Well, we've DU, you've got Freepers. Strawmen gallore to pick at. I know, it's fun, but not terribly productive.

If one thing comes out of Pope Ratzinger's reign, I hope it is the sudden realization that the Catholic Church is not under any American Catholics' control. It's the pope's church, he and his leadership can do what they want with it. Changing the Church from the outside is unlikely, it's just not designed that way. Only the Church can decide to change, from within.

I personally hope that many American Catholics realize that they don't belong in the Church, that a reactionary, backwards-looking, anti-science institution of grandeous theater just isn't what Jesus was talking about. Throughout the wall-to-wall coverage of this whole pageant on cable news, I just kept thinking how overblown and un-Christ-like the Church is. Palaces, fine robes with lace frills, big funny hats, rods and scepters and crowns, hours of showmanship... meh.

Then again, the atheist in me is saying "come on, it's the 21st century and we're STILL taking this crap seriously?". My hopes of a continued age of enlightenment, between the descent of American leadership, rise of Muslim extremism, and the regression of the Catholic church... let's just say the current Age is looking Darker all the time.

your enlightened atheism is still alive and well in North Korea.

im not sure Jesus would like to have an ex Hitler Jugend behing him down here...

Mitch,

The AFP is distorting the letter that Cardinal Ratzinger wrote. Professor Bainbridge (click on my name for the link) went through this yesterday and provided the actual text as provided by “Catholics for Democracy” (a pro-Kerry group):

“[In contrast,] Cardinal Ratzinger’s note underlined the principles involved for the Catholic voter. “A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia,” Cardinal Ratzinger wrote. “When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons,” he said. In other words, if a Catholic thinks a candidate’s positions on other issues outweigh the difference on abortion, a vote for that candidate would not be considered sinful."

In other words, while the Church considers abortion to be a sin and may deny communion to those who actively promote and support it (e.g. a pro-abortion candidate and someone who votes for that candidate for that specific reason), you can still be a good Catholic and vote for a pro-abortion candidate so long as you are voting for the candidate because they have other views which outweigh their pro-abortion position.

First, Jeff....its Pope Benedict. I can see how little you respect the Roman Catholic church, but at least get the names right.

As a catholic, I am amazed how many non-catholics seem to feel the need to poke their noses into my church's business. I also love when all these non-catholics preach to us how we have to change our church to suit them. No...if you don't like the church...there's the door. Use it. Are there things that bug catholics about the church? You bet. There's PLENTY of other churches to look at...but I bet you NEVER find one that PERFECTLY fits your beliefs.

As far as agnostics or atheists lecturing catholics...save your breath.

“As far as agnostics or atheists lecturing catholics...save your breath.”

What about those of us who are agnostic or atheist and have actually defended the Catholic Church or Pope Benedict when we believe that they have been unfairly maligned?

Thorley:

I doubt agnostics or atheists spend much time defending the church's doctrines, procedures, or leadership. There might be a few times where there is common ground, but not for the same reasons.

Example: Thou shalt not kill. Agnostics/atheists probably agree with this commandment, but only because it infringes on civil liberties. Catholics would tend to place more emphasis on God's law and the biblical references.

Dave:

His name is, indeed, Ratzinger. Despite the quaint tradition of taking a new name, either are still his names. As an aside, it is pretty funny that the tradition stems from a priest named Mercurius becoming pope and thinking that being named for a pagan god was in conflict with his station. Never mind all the OTHER trappings cribbed whole from paganism by the Church over the centuries...

Claiming that non-Catholics cannot criticize their church is just silly. Of course we can. And you can feel free to ignore us. But you certainly aren't somehow off limits to critique.

Rick:

There is nothing inherent in the lack of belief in a god that leads inexorably to a totalitarian state. You betray deep ignorance by saying so.

Jeff:

You are quite ignorant. When the new pope is elected, he is asked what name he will take. This is the name that describes him now and his office.

If you wish to refer to him as Former Cardinal Ratzinger, fine. Otherwise, at least have an ounce of respect for the Catholic church and use his proper name and title.

Dave,

I think that you may wish to be careful with the standard you’re setting in who may/not criticize (or defend) the Catholic Church. One of the reasons by Pope John Paul II was so effective as a moral leader is that he was able to remain true to his Church’s teachings yet still reach out to and work with people who did share them (e.g. Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Hindus, etc.). There are many of us who do no believe as Catholics do but generally think that the Catholic Church has been a force for good or agree with some of its positions (perhaps for different reasons) or admire the Pope or just plain think that many of the attacks on it and Pope Benedict are disgusting and will not stand for it.

Also, I think it does without saying that the corollary (unless you’re proposing a double-standard) to saying that non-Catholics may not comment on the Catholic Church or suggest things it might do differently is that Catholics would not be able comment on or suggest things that non-Catholics might do differently. Such a standard would seriously hamper the Church’s mission work in trying to win converts, the ability of Catholics to try to interact with and improve the world around them, and also its ability to work with people of different or no faiths on common goals.

Rather than trying to play the “you’re not a Catholic, so it’s none of your business” card (which of course invites people to tell Catholics that they have no right to try to bring their beliefs into non-Catholic areas such as politics or mission work), it might be better to concentrate on developing the best possible arguments for defending your views and those practices/teachings of your Church that you believe in. It should also go without saying, that one ought not to turn away an ally merely because (a) you don’t agree on everything and (b) you might agree on some things but for different reasons. You still can and should be true to your own beliefs but by being willing to work with and accept help from others when it is offered, you maximize your effectiveness in the process.

Mitch,

Everyone knows that if you want to elect a new Pope, you should consult as many sectarian, non-Catholic, liberal members of the media as possible. Why should the selection of a Pope be limited to Catholics?

Good point, Scott. Having engaged in discussions with them and with other nonChristian/atheist folks over the years, I've found many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, of them to be experts on what makes a "good Christian." Once they've made that leap, it's only natural that they'd also want us to know what they would consider a "good Pope."

Brian:

I think you're making a joke, but I don't get it. Why shouldn't non-Christians be experts on what makes a good Christian? I mean, isn't it pretty simple? Didn't Jesus hint that even a brainless left-winger could distinguish between those who are his disciples and those who aren't?

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

Catholic dicta directed only at Catholics are (or should be) of interest only to Catholics and those who are considering becoming Catholics. A recent example is the reported requirement that Catholics not wager upon the selection of the new Pope. These issues are, and of a right ought to be, none of my business, as I am not a Catholic. I consider the selection of Pope to be such an issue.

The Catholic church also, and often, issues instructions that are intended to affect the way I live my life, even though not a Catholic. So long as the Catholic church as an institution feels entitled to instruct me on how I should live my life, I shall feel entitled to instruct the Catholic church on how it should live its institutional life, at least as regards these sorts of issues. Sometimes, that instruction will be in the form, "Get bent." A similar response may attend upon any attempt to tell me that I am not entitled to so respond.

Doug- How does the Catholic Church "issue instructions" intended to affect the way you live your life as a non-Catholic? Sounds pretty diabolical.

I guess I missed that part of the homily last week at Mass. I'll pay closer attention this week so as to be better prepared to carry out the Papist plot to control your life.

"Doug- How does the Catholic Church "issue instructions" intended to affect the way you live your life as a non-Catholic? Sounds pretty diabolical."

The church has repeatedly tried to influence US decisions about whether to go to war to defend itself from terrorists; that affects my life. The church has repeatedly tried to change legislation relating to contraception; that affects my life. The church has repeatedly tried to change legislation relating to US use of the death penalty, euthanasia, etc; the very act of proselytising is an attempt to change lives. I didn't think any of this was particularly controversial.

Let me be clear: I don't think any of this is immoral on its face, nor should it be illegal. I reserve the same rights to attempt to influence public life to myself.

If the church wishes to prohibit its members from taking actions that it considers immoral or require its members to take actions that it deems necessary, that is a matter for the church and its members. When it attempts to "save" me from myself, I will comment as and if I feel the need.

"Why shouldn't non-Christians be experts on what makes a good Christian?"

Matthew - people who have not read/studied the Bible or who do not believe (as Catholics do) that the Bible is the inerrant word of God can not be "experts" on what makes a good Christian because they do not know the book or the creed that they live by.

Just as I, as a American, am not an expert on Latin. I have not read or studied the subject.

For the record, I've expressed disappointment in the church's decision. That's my right as a sentient being with moral values.

I have not--nor, indeed, has any liberal I've seen--suggested that the Catholic church should somehow have been prevented from selecting Pope Benedict XVI. It is their right as a religious institution to define themselves as they will, and while I can be disappointed, as a non-Catholic, my recourse is extremely limited.

That said, forgive we non-Christians for having the temerity to express an opinion on somebody else's religion. I mean, it's not like we have the Commandant of USAFA telling his cadets that their most important allegiance is to their God. (Oh, wait--I mean that it is like that.)

Until and unless we accept religion as a private, personal matter--and it's not my party fighting that notion--I'll feel free to stick my nose into your business. You feel free to stick it into mine.

Doug-

The Church has stated its opinions on matters of war, morality, and the importance of life. As has almost every other religious group in the country. Have you been instructing these groups on how they should live their institutional lives as well? Jewish synagogues that attempt to influence US policy towards Israel for example?

It seems that when comes to the Catholic Church everyone has an opinion on how it should conduct its business that they're more than happy to share, whether solicited or not. I don't begrudge you a right to your opinion. Just be aware that most Catholics aren't going to pay it much heed.

I'm curious what you mean when you say, "change legislation relating to contraception." Are you speaking about abortion? The "Morning After" Pill? I don't think the Church is trying to curtail your ability to buy condoms.

You should also be aware that you'll probably find less outright proselytizing coming from the Catholic Church than most other Christian denominations (at least in the Western world).

You're the only one who can save you from yourself.

Matthew,

It was a joke, yes, but with a core of steel to it. These "experts" of which I speak usually wait to drop their opinion of someone's "Christianity" into the middle of a discussion of something entirely unrelated; say an argument that has not gone their way, for instance.

It's not simply the presumption of an atheist quoting scripture at a believer that bugs me. It's quite reasonable to point out that Jesus said one thing or another; we're supposed to consider those things at all times, no matter where it comes from, I suppose.

It's hard for me to put my finger on.

I certainly see an infantile aspect to it: "I don't believe this crap, but you do, so you're bound by it, ha ha." And of course, woe betide me if I attempt to introduce scripture into the discussion; I have never received a more airy dismissal.

It just seems to me that having scripture parroted at me by a non-believer is never used in any constructive way, but rather to shut me up. And it betrays in the parroter the usual rules-based approach to the word of God that I myself had to study and pray for years to overcome. Christ himself broke all the rules and got killed for it. So it's kind of silly to tell me I have to do a certain thing or think a certain way because someone knows a little bit of scripture. Christians know that's not what being a Christian is all about. It's about learning God's grace that saves us despite how massively we fall short of these ideals every minute of every day.

Consider the Mona Lisa, one of the most sublimely beautiful creations of man's artistic yearning. Now, to someone who loves it, it is beauty, solace, comfort, eye candy, who knows...sorry, I'm not good at the lyrical stuff. And some goob comes along and says, "Your precious Mona Lisa would be excellent for squishing bugs." The art lover would say, of course, "No, no, it's a whole story done on canvas in one woman's face." But the goob calmly pulls it down from the wall, walks over to an unsuspecting cockroach, and slams it down on the bug. Then, he lifts it and hangs it back on the wall, unharmed. Then, without even looking at it, he walks over to the dead cockroach. "See? Told ya! EXCELLENT for squishing bugs."

Is the goob right? Only in a strictly technical sense, and ignoring all the other things that he holds in his hand. That's what happens most of the time, I think, when an atheist throws scripture at me. He's using a sublimely beautiful thing, something which fills my soul with wonder and hope, as a cudgel. There's a word for religious people who do that: fundamentalists. Is it fair to use the same epithet for atheists who do it? Using a scripture they themselves claim not to believe? Which is worse?

I'm not going to edit this or try to parse it down. I hope you know I'm not trying to wear you down or argue you out of something, but you asked a question and this is the first time I've really tried to answer it seriously. Take it FWIW.

All this fuss over one human being and an invisible guy in the sky. And most Catholics say they don't believe in UFO's. Anyone up for a Crusade?

Matthew, If your eyes rolled up into your head while trying to read my long post above, I realized this morning that it boils down to this: I don't like it when believers try to control me by spouting scripture at me. Why would I like it when non-believers do the same thing?

The question of which is worse is still open, though. I suppose it's worse when believers do it, because they have no excuse for not knowing what a thicket of wrong trees they're upbarking.

Chad: "Have you been instructing these groups on how they should live their institutional lives as well?"

I might have said something during the height of the clergy sex-abuse scandal, but otherwise I haven't been instructing any religious group, including the Catholic church, in any internal matter, as far as I remember. I have, in fact, defended to my wife (a former Catholic) the Catholic church's right to choose its clergy in whatever idiosyncratic way it chooses.

I have in the past, and will in the future, made disparaging remarks about the church (any church) when it decides to insert itself into political matters in a manner with which I disagree. I'm not a Democrat either, but I also reserve the right to savage the Democrats for political pronouncements.

Chad: "Just be aware that most Catholics aren't going to pay it much heed."

The reverse is also true; this hasn't stopped the church. Why would you assume it would (or should) stop me? (But see above.)

Chad: "I'm curious what you mean when you say, "change legislation relating to contraception." Are you speaking about abortion? The "Morning After" Pill? I don't think the Church is trying to curtail your ability to buy condoms."

The Catholic church long fought the general availability of contraception in the US. They lost the fight here, and are losing the fight elsewhere, but that doesn't mean they didn't inject themselves into the political process in the past.

As to the abortion/"Morning After Pill", I chose not to raise it, as such discussions tend to rapidly degenerate. That said, and whatever you may think about the propriety of abortion, it is clearly a political issue, even if you consider the correct course of action an obvious one.

Should non-Christians tell Christians what they should do to be better Christians? Of course not, but not necessarily for lack of knowledge. Many (most?) proclaimed atheists were raised as Christians (at least in this country), and made the decision to leave the religion only after extensive consideration of the faith.

That said, telling someone how to exhibit values that you neither share _nor_want_to_share_ is bizarre and offensive. This isn't conceptually different from a Democrat saying, "But you Republicans say you believe, ..." to a Republican, or a Republican saying the reverse to a Democrat.

Telling someone how to be a better person without reference to some unshared standard, on the other hand, might be both offensive and incorrect, but is at least internally consistent. "All people should try to help the weak, and what you are doing harms the weak" isn't offensive in the way that "I thought XXX wanted to try to help the weak, what you are doing harms the weak" is.

Well said, Doug.

Gandhi once said he would probably become a Christian...if he ever met one. This is not offensive to me because I know what he's getting at, even though I disagree with his choice. Far be it from me to tell Gandhi what to think, though. He daid.

I am sometimes tempted to read that same brand of wistful longing into atheists' preaching to me. But then they have to say something mean and ugly and spiteful and it spoils the illusion.

(That's a joke, folks.)

I do think you're giving a bit too much credit to MOST atheists, though. I suspect that, far from giving extensive consideration to the faith, they strayed when one narthex busybody too many talked down to them, or they got pissed at God for not getting their way one too many times. I've seen it a million times. Hell, I myself was an atheist out of anger at God for at least a decade. While I'm quite sure that there are quite a few atheists who have adopted atheism as a rational and carefully considered stance after much study, most have struck me as scoffers who have elevated their own outrage at their Aunt MayJune the queer-hater into a contrarian approach to the word of God and his people.

But, hey, whatever gives them fulfillment. I'm not outraged at them, just observing.

Doug-

In your original comment you said:

"I shall feel entitled to instruct the Catholic church on how it should live its institutional life, at least as regards these sorts of issues."

Now you seem to be backing away from this. My question was whether you would instruct other institutions who also become involved in political issues. Maybe you should advise Ducks Unlimited on who their next president should be for instance.

One of the reasons that Catholics tire of discussions such as this so quickly and are not usually enthusiastic about engaging in them in the first place is that invariably we will be called to defend any/all actions of the Church in the past. Your quote was:

"The church has repeatedly tried to change legislation relating to contraception; that affects my life. "

How does what the Church did in the past in regard to opposing contraception have an impact on your life today?

As I said before, in no way do I want to limit your right to disagree with political positions that the Church may espouse. I welcome your disagreements and would willingly engage in debate with you over them. But when it comes down to deciding what kind on man will lead the Church, I believe that decision is an internal matter for Catholics.

The media likes to try to analyze the Church in the same manner as a political party. But it's not a political party and its leader does not represent people in the same way as political leaders. George W. Bush is the President for all Americans (whether they like it or not). Benedict XVI is the Pope for Catholics only.

Chad: "In your original comment you said:

"'I shall feel entitled to instruct the Catholic church on how it should live its institutional life, at least as regards these sorts of issues.'

"Now you seem to be backing away from this."

Let's at least use the whole sentence, shall we:

"So long as the Catholic church as an institution feels entitled to instruct me on how I should live my life, I shall feel entitled to instruct the Catholic church on how it should live its institutional life, at least as regards these sorts of issues."

It's important to realize that, "...shall feel entitled...." != "...shall...." I chose my words pretty carefully then, meant them then, and feel no need to recant them now. I will address other elements of my answer later.

Chad: "How does what the Church did in the past in regard to opposing contraception have an impact on your life today?"

If it is your claim that the Catholic church will not ever make such an attempt again, and if I were to believe that claim, it would have no impact other than as an example of the willingness of the church to interfere in my life in matters that I consider none of its business. As to whether I believe that, well, please note my use of the subjunctive mood in the preceding sentence.

Chad: "Maybe you should advise Ducks Unlimited on who their next president should be for instance."

I am not a member of Ducks Unlimited; why should I consider Ducks Unlimited more worthy of my attentions than the Catholic church?
Perhaps you didn't notice the part where I wrote, "Catholic dicta directed only at Catholics are (or should be) of interest only to Catholics and those who are considering becoming Catholics. ... These issues are, and of a right ought to be, none of my business, as I am not a Catholic. I consider the selection of Pope to be such an issue."

Chad: "But when it comes down to deciding what kind on man will lead the Church, I believe that decision is an internal matter for Catholics."

See, we agree already (though if those Duck SOBs ever try to tell me what caliber of pistol to buy, look out). Look, I understand that you are defending an institution that you care a great deal about. Good for you; this sort of engagement is a fine thing. I don't agree with your cause, but I don't see it as reprehensible in any way. But please understand that I see you as arguing against a position that I don't hold.

My position was, and will remain, that to the extent that I disagree with the Catholic church on matters of public policy, I may note that and argue against its position. Such argument may contain references to matters that I would not otherwise consider my business if I consider that the church has taken a position that I consider none of its business. I will do this not because the position is held by a group of which I am not a member, not because it is held by a group that is uniquely and fundamentally detrimental, but because I disagree with the position and find the argument important enough to make -- and because I reserve the right to reply in kind. (This would be that other element of my response mentioned above.)

Since you said that, "...in no way do I want to limit your right to disagree with political positions that the Church may espouse", I'd say we agree on most of this too.

Chad: "The media likes to try to analyze the Church in the same manner as a political party."

I agree that the media does this, but think that this is more reasonable than you seem to. The media largely treats groups like labor unions in the same way, and with about as much justification. In the case of a church, the institution expresses interest in, and advocates a particular result in, a wide variety of matters of public importance. This scope and goal-set is similar to that of a political party, and in direct contrast to single-issue lobbying groups like the NRA.

This sort of analysis does rather miss nuance, but nuance is not a strong point among our various popular media. I know that attachments to churches are both stronger and weaker (perhaps more elastic would be a better phrase) than those to political parties. Stronger, in that religious people seldom consider completely breaking contact, but weaker/more elastic in that they are less likely to directly address matters of specific and overriding interest in the short term and to offer specific, detailed, and concrete answers in that same term.