Mean Pope
Pope Benedict, being hostile:'Benedict said desertions from the Catholic fold were due primarily to the "the lack of an evangelization completely centered on Christ and his Church."
He said people who are "insufficiently evangelized (are) most vulnerable to the aggressive proselytizing of (evangelical) sects" adding that such people "are easily influenced because their faith is weak, confused, easily shaken and naive, despite their innate religiosity."'
Tell us how you really feel.
Does he WANT to get these deserters back? Maybe he thinks calling the deserters weaklings will keep the current faithful from departing, or maybe it's his classic German heritage of strength and survival bulging through the veneer of Papal dignity.
Even if he's right in fact, he's wrong in delivery. Maybe most of his converts are people with weak faith - of all people, the POPE ought to know that saying these things about their faith conflates to the faith of evangelicals everywhere, and that making his point in such a base manner both offends those on the other side of the fence, who he ought to be trying to bring in, and degrades the dignity of his office. Any Pope should know these things - this Pope especially should've learned this lesson already.
His "evangelical" is a straw man. I've been known to make straw-man-Catholics in the past, so I'll resist it here, but it's things like this - this sort of weird, senselessness and unnecessary conflict; this sort of religious name-calling; this unnecessary use of offensive language - which continue to reinforce the belief that the Catholic church is just another sect of Christianity with no better management or claim to truth than any other.
If this blows up, maybe we'll get to see Benedict pray with Joel Osteen.
posted by RJ @ 5:11 PM
11 comments
11 Comments:
haha! You got him! Stupid mean pope! What the heck does he know? That German side of him is getting in the way of Christianity again!
Seriously though, 'sheep stealing' is a real problem in Brazil right now; the Catholic Church is losing people of 'weak faith' to evangelical charismatic churches with little or no faith. I think the pope is just being realistic; he calls them as he sees them. I wish our politicians were this realistic!
I don't think he is trying to be mean, but the truth is the truth; the Catholic Church has not done a good job educating its faithful (we all know this) and that is leading people to leave the Church, which he rightly assumes is a bad thing. And these people are not staying in these 'mega-churches'. The mega-church is just the next stepping stone on the way to atheism or agnosticism, which we all assume is a bad thing. There was a great article in "Chronicles" a few months ago with the statistics of how long the average person stays in a mega-church (or any non-denom. congregation) after leaving a mainline: it was three years. Three years! So in this case the Pope is just being honest about the spiritual danger of the people involved, he doesn't want to coddle them into a warm, fuzzy, nice, religion but remind them that the truth matters, whichever denomination you are in!
I don't think the pope is running an advertising campaign for the Church, nor trying to say things that 'sell' or make people feel comfortable; rather he is pointing out the harsh reality of this world: belief matters and what form you take of it matters. He is worried about their spiritual welfare and doesn't have time to mince words or speak relaxedly. If you take Jesus Christ and Christianity seriously, this is a serious matter and demands serious words; playing nice simply means it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as we all get along.
So I think the words of the Pope can be taken as mean or not politically correct, but isn't that the point? He isn't trying to sell you some product, he is trying to protect people from spiritual harm (not just hell, but in this life, I mean). If you take your Christianity seriously then you can vehemently disagree with the Pope's position on Christianity (Catholic), but to say that he is speaking rudely or naively is to say that no form of Christianity (or any religion) really makes a difference, and that is nothing but religious relativism. So disagree with him all you want, but take a note from Benedict's book: call a spade a spade.
Hans -
When the average mega-churcher leaves after three years, where do they go? Is there any evidence that they become agnostics or atheists, or are they leaving for smaller congregations?
Mair - The article is "When Experts Attack" by Aaron D. Wolf in Chronicles: April 2007. If I remember correctly they stop going to church entirely, but I don't remember thinking about the smaller church possibility, it could be there, I would have to check. They won't let me access it online, unfortunately. Sounds possible though, guess that's why you are a sociologist, right!
Is the "mega-church" movement really a problem in Brazil? I had thought it was more limited to America, but I don't really know.
"playing nice simply means it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as we all get along."
That's total crap and you know it - I'm not saying anything like that.
"Evangelical", "Protestant" and "Mega-Church fluffy Evangelical" aren't the same thing. When you're Pope, and you're trying to keep people from leaving your church, it's best to not lump groups of drastically disparate people together and label them all with the same. I'm not talking about being PC or "playing nice" or any of that garbage - I'm just saying it's wrong for him to say that anyone who leaves his church has weak faith, and that by association, all evangelicals and protestants have weak faith.
"So disagree with him all you want, but take a note from Benedict's book: call a spade a spade."
I will call a spade a spade: the modern Catholic church as a whole is no better than the protestant one, and the pope should know better than to say these kinds of things.
Redness - I think your point about mixing 'Evangelical', 'Protestant', and 'Mega-Church fluffy Evangelical' is quite fair in the States. We have such a diverse collection of Christian forms of church that there are mutiple layers going on: first a divide on Protestant v. Catholic, then on Evangelical v. Liberal in Protestants, then M-C f E v. non in Evangelicals; and of course there are further distinctions both above and below these three. So if the Pope came to America and denounced all three as being the same I think he would be misguided and misinformed.
Needless to say, I am not convinced that is what is going on in the situation in Brazil. From what I know of it his denunciation was specifically aimed at the charismatic evangelical movement which is sweeping Brazil based on appeal to 'speaking in tongues', 'healings' and 'promises of wealth'. Anyone who falls for these kind of theatrics IS of weak faith, I would say objectively. There is an interesting article on this conversion here: http://www.zonalatina.com/Zldata364.htm
So to us in the States where evangelicalism is a polymorphic entity with numerous meanings (what does it mean, anyways?) the Pope would sound downright uninformed and stupid. But this isn't what is happening in Brazil; he is dealing with Roman Catholics leaving for Pentecostal religions on the extreme end of Christianity. In this sense I imagine you are actually in agreement with the Pope; I know you don't have any fondness for Joel Osteen and his crowd.
So in defense of the Pope I don't think he is saying Protestants, or even Evangelicals are weak and stupid; I think he is saying that conversion to Pentecostal Christianity is spiritually dangerous and needs to be stopped for the good of the Catholic Church. I think a more sympathetic reading is therefore necessary, which is really my point.
So I don't think he is saying "anyone who leaves his church has weak faith, and that by association, all evangelicals and protestants have weak faith", but rather that this form of Pentecostal sheep-stealing is inappropriate and needs to be stopped. There is no mention at all of those Catholics who have left the Church because of deep theological conversions to Reformed Presbyterianism or Anglicanism; his remarks are directed specifically against weak faith Pentecostalism. I hope that makes some of my defense of his comments more sensible, although I admit to a strongly polemic tone in my first response.
The strongly polemic tone was totally justified, given that it's a strongly polemic blog post. I don't sufficiently understand the context of the situation or the religious climate in Brazil, so I admit I'm taking this fairly well out of context. I still believe, however, that the Pope should realize that his statements are going to be read and heard universally, and if a statement applies only to a specific context, he ought to spell that out very specifically. Maybe he did and the article conveniently left that out, possibly even to make the statement sound more divisive than it was meant to be.
"There is no mention at all of those Catholics who have left the Church because of deep theological conversions to Reformed Presbyterianism or Anglicanism."
Shouldn't there be some mention of this, though? Shouldn't any talk of people leaving the church leave room for those who left for good reason, and include for these some measure of mercy and grace? I wouldn't mind at all if he said something sympathetic, but still claimed other sects to be confused and asked these "justifiably" to remember Catholicism and orthodoxy when they find protestantism unsatisfying in the future.
That would be stepping above the name calling and the Joel Osteen's of the world - that'd be setting yourself up as the dignified adult in a sea of squabbling Children. Seeing leadership like that would make me more inclined to become a Catholic or return to Catholicism if I'd left.
Redness - thanks for these comments, I especially appreciated this one:
"I wouldn't mind at all if he said something sympathetic, but still claimed other sects to be confused and asked these "justifiably" to remember Catholicism and orthodoxy when they find protestantism unsatisfying in the future."
I think he has done that in other writings (The Ratzinger Report, for example) and it certainly would have been a good thing to say. I think the context is really crucial here, but your point of universality is well made; obviously if there is a back-lash (I haven't heard anything yet) he will have a chance to clarify his words and hopefully there he will make some statements which you would support.
For reference and good reading, here is the full text of the speech: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/may/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070511_bishops-brazil_en.html
In it he speaks about 'good ecumenical dialogue', something which he does not see happening here in Brazil with the Pentecostals. So the news article seems to be a bit out of line.
That link is bad. The speech is found at www.vatican.va. Then go to papal archives, then Benedict XVI, then Speeches (near bottom), then 2007, and look for this "Meeting and Celebration of Vespers with the Bishops of Brazil in the Catedral da Sé in São Paulo (May 11, 2007)"
Sorry that isn't easier. I don't computer well.
Here's another example of a time when it would have seriously benefited Benedict to be more clear:
Vatican 'cleans up' Pope's remarks on abortion
And here's a link to transcripts for everything during the entire papal journey.
I didn't read any of the other comments and I know I'm late to the game here, but I have one comment and one question:
1) I don't think Benedict's point was that weak-faithed Catholics become Evangelicals because Evangelicalism is a faith for the weak; I think he was saying that because their Catholic faith is weak, they are willing to convert to some other religion, in this case Evangelicalism (in another context it might be Islam or secularism).
2) You seem to really think that Evangelicalism is equally as robust and strong and fit as a faith tradition as Catholicism is (I don't mean that sarcastically at all, that is a genuine observation about this post). Is that true? If so, why do you think that? If not, please clarify.
jmorg:
"1) I don't think Benedict's point was that..."
Yes; I probably agree. My more salient point, that I've focused on in the later comments, is that, as Pope, he really ought to know how to speak more directly and succinctly. I know this is five languages removed from his native tongue, but, thus far, Benedict's papacy has been more characterized by publishing corrections than actual statements.
"2) You seem to really think that Evangelicalism is equally as robust and strong and fit as a faith tradition as Catholicism is.."
I do think that's true, but in making that claim, I think it's vitally important that we look at the entire span of Christianity, Catholicism, and Evangelicalism (or at least non-Catholic Christianity.) In the past, since there's been a split, both traditions can be found extremely lacking in certain areas and extremely fulfilling in others. The same is true for Catholicism. That being said, Hans has pointed out that this comment also needs to be firmly grounded in geography, and Brazilian/Latin American "evangelicalism" isn't the same as the "evangelicalism" I experience. I can't make a claim about a faith I haven't seen much of, but at least here in America, I find Evangelicalism and Catholicism both having about the same value. To me, that's upsetting, because I find both branches to be equally frustrating and lacking. This is why I reacted so strongly against the Pope's comments: because while I admit that Evangelicalism has it's problems, it's not like Catholicism has offered me a strikingly better alternative, and so I bristle at the idea that my faith tradition is "weak" while Catholic faith is "strong", even though I recognize now that that's probably not what he meant.
Post a Comment
<< Home