Michael Maiello's picture

    Of Papacies and Powerpoints

    By Michael Maiello on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 11:07am | Politics

    I was baptized Catholic though, at that point in my life, I was too young to have much say in the matter.  As I grew older (not much older, it turns out) and more into a wise ass, I found myself in frequent conflict with my catechism teachers over the issues of where babies come from (I did not, in fact, have any real idea though I was pretty sure that Jesus was not magic).

    Still, for awhile, I remained superstitious enough that an old Hispanic woman in Bernalillo, the type with the wrinkled face and the one closed eye and the crooked finger who inspire legends like La Llarona did scare me into wearing a scapular for a few months after she scolded that I would burn in Hell if I didn't.

    I would love to not care who the next Pope is.  In a thousand ways, I don't.  But, the Pope influences policy, not just in the U.S. but around the world.  When the Pope's church discourages the use of birth control in developing nations and the result is poverty and social unrest, we all suffer.  When the Pope's church fights to regulate biotechnology and the sick are denied cures, the human condition is worsened.  Whether or not he matters to you, the Pope sure matters.

    This morning, Esquire offered some space on Charles Pierce's blog for me to talk about the call for an "MBA Pope."  Seems like a bad move to me.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    Wonderful piece, Michael.   Business Jesus scares me.   As does the notion of a CEO pope. Religion is not a business.  It shouldn't try to recruit people through market research and re-branding, it should attract people by clearly defining matters of faith and spirituality and offer a vision for them to either embrace or reject. 

    Like you, I was raised Catholic.  I used to drive the nuns crazy with extrapolations and dogma questions.  "Excuse me, Sister, but if Catholicism is the one, true religion, and only Catholics get into heaven ... What if there is a Buddhist monk in the Himalayas who's never heard of Catholicism, but has led a spiritually holy life, will he go to Hell, just because he isn't a Catholic?" 

    I left the Catholic church, when they told me that I should work to enforce the Catholic point of view on everyone else.  I never could see how that was the business of the Catholic church.  I went back to church for my mother's funeral mass last July.  The mass had changed a lot.  I guess the marketing people were already working to make it more user-friendly.

     

     


    by MrSmith1 on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 1:32pm

      According to John 14-15, non-Christians will indeed go to hell because they aren't Christians. John didn't think there was such a thing as a  holy non-Christian life .


    by Aaron Carine on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 5:14pm

    Ehh, What did John know?


    by MrSmith1 on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 5:39pm

    Aaron are you sure it is John 14:15 you were referring too

     “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
    (John 14:15 ESV)        ??????????

    The lesson to be applied is the one of the

    Rechabite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The drinking of wine in moderation, is not condemned in the Bible, but by their (Rechabite (who were not Hebrew)) adherence, to their forefathers laws  that were not in direct violation of gods laws,  they were declared righteous.  

    It isn't the name Christian, that saves; it is those who do the will of God and if he finds pleasure, in their doing so


    by Resistance on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 8:20pm

    I didn't mean John 14:15; I meant chapters 14 and 15. I should have named the specific lines: John 14:6 and 15:6.


    by Aaron Carine on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 9:53pm

    When the Pope's church discourages the use of birth control in developing nations and the result is poverty and social unrest, we all suffer.  When the Pope's church fights to regulate biotechnology and the sick are denied cures, the human condition is worsened.  Whether or not he matters to you, the Pope sure matters.

    Absolutely. However, he also matters in the good that he encourages. When the Pope encourages hospitals to take care of the sick regardless of their ability to pay, society benefits. When the Pope encourages politicians to fight against the death penalty, many falsely accused are spared capital punishment.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 4:08pm

    When the Pope encourages politicians to fight against the death penalty

    Except, I never read ...... where Jesus was against the death penalty.

    In fact Paul warns Christians;  the Government is the Sword, placed in it's relative position of authority, by God,  to mete out justice.

    I would have to look into the matter further, but I believe another verse says, "it is better to be persecuted and killed for righteousness sake, than to die accused of crimes, the Government has deemed punishable by death.  

    We render on to Caesar what is Caesar's, his laws, are for our protection. 

    I have no idea, where the modern Church, thought they could disagree, with the earlier appointed leaders, of the Christian Congregation? 

    Remember also the argument amongst the disciples, of who was the greatest? Especially Peter, who denied him 3 times. The same Peter who had to be admonished by Paul, because of his prejudice and hypocrisy.    

    No one man; not even a Pope would not have been recognized by Jesus, to be his replacement.

    No one man, spoke for the Congregation of Christ's disciples, except the body of Elders.

    I am glad some have left the church, rather than support a system, which was never approved but was only instituted by men, to promote self.

    Something Jesus would have condemned, as fleshly desires


    by Resistance on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 4:49pm

    I also never read where Jesus said anything about homosexuality, abortion, using condoms, or the right to bear arms. I'm talking about the Pope, not Jesus, and I'm not pretending there are any particular similarities between the two.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 5:15pm

    or the right to bear arms

    I don't remember if it was you, who mentioned the account of Jesus telling Peter, to put away the Sword?

    Jesus knew Peter had a sword all along, for self defense.  when going into the dark garden, where beast and robbers lurked.   

    Remember the parable of the good Samaritan who was robbed and left for dead.

    Jesus told Peter, to put the sword away, so that he and his disciples would not be killed in the garden, resisting arrest. Jesus knew it wasn't time for his death to occur.  

    Jesus needed to be brought before the Sanhedrin to be killed, by their hands, and not in the garden, like some common criminal.

    When the Sanhedrin passed judgment, finding and sentencing an innocent person to death;  the Jewish system of that time, was condemned by the God of the Jews. He removed his favor and judgment was delivered against them, when Rome laid siege on the Holy city, for what they had done.


    by Resistance on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 8:45pm

    That's one helluva lot of interpreting between the lines you're doing there…

    Can you find one single Biblical scholar who agrees with your interpretation? I'm sincerely curious to know if this belief is held by more than just you.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 8:47pm

    It comes from help from the Father who directs his Holy Spirit, to ANYONE making a sincere request; the ability to understand the knowledge, to be able to discern the deeper things.

    The more knowledge you take in, the better equipped you are.  

    When Jesus told the Samaritan woman at the well, there would come a time, when one would not have to go to the temple to worship and for knowledge.

    He was right.

    He makes it so I don't need a Pope or a Priest, or support from another of the beast's  Biblical scholars. I am not enslaved, to support the priesthood.  

    Remember the verse " the truth will set you free"?

    I have been set free.


    by Resistance on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 9:25pm

    I re-read what you wrote and decided that I was the one guilty of reading between the lines. The vast majority of what you wrote I agree is an accurate (or rather a "traditional") interpretation. It's not much of a reach at all, rather. What I was objecting to was the implication that the interpretation you mention can then lead to a conclusion that Jesus supported a right to bear arms just because he knew Peter had a sword and chose not to tell him to put away the sword before going into the garden. If one were to look for a reason for Jesus to let Peter take that sword into the garden, surely it would be because he knew that Peter was going to draw it against the soldiers and that Jesus could then make his plans clear.


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 8:02am

    I cant imagine Jesus would have had interjected a command on the right to bear arms.

    It would be an individual choice, based upon ones conscience.

    When Jesus in the wilderness after fasting for 40 days, Satan,  asked Jesus to jump off of the high rocks, tempting Jesus to test his Father.  

    Can we apply the teaching to conclude, we are not to tempt our father to save us; for not acting wisely, by not carrying protection, to defend ourselves from wild animals or animalistic people?  

    The lesson in the garden is; As Christians we don't take up arms against or for  governments. Christians don't need to fight for Jesus Kingdom or for that matter, Caesars kingdom either.

    Jesus could have told Peter" throw that disgusting thing away, I never want to see you carryit again"   long before the garden incident.

    Instead he told him to put it away, resheath it.

    The plan was for the Disciples to stay awake. The reapplying of the ear could be likened to "No Harm .....No Foul,  Peter put the sword away NOW, the rest of you, that have come to arrest me, do the same."  Jesus knew the crowd gathered, were not criminals, looking to strip them of their clothes or money.


    by Resistance on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 9:47am

      Jesus didn't approve of Peter using the sword, and sternly rebuked him for it, so we can infer that he wasn't a big fan of carrying weapons(if you're forbidden to use them, they won't be much good as a deterrent).


    by Aaron Carine on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 3:39pm

    Provide me the scriptural reference you believe supports your conclusion.

    The Ancient Garden of Gethsemane, wouldn't have been a safe place at night, for the unarmed or unprotected. 

    Especially if Jesus knew they were going to arrest him,  he would have gone further away from the protection of the city, deeper into the darkness, towards the Mount of Olive.

    Even in our modern day, most sane people, don't venture too far into some areas of Central Park at night, without protection.


    by Resistance on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 4:35pm

    That's an interesting interpretation, it really is. Now, answer me this: why do you suppose that God chose to have Jesus die on the cross at the hands of the Romans? Was that the only way that God could forgive our sins, or maybe, just maybe, was there some symbolism behind that act?


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 5:01pm

      What about Jesus telling Peter "Put up your sword, for those who take up the sword perish by the sword"? Sounds like he wasn't big on swords and their use.


    by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 5:18pm

    Excellent counter. That's Matthew 26:52, for those wanting to look it up in their own Bibles.


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 7:12pm

    There's more applicable in Matthew (as well as many other places in the New Testament). Like:

    Matthew 5:38-48

    New International Version (NIV)

    Eye for Eye

    38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

    Love for Enemies

    43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[b] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

    Resistance's cherry-picking ends up as absurd in context of the whole of Christ's message iu the entire New Testament. This is always the problem with micro-mining all holy scripture in my opinion. It's a fun intellectual game, but it doesn't have much to do with following the religion, and it happens with other religions, too--like some out-of-control Torah "scholars", or arguments about what does "jihad" really mean in the Koran. There is much irony for me what Resistance is trying to do here since he could not see the parody message in the SNL skit, D'Jesus Uncrossed. That skit is just carrying what he is trying to do here to an extreme...


    by artappraiser on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 8:37pm

    Are you really suggesting, to the millions without faith in god, a slap is the same as someone trying to kill you?

    Everyone should know;  "An eye for an eye" is improper conduct for a Christian, because it signifies revenge, not protection.

    To seek revenge, makes the person an aggressor. Christians are to "be peaceable, as far as it depends upon them". Christians are told "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord"

    The aggressor is condemned in the Bible,  not the one protecting his life.

    If you give the robber or violent man your coat or shirt you can replace your coat

    But if a crazy man is trying to take your life; you really believe your supposed to give it ?    

    You really believe  "Love for enemies" is the same as laying kisses, on the one stabbing you?


    by Resistance on Sat, 03/09/2013 - 2:08am

      I admit I didn't take the turn the other cheek thing literally, to mean that you should only endure slaps and nothing worse. I thought it was an endorsement of non-violence.

    Maybe it wasn't, though.


    by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Sat, 03/09/2013 - 11:37am

    IMHO  It is an endorsement of non - violence, as respects taking it to aggressiveness.

    Proactive defense is not aggressive behavior.

    Knowing not to walk down a dark alley in a strange area, is proactive defense.

    An aggressive spirit would walk down the alley, thinking "Bring it on"

    Carrying with the intent to protect, is proactive defense.  

    Carrying and seeking out, to purposely cause harm, is aggressive

    Fending off an attack by a wild beast (or men of beastly qualities) is not aggressive behavior, it is defending oneself to avoid bodily injury.

    Once the criminal realizes, you're armed and he runs away, an aggressive spirit would be a person who successfully protects himself, then pursues the assailant.

    IMHO Turning the other cheek would mean, I knew the criminal intended to cause me harm and now that the tables are turned, what will I do? Will I return his badness with some of my own? Will I give chase down the alley?  

    Aaron  You can have all the knowledge and truth, but without faith, what good is it?

    Why would the millions, who don't have faith in Jesus, listen to those who ask WWJD, when it comes to disarming themselves and to be left unprotected?

    These same folks who ask WWJD, don't care to obey him in other aspects of their lives, except when Jesus' words can be used to fit their desires. Jesus would be for gun control;  is that all they know or think they know?  

    I have had fun with this exercise. 


    by Resistance on Sat, 03/09/2013 - 12:43pm

      What I've been thinking is that if scripture allows us to defend ourselves against private citizens, it doesn't seem fair if we aren't also allowed to  fight back when it's a state that's coming after us. Peter could be said to have used the sword in defense--defense of Jesus, at least, and perhaps in his own defense.


    by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Sat, 03/09/2013 - 3:34pm

    Agreed 100% AA, and yet people take him seriously anyway.  *smh


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 03/09/2013 - 9:01am

    Maybe because serious people take me seriously?

    Yet you find fault with them?  Did it ever occur to you, it might be you, unable to handle serious matters, unable to engage in an intelligent discussion, other than, insulting the commoners? 


    by Resistance on Sat, 03/09/2013 - 11:42am

    Your scripture applies to those who take up the sword, as aggressors against others or those who do so, to fight governmental authorities, who are appointed by God These Governments have the law on their side, able to put every sword against the rebellion against them.

    When one government decides to attack another government, Christians don't TAKE UP ARMS. It's not a Christians business, they have a King and he has a kingdom  

    When Jesus mentioned the legions of angels who would be available and sent by God through his Heavenly organization (Kingdom-Government) Jesus telling the disciples; don’t take on the present Earthly governments with swords.  It is not the time to establish my Kingdom (government) on Earth

    Peter was the aggressor, attacking the High priest's slave. It's a good thing Jesus and his disciples weren't killed for resisting the Governmental authority in the garden as I wrote earlier.

    At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me.

    (Matthew 26:55 ESV)

    Evidently using clubs and swords against robbers and the like was an acknowledged practice in those days? 

    It is one thing to be an aggressor armed with a sword and yet another to protect yourself from robbers and other wild animal like beings.

    I have never read, where Jesus says, allow yourself to be clubbed to death by robbers. 


    by Resistance on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 8:27pm

      Okay, but some(probably not Jesus) wouldn't have regarded Peter as the aggressor, because he was protecting his master from bad guys(bad guys that were agents of the state. Paul did say to respect the authority of magistrates, although not, of course, to obey them when they ordered you to sacrifice).


    by Aaron Carine (not verified) on Sat, 03/09/2013 - 6:57am

    Keep in mind though; that if people had the faith of Jesus, they wouldn't need to carry.

    For the billions about to face tribulations, as has not been seen before; Its going to take a lot of faith to escape.  If they haven't the faith, they might think about carrying, Because it's going to get real bad and ugly, like it might have been when the doors to the ark were closed and the water rising.


    by Resistance on Sat, 03/09/2013 - 8:54am

    There are a number of narratives that interpret the text in a similar fashion. Rather than making it a matter of expertise in reading source materials, perhaps it would be helpful to consider the penchant for a philosophy of history that is clearly evident in the writings of Paul.

    Where one speculates upon the meaning of present time against the background of eternity, other people can do that too.

    Your results may vary.


    by moat on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 10:08pm

    Time present and time past                                                                                   Are both perhaps present in time future                                                                 And time future contained in time past

    Burnt Norton T.S.Eliot

     

     


    by Flavius on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 10:30pm

      Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality, but Paul did. He condemns homosexual relations(at least when they go as far as "lying together") in Romans 1:26-27, First Corinthians 6:9, and First Timothy 1:9.


    by Aaron Carine on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 10:57pm

    I have met people who don't accept Paul's writings. Its convenient that way.

    Jesus knew and obeyed the Jewish law. 

     “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
    (Matthew 5:17 ESV)


    by Resistance on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 4:33am

    Not accepting Paul's writings can be more than a convenient narrative to escape an uncomfortable truth. It can be part of a testimony to a sincere belief. One that differs in important ways from what other people believe.

    The differences are expressed in articles of faith but also in principles of action. Different people making different decisions because of different understandings of what their belief is asking of them.

    Authority has come from the insistence upon allowing only one narrative to tell the truth. Centuries of trademark wars have been fought over control of the brand. Many of the losers lost hard.

    If the spiritual liberty you speak of up-thread dispenses with priests and yet still claims ownership of the one true story, the Papal See is not abandoned so much as relocated into the center of each believer of the story.

     


    by moat on Sat, 03/09/2013 - 3:43pm

    Moat, this is a thought provoking comment. I don't want to reply in haste and even still, my comment may be misunderstood.

    My first quick thought,  I am reminded as Christians, to let Gods own words tell the truth. (The real story?) and Not to leave it to men in sheep clothing (the cloth)  to cherry pick.  To make inferences, not supported by the whole of the facts.

    As in a court of law today, to arrive at the whole truth, as opposed to 1/2 truths; as I'm sure you know 1/2 truths serve a purpose.

    The record as a whole, should be read, to get the proper interpretation.  

    Example: Does God really torture non- believers?


    by Resistance on Sat, 03/09/2013 - 7:01pm

    I am aware of that. Paul also told women they should be silent in church, and furthermore, "If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (1 Cor 14:35) He makes the same point in 1 Tim 2:11-12, "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

    Jesus was not as much of a jerk, though.


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 7:57am

    Yes, the first verse you cite was like a slap in the face when I first read it mostly because it seemed to me to directly contradict and earlier verse in the same chapter, " There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification."  (1 Cor 14:10)  The contradiction made quite an impression.  Note how I still remember it after half a century.  

    Nevertheless I have made peace with Paul because he wrote some really lovely things as well, e.g. 1 Cor 13.  The key is separating his religious teaching from his church administration guides.

     


    by EmmaZahn on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 8:43pm

    It is unlikely that the next Pope is going to change church policies concerning birth control or anything that messes with creation. Dice are okay but not maps of protein synthesis.

    There is more of a chance (but not very likely) to change some of the animus against Liberation Theology that Pope John Paul expressed. The retiring Pope was the axe man for that guy. There is an opportunity here to reevaluate the harsh decisions made during the last forty years.

    The thing about the MBA Pope idea that is most ridiculous is that at that if you have to work that hard, you might as well be Protestant, vying for souls in a crowded market. 

    The church called "According to the Whole" has eschewed that path in the past.


    by moat on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 9:49pm

    if you have to work that hard, you might as well be Protestant

    Most excellent point on so many levels and had me chuckling to boot.

    The retiring Pope was the axe man for that guy

    Very true. And it is also the main basis of most likely reason for retirement in my opinion, despite the attraction of  grand conspiracy theories about international courts, Vatican butlers or confidential reports that no one can see.

    His papacy was intended by the voting cardinals to be a "caretaker papacy," just a slight extension of the papacy that came before because they weren't ready or inspired as to what kind of change they might want or where the church should be going or whether it should stay the same, or go backwards for that matter. (A decade or two delay in making up their minds being a New York minute in Vatican time.) So pick the elderly axe man of the previous pope. Unfortunately he didn't die as soon as one might expect and at the same time had all kinda managerial troubles breaking out that need someone with a bit more energy and health.  (Probably should use Troubles with a capital T.)


    by artappraiser on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 2:11am

    I've been told it's better to be an Episcopalian.

    "Wherever three or more are gathered, theres a fifth." 


    by Resistance on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 4:07am

    Geez (yes, I know, that's still taking the Lord's name in vain,)

    I hadn't thought of scapulars in years, thanks for that, I guess. cheeky

    An aside: made me think how so many urban workers proudly wear a new kind of scapular on the outside of their clothes now:


    by artappraiser on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 3:10am

    LOL! It's true!


    by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 10:27am

    Of course the Church would like an MBA Pope.

    I am reminded of the once strong, world power, of the ancient city of Babylon; where in one night, the Euphrates was dried up and the city fell; was burned and sacked. Its gold taken from it.

    The rampant pedophilia that occurred, is bringing down this faiths, strong towers.

    This church thought it could ride the beast it created, with it's religious/political marriage, instead; the government it helped create  is turning on it; eating out the churches sustenance,. As more and more charges of abuse are leveled at it and the payments to keep it in power, are overwhelming.

    The cry is valid "Get out of her my people, if you don't want to share in her sins"

    The congregates of this church, are leaving in droves.

    Like the dried up Euphrates, the flow of money is now a trickle of it's former self

    The church liked being a queen.

    They need a business Pope, to return the church, to the glory days of wealth and privilege.

    But to bad to bad, she has fallen, as has the economic system.


    by Resistance on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 5:01am

    An MBA Pope wouldn't be much different than what they've had for eons. Let's talk about John Paul first, a terrible human being, who allowed the current Pope, wait who probably encouraged the current Pope to force the retirement of Father Ray Hunthausen, a man I used to protest with. We protested the movement of nuclear weapons, he advocated for equality for LGBT in the late 1980's and early 1990's when retirement was forced upon him, and who forced it, John Paul and his enforcer, Ratzinger.

    The Church long ago lost parishioners like myself through their incessant micro-managing of parishes, and because they have promoted bigotry, and of course their movement away from Vatican II.

    This is why I know they will get someone who lacks any connection with the post modern world, because it works for them. They are like the Fox News part of the Church, and sometimes they are to be ignored.

    So when I moved away from the Philippines in 1981, there were 50 million people in the entire country. Today there are 93 million people. Here are a couple of articles that will enlighten you to the role the Catholic Church takes in keeping poverty growing in third world countries.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/population/la-fg-populatio...

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/04/health/philippines-birth-control

    The Catholic Church is reprehensible in their efforts to keep poor people poor, they talk a good game but they seem not to understand as an organization that the way out of poverty is education and family planning.  They have had the dogmatic, ideological, anti-reform MBA Popes... John Paul and the current holder of the office, what they need now is a Father Ray Hunthausen, but they just retire his type, and that tells me everything I need to know about the selection of the next MBA Pope.

    /rant over


    by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 10:26am

    I think you mean John Paul II, since John Paul I died 33 days after being elected. JP I seemed like a decent enough fellow, but JP II did seem to turn the hands backwards..


    by Donal on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 3:24pm

    Yes you are right Donal, I do mean JPII. Thanks.


    by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 3:35pm

    Latest Comments