Concerned about hell? Heaven? Purgatory? Annulment? Confession of sins? Ability to receive communion? Christianity? Islam? Judaism?
Why not just live a good life. Do the best you can. Life is difficult. Care for others. Embrace the Golden Rule. You do not need religion to decide to become the best person you can possibly be. Just a personal commitment.
If you do believe in God, why not simply talk to him/her directly? Why do you need a religion with all its accumulated baggage as an intermediary?
Why not just live a good life. Do the best you can. Life is difficult. Care for others. Embrace the Golden Rule. You do not need religion to decide to become the best person you can possibly be. Just a personal commitment.
If you do believe in God, why not simply talk to him/her directly? Why do you need a religion with all its accumulated baggage as an intermediary?
95
I was going to write a reasoned scholarly response to Douthat's piece, but I think I'll go trim my nails instead; it is a more productive way to spend my time today.
55
It is always fascinating to read the words for the hidden message behind Conservatives support for traditional thinking which, coincidentally, props up the status quo for the wealthy elite who traditionally pull all of the strings in society. As an academic as well as a Catholic, what is your position, Mr. Douthat, on the mythology within Christianity, which coincidentally, or not so coincidentally, is a complete copy of the Egyptian Horus messiah legend or the worship of Krishna in Hindi culture or the virginal birth of Buddha & his miraculous powers of healing whose life somewhat parallels the biblical tales of Jesus including the Egyptian resurrection myth of Osiris. Even the myths of Dionysis, Heracles & Glycon, Gods of ancient Greece resembles many of the stories relating to Jesus in the Bible & the Greek word, Messiah, is often used in Western Christianity to refer to Jesus Christ the organizing principle behind the elaborate traditions of Catholic faith. Just because certain traditions are ingrained within the psyche of the religiously indoctrinated doesn't necessarily correlate with their benefit to the advancement of mankind as it evolves through the life cycle of the ages. Otherwise, many sticklers for the original word would still be insisting that cave art was still more relevent than modern abstract thinking, in a desperate attempt to grasp on to an outdated way of framing modern behavior in the face of society's cultural & human rights advancements.
58
As long as parents fill the unformed minds of their young with the absurdities of christian doctrine these Bronze Age discussions will continue.
Preposterous outmoded and malaligned with progressive humanism we creep forward into the uncertain future with this heavy load of nonsense on our backs.
Preposterous outmoded and malaligned with progressive humanism we creep forward into the uncertain future with this heavy load of nonsense on our backs.
39
Douthat is a hypocrite. In one breath he praises the appointment of conservative bishops by Benedict and John Paul as a means to keep their chosen doctrine, and in his next breath he criticizes Francis for doing the same thing. Douthat's bias blinds him to his own folly. As usual!
76
Understanding Church doctrine and history is a challenge for the most sedulous scholar. The comments here, especially those receiving heavy approval from NYT readers, reflect two seldom understood but undeniable phenomena: 1. Most Catholics are not well educated in Church doctrine and history. 2. People who are not Catholic are almost never well educated on those two subjects.
14
Sorry, Ross, but the pontiff is clearly much wiser and more inspired than the those who believe that everything is fine just as they are. He's noticed that the Church has been losing its grip on the faithful for decades now because of the scandals and previous popes' sclerotic positions on a vast array of issues. Maybe, just maybe he has been coached by the Holy Spirit to entice more butts in the pews each Sunday. (You may not have noticed it but attendance has been eroding since John XXIII both here and abroad.)
At the end of the day he sees that it's more important to preach the essential meaning of Christ's message of love and compassion than to insist on the theologically twisted legalisms that have accrued over two millennia. And let's not forget that he is the Supreme Pontiff which means that if he resorts to speaking "ex cathedra" he gets the final word - full stop.
At the end of the day he sees that it's more important to preach the essential meaning of Christ's message of love and compassion than to insist on the theologically twisted legalisms that have accrued over two millennia. And let's not forget that he is the Supreme Pontiff which means that if he resorts to speaking "ex cathedra" he gets the final word - full stop.
28
Ross Douhat: Please read "PAPAL SINS - Structures of Deceit" (Garry Wills). Perhaps even you will be moved to take a second look at that which you so grimly, righteously and indignantly defend.
Incidently, by what standard do you declare Pope Francis's humility "ostentatious"? The humility of whom else in your judgment is "ostentatious"? Jesus Christ's?
Incidently, by what standard do you declare Pope Francis's humility "ostentatious"? The humility of whom else in your judgment is "ostentatious"? Jesus Christ's?
35
"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."
Richard Dawkins
Richard Dawkins
34
I always thought that annulments were just another source of income for the Catholic Church. And when I think about Newt and Calista, can't help but laugh at the idea that his prior marriages never existed. By the way, does that mean the children from those marriages are now bastards.
Divorce and remarriage are stressful times in peoples lives. Times when they need comfort from their religions the most. Now you want to shun them. If that is your religion, I would like to suggest that you find a kinder one.
Divorce and remarriage are stressful times in peoples lives. Times when they need comfort from their religions the most. Now you want to shun them. If that is your religion, I would like to suggest that you find a kinder one.
34
The moment I read the words "ostentatious humility" I knew this was another hatchet job of Mr. Douthat. Whenever did a simpler lifestyle of church leaders becomes a vulgar display (the def. of ostentation) ? The men who lead the church are supposed to champion, for themselves and for the rest of us, the imitation of the life of Jesus. Douthat knows, everyone with eyes and ears knows the church leaders have become foppish men who believe their position entitles them to surroundings of ease, enjoying the royal treatment in every aspect of their lives. Pope Francis' humility is such a radical change to what has been on display before, and most of us like it. Mr Douthat, did Jesus, or did he not, teach "....blessed are the humble for they shall inherit the earth".
50
Pope Francis's message of inclusiveness is one sorely needed by the Roman Catholic Church. So much politics obscuring a basic Christian tenet — who did Jesus turn away?
32
As for "rigging" the synod, isn't that what the two previous Popes did with their appointments of Cardinals and Bishops in an attempt to nulify the changes from Vatican II.
As a Catholic who went to Catholic school from the first grade through college and who as an altar boy said the mass in Latin, the Catholic Bishops and Cardinals in America have no moral authority after they allowed and hide the abuses for the last decades.
As a Catholic who went to Catholic school from the first grade through college and who as an altar boy said the mass in Latin, the Catholic Bishops and Cardinals in America have no moral authority after they allowed and hide the abuses for the last decades.
46
Thank God for Pope Francis! Annulment of a marriage, particularly when there are children, is a hurtful process consisting of a series of falsehoods told by a divorcing spouse to a complicit priest and often open only to those with enough money to satisfy the needs of the catholic bureaucracy. No wonder it is staunchly defended by Conservatives!
Good Catholic people who get divorced and want to remain part of the Catholic community should not be stigmatized by an out of date, self-serving rule which discriminates against those of lesser financial means.
Who remembers when eating meat on Friday was a mortal sin, punishable with eternal damnation? We predict the same fate is in store for the dogma around annulment
Good Catholic people who get divorced and want to remain part of the Catholic community should not be stigmatized by an out of date, self-serving rule which discriminates against those of lesser financial means.
Who remembers when eating meat on Friday was a mortal sin, punishable with eternal damnation? We predict the same fate is in store for the dogma around annulment
50
I was thinking of the oscillation going on in the Catholic Church since Vatican II -even though this is such a brief span of time in the Church;s long history. Pope John 23rd inaugurated a reform, an opening of Church windows it was called to the world. Then the Church seemed to become afraid of what it was letting in its windows. Hence the Conservative back lash of John Paul II and Benedict, the Scholar--an attempt to close the windows. Such a polarity dilemna! If the Church does not change it will become ossified, rigid, stiff, irrelevant to the world; if it changes it could become too much like the world and disappear into it. The Church seems to have chosen Francis to find the synthesis, the right balance.
17
I do not recognize the Catholic faith as described in the almost 500 comments from the readers. Most are condescending and overly critical. Why does the NYT print such a controversial piece like this which brings out the anti-Catholicism from both non-Catholics and Catholics alike? That is a rhetorical question which needs no answer.
I have been a practicing Catholic since childhood and love the faith, Pope Francis and its practices. This is the final week of the Synod on the family in Rome and many issues are being discussed. Pope Francis wants dialog among the bishops and Cardinals and we are hearing all viewpoints on topics that are relevant to our faith. This is important for a faith of over one billion followers and also essential.
Pope Francis is a smart man and knows that Church teachings cannot change but compassion and understanding is paramount to the many congregants who fill the pews each week. We are all sinners and Pope Francis is well aware of our foibles and shortcomings. The Church strives to reach out to those less fortunate and in need. Some people want the Church to fit their whims and change Church doctrine but that will not happen. No one forces you to believe or attend Mass and people are free to worship in any way they want or not at all.
Many of us love our Catholic faith and know it has made mistakes in the past. It never turns anyone away as is proved by our Pope. He is a beacon of light and may he continue to lead the Church.
I have been a practicing Catholic since childhood and love the faith, Pope Francis and its practices. This is the final week of the Synod on the family in Rome and many issues are being discussed. Pope Francis wants dialog among the bishops and Cardinals and we are hearing all viewpoints on topics that are relevant to our faith. This is important for a faith of over one billion followers and also essential.
Pope Francis is a smart man and knows that Church teachings cannot change but compassion and understanding is paramount to the many congregants who fill the pews each week. We are all sinners and Pope Francis is well aware of our foibles and shortcomings. The Church strives to reach out to those less fortunate and in need. Some people want the Church to fit their whims and change Church doctrine but that will not happen. No one forces you to believe or attend Mass and people are free to worship in any way they want or not at all.
Many of us love our Catholic faith and know it has made mistakes in the past. It never turns anyone away as is proved by our Pope. He is a beacon of light and may he continue to lead the Church.
29
Morality does not come from just religion, but it emerges culturally, possibly even in the beginning genetically. Just as the churches have had to concede ground on the description of the origin of life and humanity itself, they have also had to concede ground on moral issues. Sometimes they have been very slow to do so, as Douthat clearly states himself. The last executions under the Inquisition for example took place in the early 19th century. Whether now is the time for an enlightened policy of Rome on divorce I have not the slightest idea. The longer it takes, the weaker the moral authority of the institution.
7
Hard to believe that grown-up people in the 21st Century are still wrestling with questions of how to live according to fantasy and antique, pre-scientific rules. It's as if the Supreme Court were asked to adjudicate disagreements about a game of hopscotch or whether a letter to the tooth fairy asked for too much money.
22
The essential difference between Pope Francis and the conservative Prelates is simple. He is a priest who ministers to people, and they are prelates who cater to the institution.
42
So, from Ross's perspective, asking "Is the pope catholic?" in response to any question, the answer to which is simply "yes," is now the equivalent of saying "maybe" instead.
Ross, may I suggest you walk away from your paid gig and enter the seminary? You appear to relish masochism, with regard to your appetite for insulting those who don't share your medieval christian beliefs. It must be hard seeing photographs of Pluto's moons and still arguing the Sun revolves around this sand grain we call Earth.
Ross, may I suggest you walk away from your paid gig and enter the seminary? You appear to relish masochism, with regard to your appetite for insulting those who don't share your medieval christian beliefs. It must be hard seeing photographs of Pluto's moons and still arguing the Sun revolves around this sand grain we call Earth.
26
Should the church allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion without having their first marriage declared null? I'm trying to think of another issue that's less likely to keep me up at night.
31
“Though of course, in the New Testament the Pharisees allowed divorce; it was Jesus who rejected it.”
As I recall the words of our Lord, he said something to the effect that when a man enters into marriage, he should enter it as if were to last a lifetime. He never said it must last a lifetime.
In New Testament days, men often calculated the financial benefits to be gained from marrying a particular woman, with the idea they could divorce if the money wasn't good enough or something better came along.
So, I think what Jesus would object to today is not divorce but prenuptials.
As I recall the words of our Lord, he said something to the effect that when a man enters into marriage, he should enter it as if were to last a lifetime. He never said it must last a lifetime.
In New Testament days, men often calculated the financial benefits to be gained from marrying a particular woman, with the idea they could divorce if the money wasn't good enough or something better came along.
So, I think what Jesus would object to today is not divorce but prenuptials.
16
Usually I find Ross' article annoying but this one is just... dull. Plus Ross is likely to be wrong as usual. This Pope has so much more going for him than the last three.
21
After reading every word of this article and thinking it over, a question comes to mind: is it really surprising that so many of my generation reject *all* religious institutional authority? All the gods fell silent right around the time of the printing press, and it's funny how with all the cameras carried around in every pocket today, there's nigh a miracle to be captured on film. Faith is not wrong, just naive.
15
Shorter Douthat: There's no room in Christianity for forgiveness.
37
Douthat's description of "liberal" clergy as aging versus the younger "conservative" leaders in the church is the equivalent of proposing that Marco Rubio is an example of youth while Clinton and Sanders represent the old guard liberals. Yes, it happens that Pope Francis like his predecessors is elderly, but I would argue that his interpretation of scripture has very little to do with his age, but his education as a Jesuit. I would also argue that the same could be said of conservative clergy regardless of their ages. There is and has long been a schism in the Catholic Church, just as there is and has long been a schism in the political class not just in this country, but globally, between those who call themselves conservatives and those who call themselves liberals. Yes, Marco Rubio has a baby face, but I've yet to hear him promote a single idea that one could label modern or even original.
16
In that harangue where is the faith?
12
Define aging. Based on your photo, I am no older than you.
Douthat picks on a relatively small portion of Pope Francis's platform. Absent a way to attack the larger goal of dealing with this generation's main social and political problem (i.e. global economic inequality and the long-term viability of the human race due to its sloppy industrial behavior), he picks on one relatively small piece in the whole pie.
Douthat picks on a relatively small portion of Pope Francis's platform. Absent a way to attack the larger goal of dealing with this generation's main social and political problem (i.e. global economic inequality and the long-term viability of the human race due to its sloppy industrial behavior), he picks on one relatively small piece in the whole pie.
5
Catholic doctrine doesn't change? Here's an amusing quote from 1229 AD Council of Toulouse:
"Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."
Is our present practice regarding Bible translations a change of "doctrine"? Maybe not. Somehow I suspect, though, that in 1230 AD priests would have insisted it was doctrine that laymen should not read translations.
"Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."
Is our present practice regarding Bible translations a change of "doctrine"? Maybe not. Somehow I suspect, though, that in 1230 AD priests would have insisted it was doctrine that laymen should not read translations.
18
Douhthat reference to the Pharisees as legalists and a counter point to the Bishops protecting the Catholic church from divorce, essentially they are on the side of Jesus, is meant to illicit the negative, church promulgated, long held view of the Jews that killed Jesus approach to "traditional" church teaching. But given the title of the article, The Plot to Change Catholicism, it is not surprising that Douhthat evokes the image of the most hated plotters.
1
In Gurabo, my hometown, many bars used to had written signs advising against political and religious conversations, among the clients because the owner knew that many times it will end in bloody fights. It would have been great to have a forum like this.
1
Right. And the annulments are not farcical.
5
While you might find political maneuvering in the Vatican interesting, I see it as a betrayal of the fundamental principles of Christianity. As a life long catholic who left the church because of the failure of the Vatican to acknowledge and take the necessary criminal action against priest pedophiles and their protectors, I find these arguments over doctrine absurd. Rigid, man-made rules over who can and cannot participate in the rituals of the faith are just the type of exclusivity and judgments that Jesus rejected.
15
The SSPX are being proven right about the vatican 2 changes. Francis is now leading the current church into protestantism.
3
Missing from the writings like this by Ross and others so focused on other people's sex and married lives, is much reference to the Gospels. Paul writes of his daily uphill battle against sin in his own life and striving against odds to do God's will. That kind of thinking never seems to slow down Ross and Kathryn Jean Lopez and her friends at NRO. It's other people's sexual behavior and how to punish it that really animates their brand of Christianity. I mean, if you can't keep other people from being welcomed to the communion rail, what's the point of being a Christian?
13
Many of the comments were more intelligent than the column itself. As for my own, I studied to be a priest 45 years ago before concluding I couldn't live without women. I never divorced, but not because of the church. I had an aunt who left her husband because he physically abused her, and she would go to church every Sunday and sit in the back row, afraid to receive communion. How pathetic that any church would have such a rule...and if Christ were to return to that church, I am sure he would allow her to partake. I firmly believe Christ is probably nauseated by the rules men have made in his name. If he were to return, I believe he'd avoid churches in general and Christianity in particular. When Christ told the Apostles "Take this, ALL OF YOU, and eat it, for this is my body..." he didn't exclude anyone at that Last Supper, did he? So who the hell are we to do so???
39
Over the millennia schism has divided Christianity into a multitude of denominations. Many of these departures have been driven by revulsion at conduct and/or doctrine by a new generation. Pace Douthat, Popes are entitled to liberate the Church from errors now obvious without provoking schism or holy war. Isn't it perfectly possible for the Holy Spirit to align itself with the secular zeitgeist from time to time?
6
" because the “pastoral” argument is basically just rubbish. "
Here is your blind-spot. The Pope is not changing doctrine. The Pope is returning doctrine to its proper role, as secondary to the exercise of the theological virtues. Jesus was never in hotter water than when he healed on the Sabbath.
You, sir, are being obtuse. You went to Harvard, and thus, probably understand the notion of "sublation." Doctrine does not sublate love. This is not wishy washy liberal sixties stuff. It is the heart of the matter: "You are to love God with your whole heart, mind and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself..." Doctrine, is essential, but is sublated by this "pastoral" dimension. Damn it, you're disappointing, sometimes.
Here is your blind-spot. The Pope is not changing doctrine. The Pope is returning doctrine to its proper role, as secondary to the exercise of the theological virtues. Jesus was never in hotter water than when he healed on the Sabbath.
You, sir, are being obtuse. You went to Harvard, and thus, probably understand the notion of "sublation." Doctrine does not sublate love. This is not wishy washy liberal sixties stuff. It is the heart of the matter: "You are to love God with your whole heart, mind and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself..." Doctrine, is essential, but is sublated by this "pastoral" dimension. Damn it, you're disappointing, sometimes.
31
"Holy Spirit is supposed to be the crucial check and balance..."
Sorry, but this line rendered the rest of the argument patently absurd.
Sorry, but this line rendered the rest of the argument patently absurd.
8
Generally, I am not one to comment on the workings of another religion. However, it would seem to me that by the very nature of who he is (Pope), it is not really possible for Pope Francis to "plot" against the Catholic Church.
If indeed, his work is considered "plotting" then call for him to be impeached! (Not something I am recommending- only tongue in cheek).
If indeed, his work is considered "plotting" then call for him to be impeached! (Not something I am recommending- only tongue in cheek).
3
This Pope wants ALL Catholics to attend mass and participate fully in the Eucharist. I guess Ross wants to be a member of an exclusive club.
Would Jesus prohibit divorced Catholics from taking part in a sacrament, a gift from God? The answer is no, by the way.
As a divorced Catholic who has always attended weekly mass and receives Communion because I want to be nearer Jesus, I applaud Pope Francis. I reject the concept of exclusion in any form.
Would Jesus prohibit divorced Catholics from taking part in a sacrament, a gift from God? The answer is no, by the way.
As a divorced Catholic who has always attended weekly mass and receives Communion because I want to be nearer Jesus, I applaud Pope Francis. I reject the concept of exclusion in any form.
154
Annulments are disgusting lies that the church promotes instead of honest divorces. This has been true for centuries. The Pope has made baby steps towards changing this absurd rule. The Church should be about honest above all things.
10
"...and also because the “pastoral” argument is basically just rubbish."
How so?
I don't recall Jesus saying anything about communion for divorced people, probably because there was no such thing at the time. So, somewhere along the line, somebody made up this can't have communion thing.
And wasn't Jesus basically scolding men, who at the time could divorce their wives just by their say so, thereby typically causing them substantial suffering? Consider the social context.
And now, today, consider the social context.
How so?
I don't recall Jesus saying anything about communion for divorced people, probably because there was no such thing at the time. So, somewhere along the line, somebody made up this can't have communion thing.
And wasn't Jesus basically scolding men, who at the time could divorce their wives just by their say so, thereby typically causing them substantial suffering? Consider the social context.
And now, today, consider the social context.
14
I would be more impressed if the Church refused to give communion to anyone who did not love his or her neighbor. After all, holy communion is a celebration of community. You can be divorced and still contribute in a meaningful way to the community. But if you don't love your neighbor you make a mockery of the very idea. Perhaps Pope Francis should remind the clerical dead-enders of this.
9
Interesting that you leave out the cost of an annulment. I don't know how it works now, but I know that in Latin America where I grew up -- before there was civil marriage and only Catholic marriages were available -- getting an annulment meant lots of money. The facts were twisted to whatever fit the criteria as long as you had the money to buy the annulment. How Holy was that arrangement?
7
I left the Catholic church in 7th grade. The idea that I need a priest to commune with my own soul is satanic in nature. Ross is a hater and a hypocrite. Fear does not bring one closer to God's love, love is attracted to love. Love is the foundation upon which forgiveness is formed. The pope is only offering forgiveness to all who want it. Fear no Ross, I am sure God loves you and forgives you too.
15
As Jesus said, no communion for the divorced. What's the argument?
1
(Though of course, in the New Testament the Pharisees allowed divorce; it was Jesus who rejected it.)"
Roman Catholic Doctrinalists have always ignored Jesus allowance of divorce in the case of adultery which is the main reason people divorce.
"But I say to you if any man divorces his wife except sexual immorality.." Matthew 5:32
He doesn't say that you must divorce be allows it.
Roman Catholic Doctrinalists have always ignored Jesus allowance of divorce in the case of adultery which is the main reason people divorce.
"But I say to you if any man divorces his wife except sexual immorality.." Matthew 5:32
He doesn't say that you must divorce be allows it.
5
The Catholic Church's hierarchy = a ball & chain around the neck of its church. The notion that Vatican City is a independent country is a farce. The greatest service this pope could do his church: eliminate the Roman Curia, tomorrow.
5
"Church dares not alter the doctrines that reason smiles at, for such changes would offend and disillusion the millions whose hopes have been tied to inspiring and consolatory imaginations. "
Will and Ariel Durant
Will and Ariel Durant
5
The kind of divorce that Jesus shunned was exclusively controlled by men who threw away their wives and left them with nothing, including the children.
21
I am Catholic by conviction, albeit not a literal one. Scholarship has shown so much of the Bible gospels to be political in origin. Then there are synods and councils galore about minutiae having everything to do with politics and revenue within the church. Here is to Pope Francis becoming the next Innocent III! Perhaps a 5th Crusade against the dehumanizing institutions of modern financial capitalism?? The rest is about Mediterranean old men against Northern ones or African prelates in competition with competing Muslims there. An identity crisis based on doctrine reminiscent of ancient church quarrels such as Arian controversy, Iconoclasm, etc. Meanwhile the foot soldiers of the faith carry on the real Christian mission of caring for the poor, etc. The rest is for needless intellectual parablani such as Mr. Douthat describes.
11
I find it fascinating that a column on the potential revision of church doctrine dwells entirely on politics, with nary a mention of divine guidance. It is as if Mr. Douthat believes that decisions will be based on the opinions of men rather than on God's will. Who does he think is in charge in the Catholic church, God or men? If men, then what is the basis of his faith?
11
“(Though of course, in the New Testament the Pharisees allowed divorce; it was Jesus who rejected it.)” Come on. New testament's rewriters made Jesus said he rejected divorce and a serious journalist puts his faith on it.
1
Commentators appear to be criticizing Mr. Douthat for everything but his central point: the Pope is trying to change the church by process and example rather than by his autocratic power in order to avoid schism. Seems a fair complaint to me. I wish the Pope good luck and admire him as a follower of Jesus, although I doubt he will change the arc of history which bends toward securalism.
32
I know this might be hard for Ross to understand but it is important to remove "culture" from "faith." The Church has grappled with this for a very long time. Ross, like many right-wing evangelicals, assumes that Bronze Age patriarchy and values are "natural." It's a bit of a stretch to think that is even remotely plausible. Astronomers estimate is that there are 50 sextillion (5×1022) earth-like planets in the universe. I doubt that on all of those inhabited planets – there are chosen folks that were enslaved by Egyptians, etc.
Pope Francis is making the case for a faith rooted in decency, i.e., humility, forgiveness and charity to all. So Ross, spare us the right-wing Protestant screes about the horrible Pope Francis and how he wants to “change” the Church.
Instead mediate upon the lessons in Saint Francis’ prayer:
Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light; where there is sadness, joy.
O, Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console; to be understood as to understand; to be loved as to love; For it is in giving that we receive; it is in pardoning that we are pardoned; it is in dying that we are born again to eternal life.
Ross – that is the core of the faith not illusory right-wing European patriarchy.
Pope Francis is making the case for a faith rooted in decency, i.e., humility, forgiveness and charity to all. So Ross, spare us the right-wing Protestant screes about the horrible Pope Francis and how he wants to “change” the Church.
Instead mediate upon the lessons in Saint Francis’ prayer:
Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light; where there is sadness, joy.
O, Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console; to be understood as to understand; to be loved as to love; For it is in giving that we receive; it is in pardoning that we are pardoned; it is in dying that we are born again to eternal life.
Ross – that is the core of the faith not illusory right-wing European patriarchy.
24
It is only worship of the image in the mirror as far as I can see. There is only one public policy that works for all: nobody's opinion of what God thinks about anything counts in public policy negotiations.
I confess that I am not Catholic. But I cannot understand why divorced and remarried Catholics barred from receiving communion? They are individuals, with souls, according to the Church. Should not their humanity and their immortal soul far outweigh imperfections in their personal life? Yes, in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus condemns divorce. Perhaps Jesus actually spoke those words. I do not know. The Gospels were written decades later. Even if he did speak these words, I fail to see what relevance the personal and sexual morality of desert tribesmen who lived 2,000 years ago holds for 21st-century Americans and Catholics. Some of the Bible's teachings are timeless and profound, but others seem time-bound and of much less significance. Catholics, after all, do not share evangelicals' literalist reading of the Bible, and should not allow a few Bible verses to trump a humane and loving approach to those hungry souls who yearn to be full-fledged members of the Church. The Church, to my mind, should welcome all who wish to enter and seek God. It should focus on worshipping God, and stop hectoring, excluding, and punishing well-meaning people for their peccadilloes.
9
The merits and outlook for a papal initiative to alter Catholic doctrine is one thing. When and where Catholic doctrine is consistent with the central values of Christianity and the gospel of Jesus is something different. This column does not address the second aspect, but -to a non-Catholic observer- it seems more logical to expect consistency between the essential values of Christianity and the positions of Pope Francis than between such values and the views of so-called "conservatives" in the USA.
2
Over the years, I have spoken to people--those who characterize themselves as Catholic or not, or different other faiths--and, for the most part, many people do not regularly attend services anymore. Sure, they go on particular holidays, but more for the tradition and not necessarily for the spiritual side of attending.
Many people do, however, appreciate seeing an outspoken cleric of any religion challenge those who seem trapped in a time warp. If not, as more and more followers simply lose interest, the Hierarchy will simply become the pallbearers at their own funeral.
Considering Pope Francis assumed belief that those who had previously been shunned by a religion should still be worthy of what it has to offer. Updating interpretation of religious doctrine doesn't net necessarily mean changing it.
At one time, Cardinals and Bishops could be married, but not Priests. Why was that? Why not everyone? Why did it change?
So, in the past, doctrine had been changed? Why is now different?
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
Many people do, however, appreciate seeing an outspoken cleric of any religion challenge those who seem trapped in a time warp. If not, as more and more followers simply lose interest, the Hierarchy will simply become the pallbearers at their own funeral.
Considering Pope Francis assumed belief that those who had previously been shunned by a religion should still be worthy of what it has to offer. Updating interpretation of religious doctrine doesn't net necessarily mean changing it.
At one time, Cardinals and Bishops could be married, but not Priests. Why was that? Why not everyone? Why did it change?
So, in the past, doctrine had been changed? Why is now different?
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
4
I think the conservative wing of the Church, as with most politicians, overplayed their hand when they were in power via the previous pontiffs. Total emphasis on abortion and contraception, taking the Mass as far back to the Latin as possible, lip service to the poor, and the attack on our beloved Sisters are examples of this. The fact that Francis was elected by such a conservative body is, to me, a wonderful demonstration of the power of the Holy Spirit in our Church. I trust the direction Francis is leading the Church.
4
I always wonder the extent to which Douthat understands that his Catholicism is all about the exercise of institutional power over individuals, best if not solely used to impose his own grim moral vision, rather than as a vehicle for spiritual growth, consolation and fulfillment.
What a small, cynical, essentially ugly man he is.
What a small, cynical, essentially ugly man he is.
16
"We now live in a culture of the temporary, in which more and more people are simply giving up on marriage as a public commitment. This revolution in manners and morals has often flown the flag of freedom, but in fact it has brought spiritual and material devastation to countless human beings, especially the poorest and most vulnerable. . . It is always they who suffer the most in this crisis." Pope Francis, Humanum conference
3
Douhat's essay epitomizes the curious uniqueness of divorce & remarriage. In a church that emphasizes sin and repentance -- that recognizes people make mistakes, can learn from those mistakes, and do better -- has one sin that can never be forgiven.
In a sense, annulment is only a partial work-around because it seeks to assert that a valid marriage never existed. That feels like rewriting history instead of accepting the realities of one's life.
In a sense, annulment is only a partial work-around because it seeks to assert that a valid marriage never existed. That feels like rewriting history instead of accepting the realities of one's life.
4
'Absolute power vs. absolutely limited power' of the Pope.
Ironies Ross ? Or fatal flaw.
Doctrine can't be changed since the Holy Spirit has guided the church to these conclusions. An exclusive gesture to which we must ascent our minds if we are to seize the prize. So the Church deemed.
Pull that thread and risk the unravel. The Vatican will tug on it now and then in their struggle with reason. I see it catching on something, perilously, like a lace dress on an iron.
Ironies Ross ? Or fatal flaw.
Doctrine can't be changed since the Holy Spirit has guided the church to these conclusions. An exclusive gesture to which we must ascent our minds if we are to seize the prize. So the Church deemed.
Pull that thread and risk the unravel. The Vatican will tug on it now and then in their struggle with reason. I see it catching on something, perilously, like a lace dress on an iron.
1
Dothan only succeeds in revealing the totally unenlightened and repressive attitudes of not only the Catholic religion but of religious institution in general. Religion continues to the present day to be perpetrators of repression in all its forms that rival the most repressive governments in the world. The major world religions are misogynistic and look only to control people's lives to their benefit (mostly financial).
10
Mr. Douthat's views do not reflect the Catholicism that most of us who were raised in the Church from birth have. He is a convert and seems to have been drawn to a rigid intepretation. It's no diffferent from the right-wing politics he espouses in most of his writing.
Unfortunately, some people out side the CHurch think he represents all Catholics. But that's simply not true.
I wish the Times would find someone else who can write about religion and Catholicism in a more represntative manner.
Unfortunately, some people out side the CHurch think he represents all Catholics. But that's simply not true.
I wish the Times would find someone else who can write about religion and Catholicism in a more represntative manner.
1
For those of us who are forbidden the scraments, that circumstance was expected, when a marriage was dissolved. I for one never expect any such law to be changed. After you have fallen away from the faith, it becomes clear, how can a bunch of old celibate men, know that much about the instituion of marriage. The non use of contraceptives is yet another law, I cnnot imagine these men have a grasp of. My take is most Catholics who I know who dont practice the faith remark as I do we were simply born into the faith , not by choice.
8
Douthat writes as if the ban on communion for the divorced is a de fide doctrine. A de fide doctrine is one that's essential for the faith and cannot be changed. In fact, there's no credible reason Douthat gives to believe that the ban is among those doctrines. The central claim of this article can't be held up unless he can defend this point.
In fact, Douthat's premise that the ban on communion is de fide simply isn't given. Douthat confuses the issue of the ban on communion with the ban on divorce, effectively presenting a straw man, as these are not the same argument. The question is not whether the synod plans to change Jesus' teaching on divorce, but whether it plans to change the church's practice on communion. I think the issue here is whether there are certain divorcees rather than others who may not be in a state of mortal sin. This seems credible to many people, for reasons that are more than Douthat's superficial analysis gives credit for.
I enjoy a lot of what Douthat writes in general; I was expecting a more intelligent analysis here and I'm genuinely disappointed with what seems like the paultriness of his position.
In fact, Douthat's premise that the ban on communion is de fide simply isn't given. Douthat confuses the issue of the ban on communion with the ban on divorce, effectively presenting a straw man, as these are not the same argument. The question is not whether the synod plans to change Jesus' teaching on divorce, but whether it plans to change the church's practice on communion. I think the issue here is whether there are certain divorcees rather than others who may not be in a state of mortal sin. This seems credible to many people, for reasons that are more than Douthat's superficial analysis gives credit for.
I enjoy a lot of what Douthat writes in general; I was expecting a more intelligent analysis here and I'm genuinely disappointed with what seems like the paultriness of his position.
5
I remember watching Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In as a kid, and still recall one news parody where Dan Rowan announced that the pope had divorced his third wife and was getting married to his fourth. Nobody can expect the Catholic Church to remain the way that its early leaders envisioned it (whatever that was). What is disappointing is how the filthy grip of politics infiltrates everything. But that's a human thing. Humans invented God, and organized religion, so we can't expect evolution to work the same way in such flawed institutions as it does in nature. If it were so, humans would have evolved to the point where we'd need nothing of gods or religion.
5
It is ironic when Douthat sites Pope Francis 'expediting' annulments as proof he is trying to change church teaching, when what he is trying to do is turn a process that is needlessly time consuming and expensive (which often leaves poor Catholics unable to do this, whereas well off ones can 'grease the wheels' with donations and such). More importantly, they are supposed to be rare, yet in the US alone 50,000 annulments are granted each year, so de facto the church has turned annulments into Catholic divorce. All one needs to do is look at Newt Gingrich, who was granted annulments to two prior marriages, that included adult kids, to be able to marry in the church. It was clearly politically motivated, and shows that Francis is not changing anything, the church did so itself when it allowed so many annulments.
There of course is irony to this, the troglodyte who leads the Diocese of Newark in NJ has all these pronouncements that those who support same sex marriage, are pro choice, use birth control, should not take communion, yet same fathead has made clear that supporting politicians or the ideas of Ayn Rand are okay, despite going against church teaching that the poor are blessed and sacred, not the rich, and we are not supposed to see the poor as parasites or failures, yet that is what many of these politicians and Cathlics believe.
There of course is irony to this, the troglodyte who leads the Diocese of Newark in NJ has all these pronouncements that those who support same sex marriage, are pro choice, use birth control, should not take communion, yet same fathead has made clear that supporting politicians or the ideas of Ayn Rand are okay, despite going against church teaching that the poor are blessed and sacred, not the rich, and we are not supposed to see the poor as parasites or failures, yet that is what many of these politicians and Cathlics believe.
21
An assortment of Catholic Priests, Bishops, and above milked my mother for thousands of dollars over the 50s and 60s in her attempt to simply receive Communion after she married my father, a non-Catholic. She was extorted out of money at every step, every letter, every conversation. This sickness and greed so repulsed my sisters and I that this so-called Church lost all of us as members. These "conservative" prelates are just resisting losing another profit center.
26
I am very surprised. I received an annulment in the late seventies and it cost very little
1
One problem with religion is that it is based on faith without regard to facts. It refuses to accept facts (things which can be proven and demonstrated) that are at odds with doctrine, which is considered absolute truth. We Westerners see much of Islam, as practiced in the Middle East, as medieval and in need of change to fit in the modern world. Catholicism is no different, perhaps a couple hundred years ahead, but still clinging stubbornly to doctrine (and power).
8
Excuse me, but what am I missing here? I'm not a Catholic, but my understanding has been that Catholic Doctrine is precisely what the Pope declares it to be due to the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility on matters of Church dogma and belief. The practical realities of the effects of any Papal pronouncements, even radical changes in interpretation, may be terribly messy, but Pope Frances is the current first and last authority on such matters. What do I have wrong here?
3
@Richard. What is wrong is that you use the common meaning of "infallibility", while the Catholic Church's definition is different.
1
Popes have assumed the power to review the consistency of dogma with the preachings of Jesus much as the US Supreme Court has assumed the power to review the constitutionality of legislation.
Would Douthat call Jesus' humility "ostentatious"?
13
THE WILD CARD is infallibility. If there's one thing I see in Francis, it is humility and questioning the idea of any human being being unchanging in any way. For a guy who goes out incommunicado to minister to the poor to be discussed in convoluted terms about doctrine goes against everything he practices. Love, kindness, mercy and humility. Invoking legalisms, sophistry and specious arguments may show a flexing of the intellectual muscles of the writer. But what is necessary to understand and write about Francis, one must set aside intellect, formality and history. And approach him with an open heart.
5
Dear Brother Ross,
There is not a unity of opinion amongst the Gospel writers as to what exactly Jesus said or didn't say about divorce. Saint Matthew's gospel appears to have Jesus allow for divorce. Matthew 5: 31-32 recalls Jesus teaching “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Jesus appears to allow divorce albeit in a very limited way.
Jesus is much more concerned, and insistent about the uses of wealth and the obligation of Christians to share what we have with the hungry, the thirsty, the strangers (immigrants and asylum seekers), the naked, the sick and prisoners. The obligation is so sacred that when we do share from our abundance we find we are sharing what we have with Jesus himself.
There is not a unity of opinion amongst the Gospel writers as to what exactly Jesus said or didn't say about divorce. Saint Matthew's gospel appears to have Jesus allow for divorce. Matthew 5: 31-32 recalls Jesus teaching “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Jesus appears to allow divorce albeit in a very limited way.
Jesus is much more concerned, and insistent about the uses of wealth and the obligation of Christians to share what we have with the hungry, the thirsty, the strangers (immigrants and asylum seekers), the naked, the sick and prisoners. The obligation is so sacred that when we do share from our abundance we find we are sharing what we have with Jesus himself.
5
You must belong to a very small parrish, Mr. Douthat, otherwise how would you even realize who's guilty of transgressions of any doctrine applied by any Pope or counsel? Perhaps you should become one of those self appointed sargeants-at-arms in a large urban church who sit midway in the pews & turn to glower at those not sufficiently adhering to manner & protocol. With your photo appearing alongside your newspaper column, you might be recognized wherever you go. No wonder you're so doctrinaire.
6
The Plot to Change Catholicism? I have not hear anyone refer this way to the papacy of John Paul II, but it makes sense. Oh, wait...he's talking about Francis???
3
Papal maneuvering has always been the way the game is played. In 1930 Pius XI wrote an anti-contraception encyclical, CASTII CONNUBII, to counter a statement from the Anglican bishops favoring birth control.
John XXIII had his doubts, and empaneled a commission to study the matter further. (That itself gets a big wow!, doesn't it?) The commission was to report its findings to the Second Vatican Council.
But John died. Paul VI, his successor, tried to steer the commission in HIS direction by expanding it with a raft of new conservatives. But the commission's majority STILL favored birth control! A "minority report" ostensibly OF THE COMMISSION was written to "rescue the Church" [Wills] by someone NOT ON THE COMMISSION and presented to Paul, in effect saying it was up to him because the commission was divided.
The commission's work never went before the Council. Paul VI wrote HUMANAE VITAE in 1968, apparently the final Catholic word on birth control.
(See: "The Pope As Sex Monitor" in THE FUTURE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WITH POPE FRANCIS by Garry Wills)
It's amazing that Francis can find enough liberal allies to even make a go of his synod. Popes have ALWAYS sought to stack the Church's deck structurally by appointing bishops who were ideological and theological allies. John Paul II took this to great lengths, imposing outright litmus tests for appointment, over his very long reign. The Church's bishops and cardinals thus lean very conservative indeed.
John XXIII had his doubts, and empaneled a commission to study the matter further. (That itself gets a big wow!, doesn't it?) The commission was to report its findings to the Second Vatican Council.
But John died. Paul VI, his successor, tried to steer the commission in HIS direction by expanding it with a raft of new conservatives. But the commission's majority STILL favored birth control! A "minority report" ostensibly OF THE COMMISSION was written to "rescue the Church" [Wills] by someone NOT ON THE COMMISSION and presented to Paul, in effect saying it was up to him because the commission was divided.
The commission's work never went before the Council. Paul VI wrote HUMANAE VITAE in 1968, apparently the final Catholic word on birth control.
(See: "The Pope As Sex Monitor" in THE FUTURE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WITH POPE FRANCIS by Garry Wills)
It's amazing that Francis can find enough liberal allies to even make a go of his synod. Popes have ALWAYS sought to stack the Church's deck structurally by appointing bishops who were ideological and theological allies. John Paul II took this to great lengths, imposing outright litmus tests for appointment, over his very long reign. The Church's bishops and cardinals thus lean very conservative indeed.
6
The catholic church will not change but people will continue to find other ways to honor their creator and spirituality. No pope, priest, minister, iman, ayatollah or other middle-man/woman needed.
5
As a Protestant Christian, may I observe that the purpose of giving or receiving Communion is neither to affirm or diminish marriage. "Do this in remembrance of me" is not a statement which either absolves or condemns the divorced. "This is my body, given for you" speaks not at all to any issue concerning annulment, divorce, doctrinal change or change in discipline, rule, tradition, or history. There are many ways for any denomination to affirm its distinctive history, theology and tradition, without losing sight of the simplicity of the Last Supper. "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" is rather suggestive of forgiveness and restoration, but even if Mr. Douthat disagrees, can not one jot or tittle of the tradition of Catholicism be adjusted in any manner, without meeting a charge of heresy?
9
Ross, it's a good thing that the Pope has a fellow like you to explain the situation to him. Who knows what errors Francis would make without your guidance?
21
Mr. Douthat:
Your alignment is clearly not with the faith, but rather the institution of the Church. This is the usual meteir of all those who 'follow the law' rather than the words of Jesus Christ, as well as the faith embedded in the mysteries of the Trinity, particularly the Holy Spirit. You show your miserable and condescending (!) hand in your second sentence, calling Pope Francis I's show of faith as (nothing but mere) ostentatious humility. Check your soul, and may the good Lord be with you, even as you trowel the dirt of Dante's lowest level of hell, just above the Devil himself: the hypocrites. Like the Devil himself in Dante, your thinking is itself just adjacent to frozen (cold as ice), while Life (and the revelation of the Holy Spirit) seeks growth, change, development, evolution, and the annals of humility. I can only fear for you in your self-righteousness.
Your alignment is clearly not with the faith, but rather the institution of the Church. This is the usual meteir of all those who 'follow the law' rather than the words of Jesus Christ, as well as the faith embedded in the mysteries of the Trinity, particularly the Holy Spirit. You show your miserable and condescending (!) hand in your second sentence, calling Pope Francis I's show of faith as (nothing but mere) ostentatious humility. Check your soul, and may the good Lord be with you, even as you trowel the dirt of Dante's lowest level of hell, just above the Devil himself: the hypocrites. Like the Devil himself in Dante, your thinking is itself just adjacent to frozen (cold as ice), while Life (and the revelation of the Holy Spirit) seeks growth, change, development, evolution, and the annals of humility. I can only fear for you in your self-righteousness.
13
When my three times married ex-husband saw death approaching, he wanted to annul our marriage so he could be married in the church again. It didn't happen, but sinner or not, he received a grand farewell in the church, including Mass. When I questioned this, the Priest said. "It's up to God to decide if he's forgiven." But then, my ex did have a lot of money.
The Church under John Paul II and Benedict became the worst version of itself, an ally of secular right wing parties around the world,a power player in reactionary politics making a Faustian bargain to politicize the faithful in exchange for political prestige and influence over a range of secular issues relating, mostly, to sexual matters and women's rights, including contraception and abortion.
In the US, the Church has also enjoyed tax-exemption, the transfer of immense sums of taxpayers' money into religious schools and hospitals, and the cooperation of civil authorities when the ugliest of scandals threatened to shatter the balance of power.
In exchange, the Church has long turned a blind eye to "leftist" concerns--inequality, racism, the suffering of women and children, the poisoning of the earth, poverty and injustice--steering its flock ever rightward.
Well-fed, handsomely-housed prelates assured the faithful that if they were docile their reward would come in heaven, and that if they wanted a reward on earth they would need to be more enterprising. Then they went to work with right-wing fixers to lend the authority of the Church to various reactionary legislative initiatives.
That is Mr. Douthat's 'unchanging' Church. Francis doesn't have a prayer--he certainly doesn't have the prayers of Catholics like Mr. Douthat, who regard him, derisively, as a mere placeholder--because this isn't about faith, it's about the determination of the reactionary right to win.
In the US, the Church has also enjoyed tax-exemption, the transfer of immense sums of taxpayers' money into religious schools and hospitals, and the cooperation of civil authorities when the ugliest of scandals threatened to shatter the balance of power.
In exchange, the Church has long turned a blind eye to "leftist" concerns--inequality, racism, the suffering of women and children, the poisoning of the earth, poverty and injustice--steering its flock ever rightward.
Well-fed, handsomely-housed prelates assured the faithful that if they were docile their reward would come in heaven, and that if they wanted a reward on earth they would need to be more enterprising. Then they went to work with right-wing fixers to lend the authority of the Church to various reactionary legislative initiatives.
That is Mr. Douthat's 'unchanging' Church. Francis doesn't have a prayer--he certainly doesn't have the prayers of Catholics like Mr. Douthat, who regard him, derisively, as a mere placeholder--because this isn't about faith, it's about the determination of the reactionary right to win.
22
Your comment is so devoid of truth that I don't know where to start. Suffice it to say your comments would be found invalid by any person with a modicum of knowledge of the activities of thousands of clergy, nuns, brothers and lay people to help the poor and educate them
A sacramental marriage either exists or it does not. It has nothing to do with a civil ceremony and the Supreme Court has recently made that clear. A church annulment application requires a civil divorce and merely declares some marriages void. A church annulment could be granted or denied in error due to the infallible motion practice that underlies the process. An annulment is intended only to prevent the church from participating in a church wedding where one party is in a sacramental marriage to another.
The subject of communion for remarried Catholics can be st right by the sacrament of confession. The scandal of unauthorized remarriage is not materially different than pre-marital, extra marital and many other sins of a sexual nature. It is totally foolish and narrowly dogmatic to think that families with children could not be made whole. Indeed, sins of the heart, while serious, were never an insurmountable obstacle for Jesus and should not be for his church.
There is no sin which cannot be forgiven and no family which should be separated or ostracized in their sincere effort to do the right thing. There is never a progressive or conservative side of doing the right thing.
The subject of communion for remarried Catholics can be st right by the sacrament of confession. The scandal of unauthorized remarriage is not materially different than pre-marital, extra marital and many other sins of a sexual nature. It is totally foolish and narrowly dogmatic to think that families with children could not be made whole. Indeed, sins of the heart, while serious, were never an insurmountable obstacle for Jesus and should not be for his church.
There is no sin which cannot be forgiven and no family which should be separated or ostracized in their sincere effort to do the right thing. There is never a progressive or conservative side of doing the right thing.
6
The essence of Communion, as clear from the NT account of the Last Supper, is communal remembering of Jesus. The Roman Church turned it into a miraculous transubstantiation and a private, isolated matter. As I was taught, I should return to my seat in silence with "my eyes cast down and my thoughts on Jesus Christ." No chatting, not communal recollecting.
This separateness has gone so far as giving the wafer to unconscious people in hospital--my mother's case shocked me. The wafer was bent from being forced into her sleeping mouth, and remained on her tongue, visible through her lax lips. I called an attendant who forced the wafer out of sight with a drinking glass.
What is it the Roman Church forbids? Communal recollection or private devotion?
This separateness has gone so far as giving the wafer to unconscious people in hospital--my mother's case shocked me. The wafer was bent from being forced into her sleeping mouth, and remained on her tongue, visible through her lax lips. I called an attendant who forced the wafer out of sight with a drinking glass.
What is it the Roman Church forbids? Communal recollection or private devotion?
5
What a moronic column. I knew there was a good reason why I never bothered to read this ideologoue. He is in that Republican, alternate universe. God! Keep that nonsense to yourself!
13
"The Holy Spirit of our Lord does not encourage us to believe that nothing should ever be done for the first time." Canon Charles Ravens, Anglican, writing in defense of women's ordination in 1916. It took awhile, but we made it.
Rev. Dr. Diana Lee Beach
Rev. Dr. Diana Lee Beach
8
Mr. Douthat seems to be the last defender of the androcentric and
monarchical Roman Catholic Church.
Thankfully, there are other Churches in America which do not like to make a lot of rules.
monarchical Roman Catholic Church.
Thankfully, there are other Churches in America which do not like to make a lot of rules.
5
Pope Francis is clearly led by the Holy Spirit i.e. "The Holy Disrupter." I think the problem is that most so-called conservative Catholics are in fact simply terrified of the Holy Spirit--"which blows where it will." Faith is not always comforting. As Brother David Steindl-Rast, the Benedictine monk, wrote: "God is no [benevolent] uncle. God is an earthquake." God is always a surprise. But some people of faith seem to be clinging to things which are man-made systems that ensure power and comfort in predictability. In my humble opinion Pope Francis is unpredictable mainly because he is leading by following the Spirit. It's this unpredictability that seems to be so threatening to the conservatives.
11
Why do people reject the obvious? Nature is simply impervious to all human emotions.
I can't wait to read Mr. Douthat's article about the ongoing war on Christmas.
17
Douthat is losing his mind. Being a child of divorced Catholic parents, I can tell you that "nullification' is a joke, a tool used by the rich to get their way, while the poor are left behind. Children of marriages who are nullified, what are they? The Pope is right, it's not a plot, it's the evolution of the Gospel. Douthat reveals a typical conspiracy-minded right-wing mentality. It's a sickness, really. This column is a cry for help. But not in the way he thinks. He should get some. He might even pray for some.
30
Indeed, Mr. Douthat, 'ultimately' can take a long time to arrive, especially for those wanting to stay in the church but also want to divorce.
Yet that long time only seems to exist for the plebs, while the well connected can get their annulment in a jiffy. That whole annulment thingy should not exist in the first place since once a marriage is annulled - boom - the children from these marriages are considered to be bastards in the eyes of the church.
Yet that long time only seems to exist for the plebs, while the well connected can get their annulment in a jiffy. That whole annulment thingy should not exist in the first place since once a marriage is annulled - boom - the children from these marriages are considered to be bastards in the eyes of the church.
4
"the children from these marriages are considered to be bastards in the eyes of the church."
No they are not. The Catholic Church has plenty of real problems. There is no need to make stuff up.
No they are not. The Catholic Church has plenty of real problems. There is no need to make stuff up.
2
When they could no longer sell indulgences, they came up with the annulment scam.
Any organization that does not embrace healthy dissent should be viewed with skepticism. The Catholic Church is an antiquated institution run by an old boy's network that doesn't understand the diaspora of the human condition. Power corrupts........
10
Don't worry, Ross. Nothing nothing nothing will or ever change, because it would upset you.
21
Lawrence Krauss wrote a letter to the NYT uncovering and correcting Dr. Ben Carson"s delusions on physics and cosmology. I wept with joy. Isn't there someone reading this column, for instance, Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, too late for Freud, or Jung, some historian of religion who could contribute, as did Krauss on Carson, on the delusional nature of Douthat's rants?? Don't all religions have similar creation myths? How about potty training? Fear of the "other?' PLEASE!! I beg you! Ross needs your help!!!
14
It's so interesting to hear people going on about matters that have no basis in our lived reality: god is not a thing. It's an idea, and since we are the ones who come up with ideas, then it follows that we came up with this idea of god at some point because it was a useful concept. It is no longer useful, it's actually quite harmful to our world and obfuscates real truth.
13
"God exists" is an establishment of religion the first amendment denies Congress the power to respect in legislation.
Personally, I think that it is nice to finally have a Christian in the papacy.
11
I'm confused. The New York Times is a news organization that disseminates the news of the world. In its opinion section its editors offer views and positions on that news. Douthat, who describes himself in this article as a "Catholic journalist" seems to be writing this piece for a religious publication. I rather resent it and wish Douthat would bring his sometimes thoughtful insights to topics less insular. I won't comment on the content because I'm not a Roman Catholic and I really don't care about the things he's talking about. It's just that he seems to think that his views on this subject belong on the editorial page rather than in some religion section, which I'm thinking, the NY Times doesn't even have anymore.
3
I'm not a religious person in the least, but see nothing wrong with a columnist engaging questions of religious doctrine in the op-Ed page of a major newspaper. Like it or not, religion is a force that drives a substantial portion of humanity. No reason to exclude it from discussion.
This controversy is yet more proof that institutionalized religion is more about power than about religion. Achieving consensus between progressives and conservative Cardinals should be easier than doing the same with Tea Partiers and Democrats in Congress, given the mission of the church. Apparently I am expecting too much.
3
The opinion piece is just another ad hominem attack against someone, the Pope, who does not tow the Red Line (Republican conservative dogma).
The Pope lives, breathes, and promotes the "19 Commandments": the original 10 of do nots, the 8 beatitudes of do's, and the law of love. To make this out to be a political endeavor is just shilling for the billionaires and the Red dogma that only serves them.
The Pope lives, breathes, and promotes the "19 Commandments": the original 10 of do nots, the 8 beatitudes of do's, and the law of love. To make this out to be a political endeavor is just shilling for the billionaires and the Red dogma that only serves them.
10
Right. A priest can tarnish the sacrament of ordination by abusing children and still receive Communion. But a person who tarnishes the sacrament of marriage through divorce and remarriage can no longer receive communion?
Furthermore, a person can commit adultery (to which Jesus compared divorce) and still receive communion, but cannot divorce, remarry and still receive communion?
Maybe Pope Francis has a better nose for hypocrisy than Mr. Douthat.
Furthermore, a person can commit adultery (to which Jesus compared divorce) and still receive communion, but cannot divorce, remarry and still receive communion?
Maybe Pope Francis has a better nose for hypocrisy than Mr. Douthat.
7
Ross, there is a much simpler explanation. The Cardinals are divinely inspired when choosing a pope. Therefore Francis is God's choice. If he contradicts previous popes and conservative clergy, perhaps they misunderstood God. Or perhaps an omniscient God who truly understands these complex issues changed his mind. Kind of like He did 400 years after the Church branded Galileo a heretic.
5
Oh fooey, "doctrine!"
The Church didn't even consider marriage a sacrament till the Middle Ages.
Priests could marry until Rome decided too many of them were willing their property, titles and armies to their heirs instead of the Church.
The Church didn't even consider marriage a sacrament till the Middle Ages.
Priests could marry until Rome decided too many of them were willing their property, titles and armies to their heirs instead of the Church.
7
Douthat nails his Thesis to St Patricks Cathedral, a servant to the wealthy who are deeply offended by Pope's Francis' reminder that they are condemned as Jesus says: "‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’" Instead, Ross calls for a return to genital morality that has served the rich so well. Sex, gender orientation, divorce are so much easier to shame people with than wealth and inequality. Ross's puppet masters demand abandonment of efforts to end inequality and climate change and restoration of sex as the only moral focus.
8
The Catholic Church of the early and mid-20th century, to this non-Catholic, was the exemplar of a church that cared for the needy, the helpless and the hopeless. Today's U.S. Catholic Church, to the outsider, looks like a slave to conservative politics, with personal righteousness being the goal. Members and superiors are en bloc opposed to any form of care for the poor that involves the state. Douthat dismisses the Pope as a secular agent, inspired by political liberals and uninspired by the Holy Spirit. What is the greater sin in the Catholic Church, offering Communion to those whose marriage did not hold together, or denouncing the Pope as a political shill?
3
It is evident where Ross is going when he says, " the ostentatious humility of Pope Francis". Yes, he has scolded the high ranking prelates, but his scolding of Prime Ministers, Congressmen, Senators and public officials who deny and make excuses for income inequality, climate change and the excesses of war and violence that have aggravated Ross . Pope Francis came to this country and captured the hearts and souls of his flock like no one before. He inspired them and made it clear what the teachings of Jesus stood for , which is not the 1 %, not for denial of science and learning and not to abuse and torment those who disagree with you. Naturally, this frightens and enrages those who want the status qua and have their own definition of what a Catholic is as defined by Bill O' Reilly and Fox News. Woe unto thee Ross, trying to mess with this Pope under the guise that he is trying to undermine the tenets of Catholicism!
3
At least Ross has made it clear that he is not a follower of Jesus but rather a disciple of the institution of the Roman Catholic Church. And, unfortunately, he does not seem to comprehend differences between doctrines and customs nor the power of the pope and church synods to make changes.
4
There is a deck of doctrine stacked against the Pope. You know the Pope's efforts aren't just all about the Pope; it really is about the huge numbers of divorced Catholics that continue to attend the church as welcomed but still paying members, sacrament-denied. That sort of makes them non-members.
Attempting to bring the church into the twenty-first century is too great a challenge for Pope Francis. The good-old-boys are going to fight him harder than he can overcome.
I have to agree with you Ross: Church 1, Francis 0.
Attempting to bring the church into the twenty-first century is too great a challenge for Pope Francis. The good-old-boys are going to fight him harder than he can overcome.
I have to agree with you Ross: Church 1, Francis 0.
1
Typical pseudo intellectual Ross.
The column begins with the gratuitous remark about the pope's "ostentatious humility".
Did Ross ever comment about the previous popes who bought $500 slippers made from the skins of unborn calves to put on their feet?
Does ye know anything about the concocted history of the church which puts men in charge and treats divorced women,not men,like whores and not with the respect that Jesus gave to women who were reduced to prostitution by men because of poverty?
Marriage is a contrived catholic institution to protect inheritance. Nothing more.
Go Pope Francis. Bring the church into the 20th century.
Then maybe the next pope can work on bringing the church into the 21st century.
The column begins with the gratuitous remark about the pope's "ostentatious humility".
Did Ross ever comment about the previous popes who bought $500 slippers made from the skins of unborn calves to put on their feet?
Does ye know anything about the concocted history of the church which puts men in charge and treats divorced women,not men,like whores and not with the respect that Jesus gave to women who were reduced to prostitution by men because of poverty?
Marriage is a contrived catholic institution to protect inheritance. Nothing more.
Go Pope Francis. Bring the church into the 20th century.
Then maybe the next pope can work on bringing the church into the 21st century.
12
Churches in general and the Roman Church in particular have succeeded in confusing organized religion with religion. Monetized religious practice confused with personal beliefs. Much like the GOP being for freedom, and Fox being for the truth.
5
Douthat's next act: Pope Francis is leading the War on Christmas. How O'Reilly like thou art, Douthat.
12
His name should be pronounced "Doubt That." Rather than recount the votes for change in the Vatican, Mr "Doubt That" should urge a change that will embrace Christians in this modern age. The Vatican should still be indicted for world-wide criminal conspiracy to cover up the rampant pederasty in its clerical ranks, and the media should never stop reminding the public of the Vatican's sins. The Roman Catholic Church has a business model: "confess to clerics, repent, and you can be saved" yet the Vatican chose to deny, deny, and cover up."
5
Ross, you write as though the church is a US presidential convention or a case before our Supreme Court. My bet is on Pope Francis, who is trying to move his church away from earthly 'politics' and away from staggering hypocrisy.
The dissolubility of marriage has -- traditionally -- been a matter on which the Catholic Church has exhibited great flexibility for those it deemed important. SEE: Eleanor of Aquitaine in 1152. Henry VIII would've gotten his annulment & kept England Catholic, except the pope was controlled at the time by Henry's wife's nephew.
For good people, who happen to be divorced & remarried Catholics, to be denied communion, when it hasn't been denied to war criminals, and child-abusing priests can perform mass, is the height of hypocrisy. And of (heretical?) arrogance - essentially awarding to any parish priest God's power to see another person's soul.
The dissolubility of marriage has -- traditionally -- been a matter on which the Catholic Church has exhibited great flexibility for those it deemed important. SEE: Eleanor of Aquitaine in 1152. Henry VIII would've gotten his annulment & kept England Catholic, except the pope was controlled at the time by Henry's wife's nephew.
For good people, who happen to be divorced & remarried Catholics, to be denied communion, when it hasn't been denied to war criminals, and child-abusing priests can perform mass, is the height of hypocrisy. And of (heretical?) arrogance - essentially awarding to any parish priest God's power to see another person's soul.
16
Oh, please. Catholics have been aware of the unrealistic expectations and exclusionary effect of this issue for years and sought a more accommodating way to express conviction in the sanctity of marriage without the rubric of sanctions for falling short of the ideal. The conundrum of driving believers from the church when if fact what they need is comfort and understanding has been exhibited in other catholic teachings such as marrying a non-catholic. Exclusionary policies are at the root of what drives fundamentalist intolerance and cultural discrimination. Can we not enter into a more enlightened and still respectful and holy experience?
102
The Catholic Church should allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion. Not allowing this makes them second class Catholics and is akin to inviting someone to dinner, allowing them to watch you cook, but not allowing them to eat. The concept of annualment has become a joke. Individuals with children are given them, and this in itself shows that there is great sympathy for divorced Catholics. My basic problem with the current Catholic Church is that it has lost touch with Christ and His message. If Christ could forgive those he killed Him, He certainly forgives divorced Catholics.
4
Thank you for this. I had read earlier articles in the Times regarding the kerfuffle caused by the letter sent to the Pope by the conservative faction of the synod that was obviously intended to cause a kerfuffle and get articles written about it in the Times. But now I understand the backstory, which I was missing.
I suspect the real dilemma for Francis is his concern, less about making this change regarding annulment and more about the prospect of his making it Ex cathedra, and what that would mean for future popes, with less love in their hearts. No doubt there will be future popes, far more conservative than Benedict or John Paul. It's just a matter of time. And time is always on the side of the Vatican and its Pharisees.
I suspect the real dilemma for Francis is his concern, less about making this change regarding annulment and more about the prospect of his making it Ex cathedra, and what that would mean for future popes, with less love in their hearts. No doubt there will be future popes, far more conservative than Benedict or John Paul. It's just a matter of time. And time is always on the side of the Vatican and its Pharisees.
The Church's struggle is a struggle with the church's existential nature as the last surviving remnant of the Roman Empire. while at the same time claiming to be the religion of a Jewish protestor against that same empire. Empires never voluntarily relinquish power and inevitably react violently against those who would reform them. Pope Francis would do well to have a food taster.
3
Any large organization made up of people has politics. Why? People.
While I enjoyed reading about the divorce/Communion debate, I thought this was a tad too much:
"The ostentatious humility of Pope Francis"
The word you were looking for was "striking" humility. The word you used was a flag to your bias.
While I enjoyed reading about the divorce/Communion debate, I thought this was a tad too much:
"The ostentatious humility of Pope Francis"
The word you were looking for was "striking" humility. The word you used was a flag to your bias.
8
"... a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma" - what? You mean he wasn't talking about the Church?
1
These are the same cardinals who elevated Francis to the position of CEO in a process they knew doesn't allow for his removal. They presumably vetted his positions beforehand, so it's hard to imagine a majority are surprised by his attempts to drag the church into the 19th (yes) century.
Yet Douthat, who no doubt longs for a return of Benedict, seems to know different and would drag the church into the opposite direction.
As another reader commented, this isn't some nefarious plot. It's the pope doing what CEOs do: cracking the whip.
Yet Douthat, who no doubt longs for a return of Benedict, seems to know different and would drag the church into the opposite direction.
As another reader commented, this isn't some nefarious plot. It's the pope doing what CEOs do: cracking the whip.
4
This commentary by Ross doesn't meet the hurdle of 'fit to print'.
24
"Catholic journalist?" An oxymoron! Catholic polemicist, yes, but a horse of a very different color.
4
Infallability. It's just not what it used to be.
3
It might be helpful to subsume Mr. Douthat’s opinion within a larger context: the nature of Matthew’s Gospel, from which Mr. Douthat surgically extracts the passage against divorce.
The writer of Matthew was engaged in a serious and furious argument within the Jewish community about the significance of Jesus, who after all was a Jew. There were arguments about Jesus’ lineage; there were arguments about the law; and, of course, there was the unfortunate “woe to you scribes and Pharisees” passage that underlay so much subsequent anti-Semitism.
Some feel Jesus’ words on divorce were intended to oppose the long practice of giving men great license and ease in casting their wives adrift, where those women would be bereft of much vital support within the community. In that case, Jesus was taking a very pro-woman stance, which is ironic given the subsidiary role women have played in many established ecclesiastical practices for much too long.
Rather than over-exercising ourselves about divorce, we would be better off observing Matthew’s powerful teachings about the Great Commandment – to love God and also to love your neighbor as yourself – and the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, which is about providing aid and comfort to the hungry, the thirsty, the imprisoned and the stranger. That is where we would find Jesus.
The writer of Matthew was engaged in a serious and furious argument within the Jewish community about the significance of Jesus, who after all was a Jew. There were arguments about Jesus’ lineage; there were arguments about the law; and, of course, there was the unfortunate “woe to you scribes and Pharisees” passage that underlay so much subsequent anti-Semitism.
Some feel Jesus’ words on divorce were intended to oppose the long practice of giving men great license and ease in casting their wives adrift, where those women would be bereft of much vital support within the community. In that case, Jesus was taking a very pro-woman stance, which is ironic given the subsidiary role women have played in many established ecclesiastical practices for much too long.
Rather than over-exercising ourselves about divorce, we would be better off observing Matthew’s powerful teachings about the Great Commandment – to love God and also to love your neighbor as yourself – and the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, which is about providing aid and comfort to the hungry, the thirsty, the imprisoned and the stranger. That is where we would find Jesus.
4
Ross Douthat is not only more Catholic than the Pope, he's more Puritan than the Puritans.
If progress is always bad, how can Mr. Douthat justify driving a car or using electricity? Didn't someone in the Old Testament declare running water a sin?
If progress is always bad, how can Mr. Douthat justify driving a car or using electricity? Didn't someone in the Old Testament declare running water a sin?
6
Russ (again) misses the true issue among all of the doctrinal and political analysis. The real issue is that it is error for priests and prelates to arrogate to themselves the right to deny access to Communion in the first place. The invitation is and always has been made by Jesus to come, sit and eat. The sacrament is at the core of the community's participation in the central act of immersion in the gift of a living God in a mortal existence. Neither Francis nor the cardinals nor the bishops nor the priests, nor Mr. Douthat have the right to build a gate at the door and pretend to have God's prerogative to welcome. Once he realizes this reality and throws off doctrine for truth, then the issue disappears and we are with Jesus again.
7
Douthat is as usual more Catholic than the pope.
4
The Pope and the Catholic Church have been faithful to Jesus Christ's teachings since the begining more than 2,000 thousands years ago and will continue in that way. What the Pope is trying to do is do expedite the process of annulment and help in all ways possible to all the catholics in difficult situations and at the same time be faithful to Christ because ultimately He is our compass. I am catholic and this is nothing new in this article, discussions and human errors are part of the life of the Church. Even bad catholics and a few bad Popes of the past have not change the doctrine of the Church and will not (isn't it amazing!). The Catholic Church is not a human institution is a divine institution with Jesus Christ as the head and the Catholic Church will continue to be faithful and live until the end of times because Jesus will protect her. So let's be faithful and pray to Jesus for the Pope and our Catholic hierarchy, priests and religious brothers and sisters and all the christians of the world !
24
Yes. What Ross doesn't seem to have gotten from Jesus is the idea of forgiveness. Thank goodness, Pope Francis seems to be in more contact with the Holy Spirit. As William Blake once wrote: Jesus was the perfect man because he spoke from impulse and not rules. Of course, the church has changed. Unbaptized babies are no longer assumed to be in limbo and unsaved; no one is converted these days by the sword. What doesn't not grow dies, and Jesus seemed, if anything, to want to bring a fresh air of compassion and love into the rigidity of doctrine.
Have you every read any history books? Married popes, pedophile priests and cover-ups, crusades, inquisitions, allegiance to rulers who victimized their "people" all based on a book - the bible- that was formalized in Constantinople by committee picking and choosing what they wanted,,,,,,,pure fiction!!
Ah, Ross, forever left on the platform while the train of history and progress pulls out of the station. We will smile and wave good-bye as you remind us of Uncle Vanya left behind in the Cherry Orchard.
5
Being Roman Catholic is a lifestyle choice. Previously Mr. Douthat chose to become Roman Catholic (albeit, later in life than most of us who were baptized at a young age.) If the Roman Catholic Church is no longer to Mr. Douthat's liking, it it time for him to choose again to leave one church and find another more to his liking. Those of us who wish to stay with the Church, as it moves back to the future and adapts to today's world, can continue to have a religious home that welcomes us.
4
As I read the news this morning I was struck by the growing number of violent encounters, large and small, across many nations, based on religious differences.
Syria shia vs suni rebels, ISIS vs everyone else, Saudia Arabia sunis vs Yemen shia, Afghanistan and the US vs Taliban exremists, Indian Hindis vs Indian Muslims, Israel jews vs Palistinian muslims, Northern Ireland protestants vs Irish catholics
I joked that maybe the planets are misaligned and soon it would be the US's turn.
Now I read Doubthat's idiotic catholic extremeism and I am flaberghasted that my joke turns out to be true.
Syria shia vs suni rebels, ISIS vs everyone else, Saudia Arabia sunis vs Yemen shia, Afghanistan and the US vs Taliban exremists, Indian Hindis vs Indian Muslims, Israel jews vs Palistinian muslims, Northern Ireland protestants vs Irish catholics
I joked that maybe the planets are misaligned and soon it would be the US's turn.
Now I read Doubthat's idiotic catholic extremeism and I am flaberghasted that my joke turns out to be true.
9
Ross, you really have nothing to worry about. If, by some stroke of bizarre providence, the Pope was able to change the Church's view on divorce, rest assured the conservative laity would _never_ welcome these people back into their congregations. This would effectively discourage most divorced people from even trying to reconnect with their religion. This will reduce the risk of your local churches becoming unclean. You see, it is just like an exclusive private club - if you aren't like me then you are not welcome. If I, perhaps, withstood decades of a loveless or abusive marriage, why should you, a divorced person, be given a free pass? As someone who was treated like I had committed a capital crime when I chose to marry a divorced protestant (32 years ago), I certainly have no desire to go back.
6
Mr. Douthat's implication that welcoming divorced and remarried Christians to participate in the sacraments would involve a doctrinal change is incorrect. The change is, indeed, purely pastoral as evidenced by the practice of the Orthodox Churches which allow divorce and remarriage within the Church, although subsequent marriages are not considered sacramental. Those remarried people participate in the Church's sacraments. The Roman Catholic Church accepts the doctrinal validity of this pastoral practice. Further, scripture scholars question the meaning of the New Testament prohibition on divorce by applying form criticism, i.e. attempting to identify the literary genre of the text. When considered in the context of Jesus' command to cut off one's hand or pluck out one's eye if they are causes of sin, it is reasonable to assume that the prohibition of divorce, along with the commands to dismemberment, has some hyperbolic character. The Orthodox practice seems to be a better application of the intent of the texts.
5
We have have laws in this country about the separation of church and state. Perhaps we should consider passing some laws about the separation of church and journalism. All this blather is getting tiresome.
4
Speaking as one whose ancestors left the Catholic church during the Reformation, I'd say that this Pope is the first one in over a millennium who might be a "light unto the nations."
6
This is a church that sends smoke signals in the 21st century to keep the world updated on pope elections. The church did recently admit it was probably wrong on the Galileo incident. Best to spend Sunday morning playing golf or fishing.
4
hmmm....ostentatious humility. i like that expression. i would love to impose that on nearly all of this country's religious leaders, regardless of religious affiliation. like maybe, pay income and property tax?
4
Hmph. Next thing you know they'll be abandoning the Limbo of unbaptized children, and Hell for the mortal sins of missing Mass on Sunday and eating meat on Friday.
12
Interesting idea -- that authority rests in resisting change to doctrine, when that resistance is a significant reason for the Church's loss of authority.
3
The Catholic Church has lost so many members and has so many members who don't observe "the faith" on birth control that this article is simply a joke. Faith? The Holy Spirit? Sorry, but since people started reading history the Church has been exposed as one of the most corrupt bodies in the world. Popes have lied, fornicated, murdered, stolen. Who made all the rules of the Church? Men. It is simply a matter of tradition which of the rules "came from the Holy Spirit." So who really can say what is a matter of "Faith" and what is a matter of manipulation by the wholly mortal men who define that Faith in support of the biggest "old boys'" network on earth.
99% of the problems of the Catholic Church would be solved by letting clergy marry again. That is no matter of faith...they used to marry and married clergy who have converted are allowed to stay married. The presence of women would completely change the Church: birth control? No longer banned. Women on the altar? Eventually. Respect for women? Eventually. But I think the Church would rather go down in flames, filled with people breaking all the rules (so called menu Catholics) than allow any changes to their exclusive male power game. Yes, I was raised Catholic. And one of the greatest sins of the Church has been their abandonment of the women who served as sisters in so many orders while the men of the church live in luxury!
99% of the problems of the Catholic Church would be solved by letting clergy marry again. That is no matter of faith...they used to marry and married clergy who have converted are allowed to stay married. The presence of women would completely change the Church: birth control? No longer banned. Women on the altar? Eventually. Respect for women? Eventually. But I think the Church would rather go down in flames, filled with people breaking all the rules (so called menu Catholics) than allow any changes to their exclusive male power game. Yes, I was raised Catholic. And one of the greatest sins of the Church has been their abandonment of the women who served as sisters in so many orders while the men of the church live in luxury!
14
God bless the Pope. The Church has been sick and infirm for too long.
9
Ross, this is the NYT, not L'Osservatore Romano, Catholic New York or The Catholic Worker. These three aforementioned publications are where your comments about "The Plot to Change Catholicism" more appropriately belong. After all, the NYT is not a theological publication.
7
Douthat shows himself as just another one of the plotters, sabotaging reform when he writes about the Pope's "ostentatious humility".
6
Anyone who has studied Catholic Theology believes in the "Development of Dogma." This means that the God/The Holy Spirit speaks through the 'signs of the times.' A change in understanding of what is asked of Christians is entirely within the teachings of Vatican II. Let's take "usury" which is charging interest which was forbidden by the church earlier. Interest charges by companies is an accepted practice. You are quite out of step Mr. Douthat if you think that Jesus today would be practicing exclusion from the church community for those who are divorced and who are remarried. Pope Francis is inclusive and reaching out to those who feel disenfranchised. Hooray for Pope Francis!
6
I had an aunt who had her marriage annulled after forty years, and all it took was forking over nearly $1,000 to the Catholic Church. To erase 40 years required nothing more than coming up with sufficient cash. Church annulments have become a money-making sham, and the Pope would be right to put an end to the ridiculous practice.
6
The whole idea of enlisting the authorities of God and dead people to make current issues non-negotiable is an insult to intelligence.
7
"Lord I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word an I shall be healed."
Seems to me that pre Communion prayer essentially makes all Catholics, regardless of their state of grace, fit to receive the host.
Seems to me that pre Communion prayer essentially makes all Catholics, regardless of their state of grace, fit to receive the host.
158
Just because you say it doesn't mean you are disposed to receive the Eucharist; if you committed a mortal sin and hadn't gone to Confession before you receive, you aren't fit to receive the host. Each individual must make himself right with God, but just muttering prescribed words doesn't clear your soul.
1
It is so hard for a non religious person to understand how religious people can try to count "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin." Many people have moved on and the religious ones shake their heads and mutter "they are all going to hell." In the meantime they make life (or try to) so difficult for their flock.
Why such opposition to pastoral orientation? Why should the chuch look only up at its god rather than try to apply the teachings of Jesus in the temporal world? "Be Revolutionary: Some Thoughts from Pope Francis" brings out the coherence of his interpretations of the will of Jesus.
Glad to see the wonderful word "rubbish" used in a discussion of Catholicism and the Church. It should be used more widely. As Jefferson so wisely , and ironically, said: "I have sworn upon the altar of Almighty God eternal hostility toward every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Organized religion and faith, and especially as practiced by the Vatican and its minions, qualifies as tyranny over the mind (and soul) of man in every way.
1
Jesus said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:8)
If a man divorces his wife for anything except adultery he causes her to commit adultery" Matthew 5:32. He made an allowance for adultery which is the most common reason for divorce.
Hmm. Jesus spoke explicitly against divorce. Pope wants to relaxing sanctions on it. Very confusing! But is it the Pope who is confused?
Let's gather more data. Let's look at another social issue, one that is a bit more controversial. and see what the Bible actually says. Then we will consider what the Pope and Conservatives say.
Did you know that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality? NOTHING. The biblical animus against it comes from (a) Old Testament Leviticus, which also suggests we stone sorcerers to death (apologies to Harry Potter); and (b) Romans, where the line is cherry-picked and the book's central message, which is to be humble in the face of your own sins, treat your neighbor with love, and leave the punishing to G*d, is always lost. Oh, and the author of Romans never actually met Jesus or heard his message first-hand.
Yet the Conservatives howl when the Pope suggests we treat gays like human beings.
In this light, Mr. Douthat's complains hold little water. The Pope challenges Conservative assumptions and the only Conservative response is that the Pope is broken. Maybe Conservatives are broken.
Let's gather more data. Let's look at another social issue, one that is a bit more controversial. and see what the Bible actually says. Then we will consider what the Pope and Conservatives say.
Did you know that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality? NOTHING. The biblical animus against it comes from (a) Old Testament Leviticus, which also suggests we stone sorcerers to death (apologies to Harry Potter); and (b) Romans, where the line is cherry-picked and the book's central message, which is to be humble in the face of your own sins, treat your neighbor with love, and leave the punishing to G*d, is always lost. Oh, and the author of Romans never actually met Jesus or heard his message first-hand.
Yet the Conservatives howl when the Pope suggests we treat gays like human beings.
In this light, Mr. Douthat's complains hold little water. The Pope challenges Conservative assumptions and the only Conservative response is that the Pope is broken. Maybe Conservatives are broken.
2
As a "cradle Catholic", I despair of this kind of exclusiveness on the part of the Church. Where is the welcome, where are the open arms, where is the embrace of those who have failed to live up to the Church's strict rules but still want desperately to partake? What happened to the story of the Prodigal Son? To "Good will toward men"? Why do lawyerly arguments trump love and acceptance that we are all frail, we all slip? Is it any wonder the Church is losing members in all but the most conservative enclaves? Is this what it means to be Catholic?
3
The embrace is due those who are repentant and see the error of their thinking and ways. The Prodigal Son repented and was welcomed. He had to make up his mind to return home. To repent is to change 180 degrees. If one insists on maintaining a view diverse to doctrine where is the reason for the embrace
Heavy stuff this communion thing, i don't get it. On a lighter note, loved the FIAT 500L his holiness was cruising in .....stroke of commercial genius on mr. Marchionne's (FCA) part.
2
Ross, you should run for pope next election (and may THAT be a long time in the future). You could be the papal conclave's Santorum.
2
Dear NYT,
Not all of us are Catholics although do practice some form of faith. It would be nice to provide space for other religious ideas and arguments by people well educated in their own religious texts who could talk about faith and our society including those from a liberal perspective. This column is getting all too predictable and without those other voices often pretends to stand for the official voice of faith itself.
Not all of us are Catholics although do practice some form of faith. It would be nice to provide space for other religious ideas and arguments by people well educated in their own religious texts who could talk about faith and our society including those from a liberal perspective. This column is getting all too predictable and without those other voices often pretends to stand for the official voice of faith itself.
4
"This column is getting all too predictable and without those other voices often pretends to stand for the official voice of faith itself."
It's a position Rome relishes. Other faiths think the popes speak for all Christians and it is so much easier to get quotes from an organization run by one person than approach than the rest which have a more shared leadership principle.
It's a position Rome relishes. Other faiths think the popes speak for all Christians and it is so much easier to get quotes from an organization run by one person than approach than the rest which have a more shared leadership principle.
Catholicism could use some changing. I thank the Pope.
3
Worry about sex and divorce, or go minister to the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the sick and the death row prisoners who are awaiting their conservatively rationalized killing/punishment.
1
If you think "the faith" will survive Francis's liberalism, what is the faith? What is it about caring for the poor, opening arms to the rejected, and standing against the moneychangers in the temple you have a problem with?
4
Mr. Dothat's very insistence on terms like "liberal, progressive, conservative" does damage to the heart of the gospel which eschews all such divisions in favor of love. Catholicism, just like its Protestant counterpart, has failed to form disciples who love one another like Christ has first love them, and who love even their most despised neighbors as they do themselves. Any "plot" to change Catholicism must start with manifesting the love by which all people will identify Christ's disciples. Right now it's sorely lacking.
4
I'd be more impressed if the Church refused communion to anyone who did not love his or her neighbor. After all, communion should be a celebration of community. You can be divorced and still contribute to the community in a meaningful way. But if you don't love your neighbor, you're mocking the very idea of community.
5
As a Catholic and having been educated by the Felician Sisters, I came to believe at a young age that the communion wafer was symbolic of the body of christ and not physically the body of christ.
It may come as a surprise to you, Mr. Douthat, but other Catholics believe the same.
So then what are you arguing about - whether a divorced person can accept this wafer? Maybe the divorced person needs this wafer more so than anyone else?
It may come as a surprise to you, Mr. Douthat, but other Catholics believe the same.
So then what are you arguing about - whether a divorced person can accept this wafer? Maybe the divorced person needs this wafer more so than anyone else?
4
It is the doctrine of the Reformed Church that the elements in the Supper are are metaphor for an actuality. Calvin and others relied upon Aristotle's "Substances and their Accidents" for the reasoning. It's an empirical reasoning. That does not mean though that there is not a communication or feeding upon Christ which is seen as a spiritual act made possible by The Holy Spirit.
The well educated Luther was unable to wrap his head around this concept and insisted that Christ was already present under and around the elements.
The Anabaptists hold that it is just an act of remembrance with spiritual significance only.
The well educated Luther was unable to wrap his head around this concept and insisted that Christ was already present under and around the elements.
The Anabaptists hold that it is just an act of remembrance with spiritual significance only.
I don't see what everyone else claims to in the Pope. Never has the Vatican been more duplicitous in what it is selling, against what it truly stands for. It's astonishing how easily people are charmed, he drinks a coke, he eats a pizza, he has a small fiat...instantly people get worked up as if Christ himself approves of them, because a human, elected to a position does something they like to do. Never mind that the Church has not changed a bit on gay equality, contraception, women's rights. This pope had the gall to meet with a woman who is clearly mentally unstable, rationalizing shirking her legal responsibilities in her tax payer funded job, because of a god she's having a relationship with in her head. The Vatican deceived and tried to cover the entire episode. That shouldn't surprise anyone, least of all sexual abuse victims. Lying is something the church is very skilled at.
3
Why do we still have to waste screen space with what Mr. Douthat writes? He is at the right of the most conservative readers of the NYT. What do we need his opinion for? Who cares what he thinks?
13
Why is it people like to live in an echo chamber? Why read or listen to only those who will reinforce whatever conclusions they've come to without investigating an opposing opinion?
Are they afraid thinking may cause a modification of their opinions or even change their mind completely?
It is to the credit of the NY Times that it tries to make some people do a little thinking once in a while. I'm a Conservative but read the Times though I disagree with at least 90% of its views. Sometimes something actually does break through my armor.
Try it.
Are they afraid thinking may cause a modification of their opinions or even change their mind completely?
It is to the credit of the NY Times that it tries to make some people do a little thinking once in a while. I'm a Conservative but read the Times though I disagree with at least 90% of its views. Sometimes something actually does break through my armor.
Try it.
Ross, Ross, Ross. I know the Pope doesn't have any power to do anything with which you and Timothy Dolan disagree. It says it right here in the Bible! Right after the bit about Peter and the Rock. You and Dolan are right there...Christ said but not if Tim and Ross disagree with you!
Ostentatious humility...boy you really can coin a phrase. Must be why you get to write for the NYT.
Look Ross I hate to tell you but 12 years of Catholic school under the tutelage of nuns taught me many things but one sticks on in reference to your column. The Church is not a democracy. The Pope speaks and we listen and that includes you and Dolan! Of course we could get into the weeds of sitting in the chair and everything but the Pope is, well, the pope. Luck for you he'll probably forgive your arrogance....you are not a woman or anything!
Ostentatious humility...boy you really can coin a phrase. Must be why you get to write for the NYT.
Look Ross I hate to tell you but 12 years of Catholic school under the tutelage of nuns taught me many things but one sticks on in reference to your column. The Church is not a democracy. The Pope speaks and we listen and that includes you and Dolan! Of course we could get into the weeds of sitting in the chair and everything but the Pope is, well, the pope. Luck for you he'll probably forgive your arrogance....you are not a woman or anything!
1
The link in your column to Matthew Chapter 19 clearly lays out the basis for the Catholic Church's doctrine of not allowing divorce, but isn't the Church's policy of annulment basically divorce by another name? Nowhere in the New Testament are there statements which prohibit one from receiving communion because of a divorce, so I think Pope Francis is on solid ground in allowing remarried Catholics to receive communion.
1
On what basis does the church annul a marriage that was performed in a Catholic church and has produced children? Isn't that just divorce?
To borrow from the marijuana debate: "decriminalize" divorce by making annulment as easy as possible (a meeting with a priest and an act of contrition), but don't "legalize" with communion for the divorced and remarried.
And then use the pope's political capital to target Humanae Vitae and end the ban on contraception. The group advising Paul Vi found the doctrine on contraception "reformable" and the majority report cast doubt on the original proscription of contraception giving him ample room to accept the use of contraceptives doctrinally.
Far more than a "lifestyle" issue for cafeteria Catholics, the use of birth control and specifically condoms in the developing world will raise Catholic families out of poverty and help prevent the transmission of HIV (ending Benedict's hateful stand against condoms as a legitimate exception to Church doctrine to prevent death from AIDS).
And then use the pope's political capital to target Humanae Vitae and end the ban on contraception. The group advising Paul Vi found the doctrine on contraception "reformable" and the majority report cast doubt on the original proscription of contraception giving him ample room to accept the use of contraceptives doctrinally.
Far more than a "lifestyle" issue for cafeteria Catholics, the use of birth control and specifically condoms in the developing world will raise Catholic families out of poverty and help prevent the transmission of HIV (ending Benedict's hateful stand against condoms as a legitimate exception to Church doctrine to prevent death from AIDS).
Mr. Douthat:
It is obvious that established Catholic doctrines are vitally important to you and, of course, you are entitled to your opinion. But for those Catholics who have less legalistic attachments to Roman Catholicism and prefer to view the Church as not so much the creature of canon law bureaucrats but rather the vehicle by which God and man share their mutual love, your emphasis on the letter of the law is overwrought. In reality, we divorced Catholics who bemoan our mistakes in the past but who still believe in the essential message of God's love will continue to ignore the byzantine dealings of the Vatican hierarchy (off which you are apparently so enamored) and approach the altar rail with a car conscience to receive God's greatest gift to mankind. We'll leave it to you to enmesh yourself in the politics of the Curia.
It is obvious that established Catholic doctrines are vitally important to you and, of course, you are entitled to your opinion. But for those Catholics who have less legalistic attachments to Roman Catholicism and prefer to view the Church as not so much the creature of canon law bureaucrats but rather the vehicle by which God and man share their mutual love, your emphasis on the letter of the law is overwrought. In reality, we divorced Catholics who bemoan our mistakes in the past but who still believe in the essential message of God's love will continue to ignore the byzantine dealings of the Vatican hierarchy (off which you are apparently so enamored) and approach the altar rail with a car conscience to receive God's greatest gift to mankind. We'll leave it to you to enmesh yourself in the politics of the Curia.
3
"...The pope is supposed to have no power to change Catholic doctrine..."
Whether a confessor may give absolution to a remarried Catholic is not a matter of doctrine.
Some priests have been giving absolution to women who use birth control since long before the invention of the pill. Some don't.
Are you saying that priests don't have the power to forgive sins? Now that is a matter of doctrine -- and you're coming down on the side of heresy.
Whether a confessor may give absolution to a remarried Catholic is not a matter of doctrine.
Some priests have been giving absolution to women who use birth control since long before the invention of the pill. Some don't.
Are you saying that priests don't have the power to forgive sins? Now that is a matter of doctrine -- and you're coming down on the side of heresy.
3
Priests don't forgive sin. They speak for God who forgives sins. Priests are mediators between man and God and sinful men themselves.
Ross, are you too young to recall Vatican II? Have you never read the documents that came from that Council? Clearly, you approve the conservative backlash that ensued after the Council; perhaps you fail to see that the conservative backlash could, if you like, also be described as "a plot to change the Catholic Church."
Actually, what you truly fail to understand is that the church is always changing and always has been changing, and that's a healthy dynamic.
Actually, what you truly fail to understand is that the church is always changing and always has been changing, and that's a healthy dynamic.
3
It is obvious that established Catholic doctrines are vitally important to you and, of course, you are entitled to your opinion. But for those Catholics who have less legalistic attachments to Roman Catholicism and prefer to view the Church as not so much the creature of canon law bureaucrats but rather the vehicle by which God and man share their mutual love, your emphasis on the letter of the law is overwrought. In reality, we divorced Catholics who bemoan our mistakes in the past but who still believe in the essential message of God's love will continue to ignore the byzantine dealings of the Vatican hierarchy (off which you are apparently so enamored) and approach the altar rail with a clear conscience to receive God's greatest gift to mankind. We'll leave it to you to enmesh yourself in the politics of the Curia.
4
He welcomed tax collectors and prostitutes, why not divorcees?
1
Mr. Douthat reminds me of nothing so much as the lines from a ‘60s song:
He goes to church on Sunday,
He'll be all right on Monday,
It's just a little habit he's acquired.
"Ostentatious humility"/ Obviously to Douthat it's far worse than the corruption of the previous pope, and far worse than the sexual abuse scandals.
It's hard to believe that Douthat has ever read the Hew Testament.
Ross Taylor
University Place, WA
He goes to church on Sunday,
He'll be all right on Monday,
It's just a little habit he's acquired.
"Ostentatious humility"/ Obviously to Douthat it's far worse than the corruption of the previous pope, and far worse than the sexual abuse scandals.
It's hard to believe that Douthat has ever read the Hew Testament.
Ross Taylor
University Place, WA
Ross,
You neglect to mention the previous papacies of Benedict and John Paul II. In those reigns the idea of a pastoral approach by local bishops to genuine human longing was met with heavy-handed investigations leading by fear. I believe in the New Testament Jesus teaches "beware to you lawyers and Pharisees who lay heavy burdens on others and do nothing to lift them".
You neglect to mention the previous papacies of Benedict and John Paul II. In those reigns the idea of a pastoral approach by local bishops to genuine human longing was met with heavy-handed investigations leading by fear. I believe in the New Testament Jesus teaches "beware to you lawyers and Pharisees who lay heavy burdens on others and do nothing to lift them".
How really irreverent of you Ross Douthat..."ostentatious humility" what a
really damning condemnation of an honest priest.
I think it is YOU who are steeped in your own "ostentatiousness"...and are
not at all humble..just the opposite...and you certainly lose your argument
against Pope Francis a thousand fold..!!!
really damning condemnation of an honest priest.
I think it is YOU who are steeped in your own "ostentatiousness"...and are
not at all humble..just the opposite...and you certainly lose your argument
against Pope Francis a thousand fold..!!!
One more disappointing article from Mr Douthat defending extreme conservatism. It might be time to stop looking for one of his articles to be worth reading.
Looks like Douthat didn't read his bible very well. In the Matthew 19 text that he refers to Jesus clearly formulates his objection against divorce as an ideal that only those "who it is granted" can follow.
Dear Ross maybe you can entice Andrew Sullivan out of his present reclusion to debate these emotive but so important matters? This humane pope has this 'fallen away Catholic' more warmed by and more drawn to Catholicism than I have ever been
Talking about the supernatural theology of any faith in the context of a civil secular natural science world is doomed to politically partisan dialogue. Along with warring prophets, scriptures and ethnicities there is no objectivity nor logic nor morality nor justice nor truth. Jews became Christians who became Muslims. Catholics became Orthodox who became Protestants. The fevered colored political imagining of a "plot" questioning whether or not the current Vicar of Christ with the Keys to the Kingdom given to the Rock St. Peter by Christ himself Pope Francis is Catholic is ridiculously beyond logic or commonsense.
Speaking of Pharisees ... who are you, Ross, to deny anyone communion?
The cardinals and bishops who have done so may have acted in good conscience, but they have far, far exceeded their authority.
Who dares come between a person and God? Who dares to declare a sin so heinous that it is not forgiven?
You seriously believe that a woman who is divorced from a wife beating drunkard can't receive communion?
Then we all better stay in our pews when we are invited up to the altar.
The cardinals and bishops who have done so may have acted in good conscience, but they have far, far exceeded their authority.
Who dares come between a person and God? Who dares to declare a sin so heinous that it is not forgiven?
You seriously believe that a woman who is divorced from a wife beating drunkard can't receive communion?
Then we all better stay in our pews when we are invited up to the altar.
2
Dear Mr. Douthat,
"The entire situation abounds with irony."
How about the entire situation abounds with "absurdity". As George Carlin put it, in easy to understand terms, the catholic church has convinced a whole bunch of people that there's a guy with a beard in the sky who has given you ten laws which, if you break, he will cast you into hell forever. But he loves you.
And, more to the point, he's always broke!
Which is really the point of this whole, millennial spanning scam and, so far, it's worked pretty good. The gold surrounding the pope, his expensive robes and hat and the really swell, priceless paintings and sculptures that abound in the Vatican all point to a money raising organization that would be the pride of ANY of our own, greedy CEO's.
What, apparently, is one man's "faith" is another man's view of "gullibility" and if you choose to believe that this pope or anyone else in this scandal ridden bunch has a line of communication with god, whoever he/she/it might be, then I guess you may as well keep filling that old "collection plate".
As for my less gullible self, I'll take my spiritualism in a more regulated tone with actual "science" filling in the blanks as mankind discovers more and more about the universe.
As for divorces and annulments, aren't there somewhat more vital issues in the world at the moment?
"The entire situation abounds with irony."
How about the entire situation abounds with "absurdity". As George Carlin put it, in easy to understand terms, the catholic church has convinced a whole bunch of people that there's a guy with a beard in the sky who has given you ten laws which, if you break, he will cast you into hell forever. But he loves you.
And, more to the point, he's always broke!
Which is really the point of this whole, millennial spanning scam and, so far, it's worked pretty good. The gold surrounding the pope, his expensive robes and hat and the really swell, priceless paintings and sculptures that abound in the Vatican all point to a money raising organization that would be the pride of ANY of our own, greedy CEO's.
What, apparently, is one man's "faith" is another man's view of "gullibility" and if you choose to believe that this pope or anyone else in this scandal ridden bunch has a line of communication with god, whoever he/she/it might be, then I guess you may as well keep filling that old "collection plate".
As for my less gullible self, I'll take my spiritualism in a more regulated tone with actual "science" filling in the blanks as mankind discovers more and more about the universe.
As for divorces and annulments, aren't there somewhat more vital issues in the world at the moment?
1
I like Judaism better, where you can almost always find another Rabbi to give you a different opinion.
4
Douthat conflates doctrine with discipline. The discipline of the Church regarding the frequency and reception of the Eucharist have changed often in its history. The "doctors of law" make and enforce those rules. In addition, within the Orthodox churches, there are different rationales about the discipline for the reception of the Eucharist. All of which is to say that Pope Francis is apparently trying to get people to understand that the discipline of the Church may very well be the issue why so many have broken with and left the Church. "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS.…" I don't think that the "yoke" Christ speaks of is necessarily current Church disciplines.
103
You are correct that the question is between doctrine and discipline. It is the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage which is at question here. Along with the doctrine of the necessity of being in a state of grace before receiving communion. Both of these are stated pretty clearly in the Bible so it would be hard for the Pope to change these.
I would also remind people that the European kings and nobility once PAID the Church to absolve them of their sins. In that situation, who is the sinner?
One wonders today given how things are whether we are seeing a repetition of that sad past.
One wonders today given how things are whether we are seeing a repetition of that sad past.
The Church left a trail of misery and bloodshed over the course of fifteen centuries that is staggering in its scope. If the worst damage they can currently do is to deny abortion and divorce to its members, I view it as a vast improvement and you're welcome to it as is, Mr. Douthat.
Mr. Douthat reminds me of fundamentalists in general.
He and they seem most concerned that all adhere to their own image and likeness of what religion is. Inherent in their beliefs appear to be a full understanding of: 1) omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal deities, and 2) the nature of 7 billion human beings. Humility is usually lacking.
Fundamentalism exempts itself from the sin of idolatry, but, borrowing a metaphor from the Book of Exodus, there are “golden calves” and there are “golden calves”. There is idolatry and there is idolatry. And sometimes “one, true religions” may be what the imagery in Exodus meant.
Mr. Douthat knows that the “Magisterium”, the teachings of his religion, differs from fundamentalist Protestantism by not being fixed in nature. It is one not bound by the stasis of the Bible, but rather one in which truth unfolds in history, as history itself unfolds. (The Bible condones slavery; history condemns slavery.)
As a conservative, Mr. Douthat worships at the Altar of the Past. Perhaps he forgets that his religion is a process, not an end result.
His fear in not being able to restrict access to Communion for people other than himself may be a fear of the Past slipping from his firm grasp, exposing him fully to the “Mysterium Magnum”, the “Great Mystery”.
Or with the words of an English Protestant, words we can all say to ourselves, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy”.
He and they seem most concerned that all adhere to their own image and likeness of what religion is. Inherent in their beliefs appear to be a full understanding of: 1) omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal deities, and 2) the nature of 7 billion human beings. Humility is usually lacking.
Fundamentalism exempts itself from the sin of idolatry, but, borrowing a metaphor from the Book of Exodus, there are “golden calves” and there are “golden calves”. There is idolatry and there is idolatry. And sometimes “one, true religions” may be what the imagery in Exodus meant.
Mr. Douthat knows that the “Magisterium”, the teachings of his religion, differs from fundamentalist Protestantism by not being fixed in nature. It is one not bound by the stasis of the Bible, but rather one in which truth unfolds in history, as history itself unfolds. (The Bible condones slavery; history condemns slavery.)
As a conservative, Mr. Douthat worships at the Altar of the Past. Perhaps he forgets that his religion is a process, not an end result.
His fear in not being able to restrict access to Communion for people other than himself may be a fear of the Past slipping from his firm grasp, exposing him fully to the “Mysterium Magnum”, the “Great Mystery”.
Or with the words of an English Protestant, words we can all say to ourselves, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy”.
I've noticed that a person who lacks a virtue often finds it impossible to believe that anyone else might genuinely possess it. Douthat's reference to the Pope's "ostentatious humility" is a case in point.
(In truth, it's time that the editors of the NYT might consider that this man's writing would be better published in the annals of Opus Dei than in this venue.)
(In truth, it's time that the editors of the NYT might consider that this man's writing would be better published in the annals of Opus Dei than in this venue.)
1
Ross Dothan's assessments of the curious cajolings of Francis are surprisingly accurate, except in the seventh graf in which he says, "And a change of doctrine is what conservative Catholics, quite reasonably, believe that the communion proposal favored by Francis essentially implies." Take out the "quite reasonably," Mr. Douthat, and your reckoning will be flawless.
1
Mr Douthat claims that “At the same time, though, the pope is supposed to have no power to change Catholic doctrine.” However, the New Testament expressly disagrees with his position (See Matthew 16: 18-19). Indeed the primary papal responsibility is to determine Catholic doctrine. If Pope Francis is plotting against Catholic faith then doesn’t that mean he’s an agent of Satan? It would be most interesting for Mr. Douthat to list all the prelates who are plotting with the Pope so that we know the identity of all the devilish agents in the Vatican. I recommend that Douthat read http://www.inplainsite.org/html/fallibility_papal_infallibilit.html and contemplate whether it is time for him to admit that he is not Roman Catholic.
I hope you realize Ross, you are criticizing the only Pope who has gone back to the essence of the Catholic Church from biblical times free of punitive dogma which crept in. The 'ostentatious humility' of Pope Francis is nothing short of sanctimonious arrogance.
1
3000 died on W's watch and the Democratic Party did not spend years claiming that he was responsible. I also don't remember a Dowd column discussing his culpability. You really think the Secretary of State did not do everything to help her friend, the Ambassador. I vividly remember a visibly shaken Obama and Clinton holding hands as they received the bodies. It's despicable that the right, the GOP, the NYTimes, the mainstream press and some columnists have lost sight that sometimes awful things happen and nobody deserves blame. Reagan was never blamed for hundreds who died in his embassy on his watch.
1
(Re Plot to change Catholicism.)
Jesus only allowed divorce if the wife was unfaithful. Not very politically correct, but consistent with the times like all bible stories.
Jesus only allowed divorce if the wife was unfaithful. Not very politically correct, but consistent with the times like all bible stories.
"Ostentatious humility"? He's just setting a leadership example the Church would do well to follow. "Have changed this not at all?" Wrong again—see the Vatican Bank, his appointments and terminations, his diplomatic assistance in U.S./Cuba relations, his various commissions, his infusion of religious appeal to lapsed Catholics, and his clear refocusing the Church on the poor and otherwise victimized. See especially how his work has evoked the fiercest Renaissance-style intrigue of the Vatican insiders against the pope himself since Vatican II. It is way too soon to say he has produced no results.
1
One wonders why Mr. Douthat has such an interest in defining marriage so rigidly.
In other news, another virulent homophobe politician, this time in Puerto Rico, was just caught soliciting sex with men on the internet.
In other news, another virulent homophobe politician, this time in Puerto Rico, was just caught soliciting sex with men on the internet.
1
I believe the Pharisees supported divorce for themselves, and it was this hypocrisy that Jesus was attacking.
Ross: Clearly you need another church. I'm sorry your the attack dog retired before your time.
According to your way of thinking, the Opus Dei folks on the Supreme Court are Catholics but the liberals are not. That is not my experience having taught in Catholic Schools and sung in Catholic Church choirs years ago. John Kennedy was Catholic as was Governor Hugh Carey of New York. Neither of whom felt that it was right for their faith to legally bind someone else's. Your fundamentalism is a throwback or someone was just wearing a face to get what they wanted. Which is it?
2
In short: who cares?
Move Douthat's ramblings about Catholic doctrinal arcana to the religion section and do us all a favor.
Above all, it's just so BORING.
Move Douthat's ramblings about Catholic doctrinal arcana to the religion section and do us all a favor.
Above all, it's just so BORING.
Ostentatioius humility? Now I have heard it all. Coservative Catholics must be so collectively aghast with the Christ like nature of this pope thier Long Island Lockjaw will soon turn into TMJ.
Conservatives wish to keep their church and the sacraments out of the hands of anyone deemed unworthy forever. Wear your shame, take your punishment and just wait for the everlasting torment. On and on, ad nauseam, ad infinitum.
Please, conservative Catholics, keep it. Keep all of it. Keep your gated community chuch, keep your sanctimony, keep your precious traditions. While you are at it, keep your hands off our children and your nose out of our government.
As a young practicing Catholic, I came to realize that I had lost my faith. Only much later did I realize that it had been misplaced, by my parents.
Conservatives wish to keep their church and the sacraments out of the hands of anyone deemed unworthy forever. Wear your shame, take your punishment and just wait for the everlasting torment. On and on, ad nauseam, ad infinitum.
Please, conservative Catholics, keep it. Keep all of it. Keep your gated community chuch, keep your sanctimony, keep your precious traditions. While you are at it, keep your hands off our children and your nose out of our government.
As a young practicing Catholic, I came to realize that I had lost my faith. Only much later did I realize that it had been misplaced, by my parents.
3
Yes, for some reason people believe Faith may be inherited. Think about the absurdity of that statement. People pass down their religious beliefs to their children as they would material things. Madness. No such thing. True Belief in anything has to come from inside, from personal discovery, learning. Not rocket science. Buying into man-made rules and regulations to the degree that Catholics are obsessing over something like this in 2015, is just plain nuts.
Was it a Liberal or "Conservative" belief that taught priest should have sex with little boys?
When the term "conservative" is used to rationalize being against change, mercy and hope seem to get forgotten.
fwa
When the term "conservative" is used to rationalize being against change, mercy and hope seem to get forgotten.
fwa
1
Ross, as a former alter boy, you should no that 'the gates of hell' cannot prevail against The Church. How can you change theological 'truth'? The truth is you cannot. As for your 'speaking as a Catholic', I find that strange. How can one like yourself, a supporter of abortion, be such? Are you attending Mass on a weekly basis? Are you following The Church's seven commandments? I hope so. Your soul is at stake. The idea that you can make 'truth' more relevant to contemporary times denies the fact that their is such a thing as truth, putting you one step away from nihilism. I am sure you would agree.
1
It doesn't surprise me that when you can't see the absurdity in your own religious beliefs that you also can't see the absurdity in your political beliefs.
What does the idea of redemption mean when you can't get redemption from a broke marriage is no different then paying obsequious court to your individual rights while ignoring the individual rights of others.
What does the idea of redemption mean when you can't get redemption from a broke marriage is no different then paying obsequious court to your individual rights while ignoring the individual rights of others.
1
I'm not sure what offends me more. Douthat's twisting of the Popes words or his leaving out how the rich could always get a divorce
5
The rich and the powerful have already taken control of the Catholic religion.
I really think if Jesus had to pick who understands him better, you or the Pope, wow - tough call but I'm going with the Pope.
8
Hey, it's yet another column where Ross tells us how he's more Catholic than the pope!
9
Galileo and Darwin disagree with your assessment. Both the heliocentric model of the solar system and the theory of evolution by natural selection were vehemently opposed by the Catholic church, but have since been accepted.
3
In the Gospels Jesus reinforces the original teaching in the Old Testament-- against divorce, despite Moses "allowing" it. However, let us remember that the annulment process is entirely man-made and therefore subjective and subject to "influence" and corruption (well-known occurrences in the history of the Church). While we are at it, the Catholic concept of communion, and all the Church "rules" that go along with it, is also man-made by the Church, who stretched the new covenant Jesus made with the symbolic bread and wine into a HUGE fundamental tenant of Catholicism. So actually Ross, this can all be changed by a truly good human being like Pope Francis, so that divorced Catholics don't feel excluded. Kind of like Paul who changed the circumcision requirement so the gentiles would have one less hurdle to accepting the God of Abraham. Rigidly adhering to rules and doctrine is really kind of missing the message of Jesus, who called out the Pharisees for doing the same. The message was about LOVE, humility, mercy, and forgiveness towards fellow human beings. If you bring people into the Church with that message, they may then be able to learn and understand why marriage should mirror the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and hopefully be less likely to divorce. Threatening and punishing people by prohibiting communion does not seem to be Christ-like at all. What would Jesus do?
5
Given that the doctrine of Papal Infalibility was enshrined not yet 150 years ago, Ross seems to huff a bit much about the timeless faith.
1
Fortunately, Pope Francis has the support of most of the world's Catholics. It is Mr. Douthat's claim that the Catholic teaching on the indissolubility of marriage would be violated by allowing reception of communion without annulment that is rubbish. As the theologian Enzo Bianchi recently said of the Pope's conservative critics in La Repubblica, "what’s at play here is not Catholic doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage… No, it’s the pastoral dimension, his attitude towards those who make mistakes and towards contemporary society. Let’s be clear – what scandalizes them is mercy!”
5
"The ostentatious humility of Pope Francis, his scoldings of high-ranking prelates" So that's what following the Golden Rule has become: Ostentatious Humility. What a pompous puffing egotist Douthat is. And yet at the same time he professes to believe in fantasies and mythologies that include the belief that a wafer punched out of a machine in Racine and Fedexed for 2d day delivery becomes the body of his god. Proof that conservatives really do pick and choose their own reality. Truth and facts are silly to them.
People like Douthat can never sit back and reflect on THEIR OWN behavior and beliefs in the context of the greater world. Reflection would bring confusion and perhaps a conflicted, but more open mind ... Oh My! We can't have that.
People like Douthat can never sit back and reflect on THEIR OWN behavior and beliefs in the context of the greater world. Reflection would bring confusion and perhaps a conflicted, but more open mind ... Oh My! We can't have that.
2
As someone baptized in the Catholic faith, the mission is to RECLAIM this beautiful religion from the binary thinkers, like one NY Times columnist.
5
Touche
Ross, a devout Catholic! Can't believe, he thinks he is more Catholic than his Pope!! If this is not supercilious arrogance, what is?
3
So, it isn't un-Catholic of you to ignore your responsibility to support the dogma of Papal infallibility, but it is un-Catholic for the Pope to exercise his authority? I think you may want to check the membership rules.
You yourself seem to believe the Church is less a hierarchy than a debate club.
You yourself seem to believe the Church is less a hierarchy than a debate club.
4
Note to Ross Douthat: Doesn't Mel Gibson's dad run an extra-Catholic Catholic Church for people unhappy with the Rome going soft on them?
7
Douthat's vast ego seems to have gotten the better of him. He is so devoted to the politics and intrigue of a dangerously teetering and bloated system that he actually seems blinded to the radiantly simple message that Pope Francis is proffering. The topic he writes about is, in fact, fascinating. Yet I can't help but feel embarrassed for him and by his audacity in presenting his sadly misguided view of things.
3
More tendentious drivel from Douthat, as he wrestles with his demons of sexual sin.
In referring to the Pope's "ostentatious humility" Douthat either doesn't realize that he's uttered a nonsensical contradiction in terms or he is intentionally insulting the Pope. Of course, he would never dare to knowingly do that, you know, hell and eternal torment and stuff.
Actually, Douthat's problem -- other than the sexual sin stuff -- is that he has a limited command of English. Some time ago, I caught Douthat referring to "priestly sexual abuse", and I pointed out that, apologist that he is, he hardly intended to imply that abuse is part of a priest's job description, but that in reality he meant "sexual abuse by priests."
Maybe Douthat is entitled to the low expectations to be associated with his tenure of the Bill Kristol chair at the NYT.
In referring to the Pope's "ostentatious humility" Douthat either doesn't realize that he's uttered a nonsensical contradiction in terms or he is intentionally insulting the Pope. Of course, he would never dare to knowingly do that, you know, hell and eternal torment and stuff.
Actually, Douthat's problem -- other than the sexual sin stuff -- is that he has a limited command of English. Some time ago, I caught Douthat referring to "priestly sexual abuse", and I pointed out that, apologist that he is, he hardly intended to imply that abuse is part of a priest's job description, but that in reality he meant "sexual abuse by priests."
Maybe Douthat is entitled to the low expectations to be associated with his tenure of the Bill Kristol chair at the NYT.
3
Because, I mean, our Church shouldn't CHANGE. God forbid!
2
The cardianls, all appointed by regressive popes like John Paul II and his Rotweiler, Benedict, will kill off Francis, the same way the killed off John XXIII. Then Holy Mother Church will plunge into another 50 years of dark, dogmatic, regressive conservatism. In doing so, they will drive away the millions of former Catholics who felt drawn by Francis back the faith of their younger years. Then Catholicism will turn its back on the Northern Hemisphere and go back to resembling Islam.
2
Doctrine and dogma are the tools of hypocrites. Catholicism (and anything else requiring that it be called religion) does not need to change, it needs to be laughed-off the stage of humanity.
To Catholics anywhere, to the religious everywhere... free your hearts and think for yourself. Religion is a self-imposed prison and you hold the keys to your own freedom.
Religions are the manifestation of the evil they preach against, and they are run by the very devil (and his minions) you have been raised to accept as real.
Ok, Ross had his rant, now I have had mine. Fair's fair.
To Catholics anywhere, to the religious everywhere... free your hearts and think for yourself. Religion is a self-imposed prison and you hold the keys to your own freedom.
Religions are the manifestation of the evil they preach against, and they are run by the very devil (and his minions) you have been raised to accept as real.
Ok, Ross had his rant, now I have had mine. Fair's fair.
5
This same kind of hue and cry came up after Vatican II when John XXIII changed the mass from Latin---you'd think the world was ending for the clucking and gasping in horror from your forebears.
Around that same time if you had enough money you could buy an annulment, even if there were children. Plus ca change...
Except Francis sounds like he's trying to do away with money influencing the church ---he's turned the Vatican Bank upside down and imagine those enemies--- and rather than your judgemental term "ostentatious humility" he appears to be trying to bring compassion into a church that so many Catholics left long ago because of its lack of same, or actually much that seemed even Christian. Looks like Francis wants to go back to real basics like "love one another", "treat others as yourself"--something secular humanists would agree with--surely not heresy. Perhaps he's trying to get your church #s up?
Opus Dei got stronger after Vatican II and puts adherence to doctrine above all.
If you are Opus Dei that would be interesting, and it should be in your byline.
Around that same time if you had enough money you could buy an annulment, even if there were children. Plus ca change...
Except Francis sounds like he's trying to do away with money influencing the church ---he's turned the Vatican Bank upside down and imagine those enemies--- and rather than your judgemental term "ostentatious humility" he appears to be trying to bring compassion into a church that so many Catholics left long ago because of its lack of same, or actually much that seemed even Christian. Looks like Francis wants to go back to real basics like "love one another", "treat others as yourself"--something secular humanists would agree with--surely not heresy. Perhaps he's trying to get your church #s up?
Opus Dei got stronger after Vatican II and puts adherence to doctrine above all.
If you are Opus Dei that would be interesting, and it should be in your byline.
9
In millennia you say? That would be two millennia wouldn't it? Or about one percent of the time human beings have existed.
You've got to laugh at people - religious people - who think two or three millennia is a long time. They've no imagination.
They probably think Earth is big too. Crazy stuff! It's socially sanctioned ignorance and misinformation.
Or religion in a nutshell.
You've got to laugh at people - religious people - who think two or three millennia is a long time. They've no imagination.
They probably think Earth is big too. Crazy stuff! It's socially sanctioned ignorance and misinformation.
Or religion in a nutshell.
2
Ross, it amazes me how erroneous is your view of Pope Francis, of the papacy, of Catholicism, of Scripture, and of Church history. And I don't think you truly converted to Catholicism (conversion of the heart). I suspect you moved to Catholicism because of some ideological issues.
9
…13"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation. 15"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves."
Jesus was talking to those whose hearts are cold, who value doctrines that serve themselves and their own class, and do not hear the cries of the poor. He was not talking to Pope Francis, Ross, who has undertaken to bring the Church closer to him. Take it to heart.
Jesus was talking to those whose hearts are cold, who value doctrines that serve themselves and their own class, and do not hear the cries of the poor. He was not talking to Pope Francis, Ross, who has undertaken to bring the Church closer to him. Take it to heart.
8
Ross,
It's not the Pope.Time and Humanity have been plotting to change the Catholic church. The Pope is just trying to catch up before the church is ridiculously anachronistic. You, on the other hand, plod along as if the Catholic Church in your imagination was created shortly after the death of Christ with values remarkably appropriate to the upbringing of young boys in the 1980's.
It's not the Pope.Time and Humanity have been plotting to change the Catholic church. The Pope is just trying to catch up before the church is ridiculously anachronistic. You, on the other hand, plod along as if the Catholic Church in your imagination was created shortly after the death of Christ with values remarkably appropriate to the upbringing of young boys in the 1980's.
6
Ross, you worry too much. In your column, you wrote that "the Holy Spirit is 'supposed' to be the crucial check and balance". Why did you use the qualifying word "supposed"? The Holy spirit, acting in this role, is one of the fundamental beliefs of the RCC. If you don't really believe that, why be a Catholic at all?
I admit that's it's a tough concept from a purely human logical perspective...that some invisible being will protect the RCC from errors of doctrine of dogma (they're not identical, by the way). If, however, you believe that Jesus is and was who HE said He was, doesn't it make sense that He'd provide some kind of safeguard with respect to doctrine?
I admit that's it's a tough concept from a purely human logical perspective...that some invisible being will protect the RCC from errors of doctrine of dogma (they're not identical, by the way). If, however, you believe that Jesus is and was who HE said He was, doesn't it make sense that He'd provide some kind of safeguard with respect to doctrine?
2
Ross. I think you cannot make your argument effectively without truly laying out the theory why divorced Catholics who are civilly remarried are currently not permitted to receive the Eucharist. It is because the Church has posited that those who have civilly remarried have committed a grave sin and are not in a state of grace. What I believe is that Francis has concluded (and he is an old man -- he has been thinking about this for a while) is that the Catholic hierarchy is selective regarding which grave sins it emphasizes which exclude people from the sacraments. It is a "grave sin" to fail to attend church on a holy day of obligation, yet I believe 90% of Catholics commit this grave sin and accept communion without first going to confession. The busy-body priests do not check on each parishioner approaching communion to make sure they attended church on the previous holy day of obligation. In short, the Church's hypocrisy is evident to anyone who truly studies all the teaching of Jesus and the church. Jesus shouted: "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in." This is surly a more significant teaching of Jesus than one based on an interpretation of "grace" and "worthiness" that denies mercy and excludes divorced and civilly remarried Catholics from receiving communion. Woe to you, Ross.
250
"Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery." --Jesus from Luke 16:18;
Just because the Church isn't pushing the other grave sins that cause one not to be in the state of grace that isn't an excuse for the Church to say that this sin is okay. To me it would be better if the Church used this opportunity to say why it isn't okay for remarried people to receive communion and also say why others shouldn't either. In the end though it isn't up to the priest to deny Communion it is up to the person coming forward as to whether they should be presenting themselves for communion. Jesus was pretty obvious about marriage being permanent so if the Church goes against it they better have a pretty good argument.
It's almost like religions are hogwash political institutions built and maintained for the purpose of exercising power. Imagine that.
5
If you're going to use the words "plot" and "Pope" in the same sentence in an article about changing the direction of the church, start with David Yallop's two books, In God's Name (about the poisoning of John Paul I and his replacement by JPII) and The Power and the Glory - Inside the Dark Heart of John Paul II's Vatican.
4
Time for Mr. Douthat to form his own True Catholic Church of the Republican Jesus?
8
Ross, If you had been a journalist during Vatican 2, you probably never would have become a Catholic. Francis is bringing the insights of that council into the full light of day. It's too bad that you don't get it. You're missing the boat because the world is definitely ready.
6
God forbid that anything would change in the Catholic Church. But change it does...millennia not withstanding.
But subplots?...you mean the pretzel twists devotees of Catholic orthodoxy undergo to arrange their divorces (excuse me, I meant to say, annulments)? All done in an effort to conform with doctrinal "purity." There are, Ross, those among us who are not blind to the hypocrisy of such contortions. But Ross is, apparently, feeling pretty smug, after all he has millennia and the Inquisition on his side. Irony? I think not. It's just the arrogance of a gilded Renaissance Court pitted against the gospel of Jesus Christ.
But subplots?...you mean the pretzel twists devotees of Catholic orthodoxy undergo to arrange their divorces (excuse me, I meant to say, annulments)? All done in an effort to conform with doctrinal "purity." There are, Ross, those among us who are not blind to the hypocrisy of such contortions. But Ross is, apparently, feeling pretty smug, after all he has millennia and the Inquisition on his side. Irony? I think not. It's just the arrogance of a gilded Renaissance Court pitted against the gospel of Jesus Christ.
7
There will be, someday, a new Pope. He'll likely be more conservative than Francis, and he'll need soldiers to reverse any changes Francis made. There might be a committee of righteous zealots, old doctrines printed on their foreheads, lights shining clearly in their eyes. There might even be an Inquisition. Ross Douthat will surely be a name to ponder when thinking of its leader, or merely its scribe. One imagines his despair, wandering like Augustine before his conversion, looking for truth, keen to punish when they're found Having learned to be Catholic, he can't imagine its "truths" ever changing. He'll protect them. What a shame that Mr. Douthat isn't already a cardinal. Or close enough, that he isn't (yet) doing press releases for Cardinal Burke.
2
I sincerely hope the Times requires its columnists to read comments posted about their columns, or at least the top 20 reader picks. How Mr. Douthat could read these and not be strongly affected and even embarrassed for himself is beyond me. Times editors, take note.
12
With benefit of your column in the Times, you mount the bully pulpit to chastise the pope. Cowardly critic. You underestimate the yearning of the multitude of Catholic worshippers to find peace and solace in their religious worship, and hope that the all too human frailties of their very human church will not rend it asunder. History has. or should have, taught us that the foulest sin of this church is pride. In higher ecclesiastical figures, their defense of evil doings in order to protect the reputation of the church has brought scandal. We laity create scandal with our pride in our own righteousness, convinced our high intellect and superior moral insight gives us the right to judge those fellow Catholics who may not agree with us. The assumption seems to be that only we are smart enough, holy enough and purely motivated enough to perceive the whole truth. Speaking as a Catholic you betray your particular alliance with status quo. As for speaking as a journalist, you are doing a poor job, not offering a larger picture and focusing on the pope from a very limited and personal point of view.
15
Perhaps if the Times is now going to have a regular column covering Catholic theological and administrative matters, it should also have one for Muslims, Jews, Hindus and, of course, atheists.
As to the plots Douthat envisions, I found Godfather III possibly more credible and certainly more entertaining.
As to the plots Douthat envisions, I found Godfather III possibly more credible and certainly more entertaining.
14
To believe that the faith is immutable is to deny the way the Godhead reveals its intention. Knowledge is parceled out very slowly. The walls of Jericho would not fall today.
Who can't receive communion:
Divorced and/or remarried
Gay
Living together without being married
Women who have considered or had an abortion
Anyone who supports those women
Who are not barred from receiving communion:
Murderers
Thieves
Liars
Priests who sexually abused children
But the Pope, trying to bring a little perspective to this, is "plotting" to change Catholicism.
Really? Can't you find something else to be indignant about?
Divorced and/or remarried
Gay
Living together without being married
Women who have considered or had an abortion
Anyone who supports those women
Who are not barred from receiving communion:
Murderers
Thieves
Liars
Priests who sexually abused children
But the Pope, trying to bring a little perspective to this, is "plotting" to change Catholicism.
Really? Can't you find something else to be indignant about?
44
I have read a lot of Ross, I've never had the impression he understands Catholicism. He thinks it's the Church, Catholics know it's conscience over the Church. Conversion is a mighty task master.
4
The Catholic Church is not a democracy, Ross. It's an absolute monarchy, and when you said the pope had almost-absolute authority, you were almost correct. In fact, the pope has total authority (you know, like you guys wanted Ronald Reagan to have), and if he decides that divorced Catholics can have Communion, then that's the way it is. Funny thing, you conservatives love the idea of dictating and forcing your beliefs on others, but when that works against you, well, that just won't do. Sorry, like most other decrepit, old, conservative ideas, this one is dying too--and you people can't do anything about it. That's what's really driving you nuts.
28
40-50 years ago, we dreamed of the day women would rise up in the church, welcomed to become deacons and priests. We just knew that the church was alive, growing, responding to all our faith and passion, and would hear us just as we heard Jesus every day in our hearts and minds. We believed in our hearts that our children would live in a church very different in tone and focus than ours.
That a woman beaten to a pulp by her ex-husband, or a good father and husband to his second wife (after ending an early, miserable, childless marriage with his first) would both be unwelcome at the communion rail is just ludicrous to us. Jesus would never do that. This we know for sure in our hearts, minds and conscience. Jesus would never do that. He welcomed the sinners, the sick, the children, the lepers, the disgraced, the shunned........He PREFERRED their company to that of the sanctimonious and the self-righteous. "This is my body. This is my blood. Do this in remembrance of me." No fine print. No bait and switch. No gotchas. Come in love. Receive me.
Ross, here's the scoop: who is worthy to receive communion? NOBODY. We say that right before we head up to receive it: "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you........." That's the whole point. We sin. We mess up. We fail. But He loves us anyway, and up we go. Any bishops hoping to include those whose failing happens to be marital are not mad plotters, but the shepherds they are meant to be.
That a woman beaten to a pulp by her ex-husband, or a good father and husband to his second wife (after ending an early, miserable, childless marriage with his first) would both be unwelcome at the communion rail is just ludicrous to us. Jesus would never do that. This we know for sure in our hearts, minds and conscience. Jesus would never do that. He welcomed the sinners, the sick, the children, the lepers, the disgraced, the shunned........He PREFERRED their company to that of the sanctimonious and the self-righteous. "This is my body. This is my blood. Do this in remembrance of me." No fine print. No bait and switch. No gotchas. Come in love. Receive me.
Ross, here's the scoop: who is worthy to receive communion? NOBODY. We say that right before we head up to receive it: "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you........." That's the whole point. We sin. We mess up. We fail. But He loves us anyway, and up we go. Any bishops hoping to include those whose failing happens to be marital are not mad plotters, but the shepherds they are meant to be.
17
I read the weekly Douhat column for my Saturday evening or Sunday morning laughs, and he never disappoints. I can always count on it for ravings about some Medieval superstitions or his schoolmarmish sexual repressions, not to mention sanctimony, cluelessness, and high-minded focus on irrelevancies. It's my weekly "fix" to remind me that there is sizeable portion of the American population who couldn't be happier arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin while the world around them is screaming for sanity and intelligence that it will probably never get in God's Own Country.
11
This isn't doctrine. It's a practice. When you're thinking actual doctrine, think of the creed. That's kind of why there IS a creed -- to specify what you believe, period. Other things can alter around that, but the creed is what really expresses what you believe. That's its function.
It would be interesting to know when this "no communion for divorced people" was declared as a practice in the first place. Probably more recently than you think.
It would be interesting to know when this "no communion for divorced people" was declared as a practice in the first place. Probably more recently than you think.
2
To me, this exposition is another affirmation of my conviction that the institutionalized self-hating sectarianism of the Abrahamic faiths, if not the faiths themselves, is intrinsically evil.
4
Petty stuff, indeed!
The Catholic Church is an institution built by myth, superstition, and power. It has no basis in Holy Scripture nor any reason to call itself “Christian”.
The Gospels of Jesus Christ, with the preposterous miracles stripped away, reveal that the mission of Jesus was to free mankind from the burden of religion, not to create yet another. Jesus taught a way of righteous living without dogma, superstition, or ritual. He denounced the Pharisees, the most devout followers of the Old Testament religion. He ridiculed the strict observance of the Sabbath, the dietary restrictions of the Israelites, a faith based on belief in miracles, and the notion of salvation through observance of rules.
In response to a specific question concerning Israelite divorce, He declared that an Israelite man should not divorce any one of his wives, except for adultery. He did not impose any restriction on a wife seeking to divorce her husband. He described marriage between man and women as a binding union, but recognized that opposite-gender marriage was not appropriate for everyone.
Why follow the labored, minute steps the Catholic Church takes toward reason and righteousness? The end result is dissolution.
“I like your Christ, but I don’t like your Christians; they are so unlike!” (Gandhi)
The Catholic Church is an institution built by myth, superstition, and power. It has no basis in Holy Scripture nor any reason to call itself “Christian”.
The Gospels of Jesus Christ, with the preposterous miracles stripped away, reveal that the mission of Jesus was to free mankind from the burden of religion, not to create yet another. Jesus taught a way of righteous living without dogma, superstition, or ritual. He denounced the Pharisees, the most devout followers of the Old Testament religion. He ridiculed the strict observance of the Sabbath, the dietary restrictions of the Israelites, a faith based on belief in miracles, and the notion of salvation through observance of rules.
In response to a specific question concerning Israelite divorce, He declared that an Israelite man should not divorce any one of his wives, except for adultery. He did not impose any restriction on a wife seeking to divorce her husband. He described marriage between man and women as a binding union, but recognized that opposite-gender marriage was not appropriate for everyone.
Why follow the labored, minute steps the Catholic Church takes toward reason and righteousness? The end result is dissolution.
“I like your Christ, but I don’t like your Christians; they are so unlike!” (Gandhi)
6
Simple truth,,, Jesus did not make any rules about communion and divorce,,, communion is a Church invented ritual. So the exclusion of divorced Catholics serves only one purpose... to continue tradition, to doggedly hang on to previous norms as if salvation depended on it, and it is quite obvious that it doesn't ..
10
Mr. Douthat:
Trade in hyperbole much? The Pope is plotting against the Church? I thought the Pope was the church? Writing this column must have had your 16th century head spinning.You seem to object to what you label an erstwhile Inquisition. What's the problem? I thought you a supporter of enhanced interogation.
As facinating a character as this Pope may be, he is not running for president of my soul. I believe no such position exists. Which leads me to suggest that column is wholly inappropriate for the space it occupies. You have a blog and that is where you should express your tiresome litany of paranoia concerning all things catholic.
You seem very informed about the secret machinations of the vatican. I know you are a conservative Republican, would it be indiscreet to ask if you back the Medici or the Borgias? I thought you were a bit of a policy wonk,
shouldn't you be contemplating how many zygotes can dance on the head of a pin? I look forward to the next column on this plot where you delve into the archaic notion of morality and how it plays out in all this plotting within the
church. I find that interesting, don't you?
Trade in hyperbole much? The Pope is plotting against the Church? I thought the Pope was the church? Writing this column must have had your 16th century head spinning.You seem to object to what you label an erstwhile Inquisition. What's the problem? I thought you a supporter of enhanced interogation.
As facinating a character as this Pope may be, he is not running for president of my soul. I believe no such position exists. Which leads me to suggest that column is wholly inappropriate for the space it occupies. You have a blog and that is where you should express your tiresome litany of paranoia concerning all things catholic.
You seem very informed about the secret machinations of the vatican. I know you are a conservative Republican, would it be indiscreet to ask if you back the Medici or the Borgias? I thought you were a bit of a policy wonk,
shouldn't you be contemplating how many zygotes can dance on the head of a pin? I look forward to the next column on this plot where you delve into the archaic notion of morality and how it plays out in all this plotting within the
church. I find that interesting, don't you?
9
One way of describing the difference(s) between Catholics and Protestants is that Catholics believe in an authoritative leader (the Pope, and the hierarchy below him), while Protestants believe in an authoritative Book (the Bible).
You could follow Martin Luther, Ross. The Book hasn't changed.
You could follow Martin Luther, Ross. The Book hasn't changed.
8
"The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living." OK, so that's Marx and not Jesus, but it's a thought well worth considering. Ross Douthat, you must accept that we have now arrived in the 21st century. It's no longer the good old days of the 13th century anymore, however much you might pine for them. The Inquisition is over. Hooray! As a Jew, I couldn't be happier. I recall how thrilled I was that after 600 years we were finally absolved of complicity in the killing of Christ, an allegation that did cause a certain amount of damage. So that was one tradition down and there's apparently a few more to go. Now, could someone please open the windows and let some fresh air and sunlight in?
14
Before you pass, Ross, you'll see gay married women priests who have practiced birth control and who have had abortions.
3
Does anyone really care? This seems to be on the level of who decides what the secret handshake is to get into the clubhouse. In the cosmology of world problems this would be a pebble orbiting Pluto.
16
It's always interesting to read Douthat on the Catholic Church. He's a perfect example of the convert's zeal.
Perhaps the ban on communion for divorced couples would be more acceptable if we also kept those who support the death penaly (I'm looking at you Scalia) from communion. Or those who don't care for the poor.
To be clear, I'm not a fan of divorce. I think getting 5 annulments before you get married (pace today's Times wedding section) betrays a lack of understanding of what Catholic marriage is. But perhaps Douthat could think about the divorced people living at the ground level, instead of being obsessed with the Vatican curia politics, like some Roman journalist.
Perhaps the ban on communion for divorced couples would be more acceptable if we also kept those who support the death penaly (I'm looking at you Scalia) from communion. Or those who don't care for the poor.
To be clear, I'm not a fan of divorce. I think getting 5 annulments before you get married (pace today's Times wedding section) betrays a lack of understanding of what Catholic marriage is. But perhaps Douthat could think about the divorced people living at the ground level, instead of being obsessed with the Vatican curia politics, like some Roman journalist.
5
"Ostentatious humility." So you think Pope Francis is faking it?
You really are a sourpuss!
How sad for you that you are unable to recognize grace where it is abundant.
You really are a sourpuss!
How sad for you that you are unable to recognize grace where it is abundant.
16
Mr Douthat you certainly know that the Christianity of the New Testament is different from that of the Church Fathers, which in turn is different from that of Late Antiquity, which in turn is different from that of the Middle Ages, and in turn is different from Tridentine Catholicism. Are all this changes a result of a plot? If so, who is this trans-historical plotter?
7
With all the problems in the world, this is surely one of the least important matters that could be discussed by a NY Times columnist. It is also one of the most boring.
15
"A Jesuit pope is effectively at war with his own Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the erstwhile Inquisition — a situation that would make 16th century heads spin."
And there you have it...
Mr. Douthat's beef with his church is that it is no longer as doctrinaire as it was in the 15th/16th centuries and that Pope Francis is more human(e) than was Benedict (blessed?).
And there you have it...
Mr. Douthat's beef with his church is that it is no longer as doctrinaire as it was in the 15th/16th centuries and that Pope Francis is more human(e) than was Benedict (blessed?).
26
It's always the converts who are the most insufferable.
28
Douthat willfully misunderstands the issue, which is not the sanctity of marriage itself but the theoretical possibility of scandal if a "public sinner" takes communion, which Catholic doctrine holds should not be done unless one is in a "state of grace." Grace requires repentance of sin and amendment of one's life, which a divorced and remarried Catholic to appearances does not meet. Others at the same communion rail might therefore have the static of their clucking disapproval of such a sinner receiving communion drown out their own receptiveness to their alleged savior.
That's really all that's at stake here, theologically. Sin itself has never kept people away from communion, and indeed shouldn't (if it helps them). The church doesn't ask adolescent boys to swear they haven't masturbated before they receive. It doesn't prohibit known practicing pimps, whores or drug dealers from receiving communion. It admits convicted criminals of any kind, and even politicians, to communion without questioning their repentance. With other sins, the church freely acknowledges that the actual state of an individual soul is known only to God; for purely historical and political reasons, it denies divorced and remarried Catholics the benefit of that doubt.
For this reason, Francis' desire to reform this ugly prejudice against a single, victimless category of "offense" is indeed pastoral, not doctrinal.
That's really all that's at stake here, theologically. Sin itself has never kept people away from communion, and indeed shouldn't (if it helps them). The church doesn't ask adolescent boys to swear they haven't masturbated before they receive. It doesn't prohibit known practicing pimps, whores or drug dealers from receiving communion. It admits convicted criminals of any kind, and even politicians, to communion without questioning their repentance. With other sins, the church freely acknowledges that the actual state of an individual soul is known only to God; for purely historical and political reasons, it denies divorced and remarried Catholics the benefit of that doubt.
For this reason, Francis' desire to reform this ugly prejudice against a single, victimless category of "offense" is indeed pastoral, not doctrinal.
9
Unless this Pope passes the purity test according to Douthat his legitimacy will be challenged. It sounds familiar. Those who embrace the purity test in the Republican party include the "birthers". No fact, no peoples' vote, can remove the arrogance of those who know the hand of god. They know that twice elected President Obama, is not legitimate. They know. They like you refuse to know the power of that "ostentatous humilty" that defined the life of Jesus Christ.
14
The plot to contain Neoconservativism.
Douthat is a Neocon. Neocons trace their origins to Leo Strauss. Strauss was a poli-sci theorist run out of Germany by the Nazis. As a German politics is framed by ideology & his relieson Nietzsche.
Nietzsche feared that men would learn philosophy & become atheist in the event, & without fear of God the ordinary would descend quickly into decadence ending civilization but he also believed there were "supermen": men who could learn there was no God & still not become decadent.
Strauss' ideology was that societies should be ruled by the philosophy supermen & that they should use religiosity to control the masses sustain civilization from decadence. Strauss didn't care which religion, any would do, so w/ neocons you see orthodox Jews holding hands w/ fundamentalist Christians & even falangist Catholics.
By the Mid 1960s Univ. of Chicago Neocons were joining the GOP. Soon wealthy GOP foundations began seeding money & infiltrating established religions to jerk their orgs & members to the right: the Democracy & Religion project is one, the Catholic League is another.
In the Cold War confrontation with atheistic Communism, the American right found common cause w/ Catholic church. In 2004 they even helped Bush get elected.
Francis knows this history. The 2000 year old church has no desire to continue to be a tool for the barely 200 year old atheistic banal American right. The cold war is over. Catholicism is founded on different values .
Douthat is a Neocon. Neocons trace their origins to Leo Strauss. Strauss was a poli-sci theorist run out of Germany by the Nazis. As a German politics is framed by ideology & his relieson Nietzsche.
Nietzsche feared that men would learn philosophy & become atheist in the event, & without fear of God the ordinary would descend quickly into decadence ending civilization but he also believed there were "supermen": men who could learn there was no God & still not become decadent.
Strauss' ideology was that societies should be ruled by the philosophy supermen & that they should use religiosity to control the masses sustain civilization from decadence. Strauss didn't care which religion, any would do, so w/ neocons you see orthodox Jews holding hands w/ fundamentalist Christians & even falangist Catholics.
By the Mid 1960s Univ. of Chicago Neocons were joining the GOP. Soon wealthy GOP foundations began seeding money & infiltrating established religions to jerk their orgs & members to the right: the Democracy & Religion project is one, the Catholic League is another.
In the Cold War confrontation with atheistic Communism, the American right found common cause w/ Catholic church. In 2004 they even helped Bush get elected.
Francis knows this history. The 2000 year old church has no desire to continue to be a tool for the barely 200 year old atheistic banal American right. The cold war is over. Catholicism is founded on different values .
8
Ross, as a good Catholic like myself, did it ever even occur to you that Pope Francis is following the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Isn't that who we Catholics believe picked Francis in the first place?
Yes, of course the Church is political, subject to human pride and all its foibles. But we believe that the Church is ultimately guided by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps the Spirit would like to see change in the Church.
Don't fear the change. Relax. God knows what God is doing.
Yes, of course the Church is political, subject to human pride and all its foibles. But we believe that the Church is ultimately guided by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps the Spirit would like to see change in the Church.
Don't fear the change. Relax. God knows what God is doing.
264
You must also believe that Pope Alexander, the Borgia pope Rodrigo, was also guided by the Holy Spirit. Would all his murders, adulteries and simony also have been guided by the Holy Spirit?
First of all, Jesus never banned divorce. Jesus's words have been taken out of context, he was just talking about men abandoning their wives - that is what he was against.
So what Francis is doing is perfectly consistent with what Jesus would want.
In any case, the Christ is scheduled to return to the world very soon, he will set these conservative, mean-spirited legalists straight.
So what Francis is doing is perfectly consistent with what Jesus would want.
In any case, the Christ is scheduled to return to the world very soon, he will set these conservative, mean-spirited legalists straight.
9
Wait, isn't all of it supposed to be up to God? I swear, you couldn't make this stuff up.
3
As a cradle Catholic, I find phony "annulments" to be one of the most hypocritical, even corrupt practices of the church. Where is the spiritual defeat in rejecting this institutionalized lie? It is clerics who have participated in this charade who are in danger of being rejected at the Lord's table.
6
So the Christian concepts of forgiveness and reconciliation mean nothing to you. Is that what you're saying?
The "ostentatious humility" of the Pope is no match for the ostentatious hypocrisy of the writer, who rails against the Pope for doing what arch-conservative papacies have also done, make changes that other catholics disagreed with, such as the temporary triumph of the Opus Dei over the Jesuits, which Pope John Paul approved.
What is wrong with making changes, in the 21st century, that would "spin the heads" of 16th century Inquisitors, like those evil men who burned people at the stake. Spinning the heads of people who expelled the Jews from Spain would seem like a work of Christian charity.
And what on earth does Douthat mean by "a mechanism that would let him (the Pope) exercise his powers without undercutting his authority"? Generally speaking, a leader enhances his or her authority by exercising power, even at the cost of angering Douthat and other dinosaurs.
And what pray tell, is the "historic faith" which the writer claims Pope Francis is plotting against? It's certainly not the Sermon on the Mount but it might be the prejudices of Shakespeare's "proud prelates",
What is wrong with making changes, in the 21st century, that would "spin the heads" of 16th century Inquisitors, like those evil men who burned people at the stake. Spinning the heads of people who expelled the Jews from Spain would seem like a work of Christian charity.
And what on earth does Douthat mean by "a mechanism that would let him (the Pope) exercise his powers without undercutting his authority"? Generally speaking, a leader enhances his or her authority by exercising power, even at the cost of angering Douthat and other dinosaurs.
And what pray tell, is the "historic faith" which the writer claims Pope Francis is plotting against? It's certainly not the Sermon on the Mount but it might be the prejudices of Shakespeare's "proud prelates",
13
Articles like this make me wonder whether the Catholic Church is a vehicle for God or merely a political body that presses its ideology.
7
And why are NYT readers supposed to have any real interest in these purported political maneuverings, which if true confirm every bitter criticism that Luther launched against an institution opposed in its self-promoting granularity to everything that Jesus reportedly stood for? What exactly, Mr. Douthat, were the Messiah's views on the Treasury of Merit?
Douthat is so wrapped up in this intrigue, to which he is quite wittingly contributing that he seems to have no idea what it all has to say about organized religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular.
But I suppose all of this is a useful reminder that history not only occasionally shows us tragedy and triumph, but also entertains us with face.
What a pointless farce, maintained by the self-deluding and prideful of place for the mystification of gullible millions.
Douthat is so wrapped up in this intrigue, to which he is quite wittingly contributing that he seems to have no idea what it all has to say about organized religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular.
But I suppose all of this is a useful reminder that history not only occasionally shows us tragedy and triumph, but also entertains us with face.
What a pointless farce, maintained by the self-deluding and prideful of place for the mystification of gullible millions.
9
"The church’s teaching that marriage is indissoluble has already been pushed close to the breaking point by this pope’s new expedited annulment process; going all the way to communion without annulment would just break it."
No, the church's "teaching" on this matter has long been negotiable: think the sordid history of annulments, indulgences, and the like; the entire, well-documented record of modulating doctrine with receipt of worldly treasure.
That train has already left the station, Ross. Try again.
No, the church's "teaching" on this matter has long been negotiable: think the sordid history of annulments, indulgences, and the like; the entire, well-documented record of modulating doctrine with receipt of worldly treasure.
That train has already left the station, Ross. Try again.
16
This column is a bunch of gobbledygook. I am not Catholic and nothing said by Douthat has any meaning in my life. But I do know this: I LOVE Pope Francis. And I hope to god he has a food taster.
26
Its telling that this article is entirely about church politics and not a whit about either truth or justice in divorce matters. As it always is.
9
The Right won't read this, couldn't see it, would applaud, however, a piece on the good sense of eliminating food stamps
in Maine.
in Maine.
1
To this heathen, Mr Douthat's column seems like so much debating of how many angels can sit on the head of a pin.
Still, it's impressive how Mr Douthat can read the Pope's mind and then call what he sees there "rubbish." Maybe Mr Douthat needs a little more "ostentatious humility" himself.
Still, it's impressive how Mr Douthat can read the Pope's mind and then call what he sees there "rubbish." Maybe Mr Douthat needs a little more "ostentatious humility" himself.
28
And yet again one wonders why the Catholic faith is losing believers, except in Africa. Pope Francis is the best thing that has happened to your church, now if they would just allow priests to marry. That would be a miracle, and I will pray for that to happen.
7
Douthat sounds like the pope's message of "love thy neighbor' made him uncomfortable.
19
Which "historic" faith does Douthat have in mind?
4
I started to suggest that the majotiy of these commenters might have made a mistake coming herem but then I realize then they never ome here on their own at all but are sent here from other, more angry liberals on behald of their ''friends'' whose profession is political public relations/propaganda.
We're just reading more Soros money here.
We're just reading more Soros money here.
2
This borders on incoherent. Please read and use spellcheck before hitting the submit button.
Sorry, Steve, no one sends me here. I come for the laughs, as another person commented. Having been raised in the superstitions of the Catholic Church, I find it entertaining to read Ross trying to defend medieval doctrine. Reading his column is akin to reading a diocesan weekly. Reminds me how smart I was to leave this foolishness.
What the pope has that Douthat lacks, I suspect, is not theological knowledge but life experience among the least of these. Most people, if they live long enough, know sorrow heaped upon sorrow. Jesus was accused of being a drunkard and a glutton, a friend of sinners and a heretic. Dothan confuses mercy with liberalism. The critics of Jesus had similar difficulties understanding him.
2
This is the difference between being off in the theological weeds and the simple teachings of Christ, who hung out with all kinds of undesirables asking people to do impossible things like love other people.
2 different orbits.
2 different orbits.
10
I'm surprised Ross would link to The New Testament, since in Mathew 19:21-24
21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to [the] poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this statement, he went away sad, for he had many possessions.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Amen, I say to you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Now I know Ross is not rich, but I imagine he has enough wealth that he will have as hard a time selling all his possessions as the Rich Young Man had in Mathew, and therefore, the odds are long for master Ross to enter the gates of heaven as a mendicant following in the footsteps of Jesus. Besides, Ross’s wife, Abigail Tucker, didn’t go to Harvard to follow a vow of poverty. I guess he would need an annulment. Thank god Pope Francis has expedited the process.
Of course, Ross could never be a Young Man anyway because he has never been young in his life, always serious, surely bypassing childhood's play altogether, a "Doctor of the law" since birth.
Citing the Bible is always a risky affair, since for every point made, another comes back to bite you.
21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to [the] poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this statement, he went away sad, for he had many possessions.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Amen, I say to you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Now I know Ross is not rich, but I imagine he has enough wealth that he will have as hard a time selling all his possessions as the Rich Young Man had in Mathew, and therefore, the odds are long for master Ross to enter the gates of heaven as a mendicant following in the footsteps of Jesus. Besides, Ross’s wife, Abigail Tucker, didn’t go to Harvard to follow a vow of poverty. I guess he would need an annulment. Thank god Pope Francis has expedited the process.
Of course, Ross could never be a Young Man anyway because he has never been young in his life, always serious, surely bypassing childhood's play altogether, a "Doctor of the law" since birth.
Citing the Bible is always a risky affair, since for every point made, another comes back to bite you.
255
See Matthew 5-7; 25:31-46 for the Christian message of humble humane empathy from a community organizing socialist focused on the poor, the despairing, the fearful, the hungry, the thirsty, the sick and the imprisoned
I see no reason you couldn't have made your very valid point without insulting Mr. Douthat.
2
"The ostentatious humility of Pope Francis"
Douhat seems to harbor a somewhat unchristian animus against the head of his faith. I think all religion is baloney but it's obvious given Francis's position, that his modest lifestyle and inclusive behavior is going attract widespread comment. The dictionary defines ostentatious as pretentious, showy or vulgar display. None of this remotely applies to Francis who more than any pope for centuries seems to practice what he preaches which is more than can be said for Douhat.
Douhat seems to harbor a somewhat unchristian animus against the head of his faith. I think all religion is baloney but it's obvious given Francis's position, that his modest lifestyle and inclusive behavior is going attract widespread comment. The dictionary defines ostentatious as pretentious, showy or vulgar display. None of this remotely applies to Francis who more than any pope for centuries seems to practice what he preaches which is more than can be said for Douhat.
18
Thank God for Ross Douthat! What an astute, penetrating discussion!
Ross -- your belief in an ossified doctrinal rigidity may bring you comfort, but it clearly isn't working for the Church you claim to love.
Just the other day I asked a devoutly Catholic colleague at work how she feels about this pope. (She goes to mass everyday and one of the highlights of her life was attending her brother's ordination at the Vatican.) She said that in her opinion the pope is not as doctrinally liberal as the popular press would have us believe. And suits her fine. What she really loves about Francis is the effort he is making to bring "the universal message of Christ" to those who have been shunned by the very people who should be delivering it. Seems reasonable, doesn't it?
Just the other day I asked a devoutly Catholic colleague at work how she feels about this pope. (She goes to mass everyday and one of the highlights of her life was attending her brother's ordination at the Vatican.) She said that in her opinion the pope is not as doctrinally liberal as the popular press would have us believe. And suits her fine. What she really loves about Francis is the effort he is making to bring "the universal message of Christ" to those who have been shunned by the very people who should be delivering it. Seems reasonable, doesn't it?
5
That Ross should call Pope's humility "ostentatious," is supine arrogance. The pompous prelates are the ones who are "caging" the Holy Spirit, and obstructing the Gospel to come alive. In fact, Ross is the spokesperson of the conservative cabal of the US prelates, and uses the pages of The New York Times to do their bidding. May be being a convert to Catholicism his zeal is overwhelming him. I would not be surprised if the folks at the First Things vetted this "column" before being submitted to the NYT. The Ross-type Catholic Church is fast turning into a "club" of a few die-hards.
7
What about the "ostentatious humility" of Jesus? And wasn't he also the one who said, "Neither do I judge thee?" No doubt Douthat would rap him sharply across the knuckles for his failure to be sufficiently judgmental.
11
' For a Catholic journalist, for any journalist, it's a fascinating story…'
If so, journalists need to get out more.
It put me to sleep.
Goodnight Ross.
If so, journalists need to get out more.
It put me to sleep.
Goodnight Ross.
1
Now you know how we felt during John Paul's and Benedict's reign.
As my grandfather used to tell me, "Offer your suffering up for the poor souls in purgatory."
As my grandfather used to tell me, "Offer your suffering up for the poor souls in purgatory."
4
Cardinal Douthat secretly longs to be elected anti-pope at some clandestine conclave of reactionary cardinals.
11
First of all Ross, I would appreciate it if you stopped stabbing your Pope in the back. It is not only bad form, it is apostasy. If you are so dissatisfied with the Church leadership, go join some other religion, or better yet, form your own cult, upon which you can impart your special divine wisdom.
But don't claim to be a good Catholic while running around trashing Pope Francis. The Church doesn't work that way.
Now about the annulment issue. Everybody knows that the current annulment process in the Catholic Church is a joke, riddled with hypocrisy. A case in point - sleazy politician Newt Gingrich got a marriage annulled so he could marry the woman with whom he was having an adulterous affair. Problem is, that annulled marriage had produced children, thus the annulment retroactively bastardized the offspring of a legal marriage.
The core problem with annulments is this - How in God's name do you render your children illegitimate, which is the inescapable result of a true annulment ? If the Catholic Church were to legitimize divorce, it would be a far more tolerable sin than bastardizing children of a failed marriage.
But don't claim to be a good Catholic while running around trashing Pope Francis. The Church doesn't work that way.
Now about the annulment issue. Everybody knows that the current annulment process in the Catholic Church is a joke, riddled with hypocrisy. A case in point - sleazy politician Newt Gingrich got a marriage annulled so he could marry the woman with whom he was having an adulterous affair. Problem is, that annulled marriage had produced children, thus the annulment retroactively bastardized the offspring of a legal marriage.
The core problem with annulments is this - How in God's name do you render your children illegitimate, which is the inescapable result of a true annulment ? If the Catholic Church were to legitimize divorce, it would be a far more tolerable sin than bastardizing children of a failed marriage.
13
"Plot"? Paranoid much? Heaven forbid it's an honestly and deeply held belief.
8
The pope is at odds with the historic faith?
As is often the case with your conservative brethren, you position opposing views as pure falsehood, dialogue as an attempt at 'rigging' the debate, and slander the participants.
This editorial is not worthy of the Times or its readers.
As is often the case with your conservative brethren, you position opposing views as pure falsehood, dialogue as an attempt at 'rigging' the debate, and slander the participants.
This editorial is not worthy of the Times or its readers.
9
Dear Editor: I'm no fan of religion of any flavor, but Douthat's arrogance in this column is quite breathtaking. His religious fanaticism is on full display in this waste of column-inches. Usually NYT readers only have to be subjected to Douthat's political fanaticism. Having a conservative columnist in these pages is important, but please find another one without the dogmatic inflexibility of an Iranian Mullah.
13
Douthat: "He (Pope Francis) favors the proposal...that would allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion without having their first marriage declared null."
If it is a doctrine of the Chuch that "communion" (Ross's term) is a reward for what he and other conservatives judge to be righteous conduct, then Ross is correct. However, if "communion" is not simply a reward, then Ross is wrong; and Pope Francis and others are correctly exploring what more "communion" may entail and mean for Catholics as well as who should have a place at the table when the bread is broken at the celebration of the eucharistic meal.
A criticism of Jesus by the religious leaders of his time was that he was "a friend of...sinners" (Matthew 11:19). Sounds to me that Francis is honoring an ancient tradition in the Church and is in very good company.
If it is a doctrine of the Chuch that "communion" (Ross's term) is a reward for what he and other conservatives judge to be righteous conduct, then Ross is correct. However, if "communion" is not simply a reward, then Ross is wrong; and Pope Francis and others are correctly exploring what more "communion" may entail and mean for Catholics as well as who should have a place at the table when the bread is broken at the celebration of the eucharistic meal.
A criticism of Jesus by the religious leaders of his time was that he was "a friend of...sinners" (Matthew 11:19). Sounds to me that Francis is honoring an ancient tradition in the Church and is in very good company.
9
The author holds onto Catholicism....his detractors here surely have no concept of what the Catholic Faith demands. Francis is out to lunch in a damnable way. You dont have to be "more Catholic than the pope" to know Church dogma. Sadly, in 2015, any half baked trad is MUCH more Catholic than the pope is.
People practice their religion according to their own beliefs, not according to man made doctrines set many years ago. If divorced people want to receive communion, they will and feel better for it.
3
Mr. Douthat (which a friend of mine pronounces doubt-that) may be a Catholic journalist but he is not a theologian. Not by a long shot. I am a professional theologian, so let me point to his most glaring error. He fails (as do the Pope's critics) to distinguish between doctrine and discipline. This is basic Catholicism. Doctrine cannot change; discipline can, and does so often. The doctrine of the indissolubility of a sacramental marriage is not up for debate. The discipline of excluding the remarried divorced is a rule made -- and can be unmade -- by the hierarchy. That is what is under discussion -- whether to change a rule, not a doctrine.
And while Mr. Douthat rails against the inclusion of Card. Danneels (which is pretty egregious), he says nothing about the membership of Card. Errazuriz on the Pope's close advisory board of 9 cardinals. Errazuriz covered up a far worse sex offender priest in Chile. But he's a known conservative, so Mr. DOuthat overlooks the point.
So he's neither a theologian nor an astute Vaticanologist.
And while Mr. Douthat rails against the inclusion of Card. Danneels (which is pretty egregious), he says nothing about the membership of Card. Errazuriz on the Pope's close advisory board of 9 cardinals. Errazuriz covered up a far worse sex offender priest in Chile. But he's a known conservative, so Mr. DOuthat overlooks the point.
So he's neither a theologian nor an astute Vaticanologist.
12
Intrigue, plots and counter-plots, conspiracies, all concealed by Pope Francis beneath a mask of "ostentatious humility." Douthat, having spent years excoriating devout Catholics who politely questioned some position a previous Pope advocated, now drafts ever more scathing attacks on Pope Francis. It sounds like he's entered new territory here, trying to launch an insurrection. I've written many times that to understand Pope Francis remember that he's the most powerful representative of The Society of Jesus, commonly known as the Jesuits. Douthat ignores Church history when inconvenient, and to the ignorant, Jesuits can sometime look like liberals when they are nothing of the sort. Francis simply gives greater emphasis to certain Church ideals; here the social justice teachings of the Bible. Social justice is a divine ideal, not a liberal one, but such teachings put Douthat in a rage. It's why he keeps attacking the messenger, Pope Francis. Douthat should be reminded that Jesus did not categorically rule out divorce. As in so many situations, he was concerned with the corruption of laws; here that the rights granted to women within marriage were frequently being used to victimize women, not protect them. Hence Jesus' proclamation in Matthew that that divorce was being misused by men to discard their wives. Is it just to deny communion to a woman, abused for years, who finally seeks divorce? Would Jesus have approved? Who cares what Jesus taught, Douthat thinks it's just fine.
15
Douthat: Jesus WAS a Pharisee (not a Sadducee).
3
If Ross had been accidentally switched at birth and sent home with a Baptist mother, he would be a Baptist.
Think about that for a moment and tell me why childhood indoctrination should not be a punishable offense.
Think about that for a moment and tell me why childhood indoctrination should not be a punishable offense.
4
We quote Jesus from Matthew 26: 28 "“Drink from it, all of you; [28] for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Would that the Catholic Church as priests celebrate the Mass could offer forgiveness/mercy/grace as "freely" as their Messiah, Good Shepherd, Bread of Life, Redeemer, Son of God.
6
I just find Ross Douthat amazing. There are religions that offer the kind of certitude that Ross is looking for and I am sure the Lubavitch Chassidim, Later Day Saints and the Wahhabi Islamists would welcome a man of Ross' talents and moral convictions into the fold.
Should Ross wish to remain in the Catholic fold I would suggest he read the works of Canadian Philosopher Charles Taylor. Professor Taylor is a practising Catholic and a world renowned Philosopher of ethics whom I particularly respec but has been recommended by Jews such as David Brooks whose political philosophy is very different from my own.
It is 2015 and Professor Taylor takes his Catholicism into the 21st century. Our French Canadian Nationalist vehemently secular government so respected Professor Taylor's opinions that he was asked to co-chair the government's commission on religious accommodation. It would behoove Ross to read some of Professor Taylor's work before tackling his Church which has survived the millennia by adjusting to the needs of the moment.
Ross might start with the Wikipedia introduction of Professor Taylor and the introduction of Taylor's A Secular Age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Secular_Age
There is much to read and video lectures in French and English I don't know where to start but clearly a little guidance from an acknowledged modern Catholic intellectual may do Ross some good. I have no doubts about Ross' superior intellect.
Should Ross wish to remain in the Catholic fold I would suggest he read the works of Canadian Philosopher Charles Taylor. Professor Taylor is a practising Catholic and a world renowned Philosopher of ethics whom I particularly respec but has been recommended by Jews such as David Brooks whose political philosophy is very different from my own.
It is 2015 and Professor Taylor takes his Catholicism into the 21st century. Our French Canadian Nationalist vehemently secular government so respected Professor Taylor's opinions that he was asked to co-chair the government's commission on religious accommodation. It would behoove Ross to read some of Professor Taylor's work before tackling his Church which has survived the millennia by adjusting to the needs of the moment.
Ross might start with the Wikipedia introduction of Professor Taylor and the introduction of Taylor's A Secular Age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Secular_Age
There is much to read and video lectures in French and English I don't know where to start but clearly a little guidance from an acknowledged modern Catholic intellectual may do Ross some good. I have no doubts about Ross' superior intellect.
5
Thanks Ross! Reading your stuff gives me current insight into the philosophical & intellectual roots of religious intolerance and self-righteousness. That's good work for one article. Sorry you had to visit so many other places to get there. Appreciate!
8
Ross's
I have no problem with God. It is his fan club that I have a problem with.
I have no problem with God. It is his fan club that I have a problem with.
6
The machinations of this church would make Jesus weep, and drove me to Quakerism years ago. Matthew 25:31-46 does not show Christ asking who believed correct doctrine, but rather who fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and the like. Many Catholics do those things; the rubbish here is not Francis's pastoral vision but instead making an idol of orthodoxy.
11
Correction.... Jesus would be appalled.
1
I have one question to ask of Mr. Douthat: "Who made you pope?"
11
Really, it has to stop now. This screed has no place in a newspaper like the Times. The writer is nowhere near as clever or intelligent as he thinks he is. I know this is the opinion column, but can't you please apply standards of fact and logic that apply elsewhere in the paper.
Really, stop this.
The writer has no clothes.
Really, stop this.
The writer has no clothes.
19
When you start talking about Church doctrine start with the Nicene Creed. You might as well end there too because everything else is "work rules", they come and they go. It really is time for 21st century work rules.
7
As an Ex-Catholic I find this more than amusing. An entire Op Ed in the NYT on a silly archaic "rule" about receiving communion. Psst......Ross, I know I have not been to mass in a decade but when did the priest start asking if you are divorced in communion line? As I remember it, you cue up, stick out your tongue or make a bowl of your hands and eat a small thin wafer. I don't ever recall being asked whether I had an annulment. I know I am looking at this from a cynical place of an atheist, but I would bet a divorce person has gone up there and partaken of host, and the world did not end and there was no lightening bolt to smite them dead.
I am very glad there is a Pope who seems to care about real people, but the purchasing of an annulment is and has always been about who pays whom enough money, the end. I would be willing to bet a couple who had produced 10 children together could buy a pass from the Vatican if enough dollars changed hands.
I am very glad there is a Pope who seems to care about real people, but the purchasing of an annulment is and has always been about who pays whom enough money, the end. I would be willing to bet a couple who had produced 10 children together could buy a pass from the Vatican if enough dollars changed hands.
6
"The Plot." "plotters and counterplotters." "chief plotter." "exercise his powers without undercutting his authority." "recent investigative book."
"Aging progressives are seizing a moment they thought had slipped away, trying to outmaneuver younger conservatives....'
"expect the plot to fail."
What is this? A column on the Catholic Church or a Tom Clancy novel?
"Aging progressives are seizing a moment they thought had slipped away, trying to outmaneuver younger conservatives....'
"expect the plot to fail."
What is this? A column on the Catholic Church or a Tom Clancy novel?
31
This is all absolutely fascinating. It reminds me of the bitter dispute between two rabbis, one of whom claimed that the number of Hanuka lights lit should increase from day to day, the other that the number should decrease. Well, we know who won out.
So what is the point, you ask? Yes, indeed.
So what is the point, you ask? Yes, indeed.
5
Ross,
I pray for you.
I guess Jesus was ostentatiously humble when he washed his disciples feet. I guess Jesus did not mean his scolding of the Pharisees, Scribes and Lawyers (have you been at Mass the last week and heard Jesus' words about them?) In Jesus'; mind they are not just whitened sepulchers but are like "unseen graves".
What part of the Gospel don't you get? If you look at the context, the prohibition of divorce was not about indissolubility but about "restoring lost innocence" as we sing in the Exsultet at the Easter Vigil. Before the fall men and women were equal (Adam only named {as sign of dominion} AFTER the fall. Likewise, the passages are related to the proclamation of the inherent dignity of children. To read these texts as proclamations about the indissolubility of marriage is to read into them what was never intended. Unfortunately, we are fallen; and Jesus knew that, and that is why he gave us parable like the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Father.
I pray for you.
I guess Jesus was ostentatiously humble when he washed his disciples feet. I guess Jesus did not mean his scolding of the Pharisees, Scribes and Lawyers (have you been at Mass the last week and heard Jesus' words about them?) In Jesus'; mind they are not just whitened sepulchers but are like "unseen graves".
What part of the Gospel don't you get? If you look at the context, the prohibition of divorce was not about indissolubility but about "restoring lost innocence" as we sing in the Exsultet at the Easter Vigil. Before the fall men and women were equal (Adam only named {as sign of dominion} AFTER the fall. Likewise, the passages are related to the proclamation of the inherent dignity of children. To read these texts as proclamations about the indissolubility of marriage is to read into them what was never intended. Unfortunately, we are fallen; and Jesus knew that, and that is why he gave us parable like the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Father.
10
Divorce is the only unforgivable sin. Raping children, murder, etc can all be forgiven by a visit to the confessional booth. How absurd. All those rapist priests can confess their sins and go to heaven. Divorcees who remarry go to hell. Just as nutty as the stuff I learned at catechism - Unbaptized babies went to limbo. Even as a kid, I couldn't get myself to believe a loving God would do such a thing. The bible also says :JUDGE NOT LEST YOU BE JUDGED.
32
Leave it to the faux Catholics who are trying to overrule the avowed omniscience of their religion's leader while bogusly claiming to be true adherents. True adherents believe that the Pope speaks with the authority of Christ and little Franco should remember it.
5
I have a feeling he would delight in being called "little". He has a sense of humor that is not belittling.
1
Where is the gratitude Ross towards the Pope who restored the moral authority of the church that previous the Pope had lost to the point he felt he better resign?
Francis saved the Church from the opprobrium of priests who raped children and bishops who protected the rapists and he restored faith. The sophistry of casting this renaissance of faith as a series of false dichotomies is a failed attempt to hide the fact that only God truly knows the doctrine of the Church. You are simply a false interpreter, a self-appointed judge of this Pope. Pope Francis is a moral giant by comparison to the moral ants who cannot appreciate his genuine humility and humanity. The are no different than those who committed heinous crimes based on false understanding of the doctrine during the Middle Ages and for which later Popes had to apologize.
History may judge you Ross as an apostate a true enemy of the Church of the God of Love. Love is at the heart of the doctrine, just like the pure love in Pope Francis's heart.
Francis saved the Church from the opprobrium of priests who raped children and bishops who protected the rapists and he restored faith. The sophistry of casting this renaissance of faith as a series of false dichotomies is a failed attempt to hide the fact that only God truly knows the doctrine of the Church. You are simply a false interpreter, a self-appointed judge of this Pope. Pope Francis is a moral giant by comparison to the moral ants who cannot appreciate his genuine humility and humanity. The are no different than those who committed heinous crimes based on false understanding of the doctrine during the Middle Ages and for which later Popes had to apologize.
History may judge you Ross as an apostate a true enemy of the Church of the God of Love. Love is at the heart of the doctrine, just like the pure love in Pope Francis's heart.
6
Hard to believe so much sturm and drang is expended over arguing about an organization that promotes belief in a non existent mythological supreme being.
8
I'm not smart enough to know what ostentatious humility is but I'd sure like to know what real humility looks like! Also, much of faith is between an individual and God with a church as an intermediary. To deny one the sacrament of Communion should not be left up to an institution. Even if one believes that divorce is sinful, the Christian God is a loving and forgiving God. How can a man deny access to the holiness of God?? That is sinful in my opinion.
22
I do not understand the use of the word "trash" to describe Ross Douthat by people who disagree with him. The pope is a man (not a saint) in a position of leadership, and one can have various opinions about him and his actions within the huge and complex organization that is the Roman Catholic church. Those who attack the columnist in this way are not part of a rational and humane conversation on these issues.
3
I have a cousin who is in his third marriage, both ex's living, and all three weddings in the Catholic Church. He has plenty of money, and I'm sure lots of it changed hands to make things happen the way he wanted.
Mr. Douthat's tortured speculation about the future of divorce in the church seems like of a waste of time . The hypocrisy is pathetic, and why anyone still takes the institutions seriously is beyond me.
Mr. Douthat's tortured speculation about the future of divorce in the church seems like of a waste of time . The hypocrisy is pathetic, and why anyone still takes the institutions seriously is beyond me.
26
Poor Ross Douthat. He is caught on that old chestnut of dichotomous thinking. If any of my beliefs have been wrong in the past or need changing today, then nothing I believed was valid. But since all our knowledge is context bound and hence subject to error, the dichotomy entails a self-defeating skepticism. The admission of past error advances our knowledge. It does not defeat it. This holds for all human knowledge, secular as well as religious. Douthat's conservatism is covertly nihilistic.
13
Well, Pope Francis is a plotter! Like those before him obviously, who also stacked every Vatican and Church hierarchy with their own allies and ideological pals.
ACtually, the prohibition against divorced Catholics receiving Communion is widely ignored, even in my relatively conservative state.
Since the old dudes in Rome have been so out of touch for so long with what people actually do, it might not hurt them to consider the fact that many of their "rules" are almost universally ignored by people who consider themselves good Catholics.
ACtually, the prohibition against divorced Catholics receiving Communion is widely ignored, even in my relatively conservative state.
Since the old dudes in Rome have been so out of touch for so long with what people actually do, it might not hurt them to consider the fact that many of their "rules" are almost universally ignored by people who consider themselves good Catholics.
17
It's mighty strange that Ross Douthat thinks that internal machinations of the Roman Catholic hierarchy are, or ought to be, of interest to anyone save the most church-bound traditional catholics. For something in excess of 955 of Americans, including many if not most catholics, what the Pope or any bishop thinks about divorce ceased to be relevant decades ago.
6
Well, the most conservative position is that the Pope is "infallible" and his action is directly inspired by the Holy Spirit and he speaks for the Holy Trinity. Who is Mr. Douthat, claiming to be a conservative Catholic himself, to pick and choose which doctrine to follow? Of course, I am an atheist. This freedom allows me to follow my own conscience and take responsibilities for my actions. Therefore, I am sympathetic with Mr. Douthat who is confused and is trying hard to twist simple logic into complex rhetoric to cover inconsistencies of his faith.
11
Peter, your atheism frees you to follow your own conscience, but it disqualifies you from a discussion you appear to know nothing about.
1
Because Ross has such an acute & logical mind, he is telling pretty much the truth about this synod, & about the hopes of Francis & those who oppose those hopes.
What Ross does not say (but historians could demonstrate) is that synods & ecumenical councils, many many times over two millennia -- have been "stacked by the pope." Outcomes were desired, adjustments were made: voila!
Ross holds that no "important" doctrine was ever changed. One can defend that thesis, but only by some juggling & re-framing of historical developments.
This analysis (though biased by Ross' own preferences) is as clear as anything newspapers have ever published about the doings in Rome.
What Ross does not say (but historians could demonstrate) is that synods & ecumenical councils, many many times over two millennia -- have been "stacked by the pope." Outcomes were desired, adjustments were made: voila!
Ross holds that no "important" doctrine was ever changed. One can defend that thesis, but only by some juggling & re-framing of historical developments.
This analysis (though biased by Ross' own preferences) is as clear as anything newspapers have ever published about the doings in Rome.
1
As an outsider who thinks all of Catholic doctrine is nonsense, it's seemed odd to me that being divorced is "bad" yet someone married for years even with adult children can have their marriage annulled and that somehow makes everything just dandy. Of course, to get that annulment, a considerable amount of silver has to pass through various hands to finally reach the powerful who can pull off this "miracle". But I've known organized religion is all about greed and power for a very long time.
31
Your presumptions are wrong, Mr. Craig. Do a little investigation before you post your preferred opinions.
mr douthat certainly raises the quality of debate ("the pastoral argument is basically just rubbish") past the grasp of we members of the flock, driven (divorced or not) away from the pasture by bishops whose power and privilege are threatened by any drift from control toward service.
that church doctrine, including those framed in scripture created by no one who actually knew christ or shared his daily life, tends to be rather proscriptive or controlling than forgiving or welcoming is cause enough for reasonable review of practice and motive.
more than one priest (see tv coverage of the pope's visit) has cautioned against the categorical resistance of self-interested bishops who would send any catholics drawn back to the church by francis's appeal to service, to use father thomas reese's phrase, "right out the door."
mr douthat's affinity, in the matter of divorce, for example, would hold re-admittance to the sacrament of communion hostage to a holy office process of annulment that is as demeaning as its past practices which, prior to reasonable debate, included the inquisition and the burning of joan of arc.
as a catholic who chooses rather to keep than concede the faith (and who still appreciates the symbolic value of latin and meatless fridays) i share with many others a commitment to the protection of the spirit of contrition and forgiveness from condemnatory doctrine, especially any medieval vestige that would use a sacrament, the eucharist, say, as a weapon.
that church doctrine, including those framed in scripture created by no one who actually knew christ or shared his daily life, tends to be rather proscriptive or controlling than forgiving or welcoming is cause enough for reasonable review of practice and motive.
more than one priest (see tv coverage of the pope's visit) has cautioned against the categorical resistance of self-interested bishops who would send any catholics drawn back to the church by francis's appeal to service, to use father thomas reese's phrase, "right out the door."
mr douthat's affinity, in the matter of divorce, for example, would hold re-admittance to the sacrament of communion hostage to a holy office process of annulment that is as demeaning as its past practices which, prior to reasonable debate, included the inquisition and the burning of joan of arc.
as a catholic who chooses rather to keep than concede the faith (and who still appreciates the symbolic value of latin and meatless fridays) i share with many others a commitment to the protection of the spirit of contrition and forgiveness from condemnatory doctrine, especially any medieval vestige that would use a sacrament, the eucharist, say, as a weapon.
18
"For a Catholic journalist it's a fascinating story."
For the faithful divorced Catholic it's a nightmare.
When a person gets married, especially one who marries at a very young age, often times they don't even really know the person they are marrying. And people for whatever reason do change.
To have to prove that there was a reason before the marriage why the marriage was never valid is absurd.
I worked on the tribunal, the group within the Catholic church that decides if a marriage never existed (which is what has to be proven. What a lie. Often times these people would spend hours trying to discover a religious reason why the marriage was never valid.
Because the church seems unable to change is one of the main reasons I am no longer a Catholic.
Fascinating story is NOT a reason for the church not to move into the 21st century.
Go Francis go, make meaningful change, bring in fresh ari.
For the faithful divorced Catholic it's a nightmare.
When a person gets married, especially one who marries at a very young age, often times they don't even really know the person they are marrying. And people for whatever reason do change.
To have to prove that there was a reason before the marriage why the marriage was never valid is absurd.
I worked on the tribunal, the group within the Catholic church that decides if a marriage never existed (which is what has to be proven. What a lie. Often times these people would spend hours trying to discover a religious reason why the marriage was never valid.
Because the church seems unable to change is one of the main reasons I am no longer a Catholic.
Fascinating story is NOT a reason for the church not to move into the 21st century.
Go Francis go, make meaningful change, bring in fresh ari.
29
So according to you, esp, the Gospel of Jesus Christ should no longer be the source of truth and practice for the Catholic Church. That's a non-starter. I'm sorry your are no longer a Catholic, but perhaps it's a good thing for you and the Church.
Another way of looking at this is that the change is more about communion than about marriage. A person who has traditional doctrinal belief about communion (it is the true body and blood of Christ), regardless of marital status, might receive it more appropriately than someone who is in "good standing" but has no belief or understanding.
3
Applause to Mr. Douthat for this well-written article that touches oon the general and personal.
I fear that the present Pope's reforms go too far against the dogmas of the church and they will drive many faithful into the ranks of sedevacantists -- those who believe that all the recent Popes, starting with Paul VI (papacy 1968-1983) were heretics and therefore illegitimate usurpers of the Holy See.
I fear that the present Pope's reforms go too far against the dogmas of the church and they will drive many faithful into the ranks of sedevacantists -- those who believe that all the recent Popes, starting with Paul VI (papacy 1968-1983) were heretics and therefore illegitimate usurpers of the Holy See.
2
My grandmother was ostracized and never set foot in her beloved Catholic church again after being abandoned by her profligate husband leaving her with two children to raise single-handedly at the height of the Great Depression. She remarried out of survival instincts even though she knew she would never again partake of the Eucharist. Your religiosity leaves me cold, Mr. Douthat.
726
Agree. Catholicism for Douthat is about observing what he considers are the "rules," and "communion" (his term) is a "reward." He does not consider that the Eucharist could have additional meaning, meaning other than that of a reward, like providing food required for the pilgrimage for folks like your grandmother that obviously needed comfort and nourishment to survive.
You never mention WHY your grandmother was ostracized by the Catholic Church.
Exactly the same story for my grandmother. The Church's hypocrisy on divorce and marriage, along with its willingness to bend or overlook the rules when convenient, is boundless. Ross is unabashedly unhappy with this Pope, but his real issues, the Pope's pronouncements on society (capitalism), charity, and the environment, are all well within established doctrine or the pronouncements of his immediate predecessors. So this is the best that Ross can come up with to support his catchy, misleading headline. On the other hand, a change in this area might be one of the best things the Church could do in the 21st century.
I have been an active Catholic for more than half a century, and have spent the last half decade deciding whether to continue. Oh, I'll keep the faith. It is the clergy, those steadfast relics appointed by Popes John Paul and Benedict, that I will punt.
I don't plan to stay a part of a Church that is determined to, rather than welcome me or any other sinner, try instead to circle the wagons and accept only the "true believers."
It isn't doctrine that the Pope and the clergy are fighting about: it is the fundamental philosophy of the Church. Do we serve sinners, or only the saved?
I bid the Bishops and Cardinals well. They lost Europe. They are losing America. Time to step back and look to see if the Church they are managing is the Church that Peter actually built.
I don't plan to stay a part of a Church that is determined to, rather than welcome me or any other sinner, try instead to circle the wagons and accept only the "true believers."
It isn't doctrine that the Pope and the clergy are fighting about: it is the fundamental philosophy of the Church. Do we serve sinners, or only the saved?
I bid the Bishops and Cardinals well. They lost Europe. They are losing America. Time to step back and look to see if the Church they are managing is the Church that Peter actually built.
341
Pope Francis is the best thing that happened to the Catholic Church since John XXIII. I don't particularly care what happens to the Catholic Church but its further decline is guaranteed if even the modest steps Pope Francis is trying to implement get pushed back by an ossified mentality who believes its dogma must remain frozen in amber. The world moves on and is leaving the Catholic Church in its rear mirror.
81
"...ostentatious humility of Pope Francis." Disrespectful in the least. The church is stuck in the middle ages especially in terms of Science. "Progressives" do not wish to overturn doctrine in regards to Holy Eucharist for remarried divorced persons sans an annulment. Overwhelmingly white men without wives or children, without mortgages or grocery, bills believe they can dictate how many children a couple should bear. Jesus would be appealed at their narrow-minded, mean-spirited attitudes. Who would take these guys seriously? There are lots of spaces in the pews and envelope contributions are down. People of faith struggle to maintain their beliefs in the midst of this nonsense.
13
This seems like a mean-spirited attack on a good man that is trying to make the church more relevant and compassionate to some of the myriad problems of its flock. I say Bravo, Pope Francis!.
As for Doctrinal matters, the church became much better off when it changed its teaching about the sun revolving around the earth and its exoneration of Galileo. That must have riled the church conservatives of that day, as well.
As for Doctrinal matters, the church became much better off when it changed its teaching about the sun revolving around the earth and its exoneration of Galileo. That must have riled the church conservatives of that day, as well.
16
Indeed. Far too many of them, including Douthat, don't seem to have gotten over it yet.
This column reaches a new low in irrelevant and almost irrational conservative thought. The tension is, in fact, between a Church (and Douthat) threatened by a new moral modernity, with values grounded in humanity and love, not in doctrine and dogma. The Pope, who presumably understands faith as well as Ross, is a true and inspired leader of the first order, with the charisma to make a real difference. Douthat is a windbag filled with stale air.
27
Mr. Douthat,
You really have some nerve. I'll take the Pope's (in your words) "ostentatious humility" ANY day over the ostentatious religiosity and self righteousness of many on the right. People like yourself.
At the end of the Vigil mass this evening, a very kind older gentleman stood at the lectern to give a speech asking us to sign a petition to get a proposition on the ballot to remove state funding of abortion. Why is there no equivalent proposition to mandate food for the poor, shelter for the homeless and care and resources for the elderly and those with disabilities?
I hope God forgives me, and I am thankful that I was in the last row of the church but I walked out. If the church is being political, the IRS - despite the screeches of the right - should investigate revoking their tax exempt status.
Oh, and btw, I'll take Pope Francis as imperfect as he is over any of the blowhards on the right (religious - yes you "Cardinal" Dolan, and lay) whose vision of Christianity is about casting the first stone and about judging. Not about caring and love.
You really have some nerve. I'll take the Pope's (in your words) "ostentatious humility" ANY day over the ostentatious religiosity and self righteousness of many on the right. People like yourself.
At the end of the Vigil mass this evening, a very kind older gentleman stood at the lectern to give a speech asking us to sign a petition to get a proposition on the ballot to remove state funding of abortion. Why is there no equivalent proposition to mandate food for the poor, shelter for the homeless and care and resources for the elderly and those with disabilities?
I hope God forgives me, and I am thankful that I was in the last row of the church but I walked out. If the church is being political, the IRS - despite the screeches of the right - should investigate revoking their tax exempt status.
Oh, and btw, I'll take Pope Francis as imperfect as he is over any of the blowhards on the right (religious - yes you "Cardinal" Dolan, and lay) whose vision of Christianity is about casting the first stone and about judging. Not about caring and love.
62
Douthat has a messiah complex. He imagines himself nailing his 95 thesis to St Patrick's Cathedral. Problem: he has no credentials, no office and no followers. He just a columnist. His opinions are all a defense of what he thinks the Catholic Church is, and how it should act, to satisfy himself.
Pope Francis is a breath of fresh air that is blowing over the powerful, the entrenched, the "moral order" of the privileged. Douthat imagines that he understands what the Pope is trying to do and has chosen the divorce issue as the Pope's focus. It is not.
Douthat needs to take some theology courses, history courses, and comparative religion courses before he even approaches this divorce issue. It is a great deal more complex than "what God has joined together, let no man put asunder". The Pope is aware of this and so is the Synod. It is not the Pope who foments distrust in the Church, it is the stubborn servants of the privileged.
Pope Francis is a breath of fresh air that is blowing over the powerful, the entrenched, the "moral order" of the privileged. Douthat imagines that he understands what the Pope is trying to do and has chosen the divorce issue as the Pope's focus. It is not.
Douthat needs to take some theology courses, history courses, and comparative religion courses before he even approaches this divorce issue. It is a great deal more complex than "what God has joined together, let no man put asunder". The Pope is aware of this and so is the Synod. It is not the Pope who foments distrust in the Church, it is the stubborn servants of the privileged.
24
Much to the chagrin of the New York Times readers, the Catholic Church is alive and thriving. Receiving the body and blood of Christ during the Mass is one of the most beautiful experiences one can encounter. We do not take it lightly nor do we take our faith for granted. As a lifelong practicing Catholic and one who adores my faith nothing anyone says or no amount of criticism will change my mind about the seriousness and importance of the Catholic religion. I was talking to a devout Catholic friend yesterday and mentioned that faith is a gift.
With the occasional trials and tribulations, it helps make sense of a chaotic world. Being a Catholic is not always easy (just look at the critical comments currently expressed by the NYT readers) but we endure and it makes us stronger. I have been blessed and it is in large part a result of my Catholicism and I thank God for that.
With the occasional trials and tribulations, it helps make sense of a chaotic world. Being a Catholic is not always easy (just look at the critical comments currently expressed by the NYT readers) but we endure and it makes us stronger. I have been blessed and it is in large part a result of my Catholicism and I thank God for that.
3
KMW,
My father taught me to respect all religions. I suspect a great deal of the animosity towards religion is the imposition of religion where America's founders said it did not belong. Bring back the separation of church and state. Take "under God" out of the pledge of allegiance. Take religion out of politics.
My father taught me to respect all religions. I suspect a great deal of the animosity towards religion is the imposition of religion where America's founders said it did not belong. Bring back the separation of church and state. Take "under God" out of the pledge of allegiance. Take religion out of politics.
I marvel at the energy expended by the Roman Catholic Church in determining who is worthy of communion. This sacrament, which unites all Christians in all times, was given to all followers of Jesus at his last supper, with none of the qualifications so hotly debated within the "true church".
This communion suppression by reactionary Catholics is reminiscent of the voter suppression currently practiced by political reactionaries around the country.
It's all about exclusion - and it won't work.
This communion suppression by reactionary Catholics is reminiscent of the voter suppression currently practiced by political reactionaries around the country.
It's all about exclusion - and it won't work.
48
A 'Conservative' Catholic's interpretation of the Pope's motives in including people in the church that are already surfeit with a will to faith and outside the vaguaries of marriage to a liar, a drunk, an adulterer, etc. Like there is such a thing as a 'Conservative' Catholic outside of the USA.
But we mustn't minister to the poor or the needy, or the profane or the embittered, we should continue our othodoxy without question, in the way of the 'Conservative' Catholic that does not exist outside of the USA. One-point-two billion Catholics worldwide, but we should follow the America Abortion Screamers' attempts to keep up with evangelicals and the thousand Baptist sects, in volume anyway.
Oh, hubris. Oh, America.
But the worst part is the soft soap of young Douthat here, trying to grease up this inconvenient Pope for a quick exit, intellectually. Diminish his opinion and diminish his argument for the good. Well done, Ross. You're what a hugely outnumbered and vastly overfunded 'Conservative' looks like.
Catholic, not so much.
But we mustn't minister to the poor or the needy, or the profane or the embittered, we should continue our othodoxy without question, in the way of the 'Conservative' Catholic that does not exist outside of the USA. One-point-two billion Catholics worldwide, but we should follow the America Abortion Screamers' attempts to keep up with evangelicals and the thousand Baptist sects, in volume anyway.
Oh, hubris. Oh, America.
But the worst part is the soft soap of young Douthat here, trying to grease up this inconvenient Pope for a quick exit, intellectually. Diminish his opinion and diminish his argument for the good. Well done, Ross. You're what a hugely outnumbered and vastly overfunded 'Conservative' looks like.
Catholic, not so much.
27
How ironic, Mr. Douthat wants a Church closed to change, set in its ways, commanded by old single men who have, naturally, never understood women and know little, if anything, of marriage.
Yes, that Church has in fact certainly existed in the past, and Mr. Douthat, along with the many conservatives that counseled obedience to the Pope when the Popes were of their liking, should know that in that patriarchal and dictatorial Church of old they yearn for, their criticism would not only have them cast off, but also excommunicated, and at some points even burned at the stake.
But apparently obedience and submission are only for others...
Yes, that Church has in fact certainly existed in the past, and Mr. Douthat, along with the many conservatives that counseled obedience to the Pope when the Popes were of their liking, should know that in that patriarchal and dictatorial Church of old they yearn for, their criticism would not only have them cast off, but also excommunicated, and at some points even burned at the stake.
But apparently obedience and submission are only for others...
27
1000 years ago, priests married and had families as they had for the previous 1000 years. The sitting Pope said, "I think I want to try something: No more wives and kids."
Paul says in one of his letters that some will practice renunciation and celibacy but it has no value in the race to salvation. So it can't be about that. Something to do with inheritance. Independent contractors, as the Church calls it's priests in it's defense of pedophile tolerance, don't need an inheritance, wife, child. Well maybe they will get a child.
Paul says in one of his letters that some will practice renunciation and celibacy but it has no value in the race to salvation. So it can't be about that. Something to do with inheritance. Independent contractors, as the Church calls it's priests in it's defense of pedophile tolerance, don't need an inheritance, wife, child. Well maybe they will get a child.
10
Yep -- and the Pope who instituted clerical celibacy did it to protect the Church's MONEY! Nothing spiritual about it, just as there is nothing spiritual about it archaic idiocy about divorce, sex, etc.
Fortunately Jesus isn't Catholic, Catholicism is merely an attempt to to understand and divine God's Will. I'm surprised Douthat is losing sleep over whether or not the Pope supports a more modern day version of divorce. Ironically how can the clergy of the Catholic church counsel anyone on marriage or divorce when themselves aren't not allowed be married themselves. Allow the clergy have normal marital relations and the Catholic Church will be in step with the rest of society. They will be able to compete for talent and recruit younger members into being clergy. They would gain a relevance they been lacking the past 1500 years.
15
Douthat does not see that Jesus in Matthew's gospel allows divorce "epi porneia" (which suggests that in practical cases he would be close to Deut 24.1-4 even as he uphold the ideal of indissoluble union). Moreover the church dissolves "In favor of the faith" many valid marriages, with the Petrine and Pauline privileges. To think that a merciful pastoral praxis is undercutting doctrine (I say "is" because the readmission of remarried divorcees to communion in consideration of their conscience and concrete circumstances is actually in effect in many dioceses) is panicky and theologically crude.
7
Oh, my, glad I tuned in tonight. If anything is more conceited than a quite unordained columnist passing judgment on a clerical leader of a huge worldwide church, I really cannot imagine what that might be. How is this not confirmation of the smallness of a religion and certain of its core, practical beliefs. That smallness dooms them to the revelation of the poverty of their very "religion". Quite silly boys, no doubt, who confirm their silliness by not allowing Mother Superiors or any other females into their midst.
14
This ostentatiously humble Pope is really something. Driving around in that little Fiat is pretty annoying. And how about Francis washing the feet of those prisoners? Outrageous! And now he might want to allow the divorced to receive communion? In the good old days when the Pope ruled a good part of the Western World he know how to behave and project power. And for those who offended a dank dungeon or a conquering army were appropriate remedies. Those were the days.
48
It's embarrassing to see Douthat repeatedly try to stack up his Sunday school theology up against that of the Church's leaders. He appears unaware of the distinctions among dogma, doctrine, and discipline. For an example of a pope changing doctrine, he need look no further than the history of the church's "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" doctrine. And there are already several circumstances under which divorced catholics may legitimately receive communion accroding to catechetical doctrine. Douthat's columns on the Church are yet another example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.
26
I feel sorry for anyone so attached to the Catholic church that they would weep and wail if they were to be cut off from communion for a prior divorce. It might just be time to admit that if the Catholic hierarchy doesn't want you in their world of worship, it's OK to move on to a more open and loving spiritual community. Or worship on your own, there are many choices.
Douthit is holding true to his principles of setting rules for everyone else whether it be through his allegiance to rightist politics or the medieval mud of the RCC.
This is also a church vs. state issue. You don't go down to the local parish to pick up your marriage license. You get those from the government. And there, divorce is indeed legal. So in a sense, the RCC is infringing on the rights of anyone it alienates for violating it's internal dogma.
There won't be a better way to further insure the growing irrelevance of an aging and out of touch church than to keep denying the right of its parishioners to progress.
With Douthit whipping at the reins, The RCC and GOP are doomed to end up on the wrong side of history.
Douthit is holding true to his principles of setting rules for everyone else whether it be through his allegiance to rightist politics or the medieval mud of the RCC.
This is also a church vs. state issue. You don't go down to the local parish to pick up your marriage license. You get those from the government. And there, divorce is indeed legal. So in a sense, the RCC is infringing on the rights of anyone it alienates for violating it's internal dogma.
There won't be a better way to further insure the growing irrelevance of an aging and out of touch church than to keep denying the right of its parishioners to progress.
With Douthit whipping at the reins, The RCC and GOP are doomed to end up on the wrong side of history.
40
Ah, the perennial struggle of Catholicism to remain relevant in a world inhabited by the billions who know they do not need an intermediary between themselves and whatever they may conceptualize as a deity. The trappings and posturings of the ecclesiastical authorities only serve to underscore their utter irrelevancy to a modern world that has seen the puppet show for what it is. A church run partially or mostly by cynical clerics who have never even believed in its teachings at heart, who have selected which ones to obey and which to flout, is a church that is on the wane. All the money the Vatican has amassed amid its tiring splendors of Madonna-and-Child depictions and endless self-aggrandizing structures, while actual, legally actionable abuses of children and others have been perpetrated by its perverted priests, is used not to remedy the harm done. It's being used to "propagate the faith" to people who don't believe in anything but money anymore.
18
I wonder if Ross speaks to real Catholics. He is still young, so perhaps is not ready to accept the reality of Catholic lives, which include failed and abusive marriages (as occur to folks of any religion). Decades ago a colleague of mine was one such person. Eventually after years of work and much money, this devout woman had her marriage annulled. But all the time, he faith remained the same. She was as much a believer before the annulment as after.
The church rules on divorce and birth control (in fact on almost all sexual matters) are generally disregarded by those in the pews. It is time to accept that the church is wrong and move ahead.
The church rules on divorce and birth control (in fact on almost all sexual matters) are generally disregarded by those in the pews. It is time to accept that the church is wrong and move ahead.
47
Indeed Terry, the vast majority of real Catholics bear little resemblance to the popular media images of "Catholics" as right wing conservatives with weird mystical old stuff! Indeed, Rick Sanitorium (sic) wears his Catholicism on his sleeve, but of course Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and John Kerry (among many others) are all Catholics too. How often I point out to non-Catholic friends the congruity between the densest Catholic populations in the US and the map of Blue States. This is no coincidence.
I'm sure there's some spiritual entity somewhere (the Holy Spirit maybe) pondering what will result if 20 and 30 year olds who find themselves bewildered in a relationship and consequently divorced and then with greater maturity find a committed love -- what in the world will happen to those divorced people remaining or now back in the church believing in Jesus Christ's message of love if they take communion. Oh my gosh, so that entity ponders, what disasterous results will come from such a change? Fortunately, my conservative cardinals and bishops are there to prevent it. "I knew I could on them."
12
Cardinal Bergoglio came to the Papacy with his frustration over the mass decline in Catholicism among millions of Latin American adults through their drift to the Pentecostals just as elsewhere. Thus he set for himself a clear Objective of reversing the Church's loss of Faith share to the Pentecostals. Both this Synod and the one in 2014 are components of his Strategy while the latest Motu proprio is a part of his arsenal of Tactics! However, the critical risk to this plan is the potentially heavy loss of loyalty of the conservatives who believe that permitting divorced Catholics to receive Communion amounts to approving divorce through the back door according to Cardinals Sarah, Burke and Bishop Peta etc. Even worse is its scope for licensing serial polygamy (as many dicorced people often repeat the exercise many times over!) which the Church has forbidden from the start. And the Conservatives have records of Saints like Thomas Moore who died simply for this reason, in their favour to prove that the Holy Spirit can NOT contradict itself on matters of faith. And they are rightly asking what will then be the Catholic Church's "Unique Selling Proposition" vis-a-vis the Anglican Communion, for example? This is why the expediency of this "pastoral" approach, if it sails through, may open the Church to a new wave of schism especially if Pope Francis is succeeded by a conservative who may be obliged to annul the Encyclical or Motu proprio that may result from this exercise!
1
'However, the critical risk to this plan is the potentially heavy loss of loyalty of the conservatives who believe that permitting divorced Catholics to receive Communion amounts to approving divorce through the back door according to Cardinals Sarah, Burke and Bishop Peta etc.'
They could always join Mel Gibson's private Catholic church -- I'm sure Mel wouldn't mind being Pope of that.
But seriously, schisms can be good. The ossification of the Church with regards to things the majority of Catholics blithely ignore will doom the Church eventually if it doesn't find theological ground to be pulled into the modern era. Let it split. a hundred years from now the one that is the more Christ-like will be the stronger one. (Hint: that won't be the one fretting over divorced people taking communion.)
They could always join Mel Gibson's private Catholic church -- I'm sure Mel wouldn't mind being Pope of that.
But seriously, schisms can be good. The ossification of the Church with regards to things the majority of Catholics blithely ignore will doom the Church eventually if it doesn't find theological ground to be pulled into the modern era. Let it split. a hundred years from now the one that is the more Christ-like will be the stronger one. (Hint: that won't be the one fretting over divorced people taking communion.)
3
The two best things that could happen to the catholic church right now would be to admit women to all church offices, and to allow priests to marry. Most of today's problems would go away if these two things happened.
All male organizations tend to go off the tracks and women are a civilizing influence to bring them back to reality. Most women are better then men at reaching consensus. When priests start getting divorces the argument about full communion with the church will go away. And lastly when the church looks like the society it is trying to serve, it will do a better job relating to and serving that society.
All male organizations tend to go off the tracks and women are a civilizing influence to bring them back to reality. Most women are better then men at reaching consensus. When priests start getting divorces the argument about full communion with the church will go away. And lastly when the church looks like the society it is trying to serve, it will do a better job relating to and serving that society.
1
Many people who call themselves Christian don't necessarily equate Christianity with what their priests and religious say and don't particularly care for doctrinal nuances that have nothing to do with the core elements of their faith. They engage in premarital relations, marry people who are previously divorced, use condoms, pills, and somehow can be happy and good people. Oh well, there are worse sins that loving a person and starting a family when you are ready.
This lack of abstract doctrinal purity in people's everyday lives upsets Douthat, nevertheless it is how the world works and it seems the Pope understands it - and has no problem with a theology that puts love of people in its center, further upsetting Douthat. Oh well.
Douthat, who once threatened the Catholic church with a schism, now berates the Pope as a Schemer-in-Chief. Douthat, a man of ostentatious prose and ostentatious zeal in reducing Catholicism into a dreary but dreaded rule book for sexual behavior and misbehavior, mocks the Pope for his (RD's own word) "ostentatious humility" without ever noticing the irony.
Douthat's ideal priest would be something like an inspector Javert, unerringly creating misery around him in order to find and punish trivial non-offenses. His idea of the Church is to Christian faith what Javert's fanatical pursuit was to justice.
This lack of abstract doctrinal purity in people's everyday lives upsets Douthat, nevertheless it is how the world works and it seems the Pope understands it - and has no problem with a theology that puts love of people in its center, further upsetting Douthat. Oh well.
Douthat, who once threatened the Catholic church with a schism, now berates the Pope as a Schemer-in-Chief. Douthat, a man of ostentatious prose and ostentatious zeal in reducing Catholicism into a dreary but dreaded rule book for sexual behavior and misbehavior, mocks the Pope for his (RD's own word) "ostentatious humility" without ever noticing the irony.
Douthat's ideal priest would be something like an inspector Javert, unerringly creating misery around him in order to find and punish trivial non-offenses. His idea of the Church is to Christian faith what Javert's fanatical pursuit was to justice.
13
I'm sorry, but I am thinking: What a lot of hooey considering the matter is all bunk anyway.
Francis offers some level of openness, some reality adjust so to address real issues and the arch conservatives (like Mr Douthat) cry foul and throw up a tantrum. This, indeed, is stuff stuck the 19th century.
We are facing severe threats to human kind and its inhabitants (yes, I consider animals, the eco system, this whole planet are extremely precious and mandatory to be maintained) and the religious right, far right, worries about its historic faith and all kinds of issues tied to it (like dispersing communion to remarried, sexual revolution.....gosh).
Truly 19th century.
Francis offers some level of openness, some reality adjust so to address real issues and the arch conservatives (like Mr Douthat) cry foul and throw up a tantrum. This, indeed, is stuff stuck the 19th century.
We are facing severe threats to human kind and its inhabitants (yes, I consider animals, the eco system, this whole planet are extremely precious and mandatory to be maintained) and the religious right, far right, worries about its historic faith and all kinds of issues tied to it (like dispersing communion to remarried, sexual revolution.....gosh).
Truly 19th century.
10
Obviously, the writer was indoctrinated by some long dead men, who were themselves indoctrinated by long dead men. God help us if our minds are clogged with so called "facts" based not on science and experience, but on the perpetuation of medieval rituals and misguided, misogynous doctrine only those without critical thinking skills could accept. The fact that women belief some of this stuff, which is so damaging to their lives, if proof of the level of indoctrination accepted by the few remaining practicing Roman Catholics. The link between such Catholics and the Republican party is strong for a reason -- both rely on ignorance to prop them up.
10
Mr. Douthat continues to strain to be more Catholic than the pope. Speaking of misdirection, he writes as though the Pope wants to change doctrine about marriage, but really this is doctrine about Communion. Just in my lifetime, that "doctrine" has changed over and over again--because such rules are pastoral, not theological decisions. For example, when I was young, only a priest could touch a host, and then only with his two consecrated fingers. Now lay people as Eucharistic ministers may both touch the host and distribute it to the faithful. When I was young, you could not receive Communion if you had not fasted the requisite number of hours. This has been relaxed. It used to be expected that one would go to Confession (no longer called that now) to prepare your soul for Communion. Now few Catholics partake regularly of that sacrament and there is greater emphasis on the role of the Eucharist in the foregiveness of sins. And Catholic doctrine over much bigger issues has changed over time. Abortion prior to the "quickening" of the fetus was at one time not sinful, for example. Indulgences were once sold by the church to free souls from Purgatory, but now Purgatory (like Limbo before it) has receded in doctrinal significance. BTW, why does it always seem that conservative Catholics (and Christians generally) alway seem to imagine that the vital heart of their religion is in its punitive attitudes towards sexual immorality?
44
If the doctrinaire hierarchs whom Ross Douthat is supporting really do win in the end, as he predicts, on the matter of maintaining the prohibition of divorce, and the excommunication of divorced and remarried Catholics, then the church they are trying to defend deserves to crumble to dust. It is a terrific indignity that they foist upon mature Catholics who, as happens to people sometimes, have come to recognize that their marital relationship is a morally bad situation, by refusing to allow them to separate except by the charade of annulment. And it is a backward way of interpreting the gospels, to insist that just because the sentence "What God has joined let no man put asunder" is put in the mouth of Jesus, therefore that must become a binding rule forever and ever.
Jesus also is said to have said, "God made the Sabbath for man, not man for the Sabbath." If the church's directives do not support the well-being and flourishing of Catholics as rational human beings, then Catholics would be in the right to abolish that old church, and replace it with one that is Catholic and Christian in the best sense.
Jesus also is said to have said, "God made the Sabbath for man, not man for the Sabbath." If the church's directives do not support the well-being and flourishing of Catholics as rational human beings, then Catholics would be in the right to abolish that old church, and replace it with one that is Catholic and Christian in the best sense.
7
Francis vs. Jesus? 90% of Catholics will choose Jesus. Jesus came to urge us to turn from sin. Francis wants us to tolerate, ignore and even celibrate sin.
The historic reasons (in antiquity and the Middle Ages) for marriage have changed. The reasons for marriage are no longer a business contract or political alliance among families (this was true without regard to their social position). Marriage is now based on the very modern, fairly recent concept of romantic love.
More importantly, the effect of divorce, especially on the woman, has changed. Again until recently, women could earn money, own property in their own right, and be able to function in society without a male relative directing her. Jesus opposed divorce because it turned discarded women (only men could initiate a divorce) into pariahs at best, prostitutes at worst. Through history prohibiting divorce was a means to protect women's rights and dignity. The doctrine against divorce is based on an outdated sociology.
As for denying communion, the Body and Blood of Christ, is cruel and misguided for a Church that teaches that God's Grace is transmitted through the sacraments, with none more important than the Eucharist.
More importantly, the effect of divorce, especially on the woman, has changed. Again until recently, women could earn money, own property in their own right, and be able to function in society without a male relative directing her. Jesus opposed divorce because it turned discarded women (only men could initiate a divorce) into pariahs at best, prostitutes at worst. Through history prohibiting divorce was a means to protect women's rights and dignity. The doctrine against divorce is based on an outdated sociology.
As for denying communion, the Body and Blood of Christ, is cruel and misguided for a Church that teaches that God's Grace is transmitted through the sacraments, with none more important than the Eucharist.
5
As a non-Catholic married for 40+ years to a Catholic Frenchwoman, I have seen the reality of the current Catholic dogma on marriage and divorce.
The risk to the Catholic church when they forget that humility and kindness trumps dogma is that they are ignored or treated with contempt. The conflict between Christ's forgiveness and "forever dogma" is obvious, stark, and unresolved. The expedients to paper over the difference are sometime foolish, sometimes heartless, and sometimes amusing. Annulling a marriage after many years and several offspring makes bastards of the children--after all, they certainly deserve the shaming.
Preventing a believing Catholic from taking communion serves no obvious purpose aside from creating more Episcopalians.
Preventing divorce today just ruins lives.
97% of Catholic women will use a "banned" contraceptive during some period of her life. Catholic girls will become sexually active within a few months of the same age as others in their same communities. They will continue to take communion -- or they will simply stop attending Mass.
I am reminded of the note from a friend's parish priest, required so she could marry in Boston, certifying that she was a practicing Catholic. The old priest resolved his conflict by hand-writing "Miss xxxxxx yyyyyy is a practical Catholic." Permission granted, wedding held, marriage still working 50 years later. Kindness out-foxes dogma. Maybe a lesson to be learned--and maybe Pope Francis already knows it.
The risk to the Catholic church when they forget that humility and kindness trumps dogma is that they are ignored or treated with contempt. The conflict between Christ's forgiveness and "forever dogma" is obvious, stark, and unresolved. The expedients to paper over the difference are sometime foolish, sometimes heartless, and sometimes amusing. Annulling a marriage after many years and several offspring makes bastards of the children--after all, they certainly deserve the shaming.
Preventing a believing Catholic from taking communion serves no obvious purpose aside from creating more Episcopalians.
Preventing divorce today just ruins lives.
97% of Catholic women will use a "banned" contraceptive during some period of her life. Catholic girls will become sexually active within a few months of the same age as others in their same communities. They will continue to take communion -- or they will simply stop attending Mass.
I am reminded of the note from a friend's parish priest, required so she could marry in Boston, certifying that she was a practicing Catholic. The old priest resolved his conflict by hand-writing "Miss xxxxxx yyyyyy is a practical Catholic." Permission granted, wedding held, marriage still working 50 years later. Kindness out-foxes dogma. Maybe a lesson to be learned--and maybe Pope Francis already knows it.
8
It is saddening to read this column. There is much talk of procedure and synodal statements; there is little talk of mercy and love and charity.
Absent an annulment, the Catholic doctrine is that remarriage is adultery and, thus, a sin. Let's accept that for argument sake, even though many Christian denominations disagree.
Taking Eucharist is a joining with the Holy Spirit in the re-enactment of the crucifixion for the forgiveness of sins. It is sinful humanity that comes before the cross, through Christ, to "commune" with the divinity in seeking forgiveness for sins.
One is not free of sin in order to come before the cross in Holy Eucharist; rather, one is sinful and seeks the mercy of God in coming before the cross.
Christ reaches out his arms on the cross in love and mercy and forgiveness. The cross is not a "synodal statement."
Such a Pharisee is Douthat; Christ would be appalled.
Absent an annulment, the Catholic doctrine is that remarriage is adultery and, thus, a sin. Let's accept that for argument sake, even though many Christian denominations disagree.
Taking Eucharist is a joining with the Holy Spirit in the re-enactment of the crucifixion for the forgiveness of sins. It is sinful humanity that comes before the cross, through Christ, to "commune" with the divinity in seeking forgiveness for sins.
One is not free of sin in order to come before the cross in Holy Eucharist; rather, one is sinful and seeks the mercy of God in coming before the cross.
Christ reaches out his arms on the cross in love and mercy and forgiveness. The cross is not a "synodal statement."
Such a Pharisee is Douthat; Christ would be appalled.
16
Arcane dogma and petty byzantine regulations amount to a fetishistic artifice of technicalities, conjured by obsessive-compulsive religionists. Every religion seems to have them, and they prevail because the priest class serves itself. And the bureaucrats brook no opposition; it takes a special temerity to challenge the priest class when one's eternal salvation is at stake.
Can't get communion until the first marriage is technically annulled, which is a bizarre technicality itself (accompanied by a necessary monetary "offering")? Sheesh, give me a break - how about what's genuinely in one's heart? And as Pope Francis so rightly asks, "Who am I to judge?" That is what's got the curia's knickers all bunched up.
Can't get communion until the first marriage is technically annulled, which is a bizarre technicality itself (accompanied by a necessary monetary "offering")? Sheesh, give me a break - how about what's genuinely in one's heart? And as Pope Francis so rightly asks, "Who am I to judge?" That is what's got the curia's knickers all bunched up.
4
As a long time apostate from the Catholic Church, I hold no brief for its basic dogma.
But what I do understand is what it means to be a Catholic -- and it always baffles me that people attacking it seem to think that certain issues, which are in fact a matter of doctrine, might just be updated to swing with the times. Now I certainly believe that many of those doctrinal tenets are indeed unjust and unfair -- but I do so from a purely secular perspective. What I also acknowledge is that a Catholic who sincerely embraces Catholicism in its essential form cannot dispute those issues. Such a Catholic must accept those tenets -- doing so is constitutive of being a Catholic. If you remove this aspect of Catholicism, the entire edifice of the religion falls apart. The Catholic Church simply is not like Protestant religions, in which doctrinal tenets may simply come and go as the times change.
In short, if you can't abide these doctrinal tenets, then your choice should be to leave the church (as I have), not to demand or expect the Church to change.
But what I do understand is what it means to be a Catholic -- and it always baffles me that people attacking it seem to think that certain issues, which are in fact a matter of doctrine, might just be updated to swing with the times. Now I certainly believe that many of those doctrinal tenets are indeed unjust and unfair -- but I do so from a purely secular perspective. What I also acknowledge is that a Catholic who sincerely embraces Catholicism in its essential form cannot dispute those issues. Such a Catholic must accept those tenets -- doing so is constitutive of being a Catholic. If you remove this aspect of Catholicism, the entire edifice of the religion falls apart. The Catholic Church simply is not like Protestant religions, in which doctrinal tenets may simply come and go as the times change.
In short, if you can't abide these doctrinal tenets, then your choice should be to leave the church (as I have), not to demand or expect the Church to change.
1
This is a really difficult topic to discuss in large part because we're so ungraceful about discussing it, so terribly, terribly proud, and so absorbed in our own perspectives. None are immune, but Douthat gleefully throws rocks from his glass house.
Douthat's convictions against the Catholic Church's current direction strike me as the actual irony here. Catholic doctrine regarding the primacy of conscience overwhelmingly advises that one attempt humbly and dutifully to understand and adhere to all Catholic teachings prior to determining another path, to surrender (or almost) one's will to the Magisterium.
Douthat has repeated and public proclamations that he and all the good Catholics will do no such thing. Oops.
The Republican terror of a conspiracy (at least, not involving military spending, the rich/LIBOR/Capitalism, the availability of firearms, or the repeated disgrace and abandonment of the poor) jumps up again: "plot." It's a plot! Everything people are involved in is a plot, Ross, let's let go of the fear-mongering.
Outside the context of the brief span of our lifetimes, it's impossible to know much about the Catholic Church without being aware that it changes. It, too, has the difficult responsibility of remaining the same, as it attempts to direct its flock towards truth. Truth, of necessity, has an unchanging character, and so often there is panic when there is change in the church. But change it does, as slowly as it possibly can, for better and for worse.
Douthat's convictions against the Catholic Church's current direction strike me as the actual irony here. Catholic doctrine regarding the primacy of conscience overwhelmingly advises that one attempt humbly and dutifully to understand and adhere to all Catholic teachings prior to determining another path, to surrender (or almost) one's will to the Magisterium.
Douthat has repeated and public proclamations that he and all the good Catholics will do no such thing. Oops.
The Republican terror of a conspiracy (at least, not involving military spending, the rich/LIBOR/Capitalism, the availability of firearms, or the repeated disgrace and abandonment of the poor) jumps up again: "plot." It's a plot! Everything people are involved in is a plot, Ross, let's let go of the fear-mongering.
Outside the context of the brief span of our lifetimes, it's impossible to know much about the Catholic Church without being aware that it changes. It, too, has the difficult responsibility of remaining the same, as it attempts to direct its flock towards truth. Truth, of necessity, has an unchanging character, and so often there is panic when there is change in the church. But change it does, as slowly as it possibly can, for better and for worse.
2
The Catholic Church should start by excommunicating itself from itself.
We grew up in this faith, hearing rosaries from the womb, taking first communion in prairie churches our dear grandparents had built by hand, hewing stone, carving wood. Incense permeates our memories of their funerals. We gathered May lilacs for Mary's shrines. We believed, obeyed, trusted, confessed, repented. We attended Catholic universities, chose careers and vocations of service, gave.
Faith is not historic. It throbs -- the Presence is also our presence. The flame in the tabernacle is the beating heart of the living faithful.
This precious faith, this trust of the people, was abused, cynically managed, as a global pattern of child abuse and molestation persisted, going ever deeper into darker corners-- while all the bishops knew.
The Church has sinned against its most innocent and sincere believers.
Douthat, you treat the Church like a political party -- revealing your alignment with the ossified, arrogant oligarchies who cling to the same reins that strangled the only true life of the faith -- the trust of the people. You can have that "historic faith," lying dead in the past, like a rotting, fallen tree.
We grew up in this faith, hearing rosaries from the womb, taking first communion in prairie churches our dear grandparents had built by hand, hewing stone, carving wood. Incense permeates our memories of their funerals. We gathered May lilacs for Mary's shrines. We believed, obeyed, trusted, confessed, repented. We attended Catholic universities, chose careers and vocations of service, gave.
Faith is not historic. It throbs -- the Presence is also our presence. The flame in the tabernacle is the beating heart of the living faithful.
This precious faith, this trust of the people, was abused, cynically managed, as a global pattern of child abuse and molestation persisted, going ever deeper into darker corners-- while all the bishops knew.
The Church has sinned against its most innocent and sincere believers.
Douthat, you treat the Church like a political party -- revealing your alignment with the ossified, arrogant oligarchies who cling to the same reins that strangled the only true life of the faith -- the trust of the people. You can have that "historic faith," lying dead in the past, like a rotting, fallen tree.
7
I found this piece an interesting explanation of the tensions existing between the Pope's bloc and the conservatives over the status of divorce. It seems the Pope interprets Christ on marriage as saying that Christians in a failing marriage ought to search for restoration rather than termination, if at all possible. The conservatives take Christ as saying that Christians should work toward restoration rather than termination, full stop. Does the addition of the "if at all possible" undermine the exhortation towards restoration? Is the termination of a marriage, the renouncing of love, somehow in irreconcilable conflict with the idea that God is love? Or is the Pope simply demanding the church allow people to move on from divorce in much the same way Christ's sacrifice allows Christians to move on from sin, forgiven? I agree with Mr. Douthat that the odds are probably with the "historic faith."
Mr. Douthat once again demonstrates his ignorance of Christianity in favor of the misguided hierarchies emphasized by Cardinal Ratzinger, who never understood the full meaning of "Choose for others only as one might choose for one's self" or " Judge not and neither condemn". That's why he stepped down.
We now have a pope who understands, embraces, and shares his understanding of these core teachings. It does not sit well with the ignorant who insist on misguided and ungracious policies honed in centuries of ignoring the teachings of the most gracious man to walk the face of the earth. In those policies they seek comfort in advantage, superiority, and power over others, none of which are gracious choices. It is amusing to watch an ungracious man attempt to dress down a pontif making gracious choices. One of them will succeed. The other will continue to promote the ungracious and hypocritical choices of the powerful because it keeps him writing a conservative column for the New York Times. Mr. Douthat would do well to regard in history and sacred texts that the benefit of ungracious choices in instructive consequence which he invites with every keystroke these days.
We now have a pope who understands, embraces, and shares his understanding of these core teachings. It does not sit well with the ignorant who insist on misguided and ungracious policies honed in centuries of ignoring the teachings of the most gracious man to walk the face of the earth. In those policies they seek comfort in advantage, superiority, and power over others, none of which are gracious choices. It is amusing to watch an ungracious man attempt to dress down a pontif making gracious choices. One of them will succeed. The other will continue to promote the ungracious and hypocritical choices of the powerful because it keeps him writing a conservative column for the New York Times. Mr. Douthat would do well to regard in history and sacred texts that the benefit of ungracious choices in instructive consequence which he invites with every keystroke these days.
3
Francis' lasting impact on pulling the Church into a more recent century (if not the current one) may well depend on how long he is Pope and how many less-rigid thinkers he can appoint as Cardinals to outvote the truly Medieval thinkers. (Let's call this group Douthatians, since our esteemed columnist seems to think he is the real Pope.)
A College of Cardinals that is less under the thumb of misogynist, homophobic, child-abuse-apologisers some years hence may actually decide to minister to its flock, rather than just dictating to them (and having huge numbers of them blatantly ignore some many of the idiotic rules). What a breath of fresh air that would be -- a Church more interested in serving its people than hoarding its assets (and covering its...)
The 'debate' about divorced Catholics and Communion is infantile. That a loving God would sit on his cloud (because of course a Douthatian God must be male, old, celibate and rigid) and exclude his children because they escaped an abusive relationship but didn't go through an archaic and shame-based ritual of Churchly power, is sociopathic.
Or at least utterly unlike Jesus.
A College of Cardinals that is less under the thumb of misogynist, homophobic, child-abuse-apologisers some years hence may actually decide to minister to its flock, rather than just dictating to them (and having huge numbers of them blatantly ignore some many of the idiotic rules). What a breath of fresh air that would be -- a Church more interested in serving its people than hoarding its assets (and covering its...)
The 'debate' about divorced Catholics and Communion is infantile. That a loving God would sit on his cloud (because of course a Douthatian God must be male, old, celibate and rigid) and exclude his children because they escaped an abusive relationship but didn't go through an archaic and shame-based ritual of Churchly power, is sociopathic.
Or at least utterly unlike Jesus.
8
What we are seeing at the Synod with Pope Francis and the progressive Bishops and Cardinals is the advocacy of man over God that began with the heresy of Modernism in the late 19th century, went dormant for a while and re-emerged in Vatican II with the conniving of leftist theologians. Now in full flower since the advent of Pope Francis the "spirit of Vatican II" is attempting to eliminate the very idea of sexual sin. This can only be the work of the devil.
And while the devil is hard at work at the Vatican most Catholics effectively live very Protestant lives free of historic orthodox Catholic sexual moral beliefs as they practice contraception, abort babies, divorce, cohabit and carry on just like everyone else.
Now since the practice of Catholic sexual morality is mostly observed in the breach the progressive Synod participants are just trying to bring the official doctrine in line with actual practice. Such is the result of the failure to proclaim and support Church teaching for the last 50 years. In this regard let us hope the Synod is a dismal failure. And more importantly let us hope Pope Francis and the participants have an awakening of the damage caused to the Church and the world by the tragic outcomes of Vatican II.
And while the devil is hard at work at the Vatican most Catholics effectively live very Protestant lives free of historic orthodox Catholic sexual moral beliefs as they practice contraception, abort babies, divorce, cohabit and carry on just like everyone else.
Now since the practice of Catholic sexual morality is mostly observed in the breach the progressive Synod participants are just trying to bring the official doctrine in line with actual practice. Such is the result of the failure to proclaim and support Church teaching for the last 50 years. In this regard let us hope the Synod is a dismal failure. And more importantly let us hope Pope Francis and the participants have an awakening of the damage caused to the Church and the world by the tragic outcomes of Vatican II.
1
For a brilliant exposition on- and consequences of -the kind of go along get along religion-in this case Catholicism- exemplified here in the case of the new Vatican regime see: Douthat: Bad Religion.
(Re appreciative review in the Jewish intellectual magazine Commentary.)
As Douthat reports consequences for mainline Protestantism are empty pews while more evangelical churches thrive.
As he notes-at p144- Protestant Mainline and the Catholic Church were strong cultures in 1950'America . A half century later Mainline has drifted to the sidelines. The vitality of in American Christianity resides almost exclusively among the [declining] average people in the pew rather those in leadership.
Douthat points out-at p.94- that the disastrous excesses in "revised" doctrine and its application post Vatican II espoused by Church's liberal intellectuals and theologians took hold and attendance declined.
Then Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict came in appointing more truly intellectual and observant bishops. Cleansing the temple I would say. But leaving new the scene too soon.
Now we have a new Pope and too much of the same old accommodationism supported by accomodationist bishops and theologians. Those of other ilk dying or aging out-or being pushed under the bus (Anyone seen Cardinal Burke lately.)
For intellectual Catholics such as Douthat we believe the Church will survive. But the souls of those less sophisticated will slip away-until the advent of a new renewal.
(Re appreciative review in the Jewish intellectual magazine Commentary.)
As Douthat reports consequences for mainline Protestantism are empty pews while more evangelical churches thrive.
As he notes-at p144- Protestant Mainline and the Catholic Church were strong cultures in 1950'America . A half century later Mainline has drifted to the sidelines. The vitality of in American Christianity resides almost exclusively among the [declining] average people in the pew rather those in leadership.
Douthat points out-at p.94- that the disastrous excesses in "revised" doctrine and its application post Vatican II espoused by Church's liberal intellectuals and theologians took hold and attendance declined.
Then Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict came in appointing more truly intellectual and observant bishops. Cleansing the temple I would say. But leaving new the scene too soon.
Now we have a new Pope and too much of the same old accommodationism supported by accomodationist bishops and theologians. Those of other ilk dying or aging out-or being pushed under the bus (Anyone seen Cardinal Burke lately.)
For intellectual Catholics such as Douthat we believe the Church will survive. But the souls of those less sophisticated will slip away-until the advent of a new renewal.
1
The challenge of late modern societies appears to be to twofold. First, late modern societies are faced with the challenge of how to manage the manifold problems and cruelties of late capitalism. This article does not pertain.
Second, however, late modern societies must learn to manage and weather the often rapid expansion of normative liberty whilst preserving institutional continuity. This article directly pertains to that matter.
Without healthy institutions -- religious and otherwise -- societies devolve. Individuals become overly lost in an empty liberty that offers no guidance or ideas, and in such situations, individualism is revealed as the hollow ideal that it truly is. Law, religion, education, family -- these things orient us, even as we pursue the quintessential modern ideal of liberty.
Only a shortsighted fool wishes ill on the Catholic Church, or any other "established religion." What we should rather wish is that they, along with the other vital institutions of our shared life, manage to survive and make peace with the rapidity of our changes.
Absolute liberty was nicely depicted in Alfonso Cuaron's magnificent film, Gravity. At it's opening, the film says of space, "Life in space is impossible." Floating free, without anything holding you down, can seem tempting. But human life requires history, tradition, memory, and the concomitant institutions thereof both sacred and profane.
Second, however, late modern societies must learn to manage and weather the often rapid expansion of normative liberty whilst preserving institutional continuity. This article directly pertains to that matter.
Without healthy institutions -- religious and otherwise -- societies devolve. Individuals become overly lost in an empty liberty that offers no guidance or ideas, and in such situations, individualism is revealed as the hollow ideal that it truly is. Law, religion, education, family -- these things orient us, even as we pursue the quintessential modern ideal of liberty.
Only a shortsighted fool wishes ill on the Catholic Church, or any other "established religion." What we should rather wish is that they, along with the other vital institutions of our shared life, manage to survive and make peace with the rapidity of our changes.
Absolute liberty was nicely depicted in Alfonso Cuaron's magnificent film, Gravity. At it's opening, the film says of space, "Life in space is impossible." Floating free, without anything holding you down, can seem tempting. But human life requires history, tradition, memory, and the concomitant institutions thereof both sacred and profane.
111
"Floating free, without anything holding you down, can seem tempting. But human life requires history, tradition, memory, and the concomitant institutions thereof both sacred and profane."
I agree.
I disagree, however, about maintaining rigid, exclusionary rules that bar the door to Catholics who have not stayed in a bad, even abusive marriage but may not have had the means--financial or emotional--to slog through the demeaning annulment process.
I agree.
I disagree, however, about maintaining rigid, exclusionary rules that bar the door to Catholics who have not stayed in a bad, even abusive marriage but may not have had the means--financial or emotional--to slog through the demeaning annulment process.
2
Those individuals - and political parties - that pursue "freedom" as an end in itself would do well to remember the point you have so eloquently made. If health research demonstrates that socially well connected (not in the financial sense) people enjoy better health and longer lives, which it does, than rugged individualism is a receipt for an earlier death - both for individuals and for nations.
1
Oddly, those of us who identify as atheist manage to hang on and not float free without the guidance of early iron age theology. We are not disoriented, follow laws and societal norms, have families...all of that without the institution of religion.
It amazes some of us that those who are not consulted are the vast majority of lay people whose support and presence will prove necessary for the Church to remain solvent and staffed with future clergy. They might, for example, be asked how they feel about dropping the ban on contraceptive use in family planning, whether women should b allowed into the priesthood (as they are now in every other learned profession), and whether priests should be allowed to marry.
33
Ross, yes, let's get back to basics -- let's go all the way back to when the thing first originated. In this case, that would be the first communion, also known as the Last Supper. There, Jesus served communion to Judas. What's especially poignant about this moment is that Jesus knew Judas was planning to betray him. In this one moment, Jesus set a precedent that the Catholic church (and various Protestant denominations) is still getting wrong today about communion: It's an open table -- even murderous traitors are invited.
You're not arguing against the Pope, Ross. You're arguing against Jesus.
You're not arguing against the Pope, Ross. You're arguing against Jesus.
67
To actually listen to the needs of God's people is a PLOT against Catholicism? Having the whole Church involved, not just a stubborn, aging bureaucracy in the Curia, was a goal of Vatican II. Taking power from a bureaucracy and bringing in thoughtful, prayerful people to the discussion should be something I would think you'd like to see happen. I don't think Jesus believes not marrying the right person and finding the right partner after the faulty first marriage falls apart should remain the only sin the Church cannot forgive. God forgives and we try again to do something wonderful. I always thought Ronald and Nancy Reagan were a wonderful couple - but it's a second marriage, so it was a sin?
11
On a personal note you write, "Speaking as a Catholic, I expect the plot to ultimately fail; where the pope and the historic faith seem to be in tension, my bet is on the faith." My bet is on faith and reason. This is a renewal in Catholicism's life in the Church. Let's not waste it.
5
As the Pope said while he was here, "Who am I to judge?" It is certainly difficult to judge the circumstances of peoples' marriages. Personally, I think it is better to invite people in, and to let people receive Communion. I know a lot of women whose husbands abandoned them. This of course led to divorce. Should they never be allowed to receive Communion again? What would Jesus say?
34
Gosh you do not like this pope, do you. Change is always difficult.
29
Good grief. If there really were a higher power in charge of everything, all this angst and political infighting would be for naught. This is just normal human intrigue. Why does anyone bother? Why do you worry yourself so, Mr. Douthat?
What a waste of time and energy this all is. These people, including the so called Pope, should get real jobs and actually contribute to human progress instead of trying to drag us back to the 14th Century.
What a waste of time and energy this all is. These people, including the so called Pope, should get real jobs and actually contribute to human progress instead of trying to drag us back to the 14th Century.
13
Is Douthat the US bureau chief for L'Osservatore Romano?
14
I don't think the Pope or anyone of faith want to outrightly admit that they're just making things up. But of course they are, as all faiths do. They just don't want it to get outside the clubhouse doors. That's why they call it faith and not reality.
11
The Roman Catholic Church is losing priests by the score and religious life is only attractive to the poor and third world faithful. Competing Protestant religions by accepting divorced Catholics have dramatically reduced Catholic parishes and closed Catholic churches and schools. In the US, the Roman Catholic Church is slowly dying from its commitment to 15th century religious doctrines.
30
Douthat is just voicing the sentiment of a majority of the conservative College of Cardinals and episcopal hierarchy. They were elevated to their positions by the two previous conservative popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. So the cards are stacked against the pastoral agenda of Pope Francis. They truly think that somehow the Holy Spirit was absent from the conclave which elected Cardinal Bergoglio. They firmly hope that the weight of tradition will prevent this Pope from achieving his goals. But they might want to ask if the weight of tradition will do what they fear the most: sink the barque of St. Peter.
6
I am always perplexed how neo-orthodox Roman Catholics like Douthat see the sacrament of the Eucharist as the prize for following human created rules of institutional religion. Kind of like the cookies and milk for well-behaved children. Jesus did no such thing.
The sacrament is a vehicle of God's grace. Period. Pope Francis is on the right track here - theologically, scripturally and pastorally - to offer it to ALL those who have been abused by the institutional church.
And Ross, your scriptural knowledge is wanting: It was the Law of Moses (the Torah) that allowed facile divorce, not the Pharisees. And the kind of divorce Jesus denied was a horrific situation that placed women in the most precarious of situations. His was a pastoral call of the utmost compassion. This something you should take to heart with your lack of compassion in all things religious, rather than your adherence to institutional rules that are not of Jesus.
The sacrament is a vehicle of God's grace. Period. Pope Francis is on the right track here - theologically, scripturally and pastorally - to offer it to ALL those who have been abused by the institutional church.
And Ross, your scriptural knowledge is wanting: It was the Law of Moses (the Torah) that allowed facile divorce, not the Pharisees. And the kind of divorce Jesus denied was a horrific situation that placed women in the most precarious of situations. His was a pastoral call of the utmost compassion. This something you should take to heart with your lack of compassion in all things religious, rather than your adherence to institutional rules that are not of Jesus.
32
It perplexes me that anybody thinks about this in 2015.
28
You lost me at "ostentatious humility." No chance of this being a dispassionate analysis or unprejudiced discourse. I'd call this plotting against the pontiff.
49
No Catholic, right or left cares one bit what the Vatican thinks if they disagree on an issue. They are good Catholics because when we disagree the Church taught us to follow our conscience.
8
"A Jesuit pope is effectively at war with his own Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the erstwhile Inquisition — a situation that would make 16th century heads spin."
And there you have it...
And there you have it...
6
"Ostentatious humility"? O. M. G. No need to read further.
29
Catholicism has changed in ways that its theory and theology prohibits, and the result is various sorts of sophisticated intellectual dishonesty that grate on non-Catholics. Theological truths should not be subject to politics, but they are and everyone knows it.
If theological truths are not to be determined by politics but are in fact so determined, then Catholic theology is contradictory at its core and facing this contradiction would destroy the Church. Winning the battle for orthodoxy does not solve the problem, since the existence of the battle is the contradiction.
The real truth of any morality is how it works in practice, and most moralities betray themselves by ignoring that they are not working and why they are not working. Prohibiting divorce often turns marriage into an economic relationship, an unbreakable contract that leaves those bound by it free to ignore each other, engage in psychological and sometimes physical warfare, and seek human intimacy and friendship in affairs while spurning their marriage partners. The spirit of marriage may be utterly absent, but as long as the letter is observed the Church forgives human frailties. Children are "protected" by growing up in a stable bond between two people who pretend in public but cannot communicate or even stand each other. This teaches them lies, cruelty, and indifference under a veneer of the opposite.
It is a useful lesson for success in a fallen world, but not to fix that world.
If theological truths are not to be determined by politics but are in fact so determined, then Catholic theology is contradictory at its core and facing this contradiction would destroy the Church. Winning the battle for orthodoxy does not solve the problem, since the existence of the battle is the contradiction.
The real truth of any morality is how it works in practice, and most moralities betray themselves by ignoring that they are not working and why they are not working. Prohibiting divorce often turns marriage into an economic relationship, an unbreakable contract that leaves those bound by it free to ignore each other, engage in psychological and sometimes physical warfare, and seek human intimacy and friendship in affairs while spurning their marriage partners. The spirit of marriage may be utterly absent, but as long as the letter is observed the Church forgives human frailties. Children are "protected" by growing up in a stable bond between two people who pretend in public but cannot communicate or even stand each other. This teaches them lies, cruelty, and indifference under a veneer of the opposite.
It is a useful lesson for success in a fallen world, but not to fix that world.
14
Compassion has to be grounded in practice, in the practical effects of policy, belief, and dogma as they are encountered in daily, and pastoral life. Encouraging encounters is a first step. Living in a mansion and riding around in a limousine is unlikely to ground a person in practical realities. It is daily contact and discourse with sinners that informs. Time in prison would be good experience for a cardinal; hanging out in the yard; long stretches of solitary, being shanked. A sheltered life is unlikely to inform; second hand experience is only so useful; yet another reason for priests to marry and have children.
Even before Pope Francis attempts any correction to make the Catholic faith more relevant to contemporary times, the dogmatists have started crying foul about Pope's intentions.
9
Regarding most major organized religions, complex ideologies often grow up like a forest around the original core spiritual message. I think that when there is conflict between external authority, versus deeply felt love and commitment in one's heart, go with the genuine, unique guidance from your heart, every time.
4
I realize a lot of NYTimes' readers' eyes glaze over when convert Douthat starts pontificating about Catholicism and he does do it too much, but there are nuggets of information to be gleaned. For instance, in my faith tradition it was perfectly acceptable for a woman to get an abortion. God told our leaders so except when He changed His mind around 1973 and told Brother Falwell that it was a terrible sin. It may seem to the unchurched, Catholics and Jews that this abortion-is-a-sin stuff goes back to the Manger, but it's quite a recent, thoroughly politicized theological 'evolution.' I believe it's helpful for Americans to understand the secular nature of this change in religious opinion among Evangelicals.
45
Yes and the same is true for political prayers in public. The state Baptist newspaper, the Baptist Messenger, in Oklahoma was against political prayers in public, when I went to high school as well as considering that a tax write off for tithing nullified the tithe. Politics stopped at the door of the church. They also were against state religions no matter which religion. Times have changed.
(Though of course, in the New Testament the Pharisees allowed divorce; it was Jesus who rejected it.) Really?
According to which scripture? Mark 10:2-9? Jesus is giving them the law of Moses. We are taught by Paul that we are to "rightly divide the word". This means to know when Jesus is giving the Law of Moses vs. the law of liberty. Under the Law of Moses you were allowed to divorce if ... But wheat Jesus was showing them was that if God had His way there would have been absolutely no divorce whatsoever. Knowing that the people would never go for that rule He allowed Moses to let them divorce under certain circumstances.
But that was on the "other side of the cross". We are NOW on this side of the cross (rightly divide the word) in which case divorce or not to divorce is up to you. Jesus died for ALL your sins and you are now free to make your own choice.
Divorce is a non issue.
According to which scripture? Mark 10:2-9? Jesus is giving them the law of Moses. We are taught by Paul that we are to "rightly divide the word". This means to know when Jesus is giving the Law of Moses vs. the law of liberty. Under the Law of Moses you were allowed to divorce if ... But wheat Jesus was showing them was that if God had His way there would have been absolutely no divorce whatsoever. Knowing that the people would never go for that rule He allowed Moses to let them divorce under certain circumstances.
But that was on the "other side of the cross". We are NOW on this side of the cross (rightly divide the word) in which case divorce or not to divorce is up to you. Jesus died for ALL your sins and you are now free to make your own choice.
Divorce is a non issue.
6
Yea, your blasphemy knows no bounds, Mr. Douthat. You ought to re-read your supposedly-favorite Book and consider what Jesus himself would think before you pen another hateful column.
46
A friend of mine got married in the Philippines. In order to be married in the Catholic church his wife-to-be had to get her previous marriage annulled. She has a grown up daughter from the previous marriage. It was so important for her to marry in the Church that she was willing to agree to the annulment of her previous marriage. It is truly amazing to see grown up men and women submit themselves to disrespect and humiliation in order to get the church's seal of approval. At the same time that the sacrament of marriage is elevated above everything else it is debased and defined out of existence by the church hierarchy in order to make modern life livable. I am sure Jesus would be the first to point out the hypocrisy inherent in this arrangement. My, how we turn circles and circles in order to arrive back at the same place, only every time we submit ourselves to these insults and indignities we can be assured that the church is very busy looking after our souls. I'm sure that even more souls are saved thanks to
Douthat's casuistic analysis in this and future columns.
Douthat's casuistic analysis in this and future columns.
16
Catholicism will change with or without the Vatican . Gay marriages, divorces etc all take place whether these old men like it or not. They may fight for a world long gone but nobody cares. The greatest thing about the pope is his dedication to the poor and the environment.. All the rest over communion rights etc, who cares ?
14
Russ,
With all due respect, you cannot bring a biblical text forward 2000 or more years and imply that what it meant in the original context is what it means today. Jesus did not reject divorce, he rejected the fact that only a many could divorce not a woman. further, the unity of creation in all of the parts in established by God not Mosaic, Church, or civil law. There is an inherent unity that is not dependent on our initiatives, covenants, or contracts but are essential to creation. Check out "Son of Man" theology,
With all due respect, you cannot bring a biblical text forward 2000 or more years and imply that what it meant in the original context is what it means today. Jesus did not reject divorce, he rejected the fact that only a many could divorce not a woman. further, the unity of creation in all of the parts in established by God not Mosaic, Church, or civil law. There is an inherent unity that is not dependent on our initiatives, covenants, or contracts but are essential to creation. Check out "Son of Man" theology,
5
Francis is the Pope of a church Ross thought he was joining--a solid place where infallibility was the key to certainty and infallibility rested in one solid conservative man--the Pope. But now the shoes are on other feet, liberal feet.
And Ross feels cheated and so he, Ross, returns to the sect he came from and has decided to question the infallible Pope. Ross is caught up in self-referentiality.
And Ross feels cheated and so he, Ross, returns to the sect he came from and has decided to question the infallible Pope. Ross is caught up in self-referentiality.
23
As a Catholic, your bet is on faith. You mean, dogma, right? 'Pastoral change' is basically rubbish. 'Ostentatious humility'! 'Chief plotter'! 'Rigged for Pope's preferred outcome'. Who is scolding whom, Mr. Douhat? Your dislike, nay hatred of Pope Francis is obvious. Jesus was for forgiveness, for second chances. Pope Francis is only going back to the roots of the Catholic Church which got totally derailed by dogma. Dogma is wrong, Ross, not the Pope. Get used to it.
105
The doctrinal reforms sought by Francis, among them divorced Catholics being admitted to the sacrament of communion is a sideshow, a play within a play. The objections raised against the doctrinal changes this Pope proposes are made by many of the same crew who for years have engaged in financial corruption and bureaucratic bungling at the Vatican.
The Pope has made no secret within the bureaucracy and the College of Cardinals that he wants change and that the change will start with the institution. It is nothing if not political (and man-made) that if these Catholic conservatives can defeat him on his doctrinal reforms, he looses a certain amount of clout to change what he was elected to change--the Vatican bureaucracy.
It is a silly anomaly to say that doctrine is forever but he cannot find support for the proposed reforms because of the resistance from those conservative appointed by his predecessors--that makes it both a political and a human battle. These doctrines came from somewhere in the human world and they can reformed in that human context. It is living in denial to believe that the Cardinals who voted for his elevation (voting is a human and political act, too) didn't know what was in store, didn't know the man and his motives.
The Pope has made no secret within the bureaucracy and the College of Cardinals that he wants change and that the change will start with the institution. It is nothing if not political (and man-made) that if these Catholic conservatives can defeat him on his doctrinal reforms, he looses a certain amount of clout to change what he was elected to change--the Vatican bureaucracy.
It is a silly anomaly to say that doctrine is forever but he cannot find support for the proposed reforms because of the resistance from those conservative appointed by his predecessors--that makes it both a political and a human battle. These doctrines came from somewhere in the human world and they can reformed in that human context. It is living in denial to believe that the Cardinals who voted for his elevation (voting is a human and political act, too) didn't know what was in store, didn't know the man and his motives.
7
No doubt all this Vatican-based wheeling and dealing is fascinating for Catholics and Catholic-watchers, but for the rest of us it's irrelevant.
Except when Catholics meddle in secular affairs, pour money and clout into anti-birth control and anti-abortion lobbies , and intrude their doctrines into America's daily life.
And except when all the radio stations cover various prelates' every movement, all day.
Except when Catholics meddle in secular affairs, pour money and clout into anti-birth control and anti-abortion lobbies , and intrude their doctrines into America's daily life.
And except when all the radio stations cover various prelates' every movement, all day.
15
The Pope should not be free to change church doctrine that is biblically based- that is doctrine which is based on specific scriptures in the Bible. He should be allowed to change extra-biblical doctrines- that is doctrine based on ancient human tradition, such as the role of women in the church or whether priests may marry.........As far as divorce goes, Jesus did make an exception to its prohibition in ( Matt 5:32 ) " But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."....As for those who are advocating for same sex marriage, Jesus says in ( Mark 10: 6-9 ) " But from the beginning of creation, God made male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh, so they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
4
Good article. It's clear by now, to anyone who doesn't refuse to see it, what Francis's beliefs and goals are. He certainly hasn't hidden them. But if he attempts to change Catholic doctrine with a document, he will prove himself to be a pretender to the papacy. Or to put it another way, enough people will recognize him as a pretender to threaten his position and prevent his revolution.
So he needs to obfuscate the process and make it look like something it's not, which is what this synod was supposed to do. It looks like he may have miscalculated.
So he needs to obfuscate the process and make it look like something it's not, which is what this synod was supposed to do. It looks like he may have miscalculated.
1
I'll pray that Ross never has an abusive or unhappy marriage that he must leave and then face rejection from his church when he needs communion the most. It is hard to imagine reconciling a doctrine that would reject two people, happily married, raising children while granting communion to a person guilty of a serious crime like murder or rape. There are several passages in the bible that address marriage, but the indissoluble part is only one, and can be read in many different ways. The faith of the church centers on the love of Jesus and the forgiveness of sins. That Ross so gleefully clings to an interpretation of rejection indicates that he needs to get with the bible and really read it.
40
Ross treats this issue about the indissolubility of marriage in the Roman Catholic Church and Pope Francis’s position on it as if were some strategic objective. It’s not, of course. It’s merely one tactical piece of a puzzle those sufficiently interested in such things are trying to divine (no pun intended). That puzzle is what Roman Catholicism looks like in its entirety after Francis has finished doing to it what he and the more liberal cardinals who support him see as necessary to save the Church and recapture its former glories.
Surely, men who have survived a byzantine (again, no pun intended) political milieu to be promoted to cardinals and elected pope aren’t just winging this – the Church generally hasn’t been known for “winging” anything in at least the past millennium. They MUST have some mental picture to which they’re shooting of what the Faith looks like healthy again, attracting congregants, re-conquering an increasingly secular Europe and an America that has become far more welcoming to evangelical sects than to traditional clerical collars.
Whatever that picture is, it represents big stakes, an immense gamble … and the lead we tend to bury when titillated by some single controversial issue.
As to that singular distraction that buries the more interesting and more impactful lead, I’d be surprised if the pope didn’t find some way to pirouette neatly around dogma to achieve his tactical end.
Surely, men who have survived a byzantine (again, no pun intended) political milieu to be promoted to cardinals and elected pope aren’t just winging this – the Church generally hasn’t been known for “winging” anything in at least the past millennium. They MUST have some mental picture to which they’re shooting of what the Faith looks like healthy again, attracting congregants, re-conquering an increasingly secular Europe and an America that has become far more welcoming to evangelical sects than to traditional clerical collars.
Whatever that picture is, it represents big stakes, an immense gamble … and the lead we tend to bury when titillated by some single controversial issue.
As to that singular distraction that buries the more interesting and more impactful lead, I’d be surprised if the pope didn’t find some way to pirouette neatly around dogma to achieve his tactical end.
2
"The African bishops are defending the faith of the European past against Germans and Italians weary of their own patrimony."
What? The Catholic Church is no more European than it is African.
What? The Catholic Church is no more European than it is African.
11
I just don't get it, Ross. This "doctrine" of Jesus's antidivorce teachings, "what God has joined together let no man put asunder" already has been put asunder by no less than clerics through the mechanism of annulment.
I've always found the concept of annulment--whether the old fashioned kind that took forever and cost a fortune or the newly proposed "speed" annulments--to be totally hypocritical. It always struck me as an easy way for the Vatican to pray for pay, a practice as odious as the selling of indulgences. And the older I get, the more it seems that if there are grounds to rule a marriage never existed (for a price) then marriage can't be as "doctrinal" as you say it is.
The politics of the Vatican interest me far less than the impact of Church teaching--and church abuses--on the lives of parishioners. The faithful ones who try to do their best, but sometimes get themselves into untenable, or downright abusive, marriages. When Paul preaches that love is the most important commandment of all, then it's hard to see how making Catholics stay in loveless marriages when the "let no man break asunder" part was already altered by no less than Catholic clergy (certainly not God), is pretty cruel.
I've always found the concept of annulment--whether the old fashioned kind that took forever and cost a fortune or the newly proposed "speed" annulments--to be totally hypocritical. It always struck me as an easy way for the Vatican to pray for pay, a practice as odious as the selling of indulgences. And the older I get, the more it seems that if there are grounds to rule a marriage never existed (for a price) then marriage can't be as "doctrinal" as you say it is.
The politics of the Vatican interest me far less than the impact of Church teaching--and church abuses--on the lives of parishioners. The faithful ones who try to do their best, but sometimes get themselves into untenable, or downright abusive, marriages. When Paul preaches that love is the most important commandment of all, then it's hard to see how making Catholics stay in loveless marriages when the "let no man break asunder" part was already altered by no less than Catholic clergy (certainly not God), is pretty cruel.
37
Does Ross think the liberal Cardinals maneuvered Benedict to retire early?
While it would make sense for the Church to move forward with ditching annulments for the remarried, the current American administration has made me think there needs to be even more discussion first before any rules are officially changed.
The Pope's awkward hypocrisy of telling people not to be armed for self-protection - WHILE surrounded with gunmen - disappointed many observers.
Also, this Pope's lecturing America about having those pesky border protections promised for decades actually put in place is hypocritical from a man whose Vatican is protected by twenty-foot-high walls.
If this Pope believes that he can get away with being utterly lawless like the terrible president of the United States does right now, the Church is going to have major upsets over the next few years.
While it would make sense for the Church to move forward with ditching annulments for the remarried, the current American administration has made me think there needs to be even more discussion first before any rules are officially changed.
The Pope's awkward hypocrisy of telling people not to be armed for self-protection - WHILE surrounded with gunmen - disappointed many observers.
Also, this Pope's lecturing America about having those pesky border protections promised for decades actually put in place is hypocritical from a man whose Vatican is protected by twenty-foot-high walls.
If this Pope believes that he can get away with being utterly lawless like the terrible president of the United States does right now, the Church is going to have major upsets over the next few years.
3
One of our Constitutional guarantees is that a person is innocent until proven by a jury of his piers to be guilty.
It appears that the writer does not have the maturity to understand the gravity of this right.
To judge others for their supposed "hypocrisy" only demonstrates the need to re-read your religious teachings.
fwa
It appears that the writer does not have the maturity to understand the gravity of this right.
To judge others for their supposed "hypocrisy" only demonstrates the need to re-read your religious teachings.
fwa
Having just read in the NY Times about a couple who had to obtain 5 annulments in order to get married, I have to ask "does any of this make sense?"
28
To a non-Catholic this column seems a little surreal. The church's attitude towards marriage, rooted in the antiquated notion that the main purpose of the institution is procreation, seems stuck in the 1950s, if not earlier. Douthat appears indifferent to the direction of cultural change in his own country.
He refers to the long history of the church, and to its almost divine conception of time. In practice, however, this institution is led by fallible men and its survival depends on how well they minister to the faithful. The evidence of widespread disobedience of doctrines relating to contraception and divorce suggests that the clergy and their parishioners have very different ideas about what God expects.
Douthat's confidence that the church will survive the current crisis is probably justified. But the fact remains that its stubborn resistance to change weakens its ability to cope with the most rapid period of social and cultural evolution in modern history. It is difficult to believe that women in the west will continue to accept second-class status in the church; that they will let a group of men control decisions they make about their own bodies; or that couples will any longer yield authority over their lives together to men unacquainted with the reality of marriage.
In the face of these challenges, the pope's maneuvers resemble the actions of the boy who used his finger to try to preserve a crumbling dam. Good luck with that.
He refers to the long history of the church, and to its almost divine conception of time. In practice, however, this institution is led by fallible men and its survival depends on how well they minister to the faithful. The evidence of widespread disobedience of doctrines relating to contraception and divorce suggests that the clergy and their parishioners have very different ideas about what God expects.
Douthat's confidence that the church will survive the current crisis is probably justified. But the fact remains that its stubborn resistance to change weakens its ability to cope with the most rapid period of social and cultural evolution in modern history. It is difficult to believe that women in the west will continue to accept second-class status in the church; that they will let a group of men control decisions they make about their own bodies; or that couples will any longer yield authority over their lives together to men unacquainted with the reality of marriage.
In the face of these challenges, the pope's maneuvers resemble the actions of the boy who used his finger to try to preserve a crumbling dam. Good luck with that.
10
I thought he preserved it!
If divorce was okay for learned theologians and reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, I think any number of Catholic theologians can develop appropriate theological foundations for divorced Catholics to accept Communion. At the end of the day's, it's all sophistry anyway, resembling the medieval quest for the Beatific Vision and calculating the number of angels who can sit on the head of a pin.
4
Nah, "it's all sophistry anyway, resembling our recent quest for the missing link and our present one for an over-heated planet."
The Church has changed in other issues, but what did Jesus mean by his antagonism to divorce, exactly? Did he mean not to cast a wife aside to a life outside society? The world moves on and the Church's conservative hierarchy stays behind in its advocacy of patriarchy and all the sins it commits against women and children.
13
Ross, the church has changed its doctrine in response to the times. One only has to look at usury and slavery. The church is NOT changing its position on the indissolvabilty of marriage. What it is trying to change is its response to those who find themselves in a situation where they are divorced and now find themselves in a new marriage. Jesus and the scriptures you quote do not address this either. Should the response be to keep them from communion, or do they need to go through a timely and expensive process to get an annulment in order to do so? That is the question they Synod is dealing with; your claim that it is a plot to change Catholicism is simply wrong. By the way, the annulment process may be workable in the US but see how many marriage tribunals and staff they have for this in Latin America, Asia or Africa. Therefore the pastoral response must change.
Catholicism has always respected the Orthodox who have a system that allows for a second marriage without an annulment, with some qualifications. To say that Pope Francis is trying to change the core of Catholicism is just an exaggeration and simply inaccurate.
Catholicism has always respected the Orthodox who have a system that allows for a second marriage without an annulment, with some qualifications. To say that Pope Francis is trying to change the core of Catholicism is just an exaggeration and simply inaccurate.
21
I barely had to escape the lede paragraph to find a Douthat howler:
"Francis’s purpose is simple: He favors the proposal, put forward by the church’s liberal cardinals, that would allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion without having their first marriage declared null."
The church's liberal cardinals? Who would they be. Hasn't almost every single Cardinal been elevated by you boys John Paul II and Benedict XVI? How many has Francis elevated? An insignificant number, I would posit.
Your Sainted John Paul II had no problem allowing granting of the communion sacrament to be politicized, at least in this country. Some of those non liberals elevated by JP II tried to deny communion to Catholic politicians in favor of abortion rights, including, but not limited to, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. But none of those Bishops or Cardinals made the same effort to sanction Catholic politicians in favor of capital punishment or (unjust) war, even though JP II characterized war and capital punishment as EQUALLY incompatible with Catholic teaching as abortion. And JP II, now a Saint, *specifically* ruled that the Iraq invasion failed the test for "just war." Did Douthat object, as long as the Catholic hierarchy hewed to his particular political beliefs? Not in the least. But now, "liberalization" threatens his very world view.
You know, annulment is a bad joke. Newt Gingrich got 2 marriages annulled in order to marry his mistress of years standing in the Church.
"Francis’s purpose is simple: He favors the proposal, put forward by the church’s liberal cardinals, that would allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion without having their first marriage declared null."
The church's liberal cardinals? Who would they be. Hasn't almost every single Cardinal been elevated by you boys John Paul II and Benedict XVI? How many has Francis elevated? An insignificant number, I would posit.
Your Sainted John Paul II had no problem allowing granting of the communion sacrament to be politicized, at least in this country. Some of those non liberals elevated by JP II tried to deny communion to Catholic politicians in favor of abortion rights, including, but not limited to, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. But none of those Bishops or Cardinals made the same effort to sanction Catholic politicians in favor of capital punishment or (unjust) war, even though JP II characterized war and capital punishment as EQUALLY incompatible with Catholic teaching as abortion. And JP II, now a Saint, *specifically* ruled that the Iraq invasion failed the test for "just war." Did Douthat object, as long as the Catholic hierarchy hewed to his particular political beliefs? Not in the least. But now, "liberalization" threatens his very world view.
You know, annulment is a bad joke. Newt Gingrich got 2 marriages annulled in order to marry his mistress of years standing in the Church.
52
Ross, as a leader, Pope Francis has to look at the state of the Catholic Church today, alongside the catechisms. Its pews are thinning and include divorced people who wish to maintain their worship routines after a marriage ended. Myopic, bigoted, outdated practices are a deathtrap for a church which, luckily, is now headed by an individual who at least acknowledges the complexity of
Iife for the non-celibate.
Iife for the non-celibate.
13
Douthat seems to imply that Pope Francis is using executive privilege just like President Obama--with the same effect on the conservatives in their corresponding "legislatures."
9
Many sources I've read suggest that the main reason Jesus rejected divorce was because women in First Century Palestine were the property of their husbands, who literally owned them. When husbands cast off their wives in favor of a younger model through the agency of divorce, women were left to fend for themselves, and that usually meant begging or resorting to prostitution in order to survive.
Jesus, the Supreme Pastor, understood the vulnerability of women of his day, which is why he rejected divorce and insisted that men honor their vows in order to protect the women they married. While women these days still earn less than men, they are hardly in the same dire straits as their first-century counterparts when their husbands divorce them, thanks to legal protections like alimony.
Pope Francis understands that times have changed for women, and he also understands there is often a need to dissolve abusive marriages especially in an honest manner without having to resort to theological trickery, which the annulment process all too frequently involves. The only people who don't seem to understand this are those with a fundamentalist mindset like Mr. Douthat, who cannot abide even the slightest modification of what he calls "doctrine," something others refer to as "dogma," "doctrine" being reserved for those lofty theological tenets enshrined in the Catholic creeds, none of which are being challenged in the present synod.
Jesus, the Supreme Pastor, understood the vulnerability of women of his day, which is why he rejected divorce and insisted that men honor their vows in order to protect the women they married. While women these days still earn less than men, they are hardly in the same dire straits as their first-century counterparts when their husbands divorce them, thanks to legal protections like alimony.
Pope Francis understands that times have changed for women, and he also understands there is often a need to dissolve abusive marriages especially in an honest manner without having to resort to theological trickery, which the annulment process all too frequently involves. The only people who don't seem to understand this are those with a fundamentalist mindset like Mr. Douthat, who cannot abide even the slightest modification of what he calls "doctrine," something others refer to as "dogma," "doctrine" being reserved for those lofty theological tenets enshrined in the Catholic creeds, none of which are being challenged in the present synod.
30
By calling birth control a "grave evil" that merits an eternity in hell, and by insisting that fertilized eggs are people, the Catholic church has destroyed its credibility. I would think they'd be grateful that all those divorced people would still want to attend mass and fill its coffers.
Douthat's tone towards the Pope in this column is shockingly uncharitable and nasty for someone who proclaims himself a Catholic. The reference to "the ostentatious humility of Pope Francis" is particularly disrespectful. Tsk tsk.
Douthat's tone towards the Pope in this column is shockingly uncharitable and nasty for someone who proclaims himself a Catholic. The reference to "the ostentatious humility of Pope Francis" is particularly disrespectful. Tsk tsk.
134
Oh, the hypocrisy.
The annulment scam is no more, or less, than the selling of indulgences.
The Pope is infallible until he acknowledges modernity.
The best illustration of Catholic hypocrisy is their belief in the immaculate conception.
But, good Catholics never believe it when the exact same thing happens to their daughters.
Signed,
The only unmolested altar boy in America. I am however suing them for discrimination. I was cute.
The annulment scam is no more, or less, than the selling of indulgences.
The Pope is infallible until he acknowledges modernity.
The best illustration of Catholic hypocrisy is their belief in the immaculate conception.
But, good Catholics never believe it when the exact same thing happens to their daughters.
Signed,
The only unmolested altar boy in America. I am however suing them for discrimination. I was cute.
18
No one these days claims their daughters had an 'immaculate conception."
I suspect you are confusing the Immaculate Conception with the Virgin Birth. They are two separate things. The first concerns the birth of Mary. The second, of Jesus.
I suspect you are confusing the Immaculate Conception with the Virgin Birth. They are two separate things. The first concerns the birth of Mary. The second, of Jesus.
3
It seems that Jesus is very kind, but only if you do **exactly** as an orthodox interpretation of books chosen by a fourth century committee to be the official words of Jesus from a plethora of writings purporting to describe what Jesus said; otherwise you are in for a world of eternal hurt. People who are entangled in believing such indeed need a lot of blessings.
116
Certainly not a fair statement of all Christians nor of all Christian Churches; indeed, almost the kind of ignorant statement that too often comes from those who believe what you say all Christians believe. Christians are indeed quite divided on many beliefs say one: Jesus is Lord and Savior. All else, as they say, might be mere "dictum."
2
It's the power of conversion. Converts take literal interpretations as foremost, like a newcomer to a language who can't yet grasp sarcasm or irony.
For Ross Douthat I recommend a careful rereading of the four gospels, four remarkable, short, and repetitive documents that embody the teachings of Jesus.
Pope Francis is making an effort to focus on caring for each other instead of for the institutional church. We can try to help or continue attacking each other. Which do you think is more Christian?
Pope Francis is making an effort to focus on caring for each other instead of for the institutional church. We can try to help or continue attacking each other. Which do you think is more Christian?
208
Liberalizing the Catholic Church looks oh-so easy and cool to worldly people who never got used to the rules others lived for for generations. But the true cause of Christ is a bit more involved than playing to the smartphone crowd because once you START breaking down rules that good people decided on years ago, just where do you stop?
3
I'd stop before the message of hate and exclusion for power corrupted the institution (same goes for the current evangelical corruption). This Pope speaks to my deep roots in spiritual practice before I chose to stick with ethics and compassion and do my best to love my neighbor as an atheist.
5
"Ostentatious humility"!
Now here's a writer who doesn't know how not to be snide. Although it's a pleasant change not to have this bilious writer venting against the political left, he just can't control himself. I have no great sympathy for organized religion, but just as when the topic is political, this writer lowers the tone of any debate. What a shame it has to be so in the New York Times.
Now here's a writer who doesn't know how not to be snide. Although it's a pleasant change not to have this bilious writer venting against the political left, he just can't control himself. I have no great sympathy for organized religion, but just as when the topic is political, this writer lowers the tone of any debate. What a shame it has to be so in the New York Times.
280
I stopped reading after "ostentatious humility!" Clearly this man has no clue as to what true humility is.
5
True. Whoever decided to give him a column in the NYT needs to be revealed to the public.
2
Ross, you dislike this Pope in the same proportion that Bernie Sanders admires him which says everything.
255
Under Bernie's political system of beliefs, eventually the government becomes so authoritarian that religions are unnecessry. Socialist government is always jeslous of non-government people having others' respect, and the economies become so terrible that the elite regime feels it has to control and own everything.
2
Mr. Douthat, your column today is a great reminder to the millions of us who find organized religion an impediment to spiritual growth and happiness. No man has the right or the ability to decide who will or will not commune with God. Only I decide that for myself. It is a human right.
294
Bravo-- well said.
44
Janet, thank you for stating the realities of the commune. After getting married a second time to a nice Catholic, and going through the "school's" to become one myself, I was told I could not be baptized nor take communion until I annulled my first marriage. My wife baptized me and we haven't been back to a Catholic church since. Who is any church to deny me either? This is just two areas why the Vatican is continuing to lose its flock.
10
It might help if you knew what Ross means by "communion," which is a Sacrament of the Church and not one's communing with God. Sadly, it is also true that recent Roman Catholic Popes have said that their Communion is only for Catholics, but they definitely do not mean "communing." While it is ultimately the Church's fault (not just the Roman Church's), anti-organized religion people often have so little other than vitriol on which to base their antagonism.
1
I don't have a dog in this fight, but acceptance of the Pope's stance would certainly make the Church more relevant for many Catholics. Interesting how Douthat's challenge to the Pope's position undercuts the doctrine of papal infallibility.
Certainly, Douthat's reference to the Pope's supposed "ostentatious humility" doesn't convey respect for Pope Francis-- quite the contrary.
Certainly, Douthat's reference to the Pope's supposed "ostentatious humility" doesn't convey respect for Pope Francis-- quite the contrary.
174
Would Douthat call Christ's "humility" 'ostentatious'?
How is the Pope, leader of a few hundred million co-religionists and at least one columnist, "ostentatious"?
And why does this column sound as though Torquemada writes it from the 9th Circle of Hades?
How is the Pope, leader of a few hundred million co-religionists and at least one columnist, "ostentatious"?
And why does this column sound as though Torquemada writes it from the 9th Circle of Hades?
5
As others have pointed out, Jesus told those who wished to enter heaven to sell their possessions and follow him, for it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Now Ross may not be rich by Republican standards, but it does not appear that he has sold all his possessions to follow Jesus. Thus Pope Francis's "ostentatious humility" and rejection of many of the trappings of his office are a direct challenge to Mr. Douthat's faith, for it challenges all Catholics to follow his example. Showing, perhaps, how few true Catholics there are out there.
Now Ross may not be rich by Republican standards, but it does not appear that he has sold all his possessions to follow Jesus. Thus Pope Francis's "ostentatious humility" and rejection of many of the trappings of his office are a direct challenge to Mr. Douthat's faith, for it challenges all Catholics to follow his example. Showing, perhaps, how few true Catholics there are out there.
3
"the chief plotter is the pope himself"
No, he's the Pope. It is his job to run the Church. He gets to do that. It is not a plot, it is being Pope.
But Douthat is more Catholic than the Pope. The Pope is plotting against Douthat and his (self) righteousness.
No, he's the Pope. It is his job to run the Church. He gets to do that. It is not a plot, it is being Pope.
But Douthat is more Catholic than the Pope. The Pope is plotting against Douthat and his (self) righteousness.
617
I guess Ross is asking, "Is the Pope Catholic?", REALLY asking.
13
Oh good Lord, Ross. What are you gonna do if you live to see the reversal of celibacy for priests? The celibacy thing, as I'm sure you know, was not always a requirement.
And why is okay for someone with an annulment to receive communion?
What exactly is the difference between an annulment and a divorce? Communion?
And why is okay for someone with an annulment to receive communion?
What exactly is the difference between an annulment and a divorce? Communion?
279
The fact is that those with money and connections could always get an annulment. A prime example: Newt Gingrich. After two divorces and a premarital affair with his supposedly staunchly Catholic third wife, Newt was absolved (or what ever the proper terminology is) of all his past marital sins and allowed to convert to Catholicism and receive communion! And there was Krista singing in the choir for the Pope on his recent visit. Not everyone has the same money and connections. I think the Pope thinks it is more important for people to be involved in religion than not. Can't remember whether it was something I read or a statement from a special pastor I used to know in Seatltle, but the saying was that a church is a place for sinners, not just for saints!
9
Celibacy was enacted so children of clergy could not inherit church property. Another welcome change would be to end the ban on birth control which is violated by most American Catholics. To be against both birth control and abortion is cognitive dissonance. Accepting birth control could be done by a stroke of the pen, just as requiring meatless Friday's was eliminated.
15
I can answer the last question. A divorce leaves a friends 5 children as "legitimate." An annulment means her 5 children are bastards because her parents were never married.
2
I think that I may understand this. The pope is an autocrat who is dependent on his court, the cardinals and bishops, have to be on board in order to accomplish his will. Since his courtiers die without heirs to their positions, he can slowly bring the court around by appointing new courtiers. As an autocrat he can rule by fear or by love. Bergoglio is using love on the public stage and fear by shunting egregious courtiers away from sources of power. Rather than ruling by dictate, claiming infallibility, he choses manipulate his court. Since the Vatican is not a democracy, it prone to intrigue but Douthat fails to reveal the counterplots and backroom activity of Bergoglio's opponents. Of course, I would not be surprised if both sides were using and manipulating journalists for their own ends.
36
Positively Jesuitical.
1
Who is Douthat to call the Pope ostentatious? Who left Douthat in charge of determining what is faith and what is a plot? Douthat conflates content with form, thinking form is content. But love is the only real content of true religion. It doesn't fit inside a form, but creates its own outlines according to its needs.
333
Simple question with simple answer. Douthat was indoctrinated by hardened Italian misogynists. He learned what he was told and he will not let reason or experience get in his way. Thus he is also a hard line Republican. What this says about the NY Times is another matter. At least the Times dumped William Crystal after a year of embarrassing the Republican Party and himself.
1
Ross has an NYT column! He's paraphrasing Stalin, "How many NYT columns does the Pope have?"
2
And for sheer arrogant despicability this merits special mention:
"The ostentatious humility of Pope Francis, his scoldings of high-ranking prelates, "
How this is allowed by the old Grey Lady standards people baffles me. Pope Douthat making sulking insults like the conformist trash he is and no one says boo. Maybe zionist Brooks will step up and call Douthat on this cringing incivility.
"The ostentatious humility of Pope Francis, his scoldings of high-ranking prelates, "
How this is allowed by the old Grey Lady standards people baffles me. Pope Douthat making sulking insults like the conformist trash he is and no one says boo. Maybe zionist Brooks will step up and call Douthat on this cringing incivility.
433
query - Isn't it interesting to note how Douthat is joining with the Ken Langone (billionaire Home Depot founder):
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/03/business/la-fi-mh-ken-langone-20...
sect of Catholics who find the Pope to be fallible in places they judge him to be so ? Is the key word out of Douthat's many, many words ' schism ' ?
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/03/business/la-fi-mh-ken-langone-20...
sect of Catholics who find the Pope to be fallible in places they judge him to be so ? Is the key word out of Douthat's many, many words ' schism ' ?
5
Thank you, query. The pope will be a historical figure of Jesuit love, and great renown, though he says Who am I to judge, and Douthat will be long forgotten dust, though he says it is the pope who displays ostentatious scolding.
10
Wow. The gratuitous and apparently anti-Semitic slap at David Brooks manages to mitigate any value this comment might have had.
2
Ross, talk about your proverbial tempest in a teapot.
You should be thrilled that anyone still wants to receive communion in the Catholic Church (especially given its tawdry recent past). I mean, having received communion hundreds of times back in the day, it's not as if the experience ever registered as having any kind of energetic charge, as you would expect if something authentically 'spiritual' were actually taking place. And believe you me, I have experienced that elsewhere. In this matter, I come down squarely with the opinion of Huldrych Zwingli that communion is ultimately a commemoration of a moment. And yet you would deny divorced Catholics the right to share in that commemoration, regardless of why they were ultimately divorced.
And, for the record, at least in the Gospel of Matthew (no pun intended), Jesus does not categorically outlaw divorce. In response to the question posed to him, he merely implies that a man could not toss away his wife, in the fashion that men (like that champion of Ratzinger's Catholic Church, Newt Gingrich) have routinely tossed away their wives for millennia - and even leaves open the option of divorce in the instance of sexual immorality. Truly, who knows how he would have responded if asked if a woman could divorce a climate-change-denying, voodoo-economics-affirming husband?
You should be thrilled that anyone still wants to receive communion in the Catholic Church (especially given its tawdry recent past). I mean, having received communion hundreds of times back in the day, it's not as if the experience ever registered as having any kind of energetic charge, as you would expect if something authentically 'spiritual' were actually taking place. And believe you me, I have experienced that elsewhere. In this matter, I come down squarely with the opinion of Huldrych Zwingli that communion is ultimately a commemoration of a moment. And yet you would deny divorced Catholics the right to share in that commemoration, regardless of why they were ultimately divorced.
And, for the record, at least in the Gospel of Matthew (no pun intended), Jesus does not categorically outlaw divorce. In response to the question posed to him, he merely implies that a man could not toss away his wife, in the fashion that men (like that champion of Ratzinger's Catholic Church, Newt Gingrich) have routinely tossed away their wives for millennia - and even leaves open the option of divorce in the instance of sexual immorality. Truly, who knows how he would have responded if asked if a woman could divorce a climate-change-denying, voodoo-economics-affirming husband?
404
I believe Calista insisted on getting an annulment to marry Newt. I bet that cost him some dough. Pun intended since he resembles a Pillsbury dough boy. Since she is so Catholic she wanted to be married by a priest, even though they had been cheating on his 2nd wife. You have to love the irony here.
17
Sounds like a good argument to me. But interpreting the Bible from its latest English translation is more than I can automatically accept. The Bible can be interpreted in as many ways as the US Supreme Court makes decisions. What Christ and the people of his day thought of marriage is unknown to me. In the Times today, an article on rape in India suggests that rapists should be required to marry their victims. What did the Jews think 2,000 years ago?
1
You should be writing this column.
2
Francis tries to be pastoral, which is not just empty and meaningless, but the cabal of old men cling to their doctrine. So, someone makes a poor choice at 18 years of age or a couple grows apart in their 40s and the doctrinally rigid want to make them suffer for the rest of their lives instead of treating them humanely. What good is accomplished by excluding folks from the Lord's Table? Are the sacraments not a source of grace? Is grace only for those who do not really need it because they are already so "righteous"? Jesus said, "I have come to call not the righteous, but sinners" (Matthew 9:13).
Jesus lived in a far different culture. In that time and place a woman who was divorced from her husband was shamed. Her life was essentially over as she would end up impoverished often depending upon the charity of relatives. He tried to protect women from such a fate by disallowing a man simply setting her aside. Jesus was, above all, compassionate, not doctrine driven.
Jesus lived in a far different culture. In that time and place a woman who was divorced from her husband was shamed. Her life was essentially over as she would end up impoverished often depending upon the charity of relatives. He tried to protect women from such a fate by disallowing a man simply setting her aside. Jesus was, above all, compassionate, not doctrine driven.
471
Actually, quoting Amy-Jill Levine's notes on the Matthew 19 text she writes, "The House of Hillel was more lenient [than the House of Shammia, which the text resembles the teaching of]" Matthew 19, 19.1-12].
1
This is an absolutely correct reading of Jesus' teaching on marriage and divorce. He was trying, as he so often did, to protect women from the extreme effects of male prerogatives.
6
I suspect that life expectancy was also lower back then....so growing 'old' with your spouse was not to the advanced ages we have now.
2
I am still trying to understand why in some congregations the onus for a marriage couple's failure to honor each other is laid upon only one of the parties in the contract.
It might make more sense to begin with a trial marriage that could be broken by mutual agreement, like other partnership contracts?
It might make more sense to begin with a trial marriage that could be broken by mutual agreement, like other partnership contracts?
42
"For a Catholic journalist, for any journalist, it’s a fascinating story, and speaking strictly as a journalist, I have no idea how it will end.
Speaking as a Catholic, I expect the plot to ultimately fail; where the pope and the historic faith seem to be in tension, my bet is on the faith.
But for an institution that measures its life span in millennia, “ultimately” can take a long time to arrive."
One, accusing the Pope of plotting makes Douthat trash.
Two, Douthat is not a journalist by historic standards but a partisan appartachick writing on spec to serve his emotional needs. The record is irrefutable, "plotting" today's proof.
Three, no one who "bets", bets based on their superior knowledge of the "faith" over the Pope and hundred of millions of the faith-ful(!!!) is a real catholic, or, christian. To take one base example, the hubris and contempt for humility in his knowing God's will.
Four. The issue when the NYT publishes pseudo religious psuedo expertise by an ill educated convert is not the truth of the matter, not the Roman Catholicism. It is the complete intellectual bankruptcy that is fine with the NYT because complete intellectual bankruptcy serves the needs of oligarchs who must be mollified by the NYT. No standards, no decency required of Club members. Clear for twenty years, now, it is closer to Marie Antoinette levels of contempt for anything other than power of the powerful.
Nihilist, despicable. Douthat and his ilk are the road to Syria in America.
Speaking as a Catholic, I expect the plot to ultimately fail; where the pope and the historic faith seem to be in tension, my bet is on the faith.
But for an institution that measures its life span in millennia, “ultimately” can take a long time to arrive."
One, accusing the Pope of plotting makes Douthat trash.
Two, Douthat is not a journalist by historic standards but a partisan appartachick writing on spec to serve his emotional needs. The record is irrefutable, "plotting" today's proof.
Three, no one who "bets", bets based on their superior knowledge of the "faith" over the Pope and hundred of millions of the faith-ful(!!!) is a real catholic, or, christian. To take one base example, the hubris and contempt for humility in his knowing God's will.
Four. The issue when the NYT publishes pseudo religious psuedo expertise by an ill educated convert is not the truth of the matter, not the Roman Catholicism. It is the complete intellectual bankruptcy that is fine with the NYT because complete intellectual bankruptcy serves the needs of oligarchs who must be mollified by the NYT. No standards, no decency required of Club members. Clear for twenty years, now, it is closer to Marie Antoinette levels of contempt for anything other than power of the powerful.
Nihilist, despicable. Douthat and his ilk are the road to Syria in America.
288
An additional element of absurdity is the ease with which annulments are processed. Often multiple marriages the produced children can be swept away by a mysterious process somewhat akin to magic.
7
Oh, come now. Surely you allow divergent opinions withing the R-C church. History is full of same and that is your history. Too much preaching of "the faith" ignores that history. It is not the same over the 20 centuries, and that's what Protestants perceived, beginning in 1570. Go study the history of the councils, beginning, perhaps, with Nicea and learn a little theology.
Perhaps Douthat knows more of that, given his conversion.
Insulting others' views is not the way to charity/caritas.
Perhaps Douthat knows more of that, given his conversion.
Insulting others' views is not the way to charity/caritas.
2
I don’t read Douthat’s columns for his views about the vagaries of Catholic dogma, but rather to see how he justifies support for the embarrassing and destructive members of the Republican hierarchy. That he can write with such analytical clarity and passion about a religious topic that means absolutely nothing in the real world speaks to his ability to write about conservative politics as if it had something to do with the real world.
Esquire’s Charles Pierce refers to him as Cardinal Douthat for his tendency to take the Catholic thing so seriously. His views about gay marriage are well known; he dismisses global warming, rails against abortion, has antique patriarchal attitudes about women and talks about the '60s sexual revolution as if it was the beginning of the end of civilization. Not content to chastise and demean people merely in this world, he wants to claim that right in the next as well.
Sam Harris notes that if you mutter Latin words over your cornflakes and think they become the body of Elvis, you’re insane. If you do the same over a cracker and think it becomes Jesus, you’re just a Catholic. It’s such silly bit of dogma. To deny communion to people who escaped loveless or abusive marriages seems equally hateful and abusive.
They’ll never atone for the child rape cover-up, or for preaching against condoms during an AIDS epidemic, so I hope this synod of old gay men sees the light, and gives the Pope and the people what they want.
Esquire’s Charles Pierce refers to him as Cardinal Douthat for his tendency to take the Catholic thing so seriously. His views about gay marriage are well known; he dismisses global warming, rails against abortion, has antique patriarchal attitudes about women and talks about the '60s sexual revolution as if it was the beginning of the end of civilization. Not content to chastise and demean people merely in this world, he wants to claim that right in the next as well.
Sam Harris notes that if you mutter Latin words over your cornflakes and think they become the body of Elvis, you’re insane. If you do the same over a cracker and think it becomes Jesus, you’re just a Catholic. It’s such silly bit of dogma. To deny communion to people who escaped loveless or abusive marriages seems equally hateful and abusive.
They’ll never atone for the child rape cover-up, or for preaching against condoms during an AIDS epidemic, so I hope this synod of old gay men sees the light, and gives the Pope and the people what they want.
817
gemli ° Boston
Once again, very well stated. Thanks gemli.
.
Once again, very well stated. Thanks gemli.
.
176
Thank you for saying so succinctly what I would have written.
14
What a godawful exercise in bigotry.
4
"Speaking as a Catholic, I expect the plot to ultimately fail; where the pope and the historic faith seem to be in tension, my bet is on the faith."
At last! I now know the meaning of "more Catholic then the Pope".
It's too bad for Ross that Pope Francis follows the example of his conservative predecessors in appointing to the hierarchy bishops who see things his way. That a conclave of conservative cardinals came up with him as Pope seems to confirm that God works in mysterious ways.
Change may indeed come slowly to the Catholic Church, but it won't be because faith triumphs. It will be because religious conservatives, just like their political counterparts abhor any change they don't approve of and will do anything to frustrate it. It wasn't faith that made the mischief of arranging Kim Davis's audience-that-wasn't-an-audience with Pope Francis; it was one example of the intra-hierarchichal intrigue against this particular Pope.
The quickest way to prevent the Church catching up with the 20th century, never mind the 21st, would be a palace coup against Pope Francis. I'm sure Ross would be cheering it every step of the way and congratulating himself on the victory of his version of the faith.
At last! I now know the meaning of "more Catholic then the Pope".
It's too bad for Ross that Pope Francis follows the example of his conservative predecessors in appointing to the hierarchy bishops who see things his way. That a conclave of conservative cardinals came up with him as Pope seems to confirm that God works in mysterious ways.
Change may indeed come slowly to the Catholic Church, but it won't be because faith triumphs. It will be because religious conservatives, just like their political counterparts abhor any change they don't approve of and will do anything to frustrate it. It wasn't faith that made the mischief of arranging Kim Davis's audience-that-wasn't-an-audience with Pope Francis; it was one example of the intra-hierarchichal intrigue against this particular Pope.
The quickest way to prevent the Church catching up with the 20th century, never mind the 21st, would be a palace coup against Pope Francis. I'm sure Ross would be cheering it every step of the way and congratulating himself on the victory of his version of the faith.
334
90% of American Catholics may well be more Catholic than THIS Pope.
Just as 150 - 200 million Americans are more patriotic than Trainee Golfer Obama.
Just as 150 - 200 million Americans are more patriotic than Trainee Golfer Obama.
2
Why did you not become a priest, Ross? Don't like Seminary? Ahhh, don't like celibacy!
1
Unique comparison, given the fact that a majority of voters chose Obama....twice yet the losers have felt compelled to de-legitimatize him throughout his Presidency. THIS Pope, is the Pope who is loved by the overwhelming majority of Catholics and non Catholics. It is apparent that rather than acknowledge the teachings of Jesus that focus on caring for the less fortunate, "the least of these, my brothers" Ross has sided with the adherents of Pharisaic literal-ism about sex and marriage. He and they are told to ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’" This is sadly neglected by all of the wealthy and their servants.
11
Ross, your column is full of debate structure and it sabotages you. This matter isn't about tricking readers into a position; this matter is about being open and spiritually honest.
When Pope Paul VI signed "Humane Vitae" in 1968 there is no doubt that he was exercising power to change Church doctrine. The same is true of other, many other acts of Popes.
In fact, Hans Kung, whom I'm sure you have to acknowledge is as and more knowledgeable than you on this subject, says of the papacy, "The Catholic Church is ruled by an entirely dysfunctional hierarchy. The Pope does not even have a cabinet. In principle he decides everything. We are stuck with an absolute monarchy akin to the rule of King Louis XIV in France that led to the French Revolution in 1789. In the Church too we need a revolution to change things, but a peaceful revolution . . ."
There is no "plot" in this Ross. There is only your internal, psychological fear as a severely conservative Roman Catholic, that women, divorcees, homosexuals, children and others will finally be recognize as equals in the congregation that is your Church. I sincerely doubt that Christ would have any issue with that conclusion whatsoever.
But thanks for your essay. As a former Catholic I find your posts a constant source and wealth of arguments supporting the process that led to my departure from your Church decades ago. If there's a God out there these tortured exhibitions of behavior have to be curious trials for It.
.
When Pope Paul VI signed "Humane Vitae" in 1968 there is no doubt that he was exercising power to change Church doctrine. The same is true of other, many other acts of Popes.
In fact, Hans Kung, whom I'm sure you have to acknowledge is as and more knowledgeable than you on this subject, says of the papacy, "The Catholic Church is ruled by an entirely dysfunctional hierarchy. The Pope does not even have a cabinet. In principle he decides everything. We are stuck with an absolute monarchy akin to the rule of King Louis XIV in France that led to the French Revolution in 1789. In the Church too we need a revolution to change things, but a peaceful revolution . . ."
There is no "plot" in this Ross. There is only your internal, psychological fear as a severely conservative Roman Catholic, that women, divorcees, homosexuals, children and others will finally be recognize as equals in the congregation that is your Church. I sincerely doubt that Christ would have any issue with that conclusion whatsoever.
But thanks for your essay. As a former Catholic I find your posts a constant source and wealth of arguments supporting the process that led to my departure from your Church decades ago. If there's a God out there these tortured exhibitions of behavior have to be curious trials for It.
.
623
That's Louis XVI who was swept up in the French Revolution. Louis XIV was the Sun King who built Versailles.
2
"When Pope Paul VI signed 'Humane Vitae' in 1968 there is no doubt that he was exercising power to change Church doctrine."
In Humanae Vitae, Paul VI affirmed (not changed) existing Church doctrine.
In Humanae Vitae, Paul VI affirmed (not changed) existing Church doctrine.
1
That's a shame. You should have grown up Catholic any where else in the world. We are the classic middle-of-the-roaders. Just not in the US.
2
The biblical text cited doesn't address communion or even seem to address what happens more generally once the injunction not to divorce is not heeded. Do other teachings of Jesus address this? If the "historic faith" on this issue is other than the teaching of Jesus, why can't the issue be reconsidered? Consent was necessary for an Ancient Roman marriage, but even so, a marriage in which consent was coerced might have the legal consequences of marriage -- as I recall it, it was a practical consideration, including public reliance on the appearance of marriage. In a religious context, even if divorce is not allowed, that doesn't tell us how to treat divorced people. I don't say the next step is practicality, but how about the goals of the religion with regard to the souls with whom it is entrusted? If the goals are about the development of souls, why maintain a system that pushes them away? Is that really in keeping with the overall mission of Christianity or of Catholicism? I guess I would worry more about winning a battle and being penny-wise, but losing the war and being pound-foolish.
122
When Paul began his outreach to the Gentiles, he argued for not requiring the Gentile converts to adhere to the ancient dietary laws or to male circumcision. Most Catholics, and most Protestants, descend from the line of Gentiles, not from Jews. So what do any of these 2,000 year old Jewish debates, including the matter of divorce and remarriage, have to do with them?
6
Diana, I think you really hit on something that I never considered. It is obvious, as you say, that the nowhere in the bible does it discuss what happens if someone does divorce. The church was late to the recognition of marriage in the first place. There was no celebration of marriage in the early church. A defacto excommunication of divorced and remarried individuals is a tortured stretch.
11
What happens, Diana, when the goals of a religion have little to nothing to do with "development of souls", but the nurturing of those during life who give themselves up utterly to faith based on dogma? Any assumption that religion is anything more than that is merely anthropomorphizing of the deity.
An observant Jew should understand this well, as the Jewish faith doesn't precisely feature a kind and cuddly God who wishes arguments from His people.
An observant Jew should understand this well, as the Jewish faith doesn't precisely feature a kind and cuddly God who wishes arguments from His people.
4
If you have the privilege to hear The Holy Father speak in his Flores Barrio Argentine Spanish, it amounts to a high ranking official speak in Brooklynese or East Queens dialect. Where's the ostentation, Mr. Douthat? The son of an immigrant Italian family who came to Argentina who pushed his way up the ranks of an order that prizes reason and evidence for decisions is certainly aware of what's going on in the world and the constant demand for understanding our the plight of less fortunate fellows who struggle each day with the challenges of surviving.
J'accuse! Mr. Douthat who slides from high-minded conservative quips to snide and smug asides would hardly recognize what is genuine humility.