FJM said: Ratzinger has argued that the Church must "re-Christianize" Europe. He has actively opposed the entry of Turkey (on religious grounds) and wants to see a "recognition of Europe's Christian heritage" included in the planned constitution.
Just a small point, although expressed at some length. Ratzinger's objections to Turkish entry to the EU were based more on cultural and historical differences than religious ones. Sure, those differences have religious roots, but that wasn't the issue for him.
'In the course of history, Turkey has always represented a different continent, in permanent contrast to Europe', he said, back in August last year. He's right, as it happens. In many ways Europe was formed in opposition to the Islamic world; there's something to that old saying about how there could have been no Charlemagne without Mohammed. It was the rise of the Turks in the Twelfth Century that sparked off the Crusades in a (botched, venal, futile, and corrupted) attempt to save the Byzantine Empire, and from the fifteen century on the Turks were something tangible, powerful, exotic, and 'other' on Europe's southeastern flank.
If the European Union were purely meant to be an economic project, as the British would like it to be, then yes, fair enough, Turkish entry might be a good idea. God alone knows how it could be afforded, though, since East Germany alone has largely crippled Germany, and the new ten members are already stretching the budget. Turkey will probably be the most populous European country in about fifteen years, which will make matters worse, since they'll gain more voting power than anyone else. A bank where the borrower has more say than the lender is a bank that'll soon go out of business.
But no, the Union is, in the eyes of most who have been serious about it from its earliest incarnation, far more than an economic project. It's about an ever-closer union, an attempt to give some kind of political expression to a cultural reality. Turkey is not European, and could well prove the non-European wedge that splits the whole project apart. It's already having an impact on French and Dutch attempts to sell the constitution.
I've loads of Turkish friends, and not one of them sees their country as European. 'Middle Eastern' is their term of choice. And none of them think it should be allowed join the Union. They also reckon the Union would be ill-advised to take on borders with Syria and Iraq, and don't even think their home is a proper democracy yet - though not being an expert on Turkish affairs I can't comment on that. Besides, it doesn't recognise Cyprus. It's a bit rich to want to join a club when you won't even talk to one of the members.
Sorry, a bit off-topic there, and infinitely longer than I'd intended, but my compulsory pedant syndrome kicked in...
It's a bit strong to claim that Küng was any sort of mentor to Ratzinger, for what it's worth. Yes, he did ensure him a job in Tübingen in 1966, but I'd be surprised if Ratzinger wouldn't have got it anyway. He was already something of an up-and-coming theological superstar at the time, having been one of the architects of the Second Vatican Council, along with Küng, Rahner, Metz, Von Balthasar, Congar, and a few others.
Further, himself and Küng are thought to have often disagreed during their brief time in Tübingen together - Ratzinger left in 1969, to go to Regensburg.
Mind you, though Küng can hardly be seriously regarded as a mentor to Ratzinger, that doesn't mean that his points aren't valid, at least on this. Basically all he's saying is that we should wait a bit, and see...
THN said: Are you sure that homosexuality will never be regarded as a normal condition? Because there's evidence that suggests that it may once have been.
I think in many regards it will be, given time. The trick is that the Church is huge, and old, and moves, frankly, at a snail's pace. Try to turn it too quickly and it'll snap. And I doubt there are many within - or potentially within - the Church who are looking forward to a schism. It still hasn't recovered from the last batch of serious ones!
Frankly, it has come on a lot. Until very very recently - the seventies, I think, but I might be wrong - it didn't even see homosexuality as a condition, let alone a normal one! It just took the view that some people got their kicks from buggery. (Can I say that? I'm being a bit sarky, so probably. If not, feel free to disemvowel.)
That's pretty much the standard view through history, really. The Greeks, for example, didn't classify sexualities as homosexual, heterosexual, or whatever. Rather, they thought in terms of active and passive sexual roles. Active roles were generally okay - though not always, as men who obviously were interested only in boys were regarded with some suspicion. Passive roles tended to be looked down on - women, obviously, barely passed the Greek test of humanity, while men we'd recognise as homosexual were seen as weak and effiminate, and were generally objects of scorn.
It was pretty much against that sort of background that biblical comments about homosexuality need to be read. They're not talking about homosexuality as a condition - they're talking specifically about homosexual acts.
Whether such acts should be frowned on as valid expressions of a normal loving sexuality isn't even considered, and that's something that theologians and the likes of Benedict are having to grapple with. It's a slow process, but I think they'll get there.
Er, right. Here's section seven of that letter, just plucking out the less charitable bits: It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally... essentially self-indulgent... moral disorder... acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God'
Now, you might well call that homophobic. Maybe it is, though it calls homosexuals people to follow exactly the same set of rules as heterosexual ones.* But there's nothing there to condone 'queer-bashing'. Nothing at all.
As for why it's Church teaching? I don't fully know. Partly for scriptural reasons I guess, partly because theologians through the ages have considered it, and partly simply being what we (rightly) call homophobic attitudes have historically been the views and attitudes of ordinary people - prejudices that predate Christianity, for what it's worth.
The Church hasn't yet fully grappled with our conviction that homosexual is what some people are. It still tends to think that homosexual acts are what people do. It's getting there - Ratzinger's letter is evidence of that - but it's a slow process.
And if it's any consolation, the likes of Arinze, who the media were falling over themselves to lionise as 'the first black pope', is rather less charitable on this matter than Ratzinger has ever been. Now he is a hardliner.
;)
_________________________________________________
*The difference is that heterosexual people can get married, which the Church sees as part of God's plan. Whether homosexual marriages ought to be permitted is a separate issue. Maybe it's one for another day, I dunno.
'It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.'
That's from the Letter on Pastoral Care, Xopher. It doesn't really seem to condone 'qeer-bashing', but maybe I've read it wrong. Granted, he still regards homosexuality as an 'intrinsically disordered' condition, but then, that's pretty much Church teaching. You might have a case against that, but it's hardly one against Benedict himself.
For what it's worth, he also never said the non-Latin mass was a tragedy - rather, he said that ditching the Latin mass in the wholesale way that was done marked a tragic breach with the tradition of the Church. He's not alone in that. Plenty of others - and not just the hard-line nutters - feel that some of the changes that followed the Second Vatican Conference were unwarranted, and that we've been throwing loads of babies out with the bathwater.
I don't know. I have hopes on this one. Most - not all, but most - opposition to Ratzinger is kneejerk stuff. He earned his reputations for clamping down on theologians for teaching things that were, as the Magisterium saw it, contradictory to the faith.
His difficulty seems to have been, not that they were teaching something that contradicted Catholic teaching, but rather that they did so in the name of the Church. Withdrawal of licenses didn't stop people from continuing in their theological work, if they really believed in it. It simply meant that they'd have to do so without the support and imprimature of the Church.
There's a fairly thoughtful piece about him, critical but nonetheless respectful, by John Allen, his biographer, here, who also speculated on what a couple of days back on what a Ratzinger papacy might look like.
One thing Allen's sure of is that the quality of bishops appointed under Benedict are almost certainly going to be better than those appointed by his illustrious predecessor. And that can hardly be a bad thing.
I'd have thought the evangelicals were familiar with all those Biblical passages about being wary of false prophets. Evidently not.
(And on a side-note, it's interesting to see that the University of Manchester, where I'm based, is currently twisting itself into all sorts of knots based on a new head honcho who is invincibly convinced of his rightness, refuses to listen to those who feel the effects of his decisions, and who never did proper research before making those decisions in the first place. Megalomania's a wonderful thing...)
Mike said 'I'm certainly sympathetic to those talking about expatriation. This isn't the sort of country that my wife and I want our daughter to grow up in. And, more selfishly, the US is at the end of its run. Empires only become more violent as they die.'
Hmmm. Do you really want to become a victim of that violent foreign policy?
Just to travel way back to the start of this, I can't see why semi-colons should be avoided.
The Edwardians used them all the time, and I'm basically with Michael Moorcock in thinking that as a group they wrote better English than anybody.
I haven't read 'Battle Tactics of the Western Front, 1916-18' by Paddy Griffith, but suspect that it may help to answer the questions raised about tactics; certainly there is nothing to match his 'Battle Tactics of the American Civil War'.
I was in Ypres last Sunday, two days before Armistice Day. I missed the Last Post, but did visit a couple of cemeteries - at the British one there were six fresh graves, examined some newly excavated trenches, and spent some time at the Menin Gate. It was an extraordinarily sad day. I've written about it at length on my blog, with a few photographs I took.
Most spammers apparently live in Boca Raton, Florida. A convenient hurricane might alleviate our problems considerably.
Ignoring all the other posts for now, I hope you feel better soon, Teresa.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2005 | 7 |
| 2004 | 3 |
| 2003 | 6 |
Total: 16 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Greg:
Show all comments by Greg.