Reading news coverage of the Church is hilarious when it isn't completely frustrating. Here's an AFP story about the Holy Father "fir[ing] a shot across the bows of radical feminism in a letter to Roman Catholic bishops to be published by the Vatican on Saturday."
The headline says "hits out," which doesn't make sense (they meant "lashes out," maybe?), but then English isn't AFP's first language. You have to really scrutinize the article to realize that this is not an encyclical, but merely a document approved by the Pope, not written by him.
[The document] says radical feminism's view of equality "has in reality inspired ideologies which for example call into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and to make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent..."This would seem to be the latest in a series of Vatican documents attempting to clarify well-known Church teachings, which inevitably meet resistance even though they are stating the obvious. I think particularly of "Dominus Iesus," which contained the shocking revelation that the Roman Catholic Church understands herself to be the true Church of Jesus Christ.
The author calls Cardinal Ratzinger "the Church's powerful doctrinal enforcer," which makes him sound like a total badass -- which he is.
Cardinal Ratzinger would be a much more badass "doctrinal enforcer" if they hadn't changed his role to "Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith." Dissenters would take his Eminence much more seriously if he were still the head of the "Holy Inquisition". I'll settle for "Holy Office" though.
"The Inquisition/Let's begin/The Inquisition/Look out, sin ..."
WARNING: very strong language ahead, but it's absolutely unavoidable (the joke centers around the use of an English obscenity).
About Agence France-Presse dispatches not being in English. This is my favorite example (it was from a couple of years ago, but I saved it on my computer I found it so funny):
-------------------------------------
The controversial Argentine film "Fuckland" could be in the lineup at the Sundance international film festival from January 18-28, according to the Hollywood Reporter. ...
"Fuckland," whose title combines an English expletive with the name of the islands in the South Atlantic Argentina calls the Malvinas ...
-------------------------------
You gotta love that second paragraph -- what comes of a French news service translating a dispatch that was undoubtedly first written in French into English in a, shall we say, overly literal manner. You understand why it would have to be written that way in French, but nobody who speaks English needs to have that title explained.
Do you think there will ever be another document from the Holy See that doesn't mention homosexuality? I eagerly anticipate one...
Do you think there will ever be another document from the Holy See that doesn't mention homosexuality?
<sarcasm>Yeah! Why don't those old fuddy-duddies just Shut The F*** Up!</sarcasm>
"Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith" is appropriately post-Vatican II. It's going to take another couple of decades, at least, before the tyrannical taint surrounding the word "Inquisition" is dissipated, thanks to Ferdinand and Isabella.
why don't "they" ask real women about how we think of the pope and Ratzinger. Frankly, they both ROCK!
I would say that 90% of women would disagree with you, Cathy, at least about Cardinal Ratzinger. I don't even like Cardinal Ratzinger, and I'm Catholic.
The Pope, on the other hand, is wonderful.
Nathan, when militant homosexuals stop trying to destroy marriage, and refrain from trying to put homosexual acts on the same plane as heterosexual acts, then I guess the Vatican can stop talking about it. It's the gays who made it a political issue -- you can hardly blame the Church for reiterating Catholic teaching on the subject.
Public opinion about Cardinal Ratzinger, if it is not based on some knowledge about his character, thought, and scholarship, has little basis or, dare I say, value. Unscientific guesses about the public's opinion have less.
Now, rather than speculating about the CDF document, go read it.
Eric -- I am "the gays," so please don't preach to me about what we have and haven't done.
RC -- I know all about his character, thought and scholarship, and I still can't stand His Eminence. I'm guessing that since I'm moderate and a Catholic, most of America (which is generally more liberal than I am) has an even worse opinion of him than I do.
Nathan wrote:
"Eric -- I am 'the gays,' so please don't preach to me about what we have and haven't done."
whaaaaa?!?!?
This is self-righteousness wrapped in anti-intellectualism inside unvarnished narcissism.
No, you are not "the gays." You are one gay. Anything the other however-many-million have done, is to you a third-person act, and thus your competence to note it and comment upon is exactly the same as Mr. Johnson's.
Second, you might want to ponder what bearing your point that you're somewhat less liberal than the US populace as a whole -- and thus much less liberal than "the gays" (which means as a whole) -- has on your purported ability to speak for or understand "the gays" as a whole.
Third of all, the fact that Mr. Johnson is not gay (or at least that's the story his wife tells) does not mean he doesn't have two perfectly good eyes and can't see what groups of which he is not a member are doing. Or are you saying that only someone who identifies with a group can see what that group is doing? I dare you to go down that road and try to avoid pure solipsism.
Victor, Eric stated that gays are trying to destroy marriage. That's completely untrue. We have a different understanding of marriage, but we're not actively seeking to destroy the institution of marriage. Nor are we trying to destroy heterosexual marriage -- y'all have done a fine job of that yourselves.
Having been gay and actually experienced what it is to be gay, and what gay people feel, I think I'm quite a bit more competent to talk about it than the former young Republican in our midst. I'm not saying that Eric can't objectively see what gays are doing, but as a heterosexual he has no knowledge of our motivations or what it is we're trying to accomplish -- he proves this by stating that we're trying to destroy marriage, which is most definitely not what we're trying to accomplish.
That said, I don't presume to speak for all gays. I was saying two things: first, it's generally a good idea to think about the hurtful things you say because you never know who they're hurting; and second, as a gay I couldn't disagree more that any of us are actively seeking the destruction of marriage. I suppose there could be some, but the vast majority of the gays I've met just believe differently about marriage, they're not trying to destroy it.
I know I'm going to make no progress on this issue whatsoever, but hey, I tried.
If only we had more Bishops like Cardinal Ratzinger.
See my post on the main blog.
When Mr. Nelson denies that any activist homosexuals are trying to destroy marriage, he is naively mistaken.
For example: the New York Blade knows about gay-movement people who consider marriage an unjust institution and think it should be utterly gone.
Mr. Nelson's credibility as the ne plus ultra representative of Gay Thought is fast diminishing. Maybe he can try to present himself as a reliable indicator of Gay Emotion.
So what have we learned?
It's dumb to stereotype? One may not speak for the motivations of many? Or about them?
It would have been nice if someone had taken up Nathan's charge about what heterosexuals have done to heterosexual marriage. He's got a point, and so does the Church.
So if heterosexuals aren't doing that well as a group, marriage-wise, that's an excuse to screw up American marriage laws even more? Does that make logical sense?