The Pope to Austrian leaders
September 8, 2007, 10:26 am
Posted by Joseph A. Komonchak
Zenit (http://www.zenit.org/article-20447?l=english) ha Pope Benedict XVI’s address to government leaders and diplomats in Vienna. It repeats many themes of his teaching: the Christian roots of European society and culture; the necessary engagement of faith and reason; respect for human life, especially at its beginning and its end. The part about accepting children as gift, not burden or illness, is surely aimed at the declining birth rate in many parts of Europe. The talk comes from faith and appeals to faith (and reason) but it is not “preachy,” and represents, I think, a good example of how a bishop ought to preach–which is, Trent and Vatican II said, his chief duty.
The use of “illness” as a metaphor for children tout court seems bizarre. Could this be a misunderstanding by some inept translator of the Italian “disagi”, hardships, difficulties?
I checked the Italian and it has “illness”, too. I thought perhaps he was referring to the view that pregnancy is an illness. There may be something in the debates about the declining birth-rate in Europe. I know there have been surveys in Italy as to why women don’t want to have more, or even any, children, and perhaps this view was reflected there.
I don’t find the use of the term “illness” to be bizarre at all, or even metaphoric. It perfectly reflects the mind-set of those who favor abortion rights. Indeed, how often in the pro-choice literture is the developing child referred to as a “tumor” or “cancerous growth,” and its removal as akin to having a bad tooth pulled. Thus, “illness” is the literal way in which the dominant liberal ethos thinks of pregnancy — as an illness that can be readily cured by a safe, minimally invasive surgical procedure
In US human resources practice and underlying law, pregnancy is a disability, not an illness.
Some wags have disagreed, saying the pregnancy is a self-infliced injury.
But I wander …
Mr. Breen,
I would say that the view you describe is, however common, quite bizarre. To speak of pregnancy as an illness, is one thing, to say that children are an illness is another, Pregnancy, like illness, is a condition; children are subjects.
Never before in human history have children been treated better than they are today, especially in developed countries. Years ago children were needed to help with the family economy. Children are clearly treated better now.There was more difficulty having children in previous centuries as more children died after birth while many did not make it to birth.
Benedict is right in citing Habermas who wrote that Christianity is the catalyst toward a more egalitarian society. But he does not acknowledge that the official church has very little to do this. The church was a huge enemy of the French Revolution, before and after.
While I agree that Bishops should always preach, Benedict could have exhibited more humility in acknowledging the church’s leadership failures in making life better for its people. He does well in singling out the infirm and the elderly for special care but he should demand an explanation for hundred million dollar Cathedrals amidst so much hardship.
Benedict did admit in his sermon at the Eucharist that preoccupation for truth can lead to intolerance. But one really has to search for such honest and humility.
I don’t think I am being too critical when I state that the Jury is still out on this Bishop of Rome. And should we not be wary of praising him just because he is the pope?
Or criticizing him just because he is pope? Why do you assume that motivation?
Surely, he should not be criticized just because he is pope. I assume the motivation because we are just as guilty as the general public in pushing celebrity. I will acknowledge that Joe K is more objective in this matter than most.
But for the most part we stand back and almost idolize the pope. Even someone as critical as Peter Steinfels did some celebrity pushing in his Commonweal comment on Benedict’s book. Certainly, Benedict is better than Crossan. But the tendency is for Catholics to gloat too much over the pope.
I understand that the secular press is too critical. Yet we can stay objective while giving Benedict the benefit of the doubt when he delivers.
While he made a terrifically important move in censuring the founder of the Legionnaires, he is still too Europe centered, dishonest about hierarchy faults, patronizing towards fellow Christians and not active enough in the sexual abuse crisis.
A pope should have some kind of response when nuns in the phillipines refuse to have a priest celebrate Mass because of sexual abuse of nuns. He should also address the problem of Third World priests coming here to fill the gap. Everyone knows that many of these priests chose the priesthood for economic advancement.
He is absent on married and women priests.
And so on.
He should be taken on not faciley praised for making innocuous sermons.
Just make your point, Bill. Skip the put-downs of others.
Put-downs Joe, are in the eyes of the beholders. For others it can be constructive criticism. Once we are in the public eye or even comment on these blogs we are fair game for constructive criticism. Charity always but we must discern what the Lord means when he states that he brings the sword.
In general all of us are responsible for the excesses of the hierarchy. The fight we are enjoined in is certainly not for physical warfare but for the quest for justice and truth. Too many of us are quiet in the face of injustice. If we can’t take the heat we need to avoid the kitchen.
Mr. Gannon:
The fact that the view to which the Pope makes reference and which I describe is both bizarre and exceedingly common is all the more troubling. Moreover, that this view is so prevalent among the advocates of legal abortion gives credence to JPII’s diagnosis of Western society as defined by a “culture of death,” no matter how disquieting and uncomfortable some of us may find this phrase to be. Whether we employ such language in our dialogue with others is of course a prudential judgment, but that shouldn’t dissuade us from the truth of the matter.
You distinguish pregancy from children, the former being a “condition” (like an illness) while the latter are “subjects.” While I agree with you, it is precisely the denial of the subjectivity — the personal existence — of the entity developing in the womb that is at the heart of the most common (though not all) pro-choice arguments. Given this situation, the Pope’s remarks were, I dare say, right on point. This is not to engage in the kind of papal cheer-leading the Bill Mazella derides. It is simply to give credit where credit is due.
John
With all due respect for Joseph Komonchak, I must second Bill’s observations about the tendency of Catholics to “idolize the pope.”
Indeed, my local diocesan paper would devote space not only to major papal pronouncements but also to off-the-cuff papal asides to mothers holding their infants, etc., etc., etc. Really, this stuff got old.
In the meantime, if I had to rely on my local Catholic weekly to learn about developments elsewhere in the church at the national and international levels, I generally found myself out of luck. I say “found myself” because fortunately I subscribed to another diocesan paper that had at least some decent coverage of both good and bad ecclesial events. Our local weekly did not even have an ongoing “Letters to the Editor” section. Thus, I was unable to learn opinions of fellow Catholics in my diocese — except, it seems, on an intermittent basis when the editor, I suppose, wanted to share letters from readers on “safe” subjects. Even here, the letters occupied perhaps a tenth of a page or less! A clerical friend said he used the newsprint to line the bottom of his garbage can!
But, boy oh boy, did the pope get his share of space!
O well, perhaps I’ve digressed here, but I certainly saw how one local Catholic paper, much to my (and others’) chagrin, gloated over the pope.
The issue isn’t (1) whether some Catholics don’t idolize the Pope; some do; nor (2) whether the Pope may be criticized; he may be.
I guess the issue is put-downs. I am racking my brain here wondering whom Joe K is referring to as put-down by me. The only person I specifically criticized in the article was Peter Steinfels. I don’t think that was a put-down.
As a matter of fact Peter Steinfels is at the top of my list among people I respect and admire. If we cannot share constructive criciticism what is left but to associate with adolescents.
Bill, your insults are so obviously mistaken that if this weren’t a public forum they would not even call for an answer. But here we are.
I have heard many people call Fr. Komonchak’s views into question. That’s what scholars do: they dispute. Personally I think Fr. Komonchak is quite wrong about the whole ontological priority of the local church business–an argument in which, if I’m not mistaken, he publicly took sides directly opposite the present Pope, who was head of the CDF at the time.
I have never once heard anyone call into question Fr. Komonchak’s intellectual honesty. Far from it. Until you did it twice in one short comment thread.
Cathy, I have certainly questioned your transparency which you have acknowledged as a legitimate question. Ironically I agree with Joe K on his concept of the local church. Secondly, where did I question his intellectual honesty? I did and do question the intellectual honesty of this Vatican.
Having said that, I have always maintained that theologians bear a greater responsibility to maintain that disicipleship prevails. Theologians should confront bishops and Rome when they stray from the gospel.
Joseph Ratzinger’s obvious affiliation with the theocons in the past has turned out to be a prodigious error. With him they ran a reign of terror as Ex Corde Ecclesia was promulgated. Theologians responded timidly if at all.
The pedophilia crisis interrupted all that. Now with the Miscamble article in America there is the beginnings of another attempt at purging.
Sadly, it is a good thing that the Vatican, Opus Dei, the Legionairres of Christ and the theocons (we know who they are) cannot maintain the moral rectitude to back up their dogma. The truth comes out in the wash.
Ex fructibus eorum…..
Bill, I’m not going to amplify the insult by repeating it.
I will suggest that you should consider the possibility that “the gospel” is not necessarily precisely identical to “Bill Mazzella’s priorities.”