|
The bets are on. The cardinals are about to seal themselves up in the Sistine Chapel and decide who gets to play absolute ruler over the vast religious and financial empire centered on the Vatican.
I hope my relative irreverence does not stir up any more controversy than necessary. Many Catholics around the world and on this board are sincere in their faith, but this should not prevent the rest of us from reasonably examining the Church and the Vatican as real-world institutions. The doctrines, pronouncements, financial dealings and political clout of the Roman Church affect everyone, not just Catholics. They should be subject to the same scrutiny we apply to political parties, governments, corporations or NGOs.
The Church has always intervened in secular politics. Today it voices opposition to wars and economic exploitation, but this is revealed as lip service when we consider its implicit (at the parish level, often explicit) political endorsements of conservative candidates and, most recently, its interventions in the Schiavo case. These demonstrate that the issues steering the Church's secular decisions are its opposition to abortion, birth control, homosexuality (child abuse notwithstanding) and women's rights - and, most of all, its opposition to internal reform, i.e. maintaining the absolute authority of Church hierarchy against all challengers from within and without.
The celebrations of JP2's life were ecstatic, the coverage uniformly pious and convinced of his alleged greatness, but reality is more mixed. His reign saw church attendance drop precipitously, especially after the Church botched up the scandals around child abuse in North American parishes (we can only wonder how many such scandals have yet to blow in the rest of the world). The new reputation for championing the poor and oppressed is largely a PR move of the last 15 years, coming only after Rome sold out the liberation theologists and fell silent about the dictatorships, death squads and state-sponsored genocides throughout Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s. If DUers revile Reagan, they should consider that JP2 was his key ally throughout, and became vocally critical of American policies only after Central America and Eastern Europe had been settled to the Church's satisfaction.
The media celebrants never cite the most important of all JP2 encyclicals: the declaration of 2000 that reiterated the authority, monopoly and genuineness of Vatican-led Catholicism as the world's only true religion. All other religions are lies and heresies. That document was authored primarily by JP2's ideological right-hand man, the Grand Inquisitor, German Cardinal Ratzinger, now 78. And I ain't just calling him names: for 20 years Ratzinger has held the doctrinal enforcement and censorship office formerly known as the Inquisition, and he is tight with the Opus Dei crowd who rose to prominence during JP2's tenure. Ratzinger presides over the College of Cardinals and will play kingmaker for the next Pope. Like Cheney as the head of the Bush 2000 campaign's vice-presidential selection committee, Ratzinger is likely to try kinging himself.
JP2 was unprecedented as the first TV-savvy, charismatic pope of the globalized age. PR is now an essential consideration, and herein lies the dilemma for the Cards: The logic of media, markets and populism demand a relatively liberal and charismatic face, preferably a Latin American candidate since this is the region with the largest concentration of Catholics and the greatest challenge from competing Christian sects.
I doubt overmuch the majority of Cards are ready for an African pope, and I believe the idea has been forwarded mainly to score some pre-election PR points. If they do go with the Mad Nigerian, it will be because they feel they must throw down a gauntlet to Islam. But racism is still an overwhelming force in the world, and the Cards are not going to present a black face to their predominantly white and Latin flock.
Two-thirds of the Cards are highly conservative JP2 appointees and probably believe (rightly, I think) that moving off the hard line and making any concessions to modernity will initiate a further disintegration of the one true Church. As with Gorbachev's attempts to reform the Soviet Union, admitting any mistakes may provide an opening for centrifugal forces.*
The likeliest Catholic Gorbachev would be an Italian. This would be a PR disaster, regardless of his ideological bent or charismatic properties. If they go with one, they're demonstrating they are really beyond out-of-touch.
Given the conflicting tides, my bet is that the Cards will go with the aging Ratzinger, 78, as a placeholder who is ideologically implacable and, at least, not Italian. The German church is nearly as rich as the American and needs a shot in the arm.
Alas, I should have spoken sooner for those of you who hope to profit with a well-placed bet at Ladebroke's. Ratzinger was originally quoted at 7 to 1 in the betting lines, but news reports today say he's already lined up a quarter to a third of the cardinals in his bloc, so he's now among the favorites.
So, anyone else want to make a call?
------
* NOTE: My personal preference would be for Gorbachev himself. He has a proven history of handling totalitarian organizations in the only way that makes sense. I'll confess to my own status as a spiritual, practical atheist who turned away from an Eastern Orthodox upbringing and sympathizes most with those Catholics (or members of any organized religion) who depart their church or who work to democratize institutions from within.
I side with those who champion reason that can be apprehended by individuals according to universal standards of logic and argument. I am roused to opposition whenever anyone claims to speak the absolute truth of a God who for some incomprehensible reason chose an exclusive spokesperson, instead of speaking to all people (as any God obviously could, if it cared to). Such statements are prima facie evidence of a self-serving scam, an attempt to trump logic and argument by assuming the mantle of divine right. I don't care whether the alleged spokesperson is a Roman potentate, an English monarch, an Arabian merchant, a TV fundamentalist, a member of an elect class or chosen people, or someone who says they were designated as the New Messiah after a sufficient number of meditations or acid trips. The Enlightenment is looking shakier than ever and we must be ever vigilant against those who have no basis for their political actions other than the claim that they have the monopoly on God's word.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
