lotusland - nervous politics from a laid-back city

the catholic church and collectivism

there's the black smoke!  i remember my mother telling me about that tradition, and thinking it was so cool while wondering if i'd go to hell for being excited by things that can only happen once the pope dies. 

not that i've been alive for any other papal elections, but i wasn't anticipating a speedy decision.  reading the national post this morning, i was pretty disheartened by reports that the cardinals are leaning towards another conservative pope due to all the outpouring of love and admiration for john paul ii.  although he was conservative regarding issues such as contraception/euthanasia, and relatively silent on the issue of abusive priests, he is also fondly remembered for his innovative side.  most news reports since his death highlight his progressive endeavours:  attempting reconciliation with judaism, opposing authoritarian governments in eastern europe, embracing the third world, and focussing on young people.

in his instructional homily to the cardinals, cardinal ratzinger denounces a few hallmarks of contemporary society, including "liberalism" and "collectivism"

liberalism?  what does anyone mean by that word anymore?  does he mean john locke and js mill?  like many americans, does he use liberal as a codeword for the heathen, hollywood-oriented, licentious, democrat-voting masses who don't watch fox news?  or does he mean garden-variety liberalism, defined as unrestrained permissiveness?

well, he can't be talking about locke, since he opposes collectivism.  defined by the catholic encyclopedia as "the economic side of socialism, without reference to any philosophical, psychological, ethical, or historical assumptions,"  collectivism runs contrary to catholic doctrine because man's welfare demands private ownership of "stable possessions" and of "lucrative property" (pope leo xiii).  since this apparently proceeds logically from the commandment 'you shall not steal,' i guess this isn't just some attempt by previous popes to  justify owning a lot of things without having to answer to the "blessed are the humble" stuff in the beatitudes.  moreover, this opposition to collectivism is based on the belief that collectivism increases social ills; consequently, morality and religion dictate it ought to be avoided.  all this is very tenuous indeed, and i think the church ought to re-articulate its position regarding 'collectivism without communism' given that many biblical teachings are congruent with an ascetic ideal of denying the self in order to help the soul, and catholics are particularly encouraged to ensure salvation through service, good works, and promoting justice.  unless there is legislated athiesm, there is no real reason for the church to oppose positive liberty in favour of negative liberty.

in fact, in the 1981 laborum exercens, john paul ii advances a modernist and reasonably collectivist conception of labour:

"THROUGH WORK man must earn his daily bread[1] and contribute to the continual advance of science and technology and, above all, to elevating unceasingly the cultural and moral level of the society within which he lives in community with those who belong to the same family ... Thus work bears a particular mark of man and of humanity, the mark of a person operating within a community of persons."

so i am wondering if ratzinger's apparent confidence in libertarianism and the free market is more prevalent in the college of cardinals than john paul ii's cosmopolitan collectivism, motivated by "disproportionate distribution of wealth and poverty and the existence of some countries and continents that are developed and of others that are not call[ing] for a leveling out and for a search for ways to ensure just development for all." (laborum exercens, 1981)

as one of those impatient/disillusioned/relativist/whatever western european/north american nominally-catholic folk, i'm hoping we see a pope willing to re-articulate church teachings on matters political, especially relating to international development.  mindful of europe's strong committment to international aid, it is heartening to see former colonial/missionary states assisting the regions which inequitably sustained their economies.  moreover,  i'd like to see the church re-evaluate the use of condoms in order to prevent the spread of std's.  since i can't really interfere in the election,  i guess i'm cheering for whoever cardinal maria martini is supporting, given his committment to dialogue and openness.

depending on how literally one takes the prophecies of st. malachy, this is our last pope before st. peter comes back to earth on judgement day.  granted, some theologians believe st. malachy did not specify there would not be other popes between st. peter and  'gloria olivae,' the last pope mentioned on his list.

hmmmm

republicans do immoral things too.

i really should be working on term papers, but this really pissed me off.

a letter to the bc catholic, a newspaper about, well, catholic stuff:

Time for change

I don't really see why so many Canadians took issue with Bush and the Republicans in the U.S. when we have scandals like this in Canada:  that Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary should get a visit from the Canada Revenue Agency after taking exception with our Prime Minister's statements on two moral dilemmas of our time i just abominal [sic].

What does this say about "freedom of speech" north of the border?

I am thinking the airing moral issues got in the American election campaign was a lot more "free" time than we get in Canada.

Things had better change!

ok.  i dont think that the ccra went after bishop henry cos of his views on same-sex marriage and abortion - as if the government would perceive a catholic bishop opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage is some kind of rogue that must be silenced at once.  the ccra went after him because he violated the election act by using his position and resources to blanket churches across canada with little pieces of paper that said "paul martin isnt catholic.  good catholics dont vote for paul martin," leaving it up to the reader to insinuate that "hmmm the ndp is like that too, i guess that leaves the conservatives."(i doubt there are many voters who were not aware of the ndp's pro-choice, pro-equal marriage stance).  bishop henry is free to say what he wants, but during an election, canadians think it's good to have limits on how much people can spend defaming particular politicians.

bishop henry gained notoreity by saying he would refuse jean chrétien communion on the basis of his not following the pope, as well as writing a letter urging catholics not to support paul martin because being catholic means being against abortion and same-sex marriage. 

the pope also spoke out against iraq - shouldnt that have been a factor for catholic voters?  should catholic conservatives who supported the war in iraq be similarly denied communion?  why isnt a war a "moral issue"?  bishop henry wrote a piece in the calgary sun about using the klein surplus to help the poor, criticizing punitive policy of the klein government, yet i dont see a big anti-conservative letter being published in time for the alberta vote. 

moreover, bishop henry's insistence that same-sex marriage and abortion are the most important moral issues leaves catholic voters with the sole option of voting for the christian heritage party as stephen harper has never explicitly said his party was definitively pro-life and anti-same sex marriage.  though the liberal committment to same-sex marriage is more obvious, both parties allow mp's to incorporate their personal views, as well as represent the views of their constituents, on these issues. 

in his letters, bishop henry often references st. thomas more "who by his life and death taught that man cannot be separated from God, nor politics from morality"

let's talk about st. augustine: in city of god, st. augustine outlines the spheres of the city of god and the city of man, placing earthly politics in the city of man.  he says the highest morality that can be practiced by non-christians and by christians fulfilling their secular duties of public service is pursuing peace and avoiding war.  all other moral issues are the domain of the churches and christians.  earthly institutions cannot even dream of mirroring the perfection of heaven and the moral perfection of christian teaching because they are staffed by fallible mortals who are not in a position to judge the morality of others. 

its funny how easily christian leaders forget that politicians are ultimately pursuing the secular goal of, yknow, getting elected.  narrowing your message down to two timely issues in the christian faith (abortion/same-sex marriage) ensures a loyal audience that can tangibly and succinctly describe the policy implications of their political preference.  a support base that can remind themselves why theyre with you in ten words or less is a valuable thing indeed.