I’ve got the one, true church – so there!

July 14, 2007

Guest Post by Morbo

Just in case anyone had forgotten, Pope Benedict XVI issued a statement this week reminding the entire world that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church. All others are just wannabees.

I couldn’t be more pleased. It’s not that I agree with Benedict. He’s a throwback to the 12th Century. But what’s great about statements like this is that they bring ecumenism to a grinding halt — and I’m all for that.

Here’s why: For years, right-wing evangelicals have been trying to forge a coalition with ultra-orthodox Catholics to usher in their shared vision of theocracy in America. You know what that looks like: No legal abortion. No gay rights. No stem-cell research. No feminism. No naughty books and DVDs. No artificial birth control. No secular public schools. And so on.

Back in 1994, a group of right-wing Catholics joined forces with a group of right-wing evangelical Protestants to issue “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” a document that kindly lays out how they plan to run all of our lives. Signers included such leading theocrats as TV preacher Pat Robertson; Richard John Neuhuas, a former left-wing Lutheran who became a right-wing Catholic priest; Watergate-era-felon-turned-fundamentalist Charles W. Colson, and Richard Land, top lobbyist for the Southern Baptist Convention and de facto Republican Party activist.

It’s horrifying enough to see this band joining forces, but occasionally the far-right theocrats would link up with fundamentalist Muslims at the United Nations to scuttle some abomination like, say, giving poor women in the Third World access to birth control.

The last thing I want to see are these nutcases forming a unified front. Arrogant statements like Benedict’s should help put the kibosh on that.

As MSNBC reported:

It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, “Dominus Iesus,” which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the “means of salvation.”

Yes, the firestorm of criticism — that’s what I want to see. Keep ’em fighting among themselves. They’ll be too busy to come after us.

James Madison once spoke of the desirability of having a “multiplicity of sects” in America. He figured they would disagree among themselves and that would prevent any one denomination from usurping state power. It has worked pretty well so far. I thank Benedict for keeping it going.

Finally, I don’t mean anything in this post to knock the lots of good, progressive Catholics out there who are dismayed to see Benedict rolling back Vatican II. Keep the spirit of John XXIII alive, folks. The church can’t be just about Tridentine Masses and right-wing politics.

all the theocrats view all the other theocrats of a different stripe as “useful idiots,” to be dealt with right after their side takes over.

  • I don’t mean anything in this post to knock the lots of good, progressive Catholics

    The Catholic church is probably the last pure, unapologetic authoritarian patriarchy in the West. Within the church, the opinions of the laity are officially irrelevant if they conflict with those of the pontiff, whose authority within the organization is unlimited. Women are explicitly forbidden from holding positions of power. And the basic animating ideology is adamantly pre-enlightenment and and anti-rational (the doctrine of the trinity states that 3=1).

    There may have been “good” popes who reined in the church’s worst retrograde impulses, but, as in any monarchy, the character of the system is entirely dependent on the personality of the leader. Nothing stops a John XXIII from being eventually followed by an authoritarian despot who, once installed, can populate the hierarchy with like-minded men.

    There may be progressive-minded Catholics out there. But the church they are loyal members of is anti-progressive down to its very structure.

    I’m glad to see this country’s far-right theocrats taking potshots at each other. And of course we’ll make common cause with believers when we can do it without betraying our core principles. But I’d have to say that, whether they know it or not, Catholics of whatever stripe (even progressive ones) are in important ways on the other side from us, so long as they support their church. Sad but true.

  • The last thing I want to see are these nutcases forming a unified front.

    You mean the five Roman Catholic justices who, for the first time in history, comprise a majority on our Supreme Court?

  • Religious bigotry is not really different from any other kind of bigotry, but rarely do bigots have two centuries of continuous institutional structure to validate their narrow-mindedness or irrationality. Let’s not even mention all the violence done in the name of the “One True God,” and his self-appointed Vatican represenatatives.

    Benedict is obviously several centuries behind the curve, and unfortunately will do much to encourage fanatism and zealousness among the non-thinking faithful. To the extent he alienates the other self-righeous fascists who claim Christianity as their creed I think he will be a force for good, and I encourage him to spread his arrogance far and wide. Lock all the orthodox types, no matter what religion, in a room and throw away the key is what I say.

    What I have never understood is why the progressive Catholic faithful have not risen up en mass against the “unapologetic authoritarian patriarchy.” How gays, blacks, and women can have anything to do with Catholicism (and the Republican party) has always been a mystery to me. But then, so is life.

  • pssstt hey Rich, it is called schizophrenia and all religious idiots have it … can’t be a religious moron and still claim sanity … so thebset thing to do is to keep an eye on them to make sure they do not set the place on fire … and enjoy the show .

  • Pope Benedict XVI as ratzinger once said that he wouldn’t mind if the catholic church is reduced to one third of its memebership if it will purify the church (of liberal and dissenting elements)

    So this does not surprise, it is just part of the plan to purge progressive catholic from the rolls.

  • Give it a rest. The Catholic church is the only true church of God and Peter was it’s first pope. The church has its own politics and political structure based on loyalty to the pope. But then there’s always confession to forgive your sins when you can’t be loyal.

    Is this another dimension or what? However, how can one not take delight in finally seeing some religious leader calling the likes of Dobson and Robertson false prophets leading imitation churches. Duh! Now that is ironic but true. According to the Catholic Church, Dobson’s going to hell, Dobson’s going to hell.
    Robertson’s going to hell, Robertson’s going to hell. Fun isn’t it?

  • Yes, and Ratzy has stated unequivocally that hell is indeed a real place with real eternal torture. Not only that, but the recent influx of frying fat (i.e. Jerry Falwell) should make the flames higher than ever. Ol’ Lucifer’s just lickin’ his lips waiting for the Dobby and Pat.

    Sometimes I wish I believed this nonsense…

  • You people really do crack me up. You seem all upset because the Pope of Rome simply states what the Catholic Church has always taught. John Paul II said the same thing. So did his predecessors, all of them. You can’t knock the Pope for “throwing a wrench” in ecumenism if all he is doing is clarifying the Church’s teaching. You really don’t expect it to change because protestants don’t like it? Did you think that dialogue would change the truth? What use is dialogue without an understanding of principles?

    The only reasons one could expect a dialogue to take place without a frank understanding of principles is that they either expect the other partner in the dialogue to change their principles (which the Catholic Church has never and will never do) or they expect to ignore those principles. But common ground cannot be found without common principles, so isn’t it clear that the only possible fruit of dialogue would be to find common ground on the principles shared between Catholics and non Catholics. Now how precisely, please tell me, are we to do this if we don’t talk about what our principles are?

    Benedict is intelligent enough to know that. I urge others to refrain from criticizing him without thinking about the matter logically and calmly.

  • Pope Benedict XVI issued a statement this week reminding the entire world that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church. All others are just wannabees. — Morbo

    Not quite. The Greek Orhodox (and possibly the Russian Orthodox; I havent really pursued the subject, since I have only a passing interest in things religious) is *almost* OK too. For them, it’s purgatory, *at most*. It’s only people like Falwell, Dobson, Robertson and those 3 “Christian activists” who objected to a Hindu invocation in the Senate the other day — ie Protestants — who are going to fry, along with all the other heretics (Muslims, Hindus, etc).

    According to Joxhn XXIII, hell probably didn’t exist (I suppose he realized hell’s on earth, now). According to Ratzy, hell is a vast and democratic place, waiting for the multitude…

  • “Finally, I don’t mean anything in this post to knock the lots of good, progressive Catholics”
    I too have met and befriended many good progressive Catholics, Protestants, Jews and followers of Islam. But i despair of ever getting through to them that their very participation and espoused belief in their respective spritual disciplines furthers the cause of Religous Supremacy. No matter how progressive and inclusive one may be, identification with any of the worlds major religons(w/ the possible exception of the Bahai and a few Unitarians and United Churches of Christ) is an expression of bigotry. The doctrine of every organized world faith is quite clear. “Only we have the real truth. Everyone else is mis-guided at best, and may be in league with Satan at worst. ” The invectives “Un-believer”, “Heretic” and “Infidel” are their own indictment.
    It is inherently bigoted to subscribe to any spritual discipline that has not
    1. renounced the doctrine of Spiritual Supremacy
    and
    2. recognized the rightness of any discipline that seeks to better understand God, Creator, Life-Force etc. w/o coercing or doing grevious harm to its believers. Furthermore, for any church, synagogue or mosque to cry bigotry (Mitt Romney) while insisting that only their doctrine is the only true one is laughable and hypocritical in the extreme. Supremacy in any form only begets bigotry and hate.(the entire written history of Judea, Palestine and modern Israel) You cannot be “progressive” or see yourself as tolerant of other faiths while identifying with and supporting any of the worlds organized religons until the doctrine of Spiritual Supremacy has been renounced and all references to it struck from the Bible, Torah and Koran. Progressive claims of tolerance for all “Peoples of the Book” are every bit as bigoted, and insulting as the Popes proclamation. Least Buddists and Hindus think they are getting off here – while their doctrines may not be specifically spiritually supremacist, the dead Muslims some of their sects have left in their wake may beg to differ. To date, only Native Americans, African Animists, Siberian Shamanists and European Pagans have developed theologies that are truly tolerant…i.e. ‘We accord to you the rightness to practice your ways and sincerely hope that you will return from where you came to practice them.
    A-ho Mitakueye Oyasin
    “We are all related” (Lakota)

    • Comments are closed.