The liberal media denounce Pope Benedict's adherence to Biblical and historical truth as rigidity. They want pragmatism and flexibility, which amounts to moral relativism.
Pope Benedict and Christianity stand accused of "divisiveness."
Liberals, along with Muslims, denounced the Pope last September when he spoke at the University of Regensburg. The New York Times demanded an apology for his lack of sensitivity.
What exactly had he done?
As reported in a VOA News article by Sabina Castelfranco,
Pope Benedict XVI spoke of Islam and violence. At a morning mass, he rejected the use of God's name to justify hatred and fanaticism.
In a theological address to academics at Regensburg University, the pope spoke of the relationship between faith and reason and Islam's holy war, Jihad. Historically, he said, spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable and therefore, ungodly.
This so distressed Muslims that they were driven to murder Catholic nuns and priests and to destroy Christian churches to prove that Islam is not a religion of violence.
Now, with the Pope's journey to Turkey for discussions with Islamic mullahs, the media have another opportunity to chastise Christians. The Wall Street Journal, in its edition of November 25, 2006, spotlights the Pope's forthrightness in a front-page, feature article by Gabriel Kahn and Stacy Meichtry.
The Journal article's headline is "A Tumultuous World Tests a Rigid Pope: Inside the Vatican, Benedict's intellect and style intimidate. How will they play outside the Church? Confronting Muslim anger." If you are an online Journal subscriber, read the article here.
The reporters observe disapprovingly,
Nineteen months after being selected pope, Benedict is transforming the Vatican with a different style and a different stance. Beneath his blunt words and rigid style lies a profound divergence from John Paul's buoyant optimism. Pope Benedict believes that the Roman Catholic Church must stand apart from the world of today rather than embrace it.
. . . For Benedict, the modern age is defined by growing secularism in the West and the rise of religious fanaticism most everywhere else. In order to fulfill its mission, he believes, the Church needs to shun both forces. Benedict is "pessimistic about the compatibility of the Church and the modern world," says Mr. Spaemann.
. . . Benedict's emphasis on tradition risks alienating a broad cross-section of Catholics who argue the Church needs to become more accessible to maintain its increasingly diverse flock.
Many people mistakenly assume that, because the Journal's editorial staff is conservative, the Journal's news staff are similarly aligned. This front page article is a good example, both of the Journal's liberal slant on news coverage, and of present-day moral relativism in action.
Implicit in the article is the viewpoint that there is no such thing as truth, no such thing as right or wrong. The writers have absorbed the relativistic view inculcated in today's colleges and universities that flexibility and pragmatism, other names for moral relativism, ought to be the sole criteria for belief and action. Adherence to the truth is characterized as impractical rigidity.
Flexibility and pragmatism were the watchwords of John Dewey, the 20th century's most influential liberal-socialist-progressive. The doctrine of Pragmatism which he popularized was that Darwin's evolutionary hypothesis had proved everything to be continually changing and evolving. Thus there can be no such thing as permanent moral truth from God, rooted in human nature, because there is no such thing as fixed human nature. Pragmatism, instead, teaches that there are only actions that get you what you want, or fail to do so, in changing circumstances; the end justifies the means.
In the vein of Dewey's philosophical pragmatism, the Journal reporters simply assume that the goal of Christian churches ought to be maximizing their membership by reaching a doctrinal compromise that would alienate the fewest people. It seems not to have occurred to them that a Christian church has no purpose other than preaching the New Testament Gospel as written. Without that, there is no Christian church.
Flexibility and pragmatism are the hallmarks of a society that no longer believes in itself, because it has lost touch with the traditions that brought the society into being and enabled it to survive against outside aggressors. They are the hallmarks of societies in political decline.
Flexibility and pragmatism, as Professor James Q. Wilson wrote in astonishment, led his students to reject the judgment that Hitler's National Socialism and his Holocaust were evil, because those students had been taught that right and wrong are unscientific value judgments.
If Pope Benedict's allegiance to Biblical Truth alienates a broad cross-section of the Church's diverse flock, the logical conclusion is both that the alienated portion of the flock is not truly Christian, and that some Catholic priests have drifted into heretical doctrine and taught falsehood to their parishioners. Unfortunately, the same is true of the Protestant denominations, as well.
Compromises on Jesus's teachings, Sunday morning entertainment, and feel-good messages are not Christianity. Preaching the Bible's truth is the only way to bring individuals into a fruitful relationship with God and the only way to maintain the integrity of Christianity.
To do otherwise would be the equivalent of instructing Marine Corps volunteers in boot camp that Semper Fidelis is the motto of the Corps, but it isn't necessary always to be faithful to your buddies in combat and to fight for each other if you have a different opinion or just don't feel comfortable with the history and traditions of the Corps.
The WSJournal reporters, at least where the history of the Catholic Church is cnocerned, seem to be right on the money in their assuption that;
“the goal . . . (is) maximizing their membership by reaching a doctrinal compromise that would alienate the fewest people.”
Otherwise, how would one explain the adoption of clearly unscriptural doctrines of pagan origin such as the trinity and eternal torment in hellfire?
How would a sincere Catholic scripturally support the Church’s requirement for celibacy in the priesthood, celebration of holidays with pagan origins such as Easter, the so-called “Christmas” holiday, and others?
If Christendom in general, and the Catholic church in particluar, really “has no purpose other than preaching the New Testament Gospel as written”, I would submit that based on it’s performance in the post-apostolic period, it has failed, and worse, misled it’s adherents.
Honest-hearted persons desiring to serve God acceptably would be better off if they started over by reading a reliable modern-language translation of the entire Bible, all 66 canonical books, not just the “New Testament” and offering a sincere prayer to God for help in understanding it.
“Pope Benedict believes that the Roman Catholic Church must stand apart from the world of today rather than embrace it.”
My God, it is the job of the bishops to “go forth and teach all nations what I have taught you,” not “go forth and ‘embrace’ all nations”. Their mission is to change society by teaching Catholic truths, not to be changed by society.
Where were these apostates when the nun was teaching them their first year catechism, and what do they expect? Methinks validation of their sin.
On the secular side, when I received my commission in the Air Force in 1966, I was declared “an officer and a gentleman by act of Congress.” Sadly, this is no longer done to the newly commissioned. Apparently, this simple standard is also too “impractical” and “rigid”.
“how would one explain the adoption of clearly unscriptural doctrines of pagan origin such as the trinity and eternal torment in hellfire?”
Well, you see, Christianity likes to use the Christian Bible as it’s reference. Going by the first 6 letters in the name, it’s largely based on the teachings of Christ. Christ taught (by all written accounts) that there was a trinity, with he comprising one of the three parts. He and his disciples and apostles also taught that there is an eternal afterlife with eternal punishment. Without eternal punishment, there’s really not much reason to accept salvation through Christ since you can attain it later on. And without a trinity, Jesus would have had a tough time selling his message that he was the son of God, and that redemption was possible through belief in him. Catholics do not entirely believe in eternal damnation either. The Catholic idea of purgatory separates Catholicism from the Protestant and reformation movements. Judaism interprets the Old Testament slightly differently than Christianity so as to reject Jesus as their Messiah (Christ said himself that they would not believe and that they would be “blinded” until his second coming, so this is not a big surprise to Christians and Messianic Jews), and hence trinitarianism is looked upon as a false doctrine. As far as eternal punishment, Judaism does not teach extensively on the afterlife. The purpose of the law in Judaism is to instruct Jews how to lead a righteous life on earth, not what heaven or hell will be like. Of course, that’s Judaism. Judaism and Christianity are related (in fact, Christianity as we know it could never have come about had the Jews not rejected Christ as their Messiah), the only difference between Christianity and Judaism is belief in Christ as the Jewish Messiah. That makes them distinctly different. You seem to have two religions confused with one another. I myself am not a Catholic, and there are some Catholic practices that I believe have no Biblical foundation, but trinitarianism and an eternal afterlife aren’t among them.
“Honest-hearted persons desiring to serve God acceptably would be better off if they started over by reading a reliable modern-language translation of the entire Bible, all 66 canonical books, not just the “New Testament” and offering a sincere prayer to God for help in understanding it.”
You should take yourself up on that sometime, because whatever exactly it is that you believe in, it isn’t Christianity. At least not as written in the Christian Bible. The only group that believes the same way you do (from the sounds of it) and even calls itself Christian would be the Unitarian church. I do agree with you on one point though: the Catholic Church has been in steady decline for many years, most notably in it’s increasing acceptance of secular concepts and its handling of homosexuality and pedophilia among the clergy.
Which leads me to a point that actually has something to do with this article. Since when is it the church’s obligation or responsibility to accept the secular world? Where did anyone even get this idea from? This is something that’s been called the Grace and Truth paradox. People read the Bible, they read about God’s unending grace, they read the message of Jesus, and they come away only with “We need to accept everyone as they are and love them”. They cite the passages where Jesus associates with the lowest of society: the tax collectors, the prostitutes, etc. However, they completely miss the fact that Jesus did not accept those peoples’ lifestyle. He told them they were sinning and
Whoops, accidentally hit submit :) To pick back up:
He told them that they were sinning and in need of redemption. Being God, he loved them unendingly, but he did not accept their sin. You can see this mentality on display when many people recall the story of the woman caught in adultery. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” is famously quoted. But the story doesn’t actually end there. After the crowd leaves, Jesus tells the woman “Go, and sin no more”. Most people get the Bible the same way they get their news, from 10 second sound bites and cliche one-liners. You need to read the entire thing so that you understand the context and fullness of the message. Jesus wasn’t a hippy peacenick whose message was “Love and Understanding” like he’s made out to be. That’s the Grace part. The Truth part is the part where Jesus actually told people WHY he was extending his grace, because we are all sinners in need of redemption. He upturned tables in the Temple because it was being abused and not shown the due reverence it deserved. He boldly confronted the Jewish religious elders with their sin and hypocrisy. He confronted people with the truth, and offered grace. The Church today, bowing to pressure from the secular world, has become very liberalized, and only really acknowledges the “Grace” aspect of God’s character. We are to embrace everyone and everything, and love them and be understanding. The “Truth” part puts a lot of people off, so most churches just avoid it. The ones that don’t are the old Protestant Puritan and southern Baptists churches who focus only on the “Truth” part, the fire and brimstone, the “repent or go to hell”, the “no laughing in the house of God” type of establishments. There’s a balance between “Truth” and “Grace” that’s well represented in the Bible by the teachings of Jesus. A lot of people, especially secular people, think of Jesus as a Ghandi-esque peace-loving character who embraced everyone. The Church should know better, and I’m glad that the new Pope is taking his xenophobic, hateful, narrow-minded, harsh approach. The Bible never instructed us to become secular in order to influence the secular world.
And why is it that there’s not been any expose on the “hard-line” stance that the Mullah’s in Iran are taking? I like how the Pope is construed as a veritable hate-monger because he said Islam is violent, but Islam is never construed as hateful or violent when its top leaders call for the complete destruction of another country and race of people based purely on their religion, force women to dress in a tent and forbid them from making eye contact with a man (let alone vote or hold public office), and upturn cars and firebomb embassy’s because of cartoons. Christian’s who were offended by a jar of piss with a crucifix in it being displayed as art were told basically to suck it up, and I didn’t notice any looting, rioting and mayhem from the Christian community (odd coming from a group construed by the media as, by and large, being abortion clinic bombers and middle-ages crusaders). I guess they could really teach the Pope a thing or two about tolerance.