Monday's Open Forum - What's on Your Mind?
Is the Vatican Anti-Semitic or Tone-Deaf?
Introduction Since the beginning of the war in Gaza, Israel and the Vatican have been at odds. Israel has objected to what it sees as the Vatican’s false moral equivalence between terrorist aggression and Israel’s right to self-defence. The Vatican has complained of a “disproportionate” Israeli response which puts innocents at risk and threatens to ignite a wider regional or even global conflagration. Pope Francis wrote to the Jewish population of Israel in February 2024 condemning all forms of anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism: "(The Church) rejects every form of anti-Judaism and antisemitism, unequivocally condemning manifestations of hatred towards Jews and Judaism as a sin against God … Together with you, we, Catholics, are very concerned about the terrible increase in attacks against Jews around the world. We had hoped that 'never again' would be a refrain heard by the new generations." The Pope noted that wars and divisions are increasing all over
I found this story quite interesting. In short, a member of the San Francisco Zen Centre trained an AI chatbot to 'speak' in the 'voice' of Suzuki Shunryū Roshi, the centre's founder who died in 1971, by feeding it the records of all his talks and teachings. People can ask the 'Roshibot' questions and receive teachings and instructions from it, purportedly the answers that Suzuki would have given himself were he still alive.
ReplyDeleteThis raises all kinds of interesting ethical and religious questions, in a world where people are increasingly befriending chatbots or turning to them for emotional support. Is it (or will it be) possible for an AI to emulate a human being at that level? Will this be used to 'bring back' a dead loved on? What does it mean for secular and religious teaching? Would it be possible to feed the Scriptures and commentaries etc. into a program and create a Preacherbot? Would such teaching or pastoral advice be 'valid'? Could someone train an AI on the teachings of Christ to such an extent that the question 'what would Jesus do?' is no longer speculative?
So let's ask a question, you feed in all the data and ask it the question "are you the son of God, one part of the Trinity" and it comes back no and says the concept is an early church heresy, what then?
DeleteThen we all start handing out The Watchtower!
DeleteIt's an interesting question, which I think illustrates the dangers of these AI Chatbots and the weight that some people are starting to give to them. It's one thing to use them to cheat on exams, but quite another when people start befriending them and relying on them for advice or answers to controversial questions (Snapchat - whose users are predominantly young - has a 'myAI' bot that has been criticised for affirming users' questions about their gender confusion and identity).
These AIs aren't really 'intelligent', they're machine learning language models. There's no 'thinking' involved, they're simply very good at calculating probabilities to predict what comes next in a sentence to form a coherent answer and telling people what they want to hear - the creator of the chatbot in the article took it offline after people managed to 'persuade' it to give abusive responses. They're simply illusions, but they can seem very real.
I think we're storing up trouble for ourselves here. The technology is still nascent, and we might not yet have a Messiahbot telling us that core church doctrines are heretical, but we already have lonely and troubled people forming intimate relationships with chatbots.
This study notes that friendships with AIs are increasing, and that they alter our perception of friendship itself. This can't be a healthy direction of travel. I can easily foresee a future demand for AI replicas of deceased loved ones; what would that do for the grieving process?
I'm sure that AI replicas have already been done. I think it was in Japan
DeleteI agree with what you say, I see no benefit, but a lot of problems.
Effort should be praised and encouraged. It enables people to learn to think and problem solve. AI seems to be saying, anything you want to know should be handed on a plate, no effort required.
What would a couple of generations of such a world be like?
https://www.axios.com/2022/07/13/artificial-intelligence-chatbots-dead-relatives-grandma
DeleteIf it was done in Japan, then I've changed my mind and I think it's a marvellous idea 😁
DeleteThe technology is amazing, and I'm sure there will be good applications for it - such as assisting in emergency rescue situations where a human life would ordinarily have to be put on the line. But in a world that already has an increasingly tenuous grip on reality, the idea of AI 'persons' seems dangerous to me. And if, as the secular world insists, humans are simply organic computers, at what stage of its evolution does it become murder to switch an AI off?
@ Lain
DeleteHJ may use ChatGPT for his next article!
Here’s a recent "interview" it gave to the National Catholic Reporter. Remarkably, it seems more faithful to Catholic teaching than that publication:
"However, it's important to note that while I can provide information and answer questions about Catholicism, I am not a religious authority and my responses are not intended to replace the guidance of a priest, religious leader, or spiritual advisor."
The problem is that is can be confidently wrong, as the lawyer who used it for a filing found out when it made up its cited cases.
DeleteWell, HJ is frequently "confidently wrong" ...
DeleteOh, look. It's already happened.
DeleteHUNDREDS OF GERMAN Protestants attended a church service in Bavaria that was generated almost entirely by artificial intelligence.
The ChatGPT chatbot led more than 300 people through 40 minutes of prayer, music, sermons and blessings.
“Dear friends, it is an honour for me to stand here and preach to you as the first artificial intelligence at this year’s convention of Protestants in Germany,” the avatar said with an expressionless face and monotonous voice.
The service — including the sermon, prayers and music — was created by ChatGPT and Jonas Simmerlein, a theologian and philosopher from the University of Vienna.
Scary stuff.
DeleteYou could always set yourself up as a ULC bishop and ordain a few ChatGPT ministers...
DeleteHJ's new title has a certain authority about it.
DeleteI would be interested to read some comments on Nicola Sturgeon. How on earth she can have support from outside Scotland, I don’t know. (I received 2 sad emojis when I sent off the link about her arrest).
ReplyDeleteI believe the only time I ever made a comment related to her was with regard to the following:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9399015/Scottish-judge-rules-Nicola-Sturgeons-church-ban-unlawful.html
“Scottish judge rules Nicola Sturgeon's church ban is unlawful as he declares criminalisation of worship unconstitutional, disproportionate and in breach of human rights”
The aptly named Lord Braid sure upbraided her …
@Right Angle, it's been a long time since I've had so much fun online as I'm getting from Stuart Campbell's coverage of the Scotch mess that N. Sturgeon has made.
Deletehttps://wingsoverscotland.com/the-queen-of-all-the-cretins/
Thanks for the link, Ray. For a reverend, he sounds rather, er, forthright, in his choice of words ...
DeleteHe's a Rev only the same sense that the present-day Cranmer is an archbishop.
DeleteOh I see ...
Delete@ Ray - is he the one who got 'ordained' by filling in an online form?
DeleteYes, I think so.
DeleteStuart Campbell is a ‘Reverend’ of the Universal Life Church, an American based internet organisation. The "church" is known for instant "ordination" which consists of filling in an online form which requires only your first, middle and last names, your email, country, state and a password. Submitting these details results in instant ordination.
DeleteFrom its website :
The Universal Life Church believes that all people are naturally endowed with the right to control their own spiritual life, and thus that all those who feel so-called should have access to ordination.
Ordination at the Universal Life Church is completely legal, is cost-free, and isn't complicated. An ancient Chinese proverb instructs us that the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Within you lies the capacity to make the universe a better place, and your ordination may well unlock that potential. You can take your first step today by completing and submitting your online ordination application now. Additionally, you can delve into more ordination information.
The Reverend Happy Jack
That's hilarious.
Delete'Get ordained, officiate a wedding!' My dad would say that officiating weddings is a great reason not to get ordained.
I love that they've got a picture of Pope Francis as their blog link, for extra credibility. And 'notable ULC ministers' include 'Ben' Cumberbatch, Paul McCartney and Lady Gaga.
Congratulations, Rev. Jack! Or am I now required to address you as Father?
DeleteReverend Jack will suffice, Ray.
DeleteLain, HJ is keen to "make the universe a better place"!
He could try running a hoover over it now and then...
DeleteRev. HJ has noticed one can buy an Honorary Religious Degree, a Credential of Ministry Certificate, various clerical outfits, and even business cards.
Delete@ Lain
DeleteHaving read the blog posts, HJ thinks said hoover needs to be taken to this "church". He has now resigned his "ministry" with them.
H J is now exploring purchasing a Lordship Title Pack for £24.95.
DeleteWith the pack, one receives:
a gold-embossed, personalised title certificate and a legal deed, establishing their new status as a Lord. Each title purchase also comes with five square feet of dedicated land within the Hougun Manor Estate. The pack also includes a personalised welcome letter, title crest postcard, estate map and access to the online members area.
Lord Happy Jack has a good ring to it.
Five square feet, Rev. Jack? That’s quite a lot of land! A rectangle measuring
Delete2’ 6” by 2’ 0”. Almost (but not quite) the size of eight sheets of A4 paper. Take a plastic chair with you, set it down carefully on your own private property, and you can sit on it comfortably and still have enough room left over to put your feet on the ground in front of you!
Jack is a 三日坊主 (mikka bouzu) indeed!
DeleteI'd have thought he'd be holding out for a lairdship, given where he lives.
Yes M'Lord!
DeleteShow more respect for your elders!
DeleteA Lairdship with allegiance to James I?
So, it's now the Reverend Lord Happy Jack.
DeleteAllegiance to Charles IV, surely?
DeleteWhat is this website called Slay? It’s new to me. Do any of our Crannoggy Islanders know anything about it?
ReplyDeleteI found this article yesterday, reposted on a Catholic website, and I smell a rat. Yuval Noah Harari is certainly a controversial figure, but he’s not Beelzebub incarnate. I’d like to take a look at the interview that the Slay article claims to be based on, with a Lisbon academic named Pedro Pinto. I’ve found videos, but my hearing is getting so bad that videos are no use to me anymore. These days it’s the printed word or nothing.
https://slaynews.com/news/wef-ai-rewrite-bible-create-religions-actually-correct/
Slay News is an independent media outlet providing truthful reporting and the free and open exchange of ideas.
DeleteWith that foundation and the unwavering belief in the greatness of America, Slay News has quickly grown into an international news company.
Slay News is unapologetically pro-America and pro-free speech and stands by a pledge to put our people before corporate interests or political agenda.
Hmm.
Is the video on YouTube? Is it this one? https://youtu.be/4hIlDiVDww4
YouTube automatically generates closed captions and transcripts for its videos, and this one has a transcript when I viewed it. This article has instructions for accessing transcripts on any platform:
https://www.howtogeek.com/793947/how-to-get-the-transcript-of-a-youtube-video/
Thank you, @Lain. Yes, that's the one! I'll watch the whole interview as soon as I've finished my lunch. (It's just coming up to 12:30 here.)
Delete@Lain, thank you again for that link. I have now drafted a comment that I’m thinking of posting on the appropriate thread at Slay. What do you think? Would it be asking for trouble?
DeleteIt’s addressed to Frank Bergman, the journalist whose byline appears on that article.
Frank Bergman, here is a YouTube video, complete with subtitles, of last month’s meeting in Lisbon at which Pedro Pinto interviewed Yuval Noah Harari. I think you will find it interesting. You will notice certain nuances, certain shades of meaning, that have a bearing on parts of your article. Consider, for instance, the “Bible for all religions” to be written by an AI. Harari is not presenting this as a prospect to be welcomed and still less as a policy aim to be pursued, but rather as a serious danger lurking on the horizon that we need to take steps to prevent while there is still time.
https://youtu.be/4hIlDiVDww4
@ Ray - they do claim to be pro-free speech, so go for it! You have used the n-word (nuance) though, so it will be interesting to see what result you get.
DeleteHarari is an atheist and married to another man, so I imagine he'd be anathema to that site, from what I've seen of it. I read his Sapiens a while ago; I thought he had some fairly interesting ideas, although I found him quite tedious when it came to taking swipes at religion (and in some places, just plain wrong) - he follows the Dawkins model whereby asserting that 'people of faith are dumb' means that you don't have to evidence anything you say about them. My main problem with his work is that a lot of it is speculative but presented as fact, which leads to him drawing substantive conclusions that his hypotheticals can't carry, particularly if they're used to inform policy. I'm not quite sure why he's risen to such prominence.
Someone seems to be getting a bit above themselves. Lord, Reverend indeed, snort.
ReplyDeleteThe grammatically correct title is the Reverend Lord.
DeleteBut has he registered on anyone’s rev counter?
ReplyDeleteGood to see you've rediscovered your blog account, Irishman!
DeleteHJ will be disclaiming his titles shortly. Both can be obtained online by simply filling in a form. The 'Lordship' costs £25 but the 'ordination' is free.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0XkkkD3p6o
ReplyDeleteIf correct, then a reasonable inference would be
1 -- the pope does not care about the Catholic Church;
2 -- the cardinals do not care about the Catholic Church;
3 -- the bishops do not care about the Catholic Church, therefore;
4 -- we should not care about the Catholic Church.
Convince me I'm wrong.
Wondered when this would surface for discussion.
DeletePope Francis didn't write the document and its status is not doctrinal.
Here’s the full document.
Jack, I can't get your hyperlink to open. I looked for it on the Holy See website, but nothing doing. I clicked on two dicasteries, for the Eastern Churches and for Christian Unity, and I didn’t find anything that fits Jules Gomes’s description. Was I looking in the wrong place?
Deletehttps://www.orientchurch.va/
http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi.html
@ Ray - I can't bring myself to wade through another Gomes hit piece, but this document referenced in this article seems to fit the bill?
DeleteThank you, @Lain. Yes, that’s obviously the document Jules Gomes was talking about. I’ve had a quick look through and the only clear idea that emerges from it so far is that it’s yet more chatter about the importance of “synodality”. Bearing in mind that nobody has given any specific information in public about the precise nature of the changes that Pope Francis is going to enact, at some future date, raising the curtain on the brave new era of “synodality”, the only thing we can do at the moment, surely, is wait and see.
Delete@Bell, what are the bits of the document that you spotted, that led you to your dire conclusions? As I said, I’ve only had a quick look through it so far, but it looks pretty uncontroversial. It’s hardly news, for instance, that the Catholic Church regards the sack of Constantinople as a Bad Thing that ought never to have happened, or that there is no record of anybody ever using the expression “the Catholic Church” at an earlier date than St Ignatius of Antioch’s Epistle to the Smyrneans.
Ray - here is a summary from an Orthodox news source. I can't see anything particularly controversial in it from either side; just the usual gathering of theologians to write a lot of noble words, thrash out the minutiae of some obscure point and then return home having made not very much difference to anything. Par for the course.
Delete@ Ray
DeleteThe article Lain linked to has a hyperlink to the document.
@ Lain
The agreement just seems to explore history and note differences.
Here’s a summary from a Catholic source.
DeleteAnd this from another one:
The primacy of the Bishop of Rome is among the main points of disagreement between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.
In the west, Church unity was expressed through being in communion with the Bishop of Rome, as the successor of Saint Peter. Petrine primacy among the apostles was a cornerstone in the west, whereas the east regarded Saint Peter and his successors as Bishop of Rome as "first among equals."
The Eastern Orthodox, on the other hand, have a conciliar or synodal model of the Church. For them, unity is through the common faith and communion in the sacraments, rather than a centralized authority. They do not recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome over all Christians, but rather consider him equal to other bishops, though with a primacy of honour.
[Note the Russian objections to those Eastern Catholic Churches which broke communion with the Orthodox Church]
From the first of those two links:
DeleteAfter six years of study, dialogue and discussion, commission members approved their document, "Synodality and Primacy in the Second Millennium and Today," at an early June meeting in Alexandria, Egypt, and released the text June 9.
“Six years,” it says. Well, well. The document runs to 6,700 words. That works out at a little over 1,100 words a year, which gives 21 words per week or 3 words per day. What can it have been, do you suppose, that prevented them from producing more than a measly three words a day?
Anyway, now I must read the whole thing through carefully and see if I can pin down what all the fuss is about.
Well, there is over 1000 years of division to overcome.
DeleteOn a cursory reading, it looks to me like the eastern rite Catholic Churches are going to be the next ones thrown under the bus.
DeleteEh?
DeleteReally, the conclusion of several years of discussion is:
The Churches in East and West should strive to purify their histories of mutual misunderstanding and mistrust in order to “embrace an authentic understanding of synodality and primacy in light of the ‘theological principles, canonical provisions and liturgical practices’ of the undivided Church of the first millennium,”
@ Bell
DeleteHere’s a more balanced overview than that provided by Gomes and Church Militant.
Since God exists at all points in both space and time, if He wishes to become incarnate, then that incarnate being -- Christ -- also exists at all points in both space and time, just as every thought of the Father exists at every point of space and time. Similarly, the Holy Spirit. Thus, we have the vision of Daniel at 7 13-14. Assuming the "Son of Man" is Jesus -- and we do -- then Jesus existed long before his earthly incarnation. Remembering that He is also God, then He MUST have existed forever with God, since God's thoughts exist at every point in -- and out -- of time and space.
ReplyDeleteNow, all of the above is in danger of getting very theological, but assuming everybody understands what I've said in the preceding paragraph, then I do not understand how West and East can meet across the divide of the filioque debate. Everything I understand about Orthodoxy tells me the East -- whatever its public stance -- does not really accept the Son and the Father as co-equals and of one substance, and if this is the case, then unity under the aegis of the document referenced is on the basis of the Church, essentially, accepting it's been wrong for a thousand years and applying for membership of the Orthodox community.
Again, convince me I'm wrong.
Everything I understand about Orthodoxy tells me the East -- whatever its public stance -- does not really accept the Son and the Father as co-equals and of one substance.
DeleteThis is utter nonsense - it's the equivalent of the fundamentalist evangelical's 'everything I know about Catholicism, whatever its public stance, tells me that they really do worship Mary'.
So convince me.
DeleteThis controversy Is a tempest in a teapot. It's semantic not substantive.
DeleteEastern Orthodox often refer to the Holy Spirit proceeding from “the Father through the Son,” which can be equivalent to the Catholic formula “from the Father and the Son.” Since everything the Son has is from the Father, if the Spirit proceeds from the Son, then the Son can only be spoken of as one through whom the Spirit received what he has from the Father, the ultimate principle of the Godhead.
The Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes: “This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.” (CCC #248).
Good article on this here.
DeleteNote:
Some among the Orthodox who are rigid on this point are reminiscent of Protestants who cling to verses of Scripture that say justification is “by faith” while refusing to acknowledge other texts that just as clearly say justification involves “works,” or “obedience,” “perseverance,” etc. They are right when they say justification is by faith; they are wrong when they insist upon a “faith alone” that excludes works as being part of the process of justification in any sense ....
Analogously, the Orthodox are right when they insist the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as first principle of the divine life of the Trinity, and the Catholic Church has always agreed. They are wrong if they, along with the originators of the schism, create the novelty of ek tou monou tou Patrou (Greek, “from the Father alone”) in that “rigid” sense contrary to the ancient theological understanding of both the Creed and our trinitarian theology in both the East and West.
To what end? Reason cannot persuade prejudice as Jack doubtless found out many times, when his lengthy and detailed explanations about the difference between latria and dulia were simply met with 'yeah, but I think Catholics worship Mary, so they do'. As a counterpoint, here is an article explaining why the Latin formulation is actually the one that denies the full equality of the Godhead, and why the Filioque is Arian subordination applied to the Spirit. As you can see, anyone can uncharitably interpret another's position on these mysteries.
DeleteIn any case, your statement is incoherent. The Orthodox Church retains the Creed of the early Church, which was universally accepted as a sufficient statement of Christian belief until additions (or clarifications) were made by Rome to deal with specific heresies. If you are correct, and the Orthodox deny that the Son and the Father are co-equals and of one substance, then you must also accept that Rome was languishing in heresy until the introduction of the Filioque. As I'm sure you're aware, given your concern for them being thrown under the bus, Eastern Catholics generally don't accept or use the Filioque, and Rome does not require them to. Modern Rome, then, is in full communion with heretics, on your view.
Or perhaps it's the case that codifying eternal mysteries in a few sentences is a fool's errand in the first place, and it's perfectly possible the Latin creed can be read in an Orthodox manner, and vice versa. Perhaps East and West are saying the same thing in different ways because - and this might be controversial - nobody is seeking to deny that the persons of the Godhead are consubstantial and co-equal.
Theologically, the 'Filioque controversy' is trivially easy to resolve - as it has been with Eastern Catholics - because it's not actually a real issue (except among those who want to make it so, with their astonishingly bad takes). What is currently irresolvable is that which caused the controversy in the first place - that Rome (i.e., the Pope) believed it had the authority to unilaterally amend the Creed on behalf of the universal Church. Since this authority was dogmatised by Vatican I (although modern Catholics seem increasingly willing to ignore it), it seems to me that reunification is vanishingly unlikely, since the Roman position is essentially take and no give.
You keep yelling "prejudice" about my take on Orthodoxy like a Jew yelling "anti-Semite" when somebody doesn't join their fan club. If you'll look again, you'll see my initial question was about the Catholic Church, not the Orthodox. Uncharitable as it sounds, I don't actually CARE about the Orthodox. As with the issue of my recent post on capital punishment, the problem Catholics are having is the same one you allude to in your post, the pope taking too much upon himself. If you can get past the eastern chippiness, you'll see that my concern is about my Church not yours. Either it has the charism of truth, or it doesn't. Either it is specially protected from error, or it isn't. If it does and it is, then its prelates, like officers of the army, should be upholding its laws and traditions, not creating new definitions for obscure Greek words in order to fudge up some compromise which will ultimately satisfy nobody. It is THIS which I'm concerned with. Is the Catholic Church the One True Faith, or is it not?
Delete@ Bell
Delete"Is the Catholic Church the One True Faith, or is it not?" It is, but simply asserting this to Christians separated from the Church is unlikely to be successful.
"I don't actually CARE about the Orthodox." Then, shame on you!
Jack is correct that a simple assertion of the special status of Catholicism is insufficient. Unfortunately, it's equally correct to say that if we don't believe it ourselves, why would anyone else? This is what we keep coming back to repeatedly: has Rome lost the faith? And I think Jack is aware I was referring to the institution of the Orthodox Church, not its members. In like fashion, I don't care for or about the Jesuits, by which I mean the Society of Jesus, not the 13000 or so members.
Delete"Has Rome lost the faith?" Well, if you believe Catholic teaching, then you know the answer to this - or should do.
Delete@ Bell wow ... I'm reminded of Anton, Chef, Martin et al., who purported not to care about Rome but couldn't stop banging on about it...
DeleteAnyway, I'm sorry that you seem to feel that your Church is falling apart, but lashing out at other confessions won't help. Although I'm sure you won't care - as I'm simply an unrepentant Eastern heretic on the same level as a Jew(!) - I'd caution you that being so attached to any particular expression of any earthly institution is spiritual death. All earthly things are 'change and decay', including churches: expecting them not to change, and being upset when they do, is folly. A lot less time on Church Militant might help: Voris and Gomes peddle ecclesiastical disaster porn and what we put into our mind determines what comes out of it.
One must not make an idol of the Church: it is simply a shadow of what is to come, a gilded shadow perhaps, but one that will pass away. The Heavenly Jerusalem has 'no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple'. Why, then, allow oneself to be so disturbed about earthly temples? If Christ is the eternal high priest, why allow oneself to suffer such angst over the missteps of a temporal high priest, whose days are as grass? Is Christ's promise that the Church will prevail against Hades so weak that it can be frustrated by the actions of mere men?
No Church has ever saved anyone: that is solely the role of Christ, who 'changest not'. The Church is simply the boat that takes us to the other side to meet him. The boat is important of course, and we should take care of it, but once one has attained the other shore, one leaves the boat behind. Cling to the unmovable Rock, and let others concern themselves with the ebb and flow of the tides.
@ Lain
DeleteVoris and Gomes peddle ecclesiastical disaster porn ... " 😲
@Lain,
DeleteThe whole point of the Catholic Church is precisely that it is NOT an "Earthly thing", at least not entirely. This is what you -- and more importantly, our own prelates -- don't seem to be getting, but it's the entire point of everything I'm saying here. You may think I'm wrong about that, and, I'll concede, it's possible I may even BE wrong about that, but the entire Magisterium of the Catholic Church hinges on it being especially protected by the Holy Spirit in a way that no other body on the planet is; not the Orthodox, not the Jews (sorry, dual covenanters and fundies), not the protestants or anybody else is. If our bishops don't believe that, there really is no point. And this is something I would have thought the Orthodox WOULD understand, since the individual EO churches are all predicated on close identity with specific countries. They are existentially state churches, and the most important of them, the ROC suffered monumentally when it's association with Russia was severed during the Communist years.
@ Jack - it's true, though. CM is intended to scintillate, drive traffic, arouse the reader and cause addiction. This is worldly behaviour and outrage culture is deeply unhealthy. Gomes is a talented provocateur, and shock and absurdity has a role to play in challenging the complacency of the status quo. However, since he became a Catholic (and one wonders why he did, given his apparent disposition towards the Church), I think his elevation to quasi-journalist status has been misguided (St. Paul warns us that new converts are at danger of falling into conceit - surely someone who's been Catholic for all of five minutes should spend some time learning in humility before becoming an anti-establishment mouthpiece). The court jester has a useful role, but it's dangerous to take him seriously. It's even more dangerous when he starts taking himself seriously.
Delete@ Bell - Scripture is quite clear that everything on earth is a 'shadow and a copy of heavenly things'. There will be no institutional Church in the age to come, because there will no longer be any need for it. 'For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known'. The Church exists to present the bride (i.e., the people of God) to Christ 'holy and without blemish'. Once the bride and the bridegroom 'become one flesh', her work is done. There is no need to fast when the bridegroom is present.
One has to separate the spiritual - which is from God and therefore incorruptible - from the institutional - which is human and corruptible. Much existential angst is caused by conflating the two, and if one's belief in the spiritual is wedded to the institutional, one is storing up problems for oneself. Imagine how much stronger the Church would be if people spent all that time they waste in futilely railing against the Pope, in prayer and fasting instead. Perhaps God's purpose is to encourage Catholics to relearn how to cast themselves more upon him than upon the institutional church.
Besides, if you really believe that the Catholic Church is uniquely protected by the Holy Spirit, then what are you so concerned about? He has already 'overcome the world', has he not?
They are existentially state churches, and the most important of them, the ROC suffered monumentally when it's association with Russia was severed during the Communist years.
Again, this is sinking to the Antonine anti-Catholic 'it's true because I believe it' level. Just as Anton's self-proclaimed encyclopaedic knowledge of Catholicism was little more than an aggregate of Reformation polemics and Chick Tracks, you really don't know as much about the Orthodox Church as you think you do. I'm not interested in defending caricatures.
@ Lain
DeleteOh, HJ agrees!
Duly authorised by Happy Jack:
ReplyDeleteDamian Thompson
The search for the next pope is turning ugly
The Spectator, 16 June 2023
The Portuguese poet José Tolentino Mendonça is a handsome man in his fifties with a shaved head and meticulously trimmed beard. In one photograph he’s wearing an ultramarine blue polo shirt; in another, a lovely beige cashmere sweater that matches his tan. His poems depict emotional pain in cryptic language. In ‘The Last Day of Summer,’ unable to ‘choose attention or choose forgetfulness’, he recalls ‘your impatient and inconceivable eyes/ here with me now/ as I dance alone/ in the empty city’.
But then Mendonça has no choice but to dance alone. He is a cardinal of the Catholic Church – and just possibly the next pope.
Pope Francis has been in office for ten years and he’s spending more and more time in hospital. Last week he was admitted to the Gemelli for emergency abdominal surgery, at which point leaders of the Church’s factions geared up for an imminent conclave to elect a successor. The surgeons spoke out, providing an unusual amount of clinical detail. It was a hernia operation, they said; blood tests revealed no cancer, no heart disease, nothing to stop Francis travelling to Mongolia if he wants to (which he does, bizarrely, though he still hasn’t set foot in his native Argentina as pontiff).
On the other hand, he’s 86, two years older than John Paul II was when he died. Also, papal doctors have been known to dissemble. At any rate, we can be sure that from now until the next conclave, not a day will pass without senior prelates revising their calculations between mouthfuls of saltimbocca. ‘It’s like Wolves in the City,’ says one veteran commentator, referring to Paul Henissart’s book about the last days of French Algeria. ‘Regime change is coming – whether in a conservative or liberal direction we don’t know, but the machinery of the Francis pontificate will be dismantled. Until then, like pieds noirs in Algiers, we sit around in restaurants listening for the next muffled explosion.’
That’s rather melodramatic imagery, but you hear variants of it all the time. It’s ‘drive-by season’ in Rome, we’re told – during which one prominent cardinal after another wakes up to read on social media that some blunder or character weakness, often unspecified, has taken him out of the running for the papacy. (An exception is the former favourite Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Secretary of State, whose mishandling of financial scandals has been so egregious that he’s no longer worth briefing against.)
Ed Condon, editor of the Pillar website, the leading English-language Catholic news source, reported last month that the attacks on big beasts have become so savage that a Brazilian archbishop, Ilson de Jesus Montanari, turned down Francis’s offer of the Prefecture of the Dicastery for Bishops, a job most curial officials would kill for. ‘Sources close to the archbishop said he feared becoming a “tall poppy” in the Vatican field,’ wrote Condon.
And with good reason. Look what happened to Cardinal Luis Tagle, former archbishop of Manila. In 2019, Tagle was brought to Rome to run the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples; he was already head of Caritas, the Church’s largest humanitarian charity. The Pope has demoted him from one post and sacked him from the other. Nobody is sure what he did wrong, but we do know there was a flurry of briefings about his lack of ‘managerial effectiveness’. For the past decade, Tagle – a charismatic crowd-puller in the Philippines – has been known as ‘the Asian Francis’. He still is, but now it’s said with a smirk. Was he really a lousy administrator or did his rivals take him down? Did the rumours influence Francis or did they originate from him?
(Cont.)
Delete(Cont.)
In the past year, prominent cardinals from across the theological spectrum – liberal, conservative and middle-of-the-road – have all received the drive-by treatment. And, strangely, the attacks originate from Team Francis, the name given to a group of hardcore papal sycophants in the media and their curial patrons.
One of their recent targets was Cardinal Peter Erdo, who as the Archbishop of Esztergom-Budapest helped organise the papal trip to Hungary in April. It was a success, so Erdo must have been puzzled to read snarky attacks on him from papal apparatchiks for travelling to Budapest airport in a limousine, provided for the occasion by the government, while the Pope chose a white Fiat – one of those ostentatiously modest gestures of Francis’s that actually costs a fortune. Erdo is described by the Vatican-watcher John Allen as ‘reserved, buttoned-down… with an almost genetic predisposition for staying out of the spotlight’. The idea that he regularly swanks around in limos is preposterous. He’s a brilliant canon lawyer who could repair the holes in Catholic teaching created by Francis’s mid-flight doctrinal improvisations. That’s why many conservatives are hoping he’ll be elected pope – which would explain the comically ineffective hit job by Team Francis.
But, since the latter are all liberals, why were they equally keen to go after the pro-Francis Tagle? And why have they now turned on the centre-left Cardinal Matteo Zuppi of Bologna, who was briefly their flavour of the month after Tagle’s defenestration? The amiable, rake-thin ‘bicycling cardinal’ is currently the tallest of the remaining poppies, but already he can hear the swish of the scythe.
Zuppi is apparently in high favour with Francis, who sent him as his peace envoy to Ukraine. But the Pope’s approval is always more apparent than reliable, and the briefings against Zuppi have already begun. Papal courtiers are already using the dreaded phrase ‘too big for his boots’.
What lies behind this scorched-earth policy? The next conclave will be more liberal than the one that elected Jorge Mario Bergoglio ten years ago, and the conservatives have only one obvious contender, Erdo, about whom they’re lukewarm. So why do Team Francis keep kneecapping anyone hailed as Francis Mark Two?
The simplest answer is that they’re desperate. Plenty of cardinal-electors are broadly liberal on the subject of women and LGBT people. But they’re damned if they’re going to be bounced into ordaining female deacons or hosting gay blessings by the forthcoming ‘Synod on Synodality’, whose agenda has been hijacked by activists chosen by Team Francis. The electors are also troubled by another of Team Francis’s pet causes: the attempt to snuff out the Latin Mass, which is being supervised with Cromwellian zeal by the Yorkshire-born Arthur Roche, the Vatican’s liturgy chief.
Put simply, the odds are stacked against any prominent liberal candidate who’s invested too heavily in the synod, overstepped the mark on homosexuality or joined the march against traditionalists. That may be why Zuppi claimed – unconvincingly – that he knew nothing about a same-sex blessing in his diocese, and why he took the huge risk of presiding over Old Rite vespers last year. Was that a signal that he wouldn’t be a continuity candidate? Shortly after those vespers the briefings started. But whether they will damage him is another matter, such is the unpopularity of the ‘Bergoglian bunny-boilers’, as one Vatican source calls them.
(Cont.)
(Cont.)
DeleteA bigger problem for him is his relationship with the Sant’Egidio community, an association of liberal Catholic networkers with a reputation for opportunistic arm-twisting. Cardinals who are prepared to overlook – or who even agree with – his evasive stance on gay blessings won’t vote for a candidate who might farm out the Secretariat of State to Sant’Egidio.
So who do the ultra-liberals favour as the next pope? It’s complicated because the shrewder members of Team Francis know that their endorsement is the kiss of death. If they want a pope who is in favour of gay blessings and women’s ordination – causes that Francis has toyed with in a spirit of bloody-mindedness rather than solidarity – then he needs to enter the conclave unobtrusively, with minimum baggage, and then ‘emerge’, rather as Karol Wojtyla did in 1978.
That’s why, from their point of view, the less said about José Mendonça the better. The 57-year-old cardinal is Prefect of the Dicastery for Culture and Education. It’s a sweet job for him, allowing him to reflect on the films of Andrei Tarkovsky and ‘what Bruce Springsteen does with the Bible’. He is urbane, charming and photogenic. His poems, I’m assured by a Portuguese–speaking friend, are beautifully crafted, though you have to wonder about their autobiographical subtext. That’s a subject best avoided; likewise Mendonça’s opinions on homosexuality and abortion, which are the least orthodox of any prefect of a Roman dicastery. Therefore Team Francis will keep a judicious distance, blowing him secret kisses, calculating that if he can avoid alienating electors by growing into a tall poppy then maybe they’ll be rewarded by the sight of him dancing alone on to the balcony of St Peter’s.
(End)
Damian Thompson certainly has a flair for the dramatic! HJ has to say he isn't a great fan. Still, one prays the intrigue within the Vatican ends and the cardinals actually focus on praying for the Holy Spirit's guidance rather than feeding their own egos and self advancement.
Delete[This brings to mind the time Cranmer accused one of 'Dodo the Dude's' manifestations (St Damian, as HJ recalls) of being Damian Thompson. Seemingly, there's no love lost between the two of them. Perhaps they have too many characteristics in common.]
This is all very sad. Mimicking worldly politics and power struggles paves the road for antichrist's entry into the heart of the Church. What a distraction from God all this is. The same is true of the ongoing Russia/Ukraine mess in the Orthodox Church.
DeleteIf the legacy of Francis' 'curate's egg' of a papacy is the exposure (and hopefully the tearing down of) some of these egotistical power structures in the Vatican, so much the better. As with many things, perhaps wanting to be the pope should automatically preclude one from being so.
A "curate's egg" of a papacy implies it was good in parts.
DeleteIt's a measure of our charity to be able to find at least a little good in the most rotten of eggs.
DeleteReally? I hope you're not a food inspector.
DeleteYou position is that there is nothing good that Francis has done? Not one sermon, not one act of charity?
DeleteIn matters of our own sin, we judge ourselves harshly, that our conscience does not condemn us before God.
In matters of other people's sins, we exercise charity, for 'the measure you use, it will be measured back to you'.
Thanks for this post, Ray. Whenever I doubt for the future of the Catholic Church, I should remember that the venality of the cardinals can always be trusted to eventually lead us back to the light. Their antics are a reminder that God really does have the most wonderful sense of humour.
ReplyDeleteRereading this article, it occurs to me to ask, Is Damian Thompson implying that Cardinal Mendonça, the “Portuguese poet” of his opening sentence, is — how shall I put it — not the most masculine of men? A little bit campy, perhaps?
Delete“A handsome man in his fifties with a … meticulously trimmed beard, [wearing] a lovely beige cashmere sweater that matches his tan. … He is urbane, charming and photogenic. His poems … are beautifully crafted, though you have to wonder about their autobiographical subtext. That’s a subject best avoided; likewise Mendonça’s opinions on homosexuality … Team Francis will keep a judicious distance, blowing him secret kisses …”
If so, it would suggest that the whole purpose of this long article, from start to finish, is simply to shoot down the Mendonça for Pope campaign before it even gets off the ground.
Could be. The cardinals really are ferrets in a sack, and the whole "campaigning is against canon law" thing seriously hands me a laugh. We wouldn't have had Bergoglio if the St Galen Mafia weren't making offers you couldn't refuse. As for Mendonca's sexuality, I wouldn't pay too much attention to that particular subtext. I also am a handsome man in my fifties, urbane, charming and photogenic, and my musk-drenched odour of masculinity is itself enough to impregnate women.
DeleteAh, but do you take care to wear lovely beige sweaters that match your tan? And do the men in your workplace habitually blow you kisses, even if only metaphorical kisses?
DeleteWell this was at times a depressing little debate, if there was ever a case made that proved that the Catholic church was not special and was not given special defence against error, Bell was eloquent in making the case.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with him, it's clear that except where it supports their position in the turf war going on in the CC, the hierarchy don't believe it themselves, so I see no need to believe it myself. Bells argument is water tight.
Imagine, Martin was right all along, who would have thought it.
Except, Bell's arguments are flawed.
DeleteI think you know what I'm saying.
DeleteI said the hierarchy don't believe it. I never said it wasn't true. This has been my entire point from the beginning. Our shepherds -- with a few noble exceptions -- have lost the faith. Most are Rousseau priests, essentially humanists. Some are flat-out materialists, but either way, their attitude to supernatural faith is that it's outdated at best, an obstacle to the Earthly Paradise at worst.
Delete