Catholic Power and Democracy

I intend to wite a few posts on the Catholic Church in American democracy. In no way do I find fault with the catholic laity I know; nor, frankly with the priests I know. But church as an international institution does have problems in a democratic society.

I start with two premises.

One, the laity have no power or influence in the catholic church. Church supporters like to say "the Church is not a democracy." And I accept this description. Only a few hundred, and, in most cases,one, the Pope, have any say in its policies. The laity can be saved by the church, but the church has no fundamental need for the laity.

Two, the church, unlike other institutions, does not have beliefs. it has final knowledge in any matter on which it so desires to exercise its authority. Anglicans believe there doctrines are true. The catholic church KNOWS what is right or wrong in any situation.

Democracy, on the other hand, is based not on absolute certainty but on a myriad of beliefs which in the final analysis must be compromised to work effectively. The Enlightenment and the rise of science, Wiegel to the contrary, have tended to remove Absolute certainty from civil society. Now we can be sure with a high degree of certainty that some things are right and some wrong. But democracy can not function if a large group claims the right of absolute final say as to how the society should operate. And this is the claim of the church. No matter what the majority says, much less any minority,----the church has the absolute final say on any matter it chooses to speak on.

The catholic church is the greatest danger to civil accord and the working of democracy. The church says that almost all Americans, 90 per cent or more, are supporters of genocide. Our new president is also a supporter of genocide. Is their a catholic bishop who, if he had the power, would not remove all democratic officials who disagree with catholic teaching. After all, as the saying goes "error has no right to exist."

Is the church subject to the laws developed in a democracy. The church clearly showed in the sex abuse scandal that its representatives are not subject to civil law. The pope himself called the cases of abuse just media hysteria. The archbishops and bishops, obviously believeing themselves not subject to civil authority, simply reassigned known child rapist.

The church claims absolute control over the private sex lives of their members. Fair enough, I guess. But it is clear they desire to control ALL citizens private lives, because what the church teaches must be true. It cannot be wrong.

Am I exaggerating. I think not. The church desires to have final say on any matter it so desires, but realizes at this time it does not have that power. But they are working. Any catholic medical professional licensed by the state now has the power to refuse medical aid to any person if such aid goes against his beliefs. Exaggeration? Could a devout catholic physican under this executive order refuse to give medical attention to those injured in the bombing of an abortion clinic, or even members of a Planned Parenthood group? Maybe not. But with a supreme court dominated by devout catholics could such be an interpretation of the law?

Wiegel and others have made it clear that our courts and judges SHOULD be under the complete control of catholic policies.

The bishop of Scranton Pa. has made it clear that he alone can speak on moral matters in his area. Right now, to catholics, but I am sure he believes, as the sole possessor of absolute truth in that area, that he should have absolute power over all citizens.

And what does the Vatican do? And what do our other bishops do. Nothing, of course. This group of celibate men should have, and I repeat, should have absolute power over the citizens of America. And who are we to complain about "Absolute power corrupting" Is the church not now safely past the rape of young boys.

Blog Comment Awards!!!!

Blogging is fun. One of the big thrills is finding 'outrageous' comments and then replying to them. Usually the outrageous 'commenter' calls foul and runs to the blog owner demanding support, kind of like 'working' the refs in basketball.

My favorite examples of the year.

C.S. This blogger answers all questions or challenges by saying "Holy Mother Church" says. In about ten exchanges he never changes. You plead with him to have an idea of his own, buts it's always "Holy Mother Church" says...

But my favorite is "d...." Her quote, winner of quote of the year is: "Protestant ministers perform their services for their congregations, not God, so if it's likely if they have only a few people.or no people (at their services) or they can't get there because of weather, well, eh...they've just disappointed a few people, that's all." Man, you talk about naked bigotry!!!

This quote was selected first by the whole panel. I hate to say the blog owner, a very fine Christian lady, raced to her defense. BTW, "T" is married, she tells us, to the greatest man in the world, well maybe the Pope not counted. And her catholicism is mixed with ASTROLOGY. Yah, that's right!!

The funny thing is these two folks are regarded as good solid catholics,and I'm a poor some kind of evil heretic or monster. I kind of thought it was the reverse.

You might stop by tomorrow, if you're not afraid, for my list of last minute gift items from the Padre Pio collection.

Some Pio questions

I'm still puzzled about Padre Pio. So some questions:

John 23 thought Pio was a fraud. JP2 visited Pio fairly early in his career. Apparently Pio told JP2 that he would be Pope someday. What influence did this have on JP2

JP2 pushed for his cannonization, when many were opposed.

How thorough is a review for cannonization by the Vatican, especially when the Pope is pushing hard?

Are cannonization proceedings made public?

As to Pio "gifts" I see no evidence that could be accepted by any reasonable neutral, fair minded, person that they were real. No tests were ever made of his "transverberation"(indeed HOW could that be tested?). I guess if you say you have that phenomenon , you have it?

The stigmata? How was that tested? Why did the hands and feet show no signs of peircing after his death and exhumation?

Was his bilocation tested? If so, how?

Could he fly? One "witness" said he could. Was that tested?

On his miracle of raising the dead child in a suitcase, what evidence was found? Certainly the church should use this. It could create millions of converts.

The same for seeing without having pupils in the eyes. What evidence was found for that? Again are we losing millions of converts by not thoroughly documenting this?

Is the official position of the church that the bodies of saints are not corruptible? If so why did Pio's head have to be reconstructed in wax after his exhumation? Do pilgrims know that?

Why are tickets sold to view his remains? Seems a bit crass.

In sum, other than the testimony of a few, what reliable evidence is there for his "abilities" and "miracles? Certainly if the church had real evidence on any of these things they would want to publicize them most widely. Have these been reported in any scientific journal? If so has this changed the face of science as they should?

It seems to me that the 'evidence' of Pio's abilities and miracles, might not even be acceptable to reasonable people of the first century.

I am quite aware that this will not be answered. My big concern is B16 going to Pio's site. After his really excellent analysis of Fatima, I hope he might just stay clear. But no. Too much pressure, I assume.

Proud of Jack

My grandson Jack served at the 8:00 mass this morning. Did great job. We were all very proud of him.

The Pope has no Clothes

In its unrelenting drive to maintain its unique authority, the celibate (no sex, no sex thoughts) catholic hierarchy relies on different tools. One of the most common is reference to "natural law."

Many people thinking about natural law assume you could go to your local library and find a book listing in detail the natural laws. But such people would be disappointed. Natural law theory is one of the most complex subjects in the whole field of philosophy, with as many opinions and analyses as can be found in almost any area of philosophy.

The church is putting new emphasis on natural law in its efforts, especially in the area of sexuality, to maintain its steadidly declining influence on sexual practices, and, of course, to justify its celibate imposed strictures and the superiority of celibacy over the married state. Thus masturbation is a sin. Indeed, according to that great doctor of the church, Thomas Aquinas, the most referenced catholic authority on natural law, masturbation is worse than rape in that the latter could lead, at least, to procreation. And male orgasm other than in the vagina of the female is considered a sin. And all homosexual thought is disordered and any homosexual practice is a grave sin. And, of course, any sex not open to procreation is evil. Using contraceptives sends you straight to hell.

It does not take a genius to understand this, almost hysterical, anti-sexual attitude of the hierarchy. The superiority, the authority, of clerics is intimately tied to their unique position of having sworn off sex in virtually, if not all, its manifestations.

It should also be noted that the church's position on the natural law, and the supposed restriction on sexual activity and thought, cannot be questioned. Paul 6, in Humana Vitae, makes it quite clear that the church has the unique authority to say what the natural law is. Ergo, the natural law is what the church teaches. They are synomymous for all practical purposes; what the church says IS natural law, and natural law MEANS what the church says . Hmm.

So I think it is fair to say on this matter: The Pope has no clothes.

Oh, I forgot. If you kiss before marriage the lips MUST BE CLOSED. I do not know if this has been declared infallibly or by the magisterium, but it is so taught in many catholic schools. Just trying to be helpful.

Visit to Pio

I notice with interest that B16 is planning a visit to the church home of Padre Pio.

As I always explained to students there is a fundamental difference between Protestanism and Roman Catholicism as to there approach to the faithful. Protestantism has traditionally expected its members and converts to hold to a rather strict set of beliefs, not allowing room for the keeping of any traditional native or questionable beliefs. Catholicism, on the contrary, seems to hold that a cup half full is better than an empty cup, thus allowing its members and potential converts to hold some beliefs that are not totally sound. Both sides have merits.

But to concentrate on Catholicism, we see a large number of this faith believing the most incredulous things. All kinds of weird miracles, weeping statutes, stigmatics, visions--the list is almost endless. Catholics are not required to believe in these strange things; however, in most cases belief is allowed if they might engender further faith .

And, of course, Padre Pio is the perfect case. Does B16 actually believe Pio can be in two places at one time. Does he really believe his heart was physically pierced by Jesus? Does he really believe in the Padre's stigmata? We live in a modern age in which hoaxes are must easier to detect and a higher level of proof is required to sustain an extraordinary claim, under the rubric of "extraordinaty claims require extraordinary evidence."

The Padre Pio case clearly strains the the limit of belief. None of his 'miraculous' abilities has any level of proof satisfactory to any person of knowledge. The clear and most obvious explanation is that Pio's miracles were hoaxes. That would seem obvious to any person not left with a very poor knowledge and a poor ability to reason. Either Pio was dishonest, as were those around him, or he was deranged, are the clearest explanations. Of course, arguing with the 'faithful' is futile. After death, for example, his body showed no signs of years of the stigmata.But to the believers that means nothing. Either way they 'win.' If there were signs of his skin being pierced that would prove the stigmata, the believer would argue. If there were no signs of the stigmata, as was obvious---then just another miracle.

As catholics it is very fashionable to laugh at Oral Roberts and the "80 foot Jesus." Just a scheme to bring in money. Then we turn around and believe, violating all rules of physics, that this poor Padre can be in two places at one time. Oh, and the money. His town will reap a million times more profit in a few years than poor Oral could have dreamed.

So what does B16 believe. Is it the same as he says?

CALL THE POPE RIGHT NOW!!!!!!

I want to post something which I feel strongly about. On the first try, what I post may not be as clear as I want. If so, then I will return.

Again I have run afoul of a couple of catholic bloggers, and I think I know what the problem is. There are two basic approaches to finding the truth . First is mine and others way which says I think A is almost certainly true. But there is a possibility, as remote as it might be, that I could be wrong.

And then B,I will call it for purposes of this post, the catholic way. That is, I have been told by my church not what is 99.9999999 sure, but what is ABSOLUTELY TRUE, and I accept that. You may argue with me, but there is ZERO chance you are right.

In the last century the church officially procclaimed the doctrine of Infallibility. Faced with science and its doctrine that anything may be subject to revision, even though on many matters that chance is infinitesimally small, the church adopted the principle of Absolute Certainty. The poor dumb people needed this so they would not be seduced by wicked scientist like Darwin. That is, the church, when it so desires can make statements of fact that have NO possibility of being wrong

My first point is that this doctrine "trickles down" to many catholics, and they become very intolerant of those who question their 'infallibility", based, they would argue, on what the church has stated cannot be error. Although not a blogger, Bishop Chaput of Denver is a good illustration. In his recent book "Render unto Caesar" he simply states what is absolutely true and urges catholics to enter the political area with the confidence that, as they have been taught, there is no possibility they could be wrong. Oh, yes, he would say, give arguments if it might help, but start from the absolute truth and then search for the rationales. I think the Key sentence in his book is seen when he brings up the subject of "personhood" as it applies to abortion. Most thoughtful people think this is a key discussion. Chaput simply reduces it to 'I will not discuss it as those who disagree with the church MUST be wrong. '

Now good conservative catholics follow his approach and think they are being totally logical. This is the TRUTH period. Of course, that is fine, but such an approach does throw a chill over rational debate. That is, we start with there is no chance I am wrong they say, and yes, I will deign to make an argument or two, but the discussion really has no meaning because my church, and by extension, I, as a follower, CANNOT be wrong.

Newman finally supported Infallibility on the grounds it would seldom be used. He thought to proclaim the doctrine was counter-productive. But the church is wise. It has used the doctrine only twice, frankly on matters that do not have great significance in our daily christian lives. But the 'rulers' of the church are not satisfied with such meager power since the proclamation of infallibility.. So we have the magisterium, which in all conservative catholic thinking is really 'infallibility' with not such a brute word.

And this 'magesterium' goes almost all the way. It can say with TOTAL, ABSOLUTE, certainty that one cell MUST is a human person, on exactly the same level as you and I . On a practical level this 'magisterium' is even more useful. It can tell you with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY who to vote for for president, or even maybe county sheriff. Of course, they don't give the name of who you should vote for, but you would have to be an ABSOLUTE, TOTAL MORON to miss the point.

In summary then, I am not arguing that the church should not speak out and that what it says should not be given weight. But I, for one, cannot accept that the church speaks with ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE OF ERROR on virtually any subject it desires from what to think and practice about sex in the most minute detail, to whom the president of the U.S. should appoint to any office, or to tell Obama (as John Allen wrote) that his first order of business is to call the pope and get his views.