The Hyperventilating Begins Posted by: Dale Franks
on Tuesday, April 19, 2005
he hyperventilating over the selection of Cardinal Ratzinger has already begun. The New York Times couldn’t even get past the fourth paragraph in their story on his election without saying:
As the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he has been the church's doctrinal watchdog since 1981.
He has been described as a conservative, intellectual clone of the late pontiff, and, as the dean of the College of Cardinals, he was widely respected for his uncompromising - if ultraconservative - principles and his ability to be critical.
Well, that’s an interesting way of putting things. The new pope was “been the church's doctrinal watchdog”. You know, the narrow-minded inquisitor, always sniffing out heresy. He was “a conservative, intellectual clone of the late pontiff”, not a man with his own deeply felt convictions, just a shallow copy of his boss. And, of course, he wasn’t just a defender of traditional orthodoxy, he was “ultraconservative”, which is usally a code word for "whacko", and is hardly ever thought of as a good thing. At least not in Manhattan.
One notes that the Times was gracious enough to point out that he was a highly respected whack job, though. That was nice of them.
As a cardinal, Ratzinger, a close associate of John Paul and dean of the College of Cardinals, was known for his strict support of church doctrine...
Since 1981, Ratzinger was head of the Vatican's influential Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, where he played a leading role disciplining dissidents and resisting liberal proposals for change.
Huh. Evidently it is possible to convey exactly the same information without editorializing, or slinging around terms that are laden with negative implications. Who knew?
Apparently, this is something called “reporting”.
or the ultimate in hyperventilation, though, there’s Andrew Sullivan. It’s not just a conservative papacy, it’s the end of Western Civilization:
He raised the stakes even further by his extraordinarily bold homily at the beginning of the conclave, where he all but declared a war on modernity, liberalism (meaning modern liberal democracy of all stripes) and freedom of thought and conscience.
<sarcasm>You know, that’s exactly what I thought. I couldn’t help but think that, within days, inquisitors from the Holy Office would be giving me a midnight knock on the door. Oh, sure, they say that nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, but the smart ones, they do. </sarcasm>
And what is the creed of the Church? That is for the Grand Inquisitor to decide. Everything else - especially faithful attempts to question and understand the faith itself - is "human trickery." It would be hard to over-state the radicalism of this decision. It's not simply a continuation of John Paul II. It's a full-scale attack on the reformist wing of the church. The swiftness of the decision and the polarizing nature of this selection foretell a coming civil war within Catholicism.
See, I knew there was an inquisitor in there somewhere.
Now, some of you may uncharitably think that Mr. Sullivan’s distemper arises from the fact that he he has some doctrinal differences with the Church that arise from his personal lifestyle as an openly gay man. But you couldn’t be more wrong.
And, please, no one is asking or expecting the Church to revise or reverse over night its peripheral doctrines on human sexuality or even how to run the church (celibacy, women priests, etc.). What some of us were hoping for was more openness to discussion of the real problems facing the church, some attempt to square teachings with the actual experience of lay Catholics (the sensus fidelium, as the Second Council put it), and a spirit able to reach out to the poor, the marginalized and the faithless.
Because, if you know anything about how Mr. Sullivan comes to an opinion, you know it’s always about how it will affect others. He’s just a disinterested third party, really. And he’s very reasonable. Why, he’s not even asking the church to change its doctrine on sexuality. I mean, not overnight. He’s willing to give it some time, and make the change gradually. Because he’s a uniter, not a divider.
Besides, Mr. Sullivan argues, Ratzinger isn’t even qualified.
This new Pope has no pastoral experience as such. He is a creature of theological discourse, a man of books and treatises and arguments. He proclaims his version of the truth as God-given and therefore unalterable and undebatable. His theology is indeed distinguished, if somewhat esoteric and at times a little odd. But his response to dialogue within the church is to silence those who disagree with him. He has no experience dealing with people en masse, no hands-on experience of the challenges of the church in the developing world, and complete contempt for dissent in the West.
Yes. Clearly an unqualified candidate. And his theology? Oh my goodness. Why, after 40 years of studying and teaching catholic theology at the university level, and 20 years of serving as the Church’s chief theological authority, he acts like he has some greater insight to theology than Mr. Sullivan! Even worse, he acts as if the Catholic understanding of the Bible is the received truth revealed by Almighty God. I mean, how old-fashioned is that! This is the 21st century. We can tailor our faith to our own, personal beliefs now. That’s the new, hip religion deal.
I mean, if all this religion stuff comes from God, then how can so many people disagree about it, huh? I ask you!
ow, I’m not a catholic. I’m not anything, really, but I was raised in the Assemblies of God, which is the largest Pentecostal denomination in the US, and probably the world. The same denomination as John Ashcroft, as it happens. Naturally, from my background, a lot of what the Catholic Church does is just whacky.
I mean the whole celibate priests deal is just right out. I have a copy of the Bible around here somewhere that says, along about I Timothy 3:2-7 and Titus 1:5-11 that deacons, elders and bishops must be:
the husband of but one wife, temperate, selfcontrolled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?)
So, while the Apostle Paul does dwell at length on the virtue of celibacy in various epistles, he also clearly tells both Timothy and Titus that marriage is a requirement for church leaders. The Catholic Church has gone another way on this, clearly, holding the virtue of celibacy to be superior to the married priesthood.
That strikes me as wrong, but if I wanted to be a priest, well, then I guess I’d have to make the decision to go Eastern Orthodox rather than RC. Because at the end of the day, the church is not a democracy. Not at the level of the layperson, anyway, and certainly not in areas that touch on doctrine and the faith. If you wish to follow a religion, you have to submit yourself to its faith and teachings, or find another religion. You don’t get to dictate what the terms of the faith are to your denomination. They dictate them to you.
What people like Mr. Sullivan want is to be able to claim to be a Christian, indeed, a good Catholic, without the attendant inconvenience of having to hew to the Catholic faith or doctrine.
That strikes me as extraordinarily arrogant. Or even worse, petulant and childish.
It is my understanding that Pope Benedict XVI has previously written that celibacy is not considered Church dogma, but should remain in place so as to avoid other issues, including divorce. He is unlikely to change the policy, but he has considered and debated the issue in the past.
[DALE FRANKS] Yes, the celibate priesthood is not a matter of doctrine, but one of Church tradition. But it’s a very longstanding tradition.
I would argue that the the tradition is not without its costs though. One can’t help but wonder whether the hideous scandals of the last few years might not have happened under a married priesthood.
I certainly understand the Church’s concern here. Back in the day, when marriages were allowed, the death of a priest or bishop often led to nasty squabbles between the church and the family over who owned what. And, of course, there was the divorce and adultery problem. Celibacy—which is a revered Christian teaching—seemed to be the answer to those problems. It may not, however, be a trouble-free answer.
And with the decline of numbers in the priesthood, it may not be a tradition that the Church can keep in perpetuity.
I too found Andrew’s reaction quite weird. Of course the church is going to keep slamming homosexuality, that’s what they see as being god’s law!
The rational thing for him to do, as well as everyone else holding their breaths expecting a reformation to drag them closer to how people are as opposed to sticking to "should be", would be to drop catholicism entirely. You can’t win a staring contest against an entire institution that’s been unblinking for centuries.
Leave religion to the ones for whom unquestioning loyalty doesn’t strike them as bonkers.
I swear, it’s funny how people keep trying to reconcile religious doctrine with modernity. It cannot be done folks, accepting one requires tossing the other.
Gosh, you’re right. There’s no discussion or debate at all within the Church...We’re all just a bunch of mindless zombies!
expecting a reformation to drag them closer to how people are as opposed to sticking to "should be"
This sounds like you believe we should have no expectations for reaching a higher potential, but should instead just accept whatever we are today. Sounds kind of sad to me, but I’m too bonkers to see straight, I’m sure.
reconcile religious doctrine with modernity
I’m not sure what you define as "modern," but holding to a philosophy that guides one’s morality becomes more important as we gain more technological power, wouldn’t you say?
That was the most entertainng Andrew Sullivan has been in forever. I think under the ranting he’s correct in substance, however: this was quite a conservative choice for Pope. Clearly, different people will feel differently about such a choice. It will be interesting to see what direction he moves the Catholic Church in - whether he further alienates American Catholics, or merely stays the course.
The Catholic Church has been quite nimble in "reconciling dogma with modernity" over the millennia. I have little love for them, but Catholic theologicians can be quite mentally adroit. Of course, that’s only relevant if the Catholic Church wants to reconcile dogma with modernity, which doesn’t seem to be the case just now.
And with the decline of numbers in the priesthood, it may not be a tradition that the Church can keep in perpetuity.
There are two solutions other than married priests. We are importing more priests from outside of the US. This could be a real blessing because it will help to expose Americans to other parts of the world. Also, married men can become deacons, who can perform almost all of the functions of a priest (except consecration of the host, etc.), so each church does not have to have a permanent resident priest. All those men claiming they would become married priests are a lot of talk if they’re not becoming deacons.
Andrew Sullivan, who on most matters is fairly intelligent and sensible, has never been rational on the subject of Christianity. It’s not just Catholicism—he seems to regard President Bush as one step away from Oliver Cromwell (at least to judge from his panic attacks on the Chris Matthews Show).
Um, how is a growing church being "further" alienated? Americans are unhappy with how the American bishops and to some extent, the Vatican, ignored or hid the sexual abusers. But they are far from being "alienated".
"Gosh, you’re right. There’s no discussion or debate at all within the Church...We’re all just a bunch of mindless zombies!"
Your sarcasm there actually reiterates my point. Obviously you can’t expect everyone to agree to anything, that’s the problem with religion, it constantly seeks purity where it can’t exist.
No, believers aren’t all mindless zombies. Religious leaders consider it a sign of weakness though that they aren’t.
One can’t help but wonder whether the hideous scandals of the last few years might not have happened under a married priesthood.
Oh, I think it would have. Being married never stopped Boy Scout leaders from molesting adolescents. There are plenty of married child molestors, marriage has nothing to do with it.
The fact is child molestors tend to gravitate toward occupations that put them in contact with children, and allowing priests to marry wouldn’t have changed their behavior in any way.
that’s the problem with religion, it constantly seeks purity where it can’t exist.
Again, you are simply giving up because perfection can’t be achieved. Christ demonstrated that the path to perfection is anything but easy, and Christianity expects you to fail, hence the need for forgiveness. But what good are standards if they are not set high?
holding to a philosophy that guides one’s morality becomes more important as we gain more technological power
Yes, but what does the church, or any religion, have to do with morality? I think we’ll make a lot more progress in becoming moral if we drop the religious nonsense.
Andrew Sullivan and sensible just don’t go together. Wittness his daily hysteria regarding the progress of the Iraq war aftermath. "We’re winning! We’re losing! We’re really losing! Maybe we’re winning!" etc etc
Sullivans real gripe is that the new Pope didn’t come out to the balcony and explicitly approve anal sex between men. And since that’s never going to happen, Sully either needs to stop whining or leave the Church he likes to pretend he belongs to and find a religion he can adhere to
Religious leaders consider it a sign of weakness though that [believers] aren’t [mindless zombies].
To help show how ridiculous of a statement that is, let me point to an old quote from the new Pope (emphasis mine):
Not all moral issues have the same weight as abortion and euthanasia.... There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion, even among Catholics, about waging war or applying the death penalty, but not, however, with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
The leader of over 1 billion believers has stated that there are issues where debate is legitimate. Hmmm. I don’t think we’re headed to the inquisition just yet.
What people like Mr. Sullivan want is to be able to claim to be a Christian, indeed, a good Catholic, without the attendant inconvenience of having to hew to the Catholic faith or doctrine
One last thing.....you see such petulant, self-righteous whining like this- look at this mindset of entitlement. You see it in all areas of culture also. Is it any real shock that the "law and order" forces, or the "ultraconservatives" in these areas are pushing back?
Yes, but what does the church, or any religion, have to do with morality? I think we’ll make a lot more progress in becoming moral if we drop the religious nonsense.
I can’t help but notice that nations that have made dropping the "religious nonsense" a matter of official policy have done really bang-up jobs of being moral.
Like it or not, mankind has not done such a great job of becoming moral all by himself. Admittedly, mankind has also used religion as a tool to whack each other but when you look at the times that’s happened, religion actually *became* the government, which is exactly the wrong place for it. When religion is used to inform and moral decisions taken by a people instead of dictating those decisions directly, folks seem to do pretty well in building moral societies.
Back in the day, when marriages were allowed, the death of a priest or bishop often led to nasty squabbles between the church and the family over who owned what. And, of course, there was the divorce and adultery problem. Celibacy—which is a revered Christian teaching—seemed to be the answer to those problems. It may not, however, be a trouble-free answer.
There’s another, simpler reason that priests became celibate. As Jesus is the father to the church, so is a priest the father to his congregation. It’s hard to be a father to two sets of families, so the church simplified that difficulty by precluding priests from having another group to "father" aside from his church.
The problem that has arisen in the past couple decades, I believe, has come in part because the Church has moved away from the fatherhood aspects of the priest. Pastors are often seen as couselors, friends, facilitators, and ministers, but less often as spiritual father-figures who are not only responsible for loving and guiding members of his congregation but also for disciplining them and admonishing them when they go astray.
It seems to me that many of the problems of the American Catholic church and its priesthood have come because Catholics have demanded that priests back off of their role as spiritual father and priests have complied. That’s not served either group well and has caused many of the problems I think the Church in America has today.
I can’t help but notice that nations that have made dropping the "religious nonsense" a matter of official policy have done really bang-up jobs of being moral.
Well, so much for the First Ammendment.
Like it or not, mankind has not done such a great job of becoming moral all by himself.
So inventing religion helped...how?
Admittedly, mankind has also used religion as a tool to whack each other but when you look at the times that’s happened, religion actually *became* the government, which is exactly the wrong place for it.
OK, that’s more like it. I sure hope you sent that memo to James Dobson, Randall Terry, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc.
Yeah. There you go. That’s the kind of attitude that’ll really help the Dems connect with those values voters.
Good, but shallow, point. The thing is, I am a values voter. I value freedom. I value fair elections. I value peace, and having an honest cassus belli. I value separation of church and state. I value freedom of (and from) religion. My morality springs not from revealed truth in scripture, but from what makes society work to the betterment of its people—ironically, I’ll cite the golden rule as being chief among the foundations of a moral society. In that same vein, I think libertarians would cite individual freedom as a high moral, and I agree. So I won’t win the votes of people who want to dictate my religion, but I won’t let them have exclusive rights to the "values voter" label either.
If you think churches become more popular by becoming more accomodating to the behavior of non-members, think again. Here’s a clue from Orson Scott Card:
"Here is one simple truth, borne out by statistics over many decades and generations: The religions that demand of their members some real and rational degree of sacrifice, obedience, and adherence to faith are growing stronger and stronger; while the ones that say, in effect, that you can do what you want and God doesn’t expect much of us anymore, except to be vaguely nice—they are losing members rapidly." —Orson Scott Card
If you want the formal, academic version, check out economist Laurence Iannaccone’s web site and look for a paper called, "Why Strict Churches Are Strong." Dr. Iannaccone also has a good FAQ and some good introductory papers. There is also one called "Rationality and the Religious Mind." And for those of you who think that religion generally promotes violence rather than inhibits it, take note of "The Market for Martyrs."
http://www.economicsofreligion.com/
Anatole France said that the worst definition of man is that he is a rational animal. As an atheist, I am sad to report that this is as true of atheists as of Christians.
The new Pope believes Catholic doctrine! I am shocked, shocked I say!
I had always assumed the new Pope would be an Episcopal or a Unitarian Universalist, or - if the Cardinals REALLY cared for the future of the Catholic church - Baha’i. ;)
One thing I have always found interesting is the seeming inability of lots of people to make a distinction between the political order and damn near anything else, especially religion. Why should the Catholic Church adopt the mores of 21st Century liberalism (small "l")? Is it really justified to evaluate the tenents of Catholic doctrine based on political ideology? God knows that is all I heard tonight on television.
I wrote this in a comment on my blog earlier:
I’m not sure that anyone should be using the standards of our liberal political system to evaluate anyones religion. In the context of the Church, for example, dissent need not be tolerated the same way dissenting speech is tolerated in our political system. In and of itself this is neither a "conservative" or liberal position because it deals with a fundamental truth as the Church sees it. Translating this back to our political system, censoring speech is not the "conservative" value and free speech the "liberal" one. Freedom of speech is a fundamental truth upon which we base that portion of our political order. The same way the Church bases their system on doctrinal truths. Dissenting on the authority of the Church to speak on matter of dogma would be the equivalent of arguing for censorship in the politcal context. In that sense Ratzinger was not being "conservative" he was simply being consistent. That such dissent was ignored before (or tolerated or whatever) was, in the context of the Church, an error. Correcting an error isn’t necessarily "conservative" either.
Dissenting on the authority of the Church to speak on matter of dogma would be the equivalent of arguing for censorship in the politcal context...That such dissent was ignored before (or tolerated or whatever) was, in the context of the Church, an error.
Yes, I’m sure Galileo would find solace in your approach. Ah, but didn’t Pope John Paul II apologize for that little incident? I guess if the church makes the error, a few centuries don’t matter.
Like it or not, mankind has not done such a great job of becoming moral all by himself.
I find this passage from Hayek very compelling...
It may indeed prove to be far the most difficult and not the least important task for human reason rationally to comprehend its own limitations. It is essential for the growth of reason that as individuals we should bow to forces and obey principles which we cannot hope fully to understand yet on which the advance and even the preservation of civilisation depends. Historically this has been achieved by the influence of the various religious creeds and by traditions and superstitions which made men submit to those forces by an appeal to his emotions rather than his reason. The most dangerous stage in the growth of civilisation may well be that in which man has come to regard all these beliefs as superstitions and refuses to accept or to submit to anything which he does not rationally understand. The rationalist whose reason is not sufficient to teach him those limitations of the powers of conscious reason, and who despises all the institutions and customs which have not been consciously designed, would thus become the destroyer of the civilisation built upon them. This may well prove a hurdle which man will repeatedly reach, only to be thrown back into barbarism.
Very compelling, indeed. It provides a rational basis for the social benefit of religion.
I’m not Catholic obviously. While your quotes from Timothy, but Paul says the following in 1 Corinthians 7:
1 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.
32-34 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs–how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world–how he can please his wife– and his interests are divided.
In actuality though, celibacy was enacted in order to try to hold down church corruption. Religious officials cannot pass their offices down to their sons if they have no sons. This was especially important in the middle ages.
Yes, I’m sure Galileo would find solace in your approach. Ah, but didn’t Pope John Paul II apologize for that little incident? I guess if the church makes the error, a few centuries don’t matter.
And this signifies how exactly? It would be like arguing that since the United States government wrongly put Japanese-Americans into concentration camps in WWII they shouldn’t be able to prosecute criminals for breaking the law today.
Certainly, it seems to be the argument of the Left that our missteps and mistakes of the past leave us morally bankrupt—-thus, abuse of Japanese-Americans apparently means that we are in no position to comment on the human rights violations of others.
Notice that this is the oft-cited element of why intervening in Iraq this go-round was wrong—-we had supported Saddam in the past.
Similarly, Glenn Reynolds notes that our history with slavery means that we are in no position to claim that we were bringing freedom to anyone else.
One has to wonder, though: Does the failings of France, Germany, or Russia/USSR affect the validity of their arguments, in the eyes of the Left? Methinks not.
And this signifies how exactly? It would be like arguing that since the United States government wrongly put Japanese-Americans into concentration camps in WWII they shouldn’t be able to prosecute criminals for breaking the law today.
No, it’d be like arguing that since the United States government wrongly put Japanese-Americans into concentration camps in WWII, they shouldn’t be able to mis-treat Americans based on their race or national origin. Addressing such problems was the focus of much of the civil rights movement.
Certainly, it seems to be the argument of the Left that our missteps and mistakes of the past leave us morally bankrupt
No, if some substantive change to address of the issue has been made such that a repeat of those past errors is rendered highly unlikely, then moral bankruptcy is avoided. Meanwhile, I find the converse of your argument interesting—it seems you think that the past is somehow irrelevant. Do you not think that those who ignore history risk repeating it?
Wow, either I believe history is destiny, or I believe that history is irrelevant. Tell me, David, have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no?
I didn’t think that Alaska was warm enough to grow straw in such quantities.
How about this as an answer: History is one of several indicators of how things might turn out. But it is important to recognize that it is but one indicator—-and is especially subject to changing circumstances. The closer to the original event, the more likely that circumstances have changed only marginally. Conversely, the more things change, the less equal the circumstances.
Thus, how the Roman Catholic Church acted in the Middle Ages might not be a very good indicator of how the Church acts today. Or would you argue that the Germany of today is the same as the Germany of Hitler? Or that the France of today is every bit as anti-Semitic as that of the era of Dreyfus? Or that the Arabs of today are as bloodthirsty as those of the 1920s and 1930s who followed the Grand Mufti?
No, it’d be like arguing that since the United States government wrongly put Japanese-Americans into concentration camps in WWII, they shouldn’t be able to mis-treat Americans based on their race or national origin.
Ok. So I must have missed all of the people Ratzinger has ordered burned at the stake.
And what exactly did the evil Ratzinger do to dissenting theologians like Kung and Curren? Kung was left with his same teaching duties, but told he could not claim to be teaching Catholic theology. Curren has also told he couldn’t teach Catholic theology, but was left with full-time teaching duties in sociology. (Ratzinger you heartless bastard!)
And this is the equivalent of the trial against Galileo how?
Since the Church scandals discussed above were overwhelmingly homosexual pedophilia, allowing a married clergy is not much of an solution to the problem. Unless, of course, the Church also changes its position on same sex marriage, and then permits one of the partners to be between five and 12 years of age.
The defense of priestly celibacy can be found in the Bible, see this Wikipedia article, and particularly the section markd "Celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church."
Arguably the doctrine has issues, and it should be noted that Benedict has in the past said he doesn’t believe priestly celibacy is a core issue of the faith.
Arguably the doctrine has issues, and it should be noted that Benedict has in the past said he doesn’t believe priestly celibacy is a core issue of the faith.
This is correct but not stated strongly enough. Priestly celibacy is not a dogmatic tenet of Catholicism in any way, shape or form. It is an ecclesiastical rule that can be changed without altering the faith an iota. That is the reason why there can be, and in fact, ARE some married Catholic priests today.
Ok. So I must have missed all of the people Ratzinger has ordered burned at the stake.
The score stands at Iconic Midwesterner 1, straw man 0. Way to go.
As an atheist, I have little reason to form a strong opinion of Benedict XVI until his actions impact the world outside the Catholic church, so I’m not criticizing him per se. What I am concerned about is that slavish adherence to religious orthodoxy can have negative consequences outside the church. The Catholic Church has a long and brutal history of that, which you don’t like for me to talk about even if apologies have only recently been showing up (Catholic complicity in Hitler’s rise, Galileo, and where did the term inquisitor come from, anyhow?), if at all. So I’ll cite a more recent example, Mother Teresa (I’ll have to check back later to see what nastiness this argument attracts). Christopher Hitchens wrote a rather pointed critique of her, including her alliance with Haiti’s Duvaliers and Charles Keating, both of whom donated large sums of their ill-gotten gains to her order. Hitchens went on to criticize her use of that money to build convents and try to prevent the use of contraceptives (at least she had an orphanage to harvest the fruits of those efforts). Quoting Hitchens,
There’s Mother Teresa’s desire to have control over the sex lives of the poor—in other words, her belief that only Princess Diana had the right to get divorced, that there should be no contraception, etc. She adopted the most extreme version of all Catholic teaching on matters of sex and reproduction and did so in countries where it is actually possible, if the church is powerful enough, to withhold these things from people, to deny them access to contraception.
And, of course, the Catholic Church orthodoxy opposes artificial contraception, so she was hardly alone in her conservative views. I maintain that in a rapidly growing populace like that in India or some of Africa’s poorest countries, blocking access to contraception is unconscionably irresponsible and cruel quite outside the Catholic Church. When Benedict becomes active in trying to enforce that dogma is when I’ll begin to have a strong opinion of him. Not that he’d care or anything.
large and rapidly growing populations exacerbate...the problems
Well, this is a whole new argument from where we started, so I’ll leave the details for another time. I’ll just point out that there is plenty of food and medicine in the world, and our technology to develop them outpaces population growth. The problems faced by citizens in developing nations are caused by inefficient and corrupt governmental systems, not by the number of babies.
India and China. Both of those countries have much larger populations, arguably beyond that of their ability to govern.
Of course, they wound up in these positions due to the efforts of their respective leaderships, deliberately, in the case of China.
But to suggest that Africa’s problem is over-population is odd, at best.
But then, this is the same sort of argument that suggests that Africa’s problem is the lack of condoms, rather than, for example, the cultural belief that when a man dies, his wife should go and sleep with his brother. [Perhaps a problem arises if the husband died of AIDS?]
Or the widespread belief that patronizing prostitutes is acceptable (of course, prostitution is a "victimless crime," even in an AIDS-riddled country, no?).
Lurking— I missed your comment to me until just now, I hope this isn’t too late. You said
The closer to the original event, the more likely that circumstances have changed only marginally. Conversely, the more things change, the less equal the circumstances.
First off, the Catholic Church only recently got around to issuing an apology of sorts for that bit of medieval nastiness. Why the delay? Second, referring to your comment, a lot depends on what the key "things" and "circumstances" are, and identifying them is tricky. If you were living in these periods, how would you know in advance if the Inquisition was about to round people up to force them into orthodoxy or kill them? It’s easy in hindsight, but you have to sound a little paranoid (like I do) to have any chance of seeing it coming. For me, the identification of church with state winds up being one of those key things or circumstances. Interestingly, if you go to an online Catholic Dictionary, you’ll find quotes like this defending the Inquisition
Like all institutions that have a human character abuses were bound to creep in. Most of these abuses occurred in the Spanish Inquisition. But even these have been grossly exaggerated. In Spain the evil was in large measure due to the great influence which the civil power had in the administration of the Inquisition. The Inquisition has been made a bugbear for Protestants. There were faults in its workings, such must be expected, but it did tremendous good in saving the Latin Countries from anarchy. There have been few things in history about which more falsehood has been written. The methods of the Inquisition must be judged in the light of its own times and not in view of modern ideas.
And throughout much of the literature on the various Inquisitions, that link between church and state is cited, even by the church itself (though it blames the state) as one of the major premises for the worst abuses of the Inquisition. Are things so different now? President Bush initially called our current war a "crusade", and has championed a program touse tax money to fund right wing Christian loonies like Pat Robertson, who in turn suggested that heresy merits death. Other leaders of the Christian Right have chimed in with their thoughts as well:
Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism. (Randall Terry, Indiana News Sentinel)
And if we live in such enlightened times, how do you explain all these senators showing up for the coronation of Washington Times owner, the Reverend Sung Myung Moon, as messiah? So perhaps that gives you some idea of where my paranoia comes from, and why I bring up ancient history: some of those key "things" and "circumstances" are sounding a little familiar.
Falwell is the one who claimed various groups "helped" 9/11 happen due to their behavior and "to give us probably what we deserve," not Robertson. Keep your right wing Christian loonies straight. (Falwell later apologized.)
Falwell is the one who claimed various groups "helped" 9/11 happen due to their behavior and "to give us probably what we deserve," not Robertson. Keep your right wing Christian loonies straight. (Falwell later apologized.)
Falwell said it, and Robertson chimed in with "Well, I totally concur..." And Falwell’s "apology" was much more for the form rather than the substance of his remarks—I’d wager he still believes what he said.
he hyperventilating over the selection of Cardinal Ratzinger has already begun. The New York Times couldn’t even get past the fourth paragraph in their story on his election without saying:
or the ultimate in hyperventilation, though, there’s Andrew Sullivan. It’s not just a conservative papacy, it’s the end of Western Civilization:
ow, I’m not a catholic. I’m not anything, really, but I was raised in the Assemblies of God, which is the largest Pentecostal denomination in the US, and probably the world. The same denomination as John Ashcroft, as it happens. Naturally, from my background, a lot of what the Catholic Church does is just whacky. 
