God’s Poll Numbers
August 11, 2011, 7:29 am
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
Fr. Jim Martin talks to Stephen Colbert about why God is so unpopular. Maybe Fr. Jim should collaborate with Colbert on a catechism--ColCat: Kind of like YouCat for the young people in the Pope’s Courtyard of the Gentiles.
| The Colbert Report | Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| God’s Job Performance – Jim Martin | ||||
|
||||
Colbert is really amazing in the way he sustains his character for so long, and yet manages to let bits of his serious self peep through, and does it all so seamlessly.
Fr. Martin, if you’re reading this, I thought you did a really nice job in the hot seat. That struck me as actually a bit of a tough interview.
I showed that earlier clip of Colbert and the White Stripes guy (forget his name) to my kid and his purple-haired girlfriend, both of whom remember catechism as “the biggest waste of two years of my life.” (Yes, you can tell these children have never had a low-wage job.)
They loved it, they asked me questions about liturgy.
They’re going to be over here tonight after band practice. Guess what I’ll show them today!?
Colbert Catechism would be great!
I’m leaning toward agnosticism today, and I would have to say that Fr. Martin (whom I like very much) didn’t help me out much at all. I don’t think God’s PR team (particularly in the Catholic Church) are doing particularly well at the moment, and it really should be part of their job. I am not sure, if there is an answer to why God permits so much evil in the world, why it can’t be known now instead of in the afterlife. (Actually, it strikes me that there is no shortage of answers to the problem of evil, but none of them are convincing, particularly when you are personally facing evil.) And why should we assume what we regard as mysteries today will be cleared up in the afterlife? Regarding the assertion that God would never destroy a relationship he had created, and therefore we can be assured of a happy afterlife, I don’t find that persuasive.
Bah! Humbug!
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2011/08/08/110808sh_shouts_simms
God’s Blog.
“I don’t think God’s PR team (particularly in the Catholic Church) are doing particularly well at the moment …”
Thank God that God is not God’s PR team or His apologists (though Lord knows they sometimes get confused about this themselves).
I’m not sure that the mysteries will be cleared up in the Afterlife either, but I trust that, if they aren’t, they weren’t that important to begin with. I suspect the perpetual virginity of Mary might be one of those things.
I’m not sure we’e all assured of a happy ending, either, but I would say that someone who aspires to go to Heaven to look at babies has a better chance than the rest of us, my friend.
Colbert wants Fr Jim Martin SJ to be a monsignor? stop the presses on Colbert’s catechism…. no way…
that someone who aspires to go to Heaven to look at babies
Jean,
I am not sure you are referring to the remark I once made about spending time looking at babies, but if so, it was about going to Whole Foods after I retire, not Heaven after I die. I thought everyone in Heaven was going to be 33-years-old. Will there be Whole Foods stores in Heaven? Perhaps more importantly, will there be Trader Joe’s? I think we can assume that there will be a superabundance of Walmarts in the afterlife, although none in Heaven.
I always love Colbert and might consider myself a Colbert Catholic until that heresy gets condemned.
Thank you very much for the link, because I rarely have time to watch the show lately it is nice to share such gems; however, when people here link to a link, out of kindness to us Canadians, can you please either include the episode number or the date it was aired…because we cannot access it through comedy central. We need to search for the clip on thecomedynetwork.com and having the date or episode would make the search much quicker.
Thanks,
Adam
Thge next question: can Jesuits be monsignors?
Do they need one miracle to do so?
Why would the Colbert God team want monsignors???
IMO Fr. Jim’s best contribution (aprops of his comencemen tspeech at Penn) is having a sense of humor, joy, kaughter as we clebrate our faith, I always think there are too many others like the old eagle on the muppets who stood for primness.
Overall this is a positive interview. Jim Martin does as well as possible under the circumstances. I would make some distinctions, however. First, God is popular, religious leaders are not. When Timothy Dolan saw such from the Pew Report which noted that Catholics like Jesus and God but do not like the hierarchy he reacted terribly. Instead of saying we have to do a better job and be better examples, he criticized such Catholics as heretical. Which, of course, is the biggest problem with the RCC. It is more concerned about orthodoxy than goodness.
The other big point which should relate to David’s question is Jim Martin’s agreement with Colbert that Jesus knew what the outcome would be. Not so if you acknowledge Jesus as fully human. Jim can be forgiven for missing that as he trained in a mileau that rarely acknowledges Jesus’ humanity.
Jean mentions the perpetual virginity of Mary. (Is there another kind than perpetual?). There is virtually nothing about this in the early church but was quickly concluded to be so in the fourth century because Theotokos could not have been a virgin.
So God is fine and it is not her politics. It is those who profit by using him that is the problem. Mary also comes out better if you allow her to be a real mother in God’s universe. She never wore blue.
The bishops were having problems before Constantine. He just gave them an offer they could not refuse. The symbol of the decline of Christianity in the fourth century is the Bosphorous which Constantine was more impressed with than the Roman bishops. He transferred the Empire there.
Jesus and Mary are as important as ever. Just let them be themselves. The bishops could be themselves too without the Empire Miters and other pomposities.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.dinnercruisesistanbul.com/images/Bosphorus_boat_cruise.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dinnercruisesistanbul.com/istanbul-bosphorus-dinner-cruises.html&h=527&w=800&sz=101&tbnid=lNbd5gE_QSQIKM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=137&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dbosphorus%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=bosphorus&docid=2C4_v5bVT3k_PM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Zw5ETon6LoHfgQeh2sSDBQ&ved=0CFkQ9QEwCA&dur=2741
Should read “Theotokos could not not be a virgin.”
Good job, Jim Martin!
It’s very difficult to offer an inviting view of Christianity when you have only about 5 minutes [Christianity is not for sissies]. And, you have to contend with a smart comic like Colbert who is always reaching for the laugh line.
Comedy is, after all, always about the incongruous.
I’m sure that apostles like St. Paul and Ignatius Loyola among others would have also appeared in this media format trying to reach the young audience that takes their moral cue from folks like Colbert and Jon Stewart.
It was certainly better the condescending bs young people usually hear from the Vatican, hierarchs and Sunday homilies.
I do want to acknowledge (especially if Fr. Martin is reading this) that it would be foolish to expect anyone—even a Jesuit—to come up with a solution to the problem of evil in a 4-minute appearance on The Colbert Report.
The question of Jesus’s self-knowledge and his knowledge of the future, which Bill raises, is fascinating. It is impossible for me to imagine Jesus was omniscient or had detailed knowledge of the future.
I think Fr Martin could have copied the rabbi in the wonderful comic book series “Le chat du rabbin” (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chat_du_Rabbin http://www.salon.com/books/review/2008/05/07/sfar).
In one scene, the rabbi comes back from a visit to a non-religious Jew, and preaches to his congregation: “Dear friends, I once knew a Jew who was always eating pork. He smoked on the Shabbat, and he never prayed. I looked qt him and I thought: “you are not respecting the Torah that is the recipe of existence. You don’t realize it but you must be less happy than me.” I observed him closely, and in all honesty, I don’t think he live any less well than me. So, my friends, if we can be happy without respecting the Torah, why do we take so much trouble to respect those precepts that make our daiyl life so complicated?” The congregants answer impatiently: “Well? Abraham, go on! Tell us why! We’re waiting!” The rabbi smiles and answers: “Well, I don’t know.” Shouts of protest from the assembly: “Abraham, you’re making fun of us, or what?” “Go ahead and finish your homily!” “What’s wrong with that rabbi?” “He must be crazy!”
Imagine if, instead of saying that the problem of evil had been studied for a long time, Fr Martin had said: -”So, you want to know why there are earthquakes and tsunamis, cancers and accidents?” -”yes!” -”You want to know why innocent people die for no good reason?” -”yes!” -”You want to know why God lets all sorts of terrible things happen?” -”Yes!” -”Well, the reason is … the reason is … in fact, I don’t know what the reason is. Nobody really knows.”
Wouldn’t that be more dramatic than, and just as correct as, saying “It’s been studied by theologians for a long time”?
In Job God punishes Job’s friends because they tried to blame Job for his suffering, as if God wasn’t the cause. God rewards Job for telling the truth about Him — that He seems unjust — and for not pretending that he, Job, can explain this mystery.
David (8/11 11:27 am), I suppose agnosticism – which I take to mean simply suspension of belief – makes a great deal of sense, perhaps especially today, when we’re constantly assailed from all sides by shouting believers.
Belief is, it seems to me, too often just a defense mechanism – a way to stop the headache that comes from thinking too much. Of course, agnosticism can be that, too.
David –
So the solution to life’s problems is just don’t think?
David, just think …………
“I suppose agnosticism – which I take to mean simply suspension of belief – makes a great deal of sense, perhaps especially today, when we’re constantly assailed from all sides by shouting believers. Belief is, it seems to me, too often just a defense mechanism – a way to stop the headache that comes from thinking too much. Of course, agnosticism can be that, too.”
This is one of the most interesting things I’ve read all week. I guess I’d quibble with the definition of agnosticism as the suspension of belief, but being surrounded some days by shouting believers of the fundiegelical kind who see Catholicism as an impediment to salvation–or some days by shouting nonbelievers who line up on the Kevorkian-Dawkins axis who think faith is a delusion–well, I can relate, as we used to say in the ’60s.
I see this made the America’s In All things blog where Fr. Jim got ybabimous rave reviews – one!
Way to go Fr. Jim!