Posted on 12/16/2006 11:19:51 AM PST by wagglebee
Pope Benedict XVI and Christianity stand accused of "divisiveness."
Western liberals and the media generally, along with Muslims, denounced the Pope last September when he spoke at the University of Regensburg. The New York Times demanded an apology for his lack of sensitivity.
What exactly had he done?
As reported in a VOA News article by Sabina Castelfranco, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of Islam and violence. At a morning mass, he rejected the use of God's name to justify hatred and fanaticism.
In a theological address to academics at Regensburg University, the pope spoke of the relationship between faith and reason and Islam's holy war, Jihad. Historically, he said, spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable and therefore, ungodly.
This so distressed some Muslims that they were driven to murder a Catholic nun and to destroy Christian churches to prove that Islam is not a religion of violence.
Again, with the Pope's journey to Turkey for discussions with Islamic and Christian leaders, the media were at it again. A front-page, feature article by Gabriel Kahn and Stacy Meichtry in the November 25, 2006 The Wall Street Journal was titled "A Tumultuous World Tests a Rigid Pope: Inside the Vatican, Benedict's intellect and style intimidate. How will they play outside the Church? Confronting Muslim anger."
The reporters observe disapprovingly that after nineteen months being pope, Benedict is transforming the Vatican with a different style and a different stance. Beneath his blunt words and rigid style lies a profound divergence from John Paul's buoyant optimism. Pope Benedict believes that the Roman Catholic Church must stand apart from the world of today rather than embrace it.
"For Benedict, the modern age is defined by growing secularism in the West and the rise of religious fanaticism most everywhere else. In order to fulfill its mission, he believes, the Church needs to shun both forces. Benedict is "pessimistic about the compatibility of the Church and the modern world," reads one quote. "Benedict's emphasis on tradition risks alienating a broad cross-section of Catholics who argue the Church needs to become more accessible to maintain its increasingly diverse flock."
Implicit in the article is the viewpoint that there is no such thing as truth, no such thing as right or wrong. The writers have absorbed the relativistic view inculcated in today's colleges and universities that flexibility and pragmatism, other names for moral relativism, ought to be the sole criteria for belief and action. Adherence to the truth is characterized as impractical rigidity.
Flexibility and pragmatism were the watchwords of John Dewey, the 20th century's most influential liberal/socialist/progressive. The doctrine of Pragmatism which he popularized was that Darwin's evolutionary hypothesis had proved everything to be continually changing and evolving. Thus there can be no such thing as permanent moral truth from God, or rooted in human nature, because there is no such thing as fixed human nature. Pragmatism, instead, teaches that there are only actions that get one what one wants, or fail to do so, in changing circumstances; the end justifies the means.
In the vein of Dewey's philosophical pragmatism, the Journal reporters simply assume that the goal of Christian churches ought to be maximizing their membership by reaching a doctrinal compromise that would alienate the fewest people. It seems not to have occurred to them that a Christian church has no purpose other than preaching the New Testament Gospel as written. Without that, there is no Christian church.
Flexibility and pragmatism are the hallmarks of a society that no longer believes in itself, because it has lost touch with the traditions that brought the society into being and enabled it to survive against outside aggressors. They are the hallmarks of societies in political decline.
Flexibility and pragmatism, as Professor James Q. Wilson wrote in astonishment, led his students to reject the judgment that Hitler's National Socialism and his Holocaust were evil, because those students had been taught that right and wrong are unscientific value judgments.
If Pope Benedict's allegiance to Biblical Truth alienates a broad cross-section of the Church's diverse flock, the logical conclusion is both that the alienated portion of the flock is not truly Christian, and that some Catholic priests have drifted into heretical doctrine and taught falsehood to their parishioners. Unfortunately, the same is true of Protestant denominations, as well.
Compromises on Jesus' teachings, Sunday morning entertainment, and feel-good messages are not Christianity. Preaching the Bible's truth is the only way to bring individuals into a fruitful relationship with God and the only way to maintain the integrity of Christianity.
To do otherwise would be the equivalent of instructing Marine Corps volunteers in boot camp that Semper Fidelis is the motto of the Corps, but it isn't necessary always to be faithful to your buddies in combat and to fight for each other if you have a different opinion or just don't feel comfortable with the history and traditions of the Corps.
Perfect!
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
This is an excellent commentary that even non-Catholics will benefit from!
Ping.
Ping
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
I like it.
The media treats Pope Benedict the same way it treats conservative America. According to them, it is our duty to reach out to those around the world who blame US for their problems. The media never suggests that the other side has any responsibility for checking their own moral compass.
Pope Benedict wants to bring the Church back to where it sets the moral standard that others must live up to. That is not popular, but it is necessary.
**Pope Benedict XVI and Christianity stand accused of "divisiveness." **
No, the word, catholic, with a small 'c' means universal!
BUMP!
Pope Benedict is brilliant bump!
Words that should be posted on the door of every church.
"Flexibility and pragmatism" is the hallmark of that liberal Catholicism that has failed to attract people to the Church, has in fact alienated millions.
Thanks for posting and pinging this article - so concise, clear, essential. That's it in a nutshell.
The Catholic Papacy has not changed its devisiveness in over 1000 years. See the elimination of the Cathars as well as the elimination of the Templars - all served the church, but all have suffered in the long run by knowing/aligning (with) the pope.
Excellent article!
Amen!!!
Go Benedict Go!!!!
Cathars, okay. The elimination of the Templars served the King of France, not the Church.
Eliminated by the church, if you read your history you will see as the church began to solidify its position in the west, the Templars and the Hospitlars had served their purpose.
Because they were no longer needed they were eliminated by the church, since some of the members of the Templar organization saw fit to support the Cathars, who were eliminated at Carnac, in southern France.
BTW, it was the Normans, the French as you say, who served the church - not the other way around. This began the bastion which supported the church for many centuries, and by Leonardo Da' Vinci's time, the church had the largest standing army in Europe.
SS
Followers of PC are so hypocritical. They demand multiculturalism and diversity. Then when the Pope expresses his diverse culture, the hypocrites scream "divisive!"--clearly mental derangement.
Seems to me this should be followed by ALL Christians!
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.
Romans 12:2
Do not love the world, nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
1 John 2:15
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.