What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Habemus Blogpost! (About Pope Benedict XVI)

As one of the resident Catholic Christians at What’s Wrong, I would be remiss if I didn’t offer up a few comments about the unexpected retirement announcement of Pope Benedict XVI. If you have any interest at all in who the next Pope might be, the best place to start thinking about the possible candidates is this blog post from Michael Brendan Dougherty (complete with odds!)

Some other thoughts from around the web can be found at National Review Online (NRO), where they had a mini-symposium on the subject; Crisis Magazine, where Sean Fitzpatrick has some wise thoughts about Benedict’s old fashioned “radicalism”; First Things, where Rusty Reno, Joshua Gonnerman, and Russell Moore all have brief, interesting things to say about the Pope and his legacy; and even “PJ Media” where the Jewish writer David Goldman (i.e. Spengler) weighs in with some interesting thoughts.

However, it was a brief post earlier at NRO’s The Corner, that I thought captured why Benedict’s legacy will be important to the Church (and the world) for years to come. Samuel Gregg, whose day job is Research Director at the Acton Institute, wrote the following:

But we need to remember that Benedict XVI is arguably the most intellectual pope to sit in Peter’s Chair for centuries—even more so than his saintly predecessor, who was certainly no slouch in the world of ideas. And if there is one single thing that stands out in Benedict’s papacy, it’s this: his laser-like focus on the root-cause of the intellectual crisis that explains not only Western culture’s present wallowing in facile relativism that’s on full display in the content-free rhetoric of your average EU politician, but also the trauma that explains the violence and rage that continues to shake the Islamic world and which Islam seems incapable of resolving on its own terms.

And that problem is one of reason. As Benedict spelt out in four key addresses that repay careful re-reading—the famous 2006 Regensburg lecture, his 2008 address to the French intellectual world, his speech to the Bundestag in 2011, and his remarks to the world of British politics in 2010 in Westminster Hall (the site, not coincidentally, of St Thomas More’s show-trial in 1535)—man, especially Western man, has lost confidence in reason’s power to know more-than-empirical truth.

[…]

But a pope’s job isn’t to tell people what they want to hear. Instead it’s to teach them that Jesus Christ who is Caritas is also the God who is Logos: the divine reason who loves us so much that he wants to save us from our hubris, and who has imprinted his reason upon our very nature to help us know and freely choose the true and the good.

That phrase, “who has imprinted his (i.e. God’s) reason upon our very nature to help us know and freely choose the true and the good” particularly struck me – partially because I’m in the process of reading one of our former contributor’s famous defenses of the ability of “nature’s reason” to understand and know God and partially because I’m also reading one of the Pope’s famous books of theology on Jesus; and even in this book, in which Benedict sort of takes for granted the ideas that God exists and has revealed himself through the Gospel, he can’t help sneaking in this theme:

It seems to me that this is the place to say something, based upon the New Testament, about the salvation of those who do not know Christ. The prevailing view today is that everyone should live by the religion—or perhaps by the atheism—in which he happens to find himself already. This, it is said, is the path of salvation for him. Such a view presupposes a strange picture of God and a strange idea of man and of the right way for man to live. Let us try to clarify this by asking a few practical questions. Does someone achieve blessedness and justification in God’s eyes because he has conscientiously fulfilled the duties of blood vengeance? Because he has vigorously fought for and in “holy war”? Or because he has performed certain animal sacrifices? Or because he has practiced ritual ablutions and other observances? Because he has declared his opinions and wishes to be norms of conscience and so made himself the criterion? No, God demands the opposite: that we become inwardly attentive to his quiet exhortation, which is present in us and which tears us away from what is merely habitual and puts us on the road to truth. To “hunger and thirst for righteousness”—that is the path that lies open to everyone; that is the way that finds its destination in Jesus Christ.

[page 92 in Chapter 4 on the Beatitudes]

Here is to all of those who might be led on the road to truth by Benedict, even the writers at the New York Times, who saw fit to say of the retiring Pope the following: "“Pope Benedict’s well-known stands included the assertion that Catholicism is “true”.”

Indeed.

Comments (26)

The prevailing view today is that everyone should live by the religion—or perhaps by the atheism—in which he happens to find himself already.

Isn't this view quite similar to Mother Teresa's (who I love, by the way)?

"There is only one God and He is God to all; therefore it is important that everyone is seen as equal before God. I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic."

http://www.ewtn.com/motherteresa/words.htm

If that's what Mother Teresa meant, then, er, she was wrong. (Presumably she knows better now.) There is no Catholic guarantee of infallibility for saints (even if she should eventually be canonized). And good on Benedict for pointing out that the view he summarizes is wrong.

To be fair to her, in context she's saying something to the effect that the witness of the charity can be used to bring people closer to God. Still, she said what she said. Presumably she does indeed know better.

MarcAnthony,

To echo Lydia's comment, some of our saints were quite the sinners before their canonization (and think of Saint Paul's life before Damascus). So the fact that she said some goofy things in her long life is no reason not to stop admiring her for all her other good works.

No, MarcAnthony, I have read her words and listened to Mother Teresa's speeches (she gave the commencement address at my graduation, for example), and I am quite, quite confident that if you take the full context of what she said, she did NOT suggest that everyone should stay in the religion in which he finds himself right now. Not a bit of it. She constantly, unremittingly called people toward true holiness in union with God, and never wavered in saying that God sent His Son to establish one Church for that purpose.

At the same time, she was incredibly gentle and patient. She also tended to follow St. Francis's dictum about preaching: preach often, and when necessary, use words. I suspect that the most you could get out of her words about remaining in "your own religion" is that you should live the highest possible calling in that religion while still moving forward toward reception into the Catholic Church.

As indication, read the rest of that quote you gave part of:

We believe our work should be our example to people. We have among us 475 souls - 30 families are Catholics and the rest are all Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs—all different religions. But they all come to our prayers."

She didn't pray Hindu prayers, she prayed Catholic ones that others came to. She "let her work be her example" to preach about Catholicism, she offered her prayers publicly as a call to others, but she let God do the hard work of opening up their minds and hearts from the inside.

I never said she prayed Hindu prayers, and I acknowledged that in context what she said isn't as bad as the quoted portion I put here may indicate. But even in context it's hard to deny that she's expressing a theology that is, if not heretical, at least pretty liberal. I also recall her views being awfully close to something like universal salvation as well-once again, I'm not sure if she went QUITE all the way, but she flirted with the idea.

That said, using charity work as a form of evangelism is of course wonderful, and very GOOD theology. I believe it was St. Francis De Sales who said, "Preach the Gospel and, when necessary, use words."

As others have pointed out it's ultimately a non-issue though. Mother Teresa was not beatified for her theological insights. Jeff's comments just immediately brought that quote to mind.

Whoops, sorry Tony, looks like you already used St. Francis's quote!

Anyway, I'm glad you're saying that about Mother Teresa, anyway. I always admired her very much, and her altered version of the "Do it Anyway" list is one of my all-time favorite quotes.

Exactly the same sentiments about a Hindu becoming a better Hindu and so on were made by CS Lewis. That the grace leads a Hindu to focus on those parts of Hinduism that are in agreement with the Church i.e. divine love, the Buddhist on compassion, the Muslim on mercy.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

I found Brenden Dougherty's blog post absolutely fascinating. I was very surprised to find that all three of the top three candidates came from continents other than Europe! And none of the three even shared a continent.

I have to say, I like the idea of Cardinal Peter Turkson becoming Pope. Getting a Pope from an area where Catholicism is REALLY in big, big trouble makes a lot of sense-and even more so when you realize that African Catholicism is growing.

That said, a brief, cursory look at him makes me more hesitant. Cardinal Turkson apparently put together a large, 40+ page document detailing the reasons why he would want a "global bank"-a terrible idea if I've ever heard one. That said, Pope Benedict has also had some...interesting things to say economically, so I'm willing to look past that somewhat.

His stance on homosexuality in Africa is also interesting. I thought he said the right thing, but I would have preferred him to be more clear about it (something to the effect that the U.N. needs to get its nose out of Africa's business and let them deal with homosexuality themselves).

What I thought he should have been a little more clear is when he called the way some African countries were dealing with homosexuality an "exaggeration". I'd have preferred him to come out and say that some countries are doing evil things to homosexuals, while not backing down from his first statement.

His stance on contraception seems solid. Wikipedia says that "Turkson did not rule out condoms in all circumstances suggesting they could be useful in the situation of a married, faithful couple where one partner is infected", but I didn't get that out of his comments. He more or less said, "Now, if you're married and faithful and using a condom, that's different..." That is true-but he also didn't say that it was permissible. Pope Benedict said something similar.

And finally, from a public relations perspective, having a young African Pope known to be orthodox would drive the liberals bananas-and naturally, I approve.

I have a hard time seeing myself being particularly unhappy with almost any of the candidates for the papacy-but I'd like to see Cardinal Turkson get in, I think.

some countries are doing evil things to homosexuals
Like what?
And so they should adopt the American way of dealing with them?

His stance on contraception seems solid. Wikipedia says that "Turkson did not rule out condoms in all circumstances suggesting they could be useful in the situation of a married, faithful couple where one partner is infected", but I didn't get that out of his comments. He more or less said, "Now, if you're married and faithful and using a condom, that's different..." That is true-but he also didn't say that it was permissible. Pope Benedict said something similar.

Probably, the reason you didn't get that out of it is that he probably didn't mean that, and if he did he was contravening what Benedict said. Because Benedict said that he wouldn't rule out the possibility that using condoms, in the situation where a person was moving from indiscriminate sex with narry a thought of either the good of the woman or of possible children, to using a condom in order to protect against at least some of the problems of what would have been indiscriminate sex, is a step in the right direction. In other words, constitutes a disposition moving toward lesser evil.

Probably, the reason you didn't get that out of it is that he probably didn't mean that, and if he did he was contravening what Benedict said.


It reminds me of an instance in The Sopranos when the younger mafiosi advocates gang war and says "This is Scarface, final scene, bazookas under each arm, ‘say hello to my little friend!’” and the older mobster just shakes his head and says, "always with the scenarios". Popes and bishops might consider getting out of the scenario business because there is always some ratchet-jaw willing to spin it into a more outlandish one.

Like what?

In several African countries homosexuality is punishable by death or life imprisonment. No, I don't think they should adopt the American way, and didn't say they should, but there are two extremes here. I also don't think every mother who had an abortion should be put to death either.

Tony, I agree with you about his stance on contraception, and that's what I was trying to get at, if I wasn't clear.

Popes and bishops might consider getting out of the scenario business because there is always some ratchet-jaw willing to spin it into a more outlandish one.

To be fair to Pope Benedict he was saying it in the context of an interview and he had to think on his feet and try to be very specific with his wording. That what he said was misinterpreted is probably more the result of the Vatican's press office (whatever it's called) not making the preemptive strike and clarifying things from the get-go.

Popes and bishops might consider getting out of the scenario business because there is always some ratchet-jaw willing to spin it into a more outlandish one.

Sorry, that's just impossible. Part of moral theology - indeed, part of teaching morals to people in general - is talking about what ifs and scenarios. You can limit most of that talk to scenarios that are likely to actually be encountered, but you cannot fully express the true moral dimensions of something without stating its boundaries, and boundaries are places where you consider more than just the "usual stuff." Also, a large part of reasoned thought is working out reductios, and that's just a carefully laid out "what if".

"In several African countries homosexuality is punishable by death or life imprisonment. No, I don't think they should adopt the American way, and didn't say they should, but there are two extremes here."
Indeed, but moderation is not always a virtue. Homosexuality used to be punishable (in theory) by death in this country, but that sentence was rarely carried out. It was still on the books as a warning to the worst cases, however. I see no problem with such laws. The sexual regime of moderns is far more tyrannical.

Then to be consistent pro-lifers should certainly support the death penalty for women who get abortions, if only as a "fear tactic". I do not. So yes, I consider such a sentence overly harsh.

There are lots of mortal sins not punishable by law. Being a social sin homosexuality SHOULD be punishable by law, but that doesn't mean it should be punishable by life imprisonment or the death penalty. Jail time for forcing the lifestyle on children (how long a jail time, I don't know, yet at least), say, I could get behind, however.

Just to make it clear, it's a mistake to think that I disagree with Cardinal Turkson. His message was spot on, I just think his language on that particular point should have been slightly stronger.

You make a good point there. We do want to be just, not cruel. In the past the law typically punished sodomy with jail, but it made sentencing rapists a lot simpler if ti could already carry the death penalty alone. Whether that is a good way of doing things is of course, debatable.

Appropriate punishment depends upon the local situation. For example, severe measures might be needed to re-establish family in America.

And death penalty is not cruel in itself.

Appropriate punishment depends upon the local situation. For example, severe measures might be needed to re-establish family in America.

And death penalty is not cruel in itself.

I don't think the death penalty is cruel in itself. I support it in principle. But I don't think "Death to practicing homosexuals" is going to do the job any more than "Death to mothers who abort" would. Nor do I think it's right. The death penalty may not be intrinsically cruel but certainly special care needs to be taken when justifying its use.

I'm going to dredge up the dreaded "emotional argument". I have a lesbian Aunt (she's really my Mom's cousin but it's all the same to us kids). She loves all of us, doesn't rub her lesbianism in any of our faces and respects that we're practicing Catholics, and is generally a good person. So honestly, no, I would not feel comfortable threatening her with death.

I know, I know-it's an emotional argument. Yes. It is. But then, real people are involved with real emotions, and not just sodomites but also their families. Care needs to be taken.

None of this should in any way be construed that I support homosexuality-as I mentioned earlier I even support criminalizing it to some extent since it is, after all, a social sin. But I do find measures such as the death penalty and life imprisonment very harsh, to put it mildly. Were I not putting it mildly I might use the word brutal.

In my judgment capital punishment should emphatically be confined to the most heinous murders where evidence against the defendant is absolutely overwhelming. Louisiana had a statute permitted capital punishment for particularly depraved child-rape. The Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, threw out that statute with a collection of dubious and despotic arguments. The Court was wrong; in the republic form of government there should be nothing to prevent Louisiana from establishing such a statute, though I myself (were I a Louisiana legislator) would not vote for capital punishment for that crime. Only premeditated murder.

I am at a loss to see what sense there is in advocating proscription of private, consensual sex acts. I'd sooner crack down (hard) on pornography than private sexual activities, since porn is immensely more corrupting of public morals. That said, I likewise do not see how the Constitution can be construed to positively forbid the states from passing statutes against private sexual depravity, even when consensual. I disagree, even, with the reasoning of Griswold v. Connecticut, despite its framework as a moral defense of conjugal marriage. In other words I agree with Justice Thomas: Connecticut does possess the authority, under the Constitution, to outlaw contraceptives, but it was and remains unwise to attempt this proscription of so pervasive a private activity.

MarcAnthony,

The State has no business punishing homosexuality as a sin, social or otherwise. So the Africans would be acting unjustly if they prescribe homosexuality on the account of it being a sin.

The State is justly concerned with natural felicity of the people and not supernatural felicity. This point can not be overemphasized.
In this context, the State means what was called in older times, the secular arm of the State.

Now do we know precisely what punishments the Africans have proposed to inflict on homosexuals and in what context?. Is the punishment just for homosexual acts or some aggravated offense, such as agitating for homosexual rights or intercourse with minors etc?

The State has no business punishing homosexuality as a sin, social or otherwise.
Well, by a "social sin", I mean that it has a negative effect on the rest of society. I DO think homosexual actions harm society as a whole.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.