Category: Religion

The number one problem with the revised abuse-handling policy being voted up on by US Catholic bishops is that it should have been the policy all along, at a minimum.

The number two problem with it is that it’s too little, too late. Inserting references to due process, to waivers to be “certainly” granted by the Pope, of “commitments” to undictated action by bishops, all depends on the bishops being trusted by the laity to handle these matters diligently and quickly.

The problem is, too many of the laity don’t trust the bishops, because they know the Church has been dragged, kicking and glowering, into taking the matter seriously — and that the Vatican has shown more interest in making sure that the laity knows who’s in charge here. Hence getting lay review boards out of the disciplinary picture, and refusing to impose any punishment on bishops who don’t follow the policies.

The policy to be adopted is better than nothing, and probably more than many of the Vatican powers want. What the Church may really need is probably too draconic for anyone’s taste.

But that’s what happens when you squander trust — it comes back to bite everyone on the butt.

The Vatican is considering barring gays from the priesthood.

“With all those overflowing seminaries, long wait lists of Holy Orders applicants, and five or six priests in every parish, trying to decide who gets to say Mass this weekend, clearly we can do without any of those sort of folks in the priesthood,” Vatican spokesman Fr. Antonio Notagaegi added. “And, after all, if we get rid of all those gay priests, then there won’t be any need for bishops and cardinals to cover up their abuses, so it’s a win-win for everyone.”

(via JillMatrix)

… because I suspect your Boss might be more than a bit irked with you.

I think Christianity has enough to do keeping its own house in order these days that there’s little need to comment on other religions. Particularly off-the-cuff sound-bite-style commentary. Particularly if it’s a snarky, and rather hypocritical (not to mention uneducated) comment. Double-particularly if the result is violent riots.

(via Tess, whose commentary is crankily on-target)

One of America’s funniest goofballs, Jerry Falwell, is at it again. Hopping on the Conservative Christian bashing of Islam, he’s told Sixty Minutes in an interview to be broadcast Sunday), that Muhammad was “a terrorist … a violent man, a man of war.”

Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses,” Falwell adds. “I think Muhammad set an opposite example.”

As Eugene Volokh delightfully puts it, the case for Moses, at least, is a bit dubious.

Hey, I’m no Biblical scholar, but wasn’t Moses involved with that whole smiting of the first-born thing, plus of course a wide variety of biological warfare? And weren’t there lots of other figures in the Old Testament — figures who are generally viewed quite positively — who were also “violent [men], . . . [men] of war”?

Indeed, including most of the successors of Moses, starting with Joshua and running down to and through Saul and David.

Falwell — who made headlines in September 2001 by blaming liberals, gays, pro-choice folks and the like for 9-11 attack, then more or less backpedalled — was quick to note in a followup AP interview that “he would never state his opinion in a sermon or book.”

How nice of him. He’ll limit his preaching on the subject to just Sixty Minutes.

What a maroon.

Bismarck noted that, as with sausages, it is best that the average person does not know how laws are made. The point being, of course, that both manufactures tend to be a matter of expedient, and sometimes dirty, combinations of whatever is at hand, for reasons and by means that are often far less noble or aesthetically pleasing than one would ideally wish.

So why would anyone in their right mind — let alone someone who actually is positive about their religion — get involved in ecclesiastical organization and legislation? Like, say, for example, going to a diocesan convention next weekend to discuss budgets, various resolutions, and lay the groundwork for electing the next Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Colorado?

Continue reading “Conventional thinking”

Doyce has a reminiscing post today about grace before meals, citing Bigwig‘s post on the same topic. So why not weigh in myself?

Grace, for me growing up, was an exceptional thing, by which I mean it was the exception rather than the rule. We’d say grace at big family dinners on holidays — Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter. It was part of the pomp and circumstance of such meals, alongside the good china and the silverware.

In recent years, I note that my parents say grace before every meal. Or at least every meal that I’m at with them (which may mean something different altogether).

I’ve tended to try and follow that earlier example, though (plus doing it at meals when my folks are visiting). It’s tough, both because such big meals tend to somewhat chaotic affairs, and so remembering that one extra item is difficult, and because we often as not have folks over for such meals whose religious tastes or affiliation are not the same as ours, and thus might feel uncomfortable with the whole Saying Grace thang.

Which brings me to Dave’s Philosophy of Prayer. Bigwig asks, rightly, whether God “sweats the little stuff,” i.e., cares whether we pray before meals. And I’d have to answer, in terms of “Will lightning fork down from the heavens and fry the turkey if we don’t pray over it?” that clearly the answer is “No.” Indeed, I opine that God doesn’t care about prayer in terms of needing it, or wanting it for its own sake.

Prayer’s use, in my own philosophy (or theology, I suppose) is not to the prayee, but to the prayer, the person saying the words. It’s an opportunity to remember that connection between God and Man, to remember things we are thankful for (but may not have articulated, even to ourselves) and things we are in need of (ditto). It’s a reestablishing, a reminder of that link, even if it’s brief, formulaic, and unilateral, not unlike sending a Christmas card to an old friend.

The words may be rote, to the point of meaninglessness, but, in a sense, they remain useful because they are making time, even a few moments, for God. The words matter less than the sentiment, the intent, the act. (And to the extent that they become rote, they become meditative as well.)

The common Episcopal grace I’ve learned is, Bless, O Lord, Thy gifts to our use and us to Thy service. Not a bad prayer, at that. Maybe something I ought to say more often.

Why would anyone want to go to a church that seats 4,500?

I mean, sure, cathedrals were designed as mass worship centers. But they were also designed to be, themselves, architectural prayers to God, and to be a center for the community and the religious life. These mega-mall style churches are temporary at best (does anyone think any of them will still be standing in thirty years?), and they feel like they are further commoditizing God while distancing the worshipper from the worship.

Of course, it didn’t seem to bother the folks at Nuremberg, so what do I know?

Well, what I know is that I prefer a relatively small church, at least physically, so that I can feel I’m a part of both what’s going on during the service and part of the community.

And I don’t want to have to take a shuttle bus from the parking lot ….

US bishops have issued a statement that Jews don’t need to be evangelized:

Citing teachings dating back to the Second Vatican Council, and statements by Pope John Paul II throughout his papacy, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops declared unequivocally that the biblical covenant between Jews and God is valid and therefore Jews do not need to be saved through faith in Jesus.

How … refreshingly radical.

(Via JillMatrix)

You would think that with major molestation scandals rocking at the Catholic Church — you know, the ones where priests who raped and molested minors were protected, given a slap on the wrist, then shuffled off to new, unsuspecting parishes, over and over again — the Vatican would have more important house-ordering to deal with than worry about some women who were “ordained” by an unrecognized bishop to be unrecognized priests.

Evidently not.

And, gauging from the vitriol flying about the web, the unfortunately-named Cardinal Ratzinger’s reference to this half-publicity-stunt/half-sideshow as a “most serious offence” hasn’t won the Vatican any brownie points, either, especially since the “women priests” have been summarily excommunicated, which is a lot worse than most of the molesters in question have had to face.