Chapter Eighteen: The First Encyclical
When Pope Michael published his first encyclical, Condicio Ecclesiae et Mundi, The New York Times published excerpts which they characterized as incendiary. They were not merely metaphorical. In Europe and the Americas, a clarion had been sounded. In the Middle East, bombing had begun.
The Curia, despite its almost unanimous exhortations to the Pope during its preparation not to publish the encyclical as it was, had already begun poring through canon law for a way to draw a distinction between an infallible document and that of a lesser letter to the faithful. The latter would be an important expression of the feeling of this Pope but not have the force of a binding document for all time. However, such niceties of churchmen made little difference to everyone else, especially those singled out by The Times.
On Muslims:
…for theirs is a particularly flawed religion, one that in Book 47 of the Koran exhorts its followers to kill all who do not believe as they do. Yet no part of the Koran is repudiated by Muslim leaders allowing for the violence associated with their religion since its founding over fifteen hundred years ago. While we must pray for the good Muslims of the world and pity them their warring brothers, we must resist them. We must not accept them as we do other religions which do not incite their followers to kill in the name of their gods. It is their religion, not their people, which is evil.
On Protestantism:
…for it [Protestantism] is a belief grounded in fallacy and arrogance. Protestants would equate their separatist beliefs with Catholicism by disregarding the word of Jesus Christ and shaping, on their own, a religion to their particular liking, not that of God’s. They cling to a belief that they can interpret the Word despite what Jesus granted only to Peter, the first Pope. It must be remembered and continually promulgated that only Peter and his church have the authority to interpret the Word and to determine the Way.
On non-Christians:
We must beware the erroneous conflation by others of Protestants and Catholics, for doing so weakens the force and strength of the Catholic Church. Individualism endemic to other faiths weakens their force in the face of Catholicism, which is unified by its adherence universally to the dictates of Christ. Our struggle is not only with those who do not believe in God but with those whose belief in God is erroneous. We must understand the true nature of ecumenism as espoused by the beatified Pope John XXIII and resist, in our effort to love all of the children of God, equating their ways with the one and true path laid out for all mankind by the Good Shepherd.
On Secularists:
…activist atheists, and those religions which see Catholicism as a threat and use the courts to stifle its growth as if it were a cancer, then we must use all [editor’s stress] of our resources to resist.
… The faithful must not tolerate those who continue to prevent the display of faith, for these profane have seized from their fellow man the liberty of expressing their love of God. And who is the greatest abettor of the abjuration of God but Lucifer?
… The war against Catholicism continues to be waged by the forces of evil, and defenders of the faith must now be aggressive in resistance. When only a few voices preach intolerance, they can be allowed to waft through the air like the stench from an open sewer. But when thousands upon thousands of voices join to pollute the air such that suffocation is inevitable, we must not be tolerant; we must marshal all of our power in defense. Lassitude and fear must not prevent the confirmed from doing their duty.
The two thousand year core of Western Civilization must not be allowed to be deconstructed and dismissed by the Godless, who have risen up in the cloak of intolerance and chosen to smother us with it. To tolerate their intolerance is as feckless as it is damned. Soldiers of Christ must not allow to grow unchecked the great Enemy of the Church --- in the form of the anti-religious, the irreligious, the proponents of false religions, and radical Islamists who have declared themselves dedicated to our demise. These are the soldiers of evil who “roam through the world seeking the ruin of souls.” Ours is a war of defense, not offense; yet defenders of the faith must show our enemies that we will not succumb to their myriad offenses, either through words or through deeds.
The religious communities of the world studied carefully the encyclical, parsing each phrase and nuance as best their translations would allow, but for the rest of the world the excerpts from the journals were sufficient. There was little question that the document was an about turn from the ecumenical councils of the previous century, and its truculence caused, as obviously intended, a separation of the Church from other religions as well as the irreligious. By most accounts, Pope Michael I had declared war; exactly how that war would be waged was in doubt.
Catholic opinion, as might be expected, was split. The conservative wing celebrated the encyclical as a call for the reemergence of Catholicism as the preeminent institution of Western civilization, a civilization that had been steadily eroded ever since the emergence of Individualism initiated by the Reformation. There would be a return to the supremacy of central authority and a repudiation of what academics referred to as deconstructionalism, the intentional dismantling of what had been considered the cornerstones of civilization. However, many in the Church, while in favor of the Pope’s goals, feared that his words were likely to have the opposite effect. Whatever actions might be taken by the Church, the laying down of a verbal gauntlet, might cause irreparable damage to the ecumenical efforts of the last half century. The war had been between those who believed in God versus those who did not; now the war would be fought against the godless as well as the God fearing.
Whatever else was in the encyclical, and however one chose to interpret the language, the facts remained that the Pope declared Islam to be evil and other religions to be false. He asserted that Protestants disregarded the words of Christ and that those who opposed the public display of religious articles were prompted to do so by the devil. He suggested, but did not specifically state, that those who were not religious were demonic. There was no question that whatever progress had been made by Vatican I and II toward unity of the religions of the world had been reversed with the publication of Michael the First’s encyclical Condicio Ecclesiae et Mundi.
Pundits of all stripes were quick to weigh in. Virtually all expressed some outrage, especially with that particular part of the encyclical attacking their own belief system. There were notable exceptions, of course, one of them the conservative Catholic columnist Cal Thomas who summed up his defense of the papal annunciation with the poetic, “What’s oft been said but ne’er so well expressed.” His point was expanded in a Fox News interview conducted by Brit Hume.
“Cal, your column of two days ago has received a lot of attention. Tell the viewers who may not have seen it what caused all the ruckus,” said the newsman in his rich baritone. It was clear that they were friends, and Hume’s down home expression was meant to convey precisely that. Cal was one of the good guys at Fox News.
“Frankly, I’m not sure. There was nothing in the column or the encyclical that was particularly outré; the Pope articulated what has been the Catholic position all along,” said the dark-haired mustachioed commentator with an air of pomposity.
“That Islam is evil?”
“Well that had never been stated before, but clearly he was not the first to point out the obvious.”
“No, people like Jerry Falwell said it years ago.”
“Yes, and he was right. ‘Even a broken clock is right twice a day.’ Though I’m not sure we want to equate Pope Michael I with Christian fundamentalists.”
“But that is in fact what has been said by a number of commentators.” The camera zoomed in on Thomas who remained nonplused.
“And they were wrong for doing so, and that was exactly the Pope’s point. It is convenient for certain people to equate the Catholic Church with all other religions.”
“And you think they should not.”
“No, not at all. It is, as the Holy Father said, the bedrock of Western Civilization. It has a history that goes back two thousand years with an unbroken line of popes directly descendent from Peter. There are more Catholics in the world than any other religion, and it has done more good than any other institution in the history of mankind.”
“Then why the fuss? It has been the biggest story in the last week---there has been wall to wall coverage by all the media to the exclusion of everything else,” said Hume.
“Well, it’s been a slow news week,” wagged Thomas with a wry grin.
“Who’d know? The wires are filled with Vatican stories. So why is that, Cal?”
“Because Michael has redirected the course of the Church from one of conciliation to one of confrontation,” explained the columnist, his dark eyebrows knit tightly. “We have become used to the Church back peddling to accommodate all the voices, but the Pope sees that that kind of acquiescence has emboldened the forces of evil. Muslims have continually declared war on the West and all of its people, and everyone has gone around trying to say that Islam is a great religion despite its acceptance and its encouragement of terrorism. It’s time for us to admit that ‘the emperor has no clothes’.” He smirked as if his use of another trite expression were evidence of his superior mind.
“But he directly stated that all of Islam is evil,” pursued Hume.
“No, he said the religion was evil. He specifically stated that Muslims are not.
“And that doesn’t bother you?”
“‘Call a spade a spade.’ The religion is evil. Any religion ordering its followers to kill those who do not follow their religion is evil. The Pope referred specifically to Book 49 of the Koran…”
“The Koran is the bible of Islam, the Muslim religion,” explained Hume for his audience.
“Yes. I have not heard of any Muslim cleric denounce the Koran or even Book 49’s call to arms. They dance around the subject and defend the Koran.”
“But many clerics have denounced violence,” countered Hume.
“Yes, that’s what they say, some of them, but how can you denounce the violence of the practitioners of the religion while supporting the religion? The terrorists correctly point out that they are merely following the dictates of Muhammad.”
“Now the Pope also said that Protestants have disregarded Christ, “ said Hume looking up from his notes while removing his glasses. “Why would he say that, ‘disregarded’?” There was a full screen showing the excerpt with the word “disregarded” in italics.
“I should think because he believes it to be so.”
“How is that?”
“Christ gave Peter the keys to his kingdom.” The camera went back to a one-shot of Thomas. “In Mathew 16:16 Jesus told Peter ‘whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ When the German dissidents used Martin Luther’s criticisms to break away from the Church in Germany and when Henry VIII broke away in England, they disregarded Christ’s desire to have Peter and Peter’s followers lead his church. That has always been the Church’s position: Protestantism is in error.”
“Even if he were to believe that, why would he write it in an encyclical? Doesn’t the Pope think that such language will drive a wedge between his church and other Christian churches?” The camera cut to Hume who looked perplexed then shot back to Thomas.
“Maybe so, but apparently Rome wants to separate itself from other religious sects. Catholicism is being tarred by the same brush as Islam. Secularists see all religion as the same by pointing to the weaknesses of one religion and saying, ‘See, religion causes violence.’”
“But that’s Muslims. What about Lutherans? They don’t seem to be a particularly violent lot.”
“But they may support abortion, or gay marriage, or stem cell research. Different religions have different beliefs. All Christians are not the same.”
With the camera switching to a tight shot of Hume, the host’s voice became more crisp as he segued, “Well, that’s all the time we have for now. I’m sure we’ll continue this. Good to see you, Cal.” The camera focused tightly on Hume. “When we come back, we’ll find out what the President said about the controversy at his news conference at the rose garden.” There was a two-shot catching the men shaking hands before the commercial break.
The less politically correct Fox News Channel found itself once again in the minority of media outlets. Other news venues were quick to seize on the negative fallout from the encyclical. Diane Rehm of National Public Radio was particularly incensed by Pope Michael’s dictum.
“Why would the Pope write a tract that he must have known would drive a wedge between the Catholic Church and other religions, Stan Bahner?” she asked the Newsweek political columnist. Bahner, a frequent guest on the liberal media outlet, responded with his characteristic objectivity.
“Well, that’s hard to say. We do know that his church has fallen on hard times in terms of church attendance, recruitment of clergy, and, of course, the sex scandals that have damaged their reputation. Perhaps he is appealing to his conservative base --- to fire up the faithful.”
“But surely he must know that by saying Islam as an evil religion, for example, he loses the moral high ground.”
“That’s if you believe the Catholic Church holds the high ground. I’m not sure, given the hierarchy’s handling of pedophile priests, there was much left for him to stand on.”
“And what is your take on this point, Sally Quinn?” Quinn, religion writer of the Washington Post, was less diplomatic.
“Perhaps he wanted to fire up his base, but he did so at the expense of firing up the rest of the world. I have received hundreds of e-mails excoriating him for his divisiveness. To say flat out that Protestants have disregarded Jesus is not only wrong but hurtful to other Christians.”
Despite Rehm’s liberal bias, her great strength as an interviewer is that she listens carefully to her guests and parses their answers. “In what way is the Pope wrong?”
“Well, he asserts that millions of Protestants disregarded Jesus Christ because they do not believe that only the Pope can determine God’s will. That is simply the height of arrogance.” If the words she chose were passionate, her delivery was the opposite. Her voice was soft and her cadence measured.
“But that has always been the Catholic position, has it not?” asked Rehm, her voice trembling from dysphonia, a rare speech disorder.
“Not since the Vatican Council of the 1960’s. Great efforts had been made by previous popes to accept the diversity of Christian beliefs. With this encyclical Michael I has destroyed fifty years of the best work of the Catholic Church. No church leaders of whom I am aware have had anything positive to say about Condicio, and I understand that there is a movement within the Church to declare the encyclical unbinding.”
“By ‘unbinding’ it is meant what?” asked the popular moderator.
“According to Catholic doctrine, an encyclical that is termed ex cathedra has the force of law for all eternity and cannot be changed. There are many in the Church who would like to see Condicio relegated to a lesser document which can be amended by succeeding popes.”
“Is that likely?”
“I can’t say,” answered Quinn, for the first time with a less than assertive voice. “The Curia is highly political, and canon lawyers are known for their ability to find shades of meaning. But I just don’t know.”
“And what, Stan Bahner, do you foresee as the political fallout from the publication?”
“Well, it has already begun. Some churches in the Middle East have been fire bombed, and several nuns were reported killed in the Philippines. How far it will go remains to be seen, but there have already been calls by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State to stop the funding of Catholic Schools and for a cessation of the Church’s tax exempt status.”
“But wouldn’t that affect all religions, not just Catholicism?”
“I don’t know. Maybe, and that certainly would be fine with Barry Lynn…”
“The spokesman for that organization, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State,” added Rehm.
“Right. But they’re saying that by separating itself from all other religions and its call to use the State to support its goals, the Church has become a political entity…”
“And as a political entity it should not be given the religious exemption,” said Rehm completing his thought. “Of course, there is also the tax support of religious charitable organizations started by George Bush which might be affected.”
“Yes, there is a continuing push to stop all tax funding of any religious organization regardless of their charitable work. This may very well be what pushes Congress to act,” said the journalist.
“But what I want to address is the emotional toll the Pope’s encyclical will have on Protestants, Jews, and Muslims. How are the people feeling, Sally Quinn?”
“Well my mail is running about 88% opposed to the encyclical. That is an astounding majority of people who feel hurt or even betrayed by the Pope. I have one e-mail from a Methodist minister form North Carolina who said, and I quote, ‘The Pope has finally shown his true colors.’ I have another gentleman, a native American from Pennsylvania, who had converted to Catholicism but will now revert to the faith of his childhood. A rabbi from New Jersey has cancelled his membership in the Conference of Christians and Jews and has called on others to do the same. People are angry.”
“As well they have the right to be,” added Rehm. “I know I certainly am. Having grown up a Turkish Christian, I am particularly confounded by what has happened to the Roman church. I had always admired Michael I. He had moved his church away from the glitter that detracted from the essence of the religion, and many religious leaders for having done so applauded him. For him to have done this seems so … terribly odd. What would Jesus have said?”
l
When Pope Michael published his first encyclical, Condicio Ecclesiae et Mundi, The New York Times published excerpts which they characterized as incendiary. They were not merely metaphorical. In Europe and the Americas, a clarion had been sounded. In the Middle East, bombing had begun.
The Curia, despite its almost unanimous exhortations to the Pope during its preparation not to publish the encyclical as it was, had already begun poring through canon law for a way to draw a distinction between an infallible document and that of a lesser letter to the faithful. The latter would be an important expression of the feeling of this Pope but not have the force of a binding document for all time. However, such niceties of churchmen made little difference to everyone else, especially those singled out by The Times.
On Muslims:
…for theirs is a particularly flawed religion, one that in Book 47 of the Koran exhorts its followers to kill all who do not believe as they do. Yet no part of the Koran is repudiated by Muslim leaders allowing for the violence associated with their religion since its founding over fifteen hundred years ago. While we must pray for the good Muslims of the world and pity them their warring brothers, we must resist them. We must not accept them as we do other religions which do not incite their followers to kill in the name of their gods. It is their religion, not their people, which is evil.
On Protestantism:
…for it [Protestantism] is a belief grounded in fallacy and arrogance. Protestants would equate their separatist beliefs with Catholicism by disregarding the word of Jesus Christ and shaping, on their own, a religion to their particular liking, not that of God’s. They cling to a belief that they can interpret the Word despite what Jesus granted only to Peter, the first Pope. It must be remembered and continually promulgated that only Peter and his church have the authority to interpret the Word and to determine the Way.
On non-Christians:
We must beware the erroneous conflation by others of Protestants and Catholics, for doing so weakens the force and strength of the Catholic Church. Individualism endemic to other faiths weakens their force in the face of Catholicism, which is unified by its adherence universally to the dictates of Christ. Our struggle is not only with those who do not believe in God but with those whose belief in God is erroneous. We must understand the true nature of ecumenism as espoused by the beatified Pope John XXIII and resist, in our effort to love all of the children of God, equating their ways with the one and true path laid out for all mankind by the Good Shepherd.
On Secularists:
…activist atheists, and those religions which see Catholicism as a threat and use the courts to stifle its growth as if it were a cancer, then we must use all [editor’s stress] of our resources to resist.
… The faithful must not tolerate those who continue to prevent the display of faith, for these profane have seized from their fellow man the liberty of expressing their love of God. And who is the greatest abettor of the abjuration of God but Lucifer?
… The war against Catholicism continues to be waged by the forces of evil, and defenders of the faith must now be aggressive in resistance. When only a few voices preach intolerance, they can be allowed to waft through the air like the stench from an open sewer. But when thousands upon thousands of voices join to pollute the air such that suffocation is inevitable, we must not be tolerant; we must marshal all of our power in defense. Lassitude and fear must not prevent the confirmed from doing their duty.
The two thousand year core of Western Civilization must not be allowed to be deconstructed and dismissed by the Godless, who have risen up in the cloak of intolerance and chosen to smother us with it. To tolerate their intolerance is as feckless as it is damned. Soldiers of Christ must not allow to grow unchecked the great Enemy of the Church --- in the form of the anti-religious, the irreligious, the proponents of false religions, and radical Islamists who have declared themselves dedicated to our demise. These are the soldiers of evil who “roam through the world seeking the ruin of souls.” Ours is a war of defense, not offense; yet defenders of the faith must show our enemies that we will not succumb to their myriad offenses, either through words or through deeds.
The religious communities of the world studied carefully the encyclical, parsing each phrase and nuance as best their translations would allow, but for the rest of the world the excerpts from the journals were sufficient. There was little question that the document was an about turn from the ecumenical councils of the previous century, and its truculence caused, as obviously intended, a separation of the Church from other religions as well as the irreligious. By most accounts, Pope Michael I had declared war; exactly how that war would be waged was in doubt.
Catholic opinion, as might be expected, was split. The conservative wing celebrated the encyclical as a call for the reemergence of Catholicism as the preeminent institution of Western civilization, a civilization that had been steadily eroded ever since the emergence of Individualism initiated by the Reformation. There would be a return to the supremacy of central authority and a repudiation of what academics referred to as deconstructionalism, the intentional dismantling of what had been considered the cornerstones of civilization. However, many in the Church, while in favor of the Pope’s goals, feared that his words were likely to have the opposite effect. Whatever actions might be taken by the Church, the laying down of a verbal gauntlet, might cause irreparable damage to the ecumenical efforts of the last half century. The war had been between those who believed in God versus those who did not; now the war would be fought against the godless as well as the God fearing.
Whatever else was in the encyclical, and however one chose to interpret the language, the facts remained that the Pope declared Islam to be evil and other religions to be false. He asserted that Protestants disregarded the words of Christ and that those who opposed the public display of religious articles were prompted to do so by the devil. He suggested, but did not specifically state, that those who were not religious were demonic. There was no question that whatever progress had been made by Vatican I and II toward unity of the religions of the world had been reversed with the publication of Michael the First’s encyclical Condicio Ecclesiae et Mundi.
Pundits of all stripes were quick to weigh in. Virtually all expressed some outrage, especially with that particular part of the encyclical attacking their own belief system. There were notable exceptions, of course, one of them the conservative Catholic columnist Cal Thomas who summed up his defense of the papal annunciation with the poetic, “What’s oft been said but ne’er so well expressed.” His point was expanded in a Fox News interview conducted by Brit Hume.
“Cal, your column of two days ago has received a lot of attention. Tell the viewers who may not have seen it what caused all the ruckus,” said the newsman in his rich baritone. It was clear that they were friends, and Hume’s down home expression was meant to convey precisely that. Cal was one of the good guys at Fox News.
“Frankly, I’m not sure. There was nothing in the column or the encyclical that was particularly outré; the Pope articulated what has been the Catholic position all along,” said the dark-haired mustachioed commentator with an air of pomposity.
“That Islam is evil?”
“Well that had never been stated before, but clearly he was not the first to point out the obvious.”
“No, people like Jerry Falwell said it years ago.”
“Yes, and he was right. ‘Even a broken clock is right twice a day.’ Though I’m not sure we want to equate Pope Michael I with Christian fundamentalists.”
“But that is in fact what has been said by a number of commentators.” The camera zoomed in on Thomas who remained nonplused.
“And they were wrong for doing so, and that was exactly the Pope’s point. It is convenient for certain people to equate the Catholic Church with all other religions.”
“And you think they should not.”
“No, not at all. It is, as the Holy Father said, the bedrock of Western Civilization. It has a history that goes back two thousand years with an unbroken line of popes directly descendent from Peter. There are more Catholics in the world than any other religion, and it has done more good than any other institution in the history of mankind.”
“Then why the fuss? It has been the biggest story in the last week---there has been wall to wall coverage by all the media to the exclusion of everything else,” said Hume.
“Well, it’s been a slow news week,” wagged Thomas with a wry grin.
“Who’d know? The wires are filled with Vatican stories. So why is that, Cal?”
“Because Michael has redirected the course of the Church from one of conciliation to one of confrontation,” explained the columnist, his dark eyebrows knit tightly. “We have become used to the Church back peddling to accommodate all the voices, but the Pope sees that that kind of acquiescence has emboldened the forces of evil. Muslims have continually declared war on the West and all of its people, and everyone has gone around trying to say that Islam is a great religion despite its acceptance and its encouragement of terrorism. It’s time for us to admit that ‘the emperor has no clothes’.” He smirked as if his use of another trite expression were evidence of his superior mind.
“But he directly stated that all of Islam is evil,” pursued Hume.
“No, he said the religion was evil. He specifically stated that Muslims are not.
“And that doesn’t bother you?”
“‘Call a spade a spade.’ The religion is evil. Any religion ordering its followers to kill those who do not follow their religion is evil. The Pope referred specifically to Book 49 of the Koran…”
“The Koran is the bible of Islam, the Muslim religion,” explained Hume for his audience.
“Yes. I have not heard of any Muslim cleric denounce the Koran or even Book 49’s call to arms. They dance around the subject and defend the Koran.”
“But many clerics have denounced violence,” countered Hume.
“Yes, that’s what they say, some of them, but how can you denounce the violence of the practitioners of the religion while supporting the religion? The terrorists correctly point out that they are merely following the dictates of Muhammad.”
“Now the Pope also said that Protestants have disregarded Christ, “ said Hume looking up from his notes while removing his glasses. “Why would he say that, ‘disregarded’?” There was a full screen showing the excerpt with the word “disregarded” in italics.
“I should think because he believes it to be so.”
“How is that?”
“Christ gave Peter the keys to his kingdom.” The camera went back to a one-shot of Thomas. “In Mathew 16:16 Jesus told Peter ‘whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ When the German dissidents used Martin Luther’s criticisms to break away from the Church in Germany and when Henry VIII broke away in England, they disregarded Christ’s desire to have Peter and Peter’s followers lead his church. That has always been the Church’s position: Protestantism is in error.”
“Even if he were to believe that, why would he write it in an encyclical? Doesn’t the Pope think that such language will drive a wedge between his church and other Christian churches?” The camera cut to Hume who looked perplexed then shot back to Thomas.
“Maybe so, but apparently Rome wants to separate itself from other religious sects. Catholicism is being tarred by the same brush as Islam. Secularists see all religion as the same by pointing to the weaknesses of one religion and saying, ‘See, religion causes violence.’”
“But that’s Muslims. What about Lutherans? They don’t seem to be a particularly violent lot.”
“But they may support abortion, or gay marriage, or stem cell research. Different religions have different beliefs. All Christians are not the same.”
With the camera switching to a tight shot of Hume, the host’s voice became more crisp as he segued, “Well, that’s all the time we have for now. I’m sure we’ll continue this. Good to see you, Cal.” The camera focused tightly on Hume. “When we come back, we’ll find out what the President said about the controversy at his news conference at the rose garden.” There was a two-shot catching the men shaking hands before the commercial break.
The less politically correct Fox News Channel found itself once again in the minority of media outlets. Other news venues were quick to seize on the negative fallout from the encyclical. Diane Rehm of National Public Radio was particularly incensed by Pope Michael’s dictum.
“Why would the Pope write a tract that he must have known would drive a wedge between the Catholic Church and other religions, Stan Bahner?” she asked the Newsweek political columnist. Bahner, a frequent guest on the liberal media outlet, responded with his characteristic objectivity.
“Well, that’s hard to say. We do know that his church has fallen on hard times in terms of church attendance, recruitment of clergy, and, of course, the sex scandals that have damaged their reputation. Perhaps he is appealing to his conservative base --- to fire up the faithful.”
“But surely he must know that by saying Islam as an evil religion, for example, he loses the moral high ground.”
“That’s if you believe the Catholic Church holds the high ground. I’m not sure, given the hierarchy’s handling of pedophile priests, there was much left for him to stand on.”
“And what is your take on this point, Sally Quinn?” Quinn, religion writer of the Washington Post, was less diplomatic.
“Perhaps he wanted to fire up his base, but he did so at the expense of firing up the rest of the world. I have received hundreds of e-mails excoriating him for his divisiveness. To say flat out that Protestants have disregarded Jesus is not only wrong but hurtful to other Christians.”
Despite Rehm’s liberal bias, her great strength as an interviewer is that she listens carefully to her guests and parses their answers. “In what way is the Pope wrong?”
“Well, he asserts that millions of Protestants disregarded Jesus Christ because they do not believe that only the Pope can determine God’s will. That is simply the height of arrogance.” If the words she chose were passionate, her delivery was the opposite. Her voice was soft and her cadence measured.
“But that has always been the Catholic position, has it not?” asked Rehm, her voice trembling from dysphonia, a rare speech disorder.
“Not since the Vatican Council of the 1960’s. Great efforts had been made by previous popes to accept the diversity of Christian beliefs. With this encyclical Michael I has destroyed fifty years of the best work of the Catholic Church. No church leaders of whom I am aware have had anything positive to say about Condicio, and I understand that there is a movement within the Church to declare the encyclical unbinding.”
“By ‘unbinding’ it is meant what?” asked the popular moderator.
“According to Catholic doctrine, an encyclical that is termed ex cathedra has the force of law for all eternity and cannot be changed. There are many in the Church who would like to see Condicio relegated to a lesser document which can be amended by succeeding popes.”
“Is that likely?”
“I can’t say,” answered Quinn, for the first time with a less than assertive voice. “The Curia is highly political, and canon lawyers are known for their ability to find shades of meaning. But I just don’t know.”
“And what, Stan Bahner, do you foresee as the political fallout from the publication?”
“Well, it has already begun. Some churches in the Middle East have been fire bombed, and several nuns were reported killed in the Philippines. How far it will go remains to be seen, but there have already been calls by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State to stop the funding of Catholic Schools and for a cessation of the Church’s tax exempt status.”
“But wouldn’t that affect all religions, not just Catholicism?”
“I don’t know. Maybe, and that certainly would be fine with Barry Lynn…”
“The spokesman for that organization, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State,” added Rehm.
“Right. But they’re saying that by separating itself from all other religions and its call to use the State to support its goals, the Church has become a political entity…”
“And as a political entity it should not be given the religious exemption,” said Rehm completing his thought. “Of course, there is also the tax support of religious charitable organizations started by George Bush which might be affected.”
“Yes, there is a continuing push to stop all tax funding of any religious organization regardless of their charitable work. This may very well be what pushes Congress to act,” said the journalist.
“But what I want to address is the emotional toll the Pope’s encyclical will have on Protestants, Jews, and Muslims. How are the people feeling, Sally Quinn?”
“Well my mail is running about 88% opposed to the encyclical. That is an astounding majority of people who feel hurt or even betrayed by the Pope. I have one e-mail from a Methodist minister form North Carolina who said, and I quote, ‘The Pope has finally shown his true colors.’ I have another gentleman, a native American from Pennsylvania, who had converted to Catholicism but will now revert to the faith of his childhood. A rabbi from New Jersey has cancelled his membership in the Conference of Christians and Jews and has called on others to do the same. People are angry.”
“As well they have the right to be,” added Rehm. “I know I certainly am. Having grown up a Turkish Christian, I am particularly confounded by what has happened to the Roman church. I had always admired Michael I. He had moved his church away from the glitter that detracted from the essence of the religion, and many religious leaders for having done so applauded him. For him to have done this seems so … terribly odd. What would Jesus have said?”
l
“What would Jesus say?” asked Tim Russert on Meet the Press. The question was directed at Argo Malle, who along with Rabbi Dan Nachman, were guests on the first Sunday after the publication of the encyclical. The Rabbi was young, light complexioned, and ruggedly handsome. He was also chairman of the National Council of Christian and Jews.
Argo, as always when in public, wore a black suit with his Legion of Christ crucifix, and, of course, his Roman collar, which on that day seemed particularly restraining by a leash leading all the way to the Vatican.
“We already know what Jesus would say: exactly what was written,” answered Argo flatly. The camera shot to Russert who could not hide his puzzlement at the answer. “When the Pope writes a letter ex cathedra, he writes the words of Christ.” Russert’s brows furrowed deeply.
“Then you believe everything in the encyclical?”
“Yes, I do. The Pope is infallible on matters of faith and morals when he writes ex cathedra.” The camera closed in tightly on Argo, his dark brown eyes wide and steady.
“But you have disagreed publicly with the Pope on stem cells,” pursued Russert.
“Because the Pope has not published a binding encyclical on stem cells,” answered Argo with conscious didacticism. “For example, artificial birth control has been declared sinful via an encyclical of Pope Paul VI called Humanae Vitae. No Catholic may practice artificial birth control and at the same time follow Jesus Christ. When an encyclical is delivered ex cathedra, it is the word of Christ. Catholics do not have the option to disagree.”
“But we know that a great many Catholics disregard that encyclical.”
“And when they do, they sin.”
“And if,” asked Russert, “the Pope wrote an encyclical against the use of stem cells, you would think that stem cell research was a sin?”
“Stem cell research is complex. There is stem cell research that is…”
“Stem cell research using fetal tissue?” Russert cut in.
“Even there you have complexity, but to answer your basic question,” said Argo, the camera zooming in, “I would not think it was a sin subjectively, but objectively I know it would be.”
“Would you continue your campaign for it?”
“No. I am obliged to follow the dictates of my religion even if I feel differently. Obedience does not mean short-circuiting one’s brain. I am human and have my own thoughts and feelings about all matters of faith and morals. What is important is that I follow the teachings of the Church and pray for guidance.”
“So then you believe that Jesus Christ thinks that all religions other than Catholicism are erroneous.”
“Yes. I always have, and I suspect those of other religions feel their own religion is correct and that others are not.”
“Well let’s ask Rabbi Dan Nachman,” segued Russert. The sandy-haired rabbi wearing a yarmulke and black suit and tie looked more like an athlete than a cleric. He made no effort to hide his Brooklyn accent and would have been surprised to learn that he and Argo grew up only three miles apart.
“I’m afraid I have to disagree with Father Malle. As far as I know, only Catholics and Muslims believe only theirs is the true religion.”
“Then Judaism is not the true religion?” asked Russert.
“It is not the true religion. Obviously we believe our religion is true, but we know that they are other ways to reach God.”
“Are there other ways to reach God, Father Malle?” Russert asked, turning to Argo.
“I certainly believe so, but I do not know. I do know, that is I have faith, that Catholicism is the way to God. But the Church does not believe that theirs is the only way, only that their way is guaranteed. But doesn’t the Rabbi believe his are the chosen people?” The camera moved to the rabbi, and when he saw the red light he did not wait to be asked by the moderator.
“Yes, we do. But that’s different from saying that only one religion is true and that all others are false.” Both the camera and Russert focused on Argo.
“Then, Rabbi, do you agree with the Pope’s encyclical?”
“No, how can I?”
“Then you think that Catholicism is in error,” said Argo, his eyes sparkling under the klieg lights.
“In this instance, yes.”
“And the Church claims it is always right on properly promulgated matters of faith and morals, so you must think, if it is wrong in this area, that the whole Catholic Church is in error. And I don’t see how that is different from Condicio.”
“Well, if the Catholic Church believes it is always right, then it is in error. You are correct,” said Nachman with an edge.
“But why drive a wedge between good people?” asked Russert. “Why would the Pope choose to alienate Jews and Protestants, let alone Muslims? And why now?” asked Russert turning to Argo. Argo paused to pick up a copy of the encyclical that sat in front of him.
“I cannot say for sure. I am not a member of the Curia where this document was honed, but I do know what was written.” He held the copy but recited from memory the first sentence, from which the encyclical derived its name. “The first sentence says, ‘The state of the Church and of the world is precarious, and great effort is needed to challenge the evils we face today.’ It goes on to say that because the Church is being attacked from many directions, it is necessary to recognize from where those attacks originate and to take action against them.”
“And is it being attacked from other religions, from Jews and Protestants?” asked Russert with a bit a hauteur.
“In some way, yes, though not directly or even intentionally.” The camera drew in tightly on the resolute Argo. “Pope Michael is a great believer in the importance of central authority in a time when such authority is challenged. For example, Rabbi Nachman just asserted that the Catholic Church is in error, but does he speak for the entire Jewish religion? Does an Episcopalian minister speak for all Episcopalians? I certainly do not speak for all Catholics; only the Pope does. Only the Pope has the authority to do so. In this, Catholicism is different from the other main religions of the world. That authority, however, in a time when the individual, as the Pope laid out in Condicio, is being celebrated over the community --- when the catch word in so many disciplines is ‘diversity’ --- that retention of central authority is being challenged.
“And is that why so many observers have said that ecumenism is now dead?” Russert asked.
“The Pope was careful to point out that ecumenism is not dead, but it has become misinterpreted. In an effort to celebrate the similarities of those of faith, the Church may have given the impression that there is a difference in name only among religious traditions. Condicio reminds us that only the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. Only the Catholic Church has an unbroken two thousand year history with a central leadership,” Argo explained. “And the Catholic tradition is directly descendent from Judaism, which goes back five thousand years.”
The camera shot from Argo to Russert who said, “And we’ll be right back to find out from Rabbi Nachman the Jewish reaction to the Pope’s encyclical.” The camera lights went dark, and Russert’s head dropped down as if to compose himself for the next segment.
“Except the Rabbi is not authorized to comment on the Jewish reaction as there is no central Jewish church,” said Argo to Russert. “Without a central authority, Rabbi Nachman speaks only for himself.”
“Untrue!” snapped Nachman. “I certainly am qualified to speak about the reaction of my fellow Jewish leaders and their congregations. I am in constant touch with them,” said Nachman with more than a touch of odium.
“Forgive me, Rabbi Nachman. I meant no disrespect,” replied Argo calmly. “It’s just that in order to speak for all of the rabbis, you would have to have interviewed them. Certainly there would be some with differing opinions. Some may even agree that the Pope was correct, given his position.”
“That would be news to me,” snapped Nachman disgustedly.
“Exactly my point.”
“Gentlemen,” said the seasoned showman. “That last block was excellent. Save the discussion for the camera, and we’ll just let things run. You’re doing great.” Russert sensed the tension between the men, and that made for good television.
Off camera, Russert was cued with three fingers, then two, then one. “We’re back with Rabbi Nachman of Temple Beth El and Father Argo Malle, author, professor, and vocal spokesman for the continuation of stem cell research. Professor Nachman, what is your take on the Jewish response to Pope Michael I’s encyclical, Condicio Ecclesiae et Mundi?”
“There is general sorrow,” answered the Rabbi in measured tones, “that the Pope saw fit to undo the efforts of so many rabbis and priests who have tried to bring us together. All of the popes from John XXIII to Benedict XVI have seen the benefit of looking for areas of similarity between the two faiths, to note the special relationship that they have to each other. After all, they share the same Bible and have dedicated themselves to helping the poor of all faiths across the globe. To weaken that bond seems most unfortunate.”
“So you believe the bond has been weakened?” asked Russert.
“Yes, unfortunately, I do. I have read the entire encyclical, and I found it to be almost warlike in tone. The words war, attack, defense and the like are used throughout the text. A papacy that speaks for the Prince of Peace seems to have strayed, and a call for action, unspecified though it may be, seems uncalled for.”
“Father Malle, your reaction?” The camera closed in on Argo.
“Yes, well perhaps the rabbi fails to see what the Pope does, and that may explain why he feels the letter was uncalled for. The truth is that there has been a war not only against Catholicism but also against Christianity. Even Rabbi Nachman would agree that Muslims, for example, have declared overtly war on both Jews and Christians.”
“Only a small sect of Muslims,” put in Nachman.
“Tell that to the families of the assassinated clerics in the Philippines,” Argo shot back. “But,” he continued his thought looking straight into the camera, “there is also a war between Christians and Jews, which I have no doubt the rabbi would argue. The facts, however, speak for themselves. In New York City, for example, the crèche is forbidden to be displayed in schools during the Christmas season --- I’m sorry, the holiday season --- while the menorah is allowed.”
“That is not a Jewish decision; it is a decision of the courts,” explained Nachman tiredly, as if that argument had been settled.
“Yet the Jewish community has not seen fit to help correct the situation. I’m sorry, Rabbi, there is an antipathy, unspoken perhaps, but antipathy nonetheless that exists between the groups despite the years of ecumenism. The Pope has seen that antipathy not only in the United States but also in his own country, in Italy, and around the globe. Condicio seeks to reverse what is clearly an anti Christ trend.”
“But to suggest that those who disagree with the Catholic Church are in some way demonic? I hardly think that to be Jewish is to be the devil. One would hope that Catholic children will not expect to see horns on their Jewish friends.” Nachman, having less experience in front of the camera, was looking at Argo though the camera had focused on him.
Argo’s collar grew tighter, and the camera caught him as he shook his head in agreement. “I agree with Rabbi Nachman that there is a real danger that the uninformed, especially children, can get the wrong idea. The Church will have to redouble its efforts to see that it is understood that Catholicism is not taking a position of offense but merely of defense. The Pope, for example, made clear that it is not the Muslim people who are to blame but the aggressive proponents of that religion. I think the rabbi is correct in suggesting that any antipathy that exists among religious leaders must not be directed toward the faithful. Ecumenism cannot be allowed to die, and I cannot see how it will. As Rabbi Nachman pointed out, Jesus is the Prince of Peace, and his greatest commandment was to love, even one’s enemies. And His will will be done. However, the Old Testament especially provides for a defense of one’s faith, and the Catholic clergy cannot lie supine while forces exist trying to stomp it into the ground.”
Argo was glad to have left the hot lights of the studio for the cool air of autumnal New York. The breeze chilled his perspiring head and bit through his lightweight suit, but the cold was a welcome relief. As was typical after one of his TV appearances, Argo was unhappy with his performance. When he lectured in class there was time to explain complex issues, to rephrase, and to use clarifying examples, but television was different. Moderators pushed for short answers and had little patience for nuance. It was state your case quickly and hope you made it well. The worst offender was Bill O’Reilly, a program Argo had decided he would never again consider.
Argo had been slotted for a six-minute segment on stem cells, but most of the talking was done by O’Reilly who seemed more a cross-examiner than a moderator. The segment was almost over when the grand inquisitor said, “Can you tell us, Father Malle, in the minute we have left, why you think the Church is wrong on fetal stem cell research?” Argo’s answer was a flat and simple no.
“Why not?” asked O’Reilly, truly stunned by the answer.
“A minute would not be enough time,” Argo answered with a trace of disgust he could not hide.
“Well, The Factor covers a number of stories each night. This isn’t the classroom where you can run on. We try to cut to the chase.”
“Yes, I see that,” answered Argo.
“So what about it?”
Argo took a moment. “I never said the Church is wrong. I said only that I disagreed. The issue is complex, and cutting to the chase is not the best way to examine it. I hope you understand.”
Argo felt he had done much better on Oprah Winfrey’s show, one on one in front of a live audience. The topic was religion versus secularism, and it was clear that Oprah, serious and always respectful of her guest, did not share his opinions. She had asked him for an overview, and Argo framed it as succinctly as he could.
“Unfortunately there exists today, perhaps more than ever, a rift between those with religion and those without one. Rather than a nation with an acceptance of all creeds, we have become a nation divided along an artificial line between those who practice a religion and those who reject all religion. As our nation becomes more secularized --- in the media, courts, and schools --- religion per se is blamed for the increasing violence here and abroad.
“So you agree that there is increasing religious violence in the world.”
“Yes, I just said that. The question is why the violence has increased.”
“And you don’t think it’s due to religion.”
Argo, ignoring the stupidity of the question, answered what he thought should have been the question. “It is easy to blame religion, but it is simplistic to do so. Take one of your commercials, for example. It asks what is the leading cause of headaches. The aspirin company says tension is the leading cause. But it might be said that heads are. After all, without heads, there would be no headaches.” The audience chuckled. “The same is true about religion, which may also cause headaches.” There was more chuckling from the audience. “Some say that religion is the prime cause of violence, that if there were no religion there would be no violence --- rather naïve, I should think. Neither World War, Viet Nam, the Civil War, nor the Revolution were caused by religion, even if a case can be made for their having been influenced to some degree by religion. Religion also influenced to a large degree our system of jurisprudence and even our democracy.”
“Then why are the Muslims fighting? Aren’t we faced with fatwas and the like?” asked Oprah looking directly into Argo’s eyes.
“Fatwas are merely Islamic decrees. Some of them encourage violence, most don’t,” explained Argo. “But as to your question, you ask if the irrational blathering of some religious leaders means that religion, indeed all religions, are to blame for the spate of violence in the Middle East and elsewhere. Your question should be why do some religious leaders promote violence as a means to an end. Why do some heads ache while others don’t?” There was more audience chuckling.
“I’m not sure, Fr. Malle, what you mean by your headache metaphor, but surely…”
“Why don’t Quakers strap bombs to their young men and send them to marketplaces? It is not religion that is the cause belli but those who use religion for power. To conflate all religions as one troublesome institution is as absurd as equating Iran with Norway because they are nations. Argo used his hands as if they were scales. “North Korea, Monaco.” The audience laughed, and Oprah smiled.
“So you think religious leaders are to blame, not religions,” continued Oprah after the audience quieted. “But aren’t they leaders of religions? No religion, no religious leaders.”
“No heads, no headaches, he answered with a smile that lit his face. The audience laughed again. “Should we dissolve all nations because of bellicose presidents? There is an error in logic known as attributing a part to the whole. In poetry it is called synecdoche, and it has its place, but in logic it’s called fallacy.”
“Let’s try to stay away from poetry, if we can. We are coming up on a break ….”
“And away from undistributed middles. Put in more popular terms, I can say that I do not subscribe the geopolitical philosophy found in the pop song ‘Imagine.’ For many, Lennon’s hit has become sacred scripture. ‘Imagine nothing to live or die for?’ he croons. ‘Imagine no possessions.’ I think he wrote that from his penthouse overlooking Central Park.” More laughter. “‘Imagine no religion too.’ For many Baby Boomers, religion is a source of trouble, not as it is for millions upon millions, a source of goodness and of peace, of love, and of brotherhood.”
“Despite the wars fought in its name.”
“Precisely. We have to recognize that all followers of any religion are human, and humans are at times frail. We get headaches.” The audience chuckled again. “We make mistakes because we are imperfect. Religious tradition is a path to follow through life, and that path leads toward God. Naturally, man strays from that path, but that may not be the fault of the path but of the man. Most religions provide its members a bright line so that when we get lost, we can find the path again; we can easily find the way back. For a secularist, it is a path not taken, but should he insist that everyone not follow that path because the secularist himself does not? Can the secularist be correct in asserting the path leads to war while not even standing on it?” The audience applauded.
But on Meet the Press, Argo not only felt he had not been at his best but also that he had not been completely honest. He was compelled to defend the encyclical even though he opposed it, though not so much for what it said. It intimated that another encyclical would follow --- a second encyclical it was rumored Michael was in the process of readying.
The rabbi had been right; the language was warlike. Of particular concern to Argo was the clause, “yet defenders of the faith must show our enemies that we will not succumb to their offenses, either through words or through deeds.” What deeds would he direct the faithful to perform in defense? If the words of this encyclical caused such disharmony among the religious, what would any actions do to further alienate the Church from the world? There was little question in Argo’s mind that the encyclical caused more damage to the Church than was healthful and that little could be gained by what would doubtlessly become its isolation.
There was, in addition, another part of the encyclical that caused him concern even though it was not picked up by the media. What its effect might be was uncertain, but its intent was clear.
“... those secret organizations from various countries of the world, and even close to Rome itself, that engage in smuggling, racketeering, trafficking in narcotics and other criminal activities. When members of these organizations are known publicly they must not be permitted to participate in the Catholic Church's rituals, marriages, or baptisms. They must be excluded from those activities that would suggest their organization or life style is in any way condoned by the Church.”
Other popes, of course, had condemned organized crime but given this encyclical’s aggressive cast, how the bishops might react to parishioners who were thought to be involved in criminal pursuits was troubling. How could parishes deny the sacraments to those who do penance and who generously support them? There was little doubt, after all, that Mafia money built Regina Pacis and who knows how many other churches worldwide. If only the good could be Catholic, there would be far fewer in the pews on Sundays, Joe Machiarolla included. Pope Michael’s sword was cutting a wide path indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment