Andrew Sullivan: Pope wants to 'empty the pews in America and start over'

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_04_17_dish_archive.html#111393353063633811

This was not an act of continuity. There is simply no other figure more extreme than the new Pope on the issues that divide the Church. No one. 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. And the speed of the decision must be interpreted as an enthusiastic endoprsement of his views. What this says to American Catholics is quite striking: it's not just a disagreement, it's a full-scale assault. 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. His views on the subordinate role of women in the Church and society, the marginalization of homosexuals (he once argued that violence against them was predictable if they kept pushing for rights), the impermissibility of any sexual act that does not involve the depositing of semen in a fertile uterus, and the inadmissability of any open discourse with other faiths reveal him as even more hardline than the previous pope. I expected continuity. I didn't expect intensification of the fundamentalism and insularity of the current hierarchy. I expect an imminent ban on all gay seminarians, celibate or otherwise. And I expect the Church's immersion in the culture wars in the West - on every imaginable issue. For American Catholics, I foresee an accelerating exodus. But that, remember, is the plan. The Ratzingerians want to empty the pews in America and start over. They will, in that sense, be successful.

that's where the seed was planted!

He *supported* the Holocaust. He was right there on the front lines supporting the Holocaust.

The authoritarian views of the church that Rat holds are just more evidence that he has not denounced his Nazi history and still supports the Mein Kampf. Imho, it's best that folks just realize this now and save themselves the grief of hoping that he won't push a pro-Nazi agenda onto the Catholic church. Ratzinger will. You can bet on it.

He hit it dead on this time.

but he is a good writer and he makes you think, then you remember how full of shit he is

but he has hit the nail on the head with this

I wouldn't doubt that another schism will occur--like the one going on in some Protestant denominations right now

American Catholics are the monetary engine that drives the train. Think they are raking it in in many parts of Africa?

There will be fallout, I fear. Perhaps they are hoping to make up the difference by returning the conservative Europeans to the pews. They have a fair amount of disposable income, but they aren't contributing to their church. Either that, or they intend to massively grow the organization, going with the idea that fast dimes are better than slow dollars. Alternatively, I would anticipate that parishes that fail to support themselves and kick back a chunk of dough to the front office are gone.

Forget the ideas of JP the FIRST, who believed that rich parishes should fund the poor ones, and the Vatican should divest itself of some of its absurdly priced real estate and other holdings and apply those monies to helping the poor. We won't see that until after the next interregnum, if at all.

And I've been to masses in Italy. They're EMPTY!

Then you can't get a seat!

I don't think the church especially cares if the pews are filled, so long as the donations roll in, and the CCD classes are booked solid.

1. There is continuity and the man has experience, he was JPII's right hand man.
2. Some US Catholics desire a more liberal church (like me), but the vast majority, including many of the lay people within the church, want a more hard-line approach. That was the signal from the bishops who were for denying communion to pro-choicers in the last election cycle for example. The vatican was steering for a more uniform, centralized and conservative approach, some say as a response from the pews, to the pedophile scandals.

The people in my family are mostly Catholic, and mostly VERY conservative. However, they want things more liberal in the Church. Not as liberal, say, as we would want it, but MUCH more liberal concerning: women, married clergy, birth control, and even abortion and gay rights to an extent. They all are crazy rednecks to boot...

Although I always found peace and solace in the rituals, I could no longer support a hierarchy that I felt (and I realize this is my personal feeling,) deserted its flock.

The result was devasting for me. I miss it today, but until the Church returns to what I feel is its mission, it is not for me.

Europeans have been on to the church for a couple of centuries now. There's not enough money in Third World converts. I don't see anything productive in Benedict giving the heave-ho to marginal American Catholics who already flout the teachings against premarital sex (including masturbation), adultery, abortion, divorce, and birth control.

But if he wants to, bring it on. It will make my day at least. Then all the marble the church stole from the Colosseum could be put back where it belongs, and eBay will have the grandest live auction in its history.

I actually agree with Andrew Sullivan. It makes me feel...dirty, somehow.

How will the Ratzingerians start over, though? Who will begin to fill those pews? There's plenty of fundy churches folks can join - the Protestant fundies think the Catholics are a cult anyway. THEY aren't going to suddenly become Catholic.

Do Latin America and Africa have the money to replace North America and Europe in the Vatican coffers? If so, then it may make sense for the new Pope to do this. If not, it's quite a gamble, isn't it?

It's just as likely the American church tells the Vatican to try and live without their money and try to create their own, Vatican II-style Catholicism.

THEN what would Andy -- or Benny -- say?

See my post #9. Where will they get people to fill those pews, and those collection plates?

Or at least that is what most of Catholic friends tell me. At the very least, the Catholic church gets a lot of its money from America.

Maybe Ratzinger wants to fill the pews with fundies. Lots of luck trying to get them to convert. I don't think that will work.

It isn't a religion for dummies. It is very spiritual, very internal, a bit mystical.

The fundies want some pomaded moron reading simplified passages from the bible and putting his own spin on them (See, an' y'all are JUST like Jeeeeeeeeeeesus....when ya let someone have that parking space at the Piggly Wiggly!). They want music, stupid songs that say nothing but have "feel good" verses, soft seats, bright lights, and a shitload of make up and clownish clothing. They want "buddy Jesus" not bloody Jesus.

The fundies will never move, they haven't the intellectual capacity or the patience to understand or embrace the whole process. The church may recover some bozos who thought the repressive Catholic church had become too liberal to suit them, though these will be rare, I suspect,

.

Say what you will about John Paul II - I had many disagreements with him and he was quite rigid. But he genuinely wanted to expand the fold and bring people together. I strongly applauded his efforts at promoting peace and understanding among different religions. He didn't involve himself in secular politics. He did genuinely try to bring people together.

Ratzinger - or as we should probably now call him - Benedict XVI, has indicated he wants a smaller, purer church. JP II did not like dissent but Benedict XVI one-ups him. Rather than try to convince others, he simply wants them to agree with him and if they don't, they can leave.

Moreover, he doesn't show any passion in inter-religious dialogue. At least Cardinal Arinze, as conservative as he is on social issues, was very liberal on interfaith issues. Arinze had written that people of other faiths could go to heaven, which is something that many Catholic theologians have said in the past and something that many documents coming out of Vatican II agreed with. John Paul II never explicitly said anything like that, but he never condemned other religions.

Benedict on the other hand is very hardline. He believes not only that non-Christians cannot attain salvation, but that non-Catholics cannot either. He has called Buddhists "indulgent" and loudly proclaimed Catholic exclusivity.

Benedict XVI is also FAR more willing to get involved in secular politics than John Paul II and he values doctrine even more than John Paul II, who despite his interest in hardline doctrine was very concerned with freedom, poverty, corporatism, and war and peace. I don't think it has been said on DU very much, but many analysts have credited John Paul with getting many of the countries on the UN security council to go against the Iraq War. He lobbied very strenuously against it and his associates said he was more animated and more alert than at any time in years.

Benedict, on the other hand, has shown he is willing to get involved in secular politics and has never indicated such an interest on issues like war, poverty, etc. He is above all concerned with doctrine and absolute truths.

I truly hope he is merely a placeholder and does not act as an activist hardliner.

Note: I am not Catholic, but I do care about what the Catholic Church says or does b/c it has the potential to be a source of great good - and at times it often has been. More importantly it is important b/c of its following. They have tremendous influence.

I'm willing to give Benedict XVI the chance. Maybe he'll surprise us. But I think the Catholic Church just took a massive step backward. Moreover, I cannot see the logic of a "placeholder" pope in this day and age. John Paul's long infirmiry crippled the Vatican for so long, you would think they would want someone energetic and more in tune with the times. And after his long papacy, one would think they'd be interested in someone who could reenergize and provide new focus to the Church. Someone who could connect with people like John Paul II did. You would think they would value charisma, warmth, compassion. Ratzinger/Benedict does not have any of that.

I also worry that his will not be a "placeholder" pope. I do not wish death on anyone, but if the intention is for him to just stick around for a few years to buy them more time to think about a long-term direction, then I'm skeptical that will happen. He could last only a few years. But he could conceivably last a decade. He appears far healthier than John Paul II had appeared for the last 10 years. And with modern medicine it is not inconceivable that he will last a long time.

Cheney replacing Bush.