Life Is Not Purgatory
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Holy Mother Church
There is an interesting sparing match happening on Anne's blog between herself and one of her regular readers about Catholicism. Anne, in her typical and trademarked irreverence was mocking the conservative institution that is the Roman Catholic Church stating "what this Church needs is an enema." From that point he regular reader kept the back door analogy going and well... you can read it all here.
But I wanted to weigh in on the matter on my own blog:
I think that Adrian is overlooking the fact that under the law, marriage is a secular institution not a religious one, the legal protections afforded to married couples exist under the law of the state; and it is those secular rights of guardianship, property, and taxation that are affirmed when two individuals marry. In a religious sense he is correct, however the Roman Catholic Church chooses to recognize marriage among its parishioners is its own internal issue, but that is what it should remain... internal.
In an age of Brittany Spears and her 48-hour marriage, Elizabeth Taylor and her 8 marriages over 50-years, Zsa Zsa Gabor and her 9 marriages over 68-years; it is untenable to place the blame for undermining the sanctity of marriage on those homosexual couples who are seeking the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, or those heterosexuals, who support those couples in their quest for equal rights under the law.
Unlike Anne, I have no doubt about the former Pope's efforts to promote peace and reconciliation and to foster common ground between faiths. The Lutheran and Anglican denominations are on better terms with the Holy See than at any other time since the reformation. Relations with the Eastern Orthodox are likely at the best since the Great Schism following Pope John Paul II's formal apology for the sacking of Constantinople. The Pope's outstanding relationship with the Dalai Lama is well-documented.
I note with regret however, that he did not extend his message of tolerance and acceptance within his own Church as widely as he did externally. However, I think believe that James (a practicing Catholic) is right, as pious and as good a man as he was - John Paul II was still a Polish peasant at heart, with all the latent ignorance, social mores, and intolerance that come with it. I hope the next Pope will build upon the good that the previous Pope had done and turn his message of tolerance inward.
There is an interesting sparing match happening on Anne's blog between herself and one of her regular readers about Catholicism. Anne, in her typical and trademarked irreverence was mocking the conservative institution that is the Roman Catholic Church stating "what this Church needs is an enema." From that point he regular reader kept the back door analogy going and well... you can read it all here.
But I wanted to weigh in on the matter on my own blog:
However in an age when the traditional family unit is eroded by relativist secular values, I think the RC church is right to insist on defending the dignity and sanctity of heterosexual marriage. Loving, stable marriages are not just good in themselves - they provide the best possible setting for young people to grow up in and learn to become responsible citizens.
I think that Adrian is overlooking the fact that under the law, marriage is a secular institution not a religious one, the legal protections afforded to married couples exist under the law of the state; and it is those secular rights of guardianship, property, and taxation that are affirmed when two individuals marry. In a religious sense he is correct, however the Roman Catholic Church chooses to recognize marriage among its parishioners is its own internal issue, but that is what it should remain... internal.
In an age of Brittany Spears and her 48-hour marriage, Elizabeth Taylor and her 8 marriages over 50-years, Zsa Zsa Gabor and her 9 marriages over 68-years; it is untenable to place the blame for undermining the sanctity of marriage on those homosexual couples who are seeking the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, or those heterosexuals, who support those couples in their quest for equal rights under the law.
As for John Paul II's relationship with other churches and faith communities, he has done much to build bridges and serve as a reconciler. Had been otherwise thus I can't imagine that the Pope's funeral would have been televised in England on BBC - or attended by the Archbishop of Canterbury and Prince Charles - both representatives of a church which rejected Papal authority over 450 years ago.
Unlike Anne, I have no doubt about the former Pope's efforts to promote peace and reconciliation and to foster common ground between faiths. The Lutheran and Anglican denominations are on better terms with the Holy See than at any other time since the reformation. Relations with the Eastern Orthodox are likely at the best since the Great Schism following Pope John Paul II's formal apology for the sacking of Constantinople. The Pope's outstanding relationship with the Dalai Lama is well-documented.
I note with regret however, that he did not extend his message of tolerance and acceptance within his own Church as widely as he did externally. However, I think believe that James (a practicing Catholic) is right, as pious and as good a man as he was - John Paul II was still a Polish peasant at heart, with all the latent ignorance, social mores, and intolerance that come with it. I hope the next Pope will build upon the good that the previous Pope had done and turn his message of tolerance inward.
