You're as entitled to your beliefs as I'm to mine; I can agree to disagree with you about God.
Maybe I got bent out of shape too quickly, but I was much more offended by the seemingly anti-Catholic pig-pile I saw. I have nothing against people making legitimate gripes. Legitimate is the keyword though.
Surely Church history is littered with abuses. I won't deny that. But everyone who believes has a choice: to dwell upon the negatives of the past, or to try to learn from them and make a better present and future. We are all fallible. We're all gonna mess up. The more power we have, the bigger the messes will be. But we either lay on the ground wallowing in guilt and self pity, or we pick ourselves up and try again. We either shake our heads and point our fingers at our brothers and sisters when they falter, or we hold out our hand and help them up. That choice lies with each and every individual, not the Vatican or anyone else.
-
- Rated: 2 ↑
Nov 23, 2008 8:08 p.m. Nevis:
I thought Paul was the Hofner man. John played guitar and harmonic and sometimes the fool.
-
- Rated: 83 ↑
Nov 23, 2008 8:16 p.m. Deed Eddy:
From all the many and widely differing articles about this story that I have read today, it seems to me that the original article, in L'Observatore Romano (The Vatican newspaper) had nothing to do with forgiving John Lennon. It dealt with the wonderful history of The Beatles, their contributions to music, and a rather sympathetic attitude toward the "quip" of a young man overtaken with his sudden and overwhelming fame.
-
- Rated: 40 ↑
Nov 23, 2008 8:28 p.m. roadjunkie:
Well.. The last Pope was a Gretsch man!
-
- Rated: 30 ↑
Nov 23, 2008 8:37 p.m. Beatles6120:
Ned Flanders said: I’ve done everything the Bible says — even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff!
-
- Rated: 102 ↑
Nov 23, 2008 9:02 p.m. Setzer:
You'll see this only here...
