God help us
Anybody here think the accession of Joseph Ratzinger to the papacy is a good thing? In rejecting the unity candidate in favour of the continuity candidate the papal conclave have condemned yet more people to misery and death.
Having said that, it’s not as if Ratzinger didn’t warn us. Here’s what he had to say in God and the World: A Conversation with Peter Seewald:
Today what people have in view is eliminating suffering from the world. For the individual, that means avoiding pain and suffering in whatever way. Yet we must also see that it is in this very way that the world becomes very hard and very cold. Pain is part of being human. Anyone who really wanted to get rid of suffering would have to get rid of love before anything else, because there can be no love without suffering, because it always demands an element of self-sacrifice, because, given temperamental differences and the drama of situations, it will always bring with it renunciation and pain.
Anyone who really wanted to get rid of suffering would have to get rid of love before anything else. The proponent of this dangerous, disgusting horseshit is now leader of the world’s 1.1 billion Catholics. Good luck guys, sounds like you’re going to need it.
He’s been called “the Panzer Cardinal” - what a delightful image. His stint in the Hitler Youth clearly gave him the taste for the genocide his ultra-Conservative diktats have caused and will continue to cause. Still, to get rid of suffering is to get rid of love. The new Benedict XVI must love his flock so very, very much.
In fact Benedict XVI loves all kinds of people - particularly homosexuals (”an intrinsic moral evil“), children abused by paedophile priests (”Ratzinger wrote that pedophile cases were subject to pontifical secrecy and that only priests should handle such cases“), AIDS-ravaged Africa (”no condoms, keep it zipped up” - or words to that effect) and women (”You can’t have women priests because Christ had a johnson” - I paraphrase somewhat).
As someone who shook the disease of my Catholicism (along with theism in general) a long time ago now, I can really only shake my head, keep fingers crossed and keep reminding myself that at least I still believe all men are brothers, worthy of life, dignity and respect. It’s not as if I can join the Party and try to bring change from within.
It’s been said already that, at 78, Ratzinger is an interim figure. But as a bridgehead to what? He caused enough damage from the shadows under the previous pope. It’s to be wondered what he’ll feel himself capable of now the shackles are off and he has the papacy to himself. And what legacy will he leave? Plenty more souls gathered unto God and precious else.
He’s railed against the rise in secularisation particularly in Europe but how he’s supposed to be a figure to rally disaffected Catholics is anybody’s guess.
(Jim Bliss has more. At least Jim made the best use of papal infallibility, while he was its custodian, we’re likely to see this side of Judgement Day.)
Posted on April 19th, 2005 at 9:30 pm
| See also • More joy in heaven over one sinner who repents • Blair’s Catholicism: The practical upshot • Indulge me |
Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe By Email • Print This Post • • • |
|
Filed under Theology |
I’m with ratzinger on this one - no love without suffering. Viks (Justin’s partner)
I disagree with the Catholic doctrine on birth control and am not a Catholic. However I find your categoriation of Catholicism as a disease to be offensive - do you view Judaism the same way, and do you think that like all diseases it should be irradicated?
I consider instuitionalised religion as the central source of most of the world’s problems in the last two thousand years.
But being an ex-Catholic I can’t say for definite whether Judaism, Islam or any of other religion causes the same damage that I consider Catholicism has done to me, my family and others. I find Catholicism and its cult of death as offensive. Who mentioned Judaism?
If you’d like to fight your corner please post again. Just not anonymously.
Granted that Catholicism is not your preference, but it seems to me that 1.1 Billion people must find something of value in it otherwise it would have gone the way of communism.
My comment on Judaism was prompted by your comment that you are: “someone who shook the disease of my Catholicism (along with theism in general)” thus lumping all theistic religions in with your view of Catholicism as a disease.
My point was simply that viewing legitimate religious beliefs as a disease could well lead to the sort of hatred and contempt that can (as has happened in Mr. Ratzinger’s own country) give succour to anti-semitism or the persecution of those with a particular belief.
I would be interested to know if you felt that the Catholic church was solely responsble for the genocide of Aids? Your post tends to suggest that you do (”the genocide his ultra-Conservative diktats have caused”). Certainly its doctrine on birth control has contributed to the death rates, but is that rate any higher among Cathloics than others? And is it not simplistic to suggest (as again is implied in your post) that a change in that doctrine would (if it happened now) lower the death rates or (if it had happened in the early days of Aids, or had never existed at all) mean that the aids pandemic would not have been so severe?
I agree that organised religion has formed a basis of a lot of the worst atrocities carried out by humans. But not all. Aids was not caused by religion, and while religion has a part to play in the fight to eliminate it (a part that is being neglected by the Catholic church in its teachings on contraception)it is not simply the failing of religion that has brought us to where we are.
Poverty, too, was not created by religion. It was created by greed and by a lack of compassion. If religion, any religion, seeks to restore compassion then it should be tolerated. I remain unconvinced as to whether Mr. Ratzinger is a truly compassionate man.
Paul, maybe disease was a bit strong but you are dealing with someone here who’s still bitter about what he sees as years of Catholic indoctrination into a cult of ideas none of which have been proved by empirical evidence and some that are just cruel. That leaves a legacy. Have you read Richard Dawkins? He describes religion as a meme - an idea as a virus. It’s probably a less offensive way of putting it.
But I have to say, if you’re take offence on behalf on the mighty edifice of whichever doctrine you follow from some minority opinion on a blog, well… that mighty doctrine must be in trouble.
Anyway. The following stuff is addressed to Catholicism and no other faith.
Indeed, 1.1 billion people find something in Catholicism. I’d argue it’s a wafer of comfort in the certain knowledge that they’re going to die. I say they’re feeding the urge to assuage the creeping feeling that this life might be all we get.
I’m a live and let live kind of guy. I’m not advocating that people should be “cured”. I (just about) gave up smoking last year - that doesn’t mean I think all other smokers should be forced to give up as well. People quite clearly derive a lot of comfort from their beliefs. Why should I rain on the parade?
I take your point on the Church and AIDS but we could argue all day about death rates among non-Catholics. My point is that Catholic doctrine on contraception is now out of date. The Church outlaws the use of condoms because they stop Catholics making more baby Catholics. But the world has changed - now a condom can save your life. In that way, the Church has contributed to the “genocide”.
And of course a change in the doctrine is going to lower the death rates. If the Church said tomorrow “no glove, no love” and it prevents just one African Catholic HIV-positive man from passing the virus on to his partner, then by definition it’s lowered the death rate. Clearly an earlier pronouncement wouldn’t have prevented the pandemic but there’d be a lot more people alive today than not.
I’d argue that religion has contributed majorly to the state we’re in. The idea that this life is the preamble to something better is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands whether it be AIDS babies being “gathered unto God”, the suicide bomber with a hard-on for his 72 virgins or Tony Blair saying he’ll answer to his maker for civilian deaths in Iraq. The idea makes people lazy and, in some cases, dangerous. Especially in the Catholic Church where you can have your slate cleaned just before you pop your clogs and enter the Kingdom of Heaven with a pristine soul.
And no, religion didn’t create poverty but I ask myself how much Benedict XVI’s finery would bring at auction and the good that you could with the resultant stack of cash. I did wonder, when watching him being feited in his splendour the other night, about what happened to “do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth”.
“I remain unconvinced as to whether Mr. Ratzinger is a truly compassionate man.” No, he doesn’t seem the type, does he?
We’re closer together on this than I thought. My post was a reaction to your choice of language not necessarily to the sentiments.
Former Catholics seem to make the most vehement atheists. Maybe there is something in that.
“the mighty edifice of whichever doctrine you follow” eh? I wasn’t aware I needed one. Do they sell them at Tesco’s?
More on Ratzinger and his depressing past here:
http://www.democratsdiary.co.uk/2005/04/blessed-are-poor-in-spirit.html
you may particularly enjoy his justificaion for clamping down on “Liberation Theology”, an attempt by the priesthood in Latin America to deal with poverty and human rights abuses.