INTRODUCTION
So now we have a new Pope.
It didn’t take long for adoring spinmeisters to dub him “the People’s Pope.”
Nor did it take long for detractors to remind us of the Church’s (and his) role
in support of the junta during Argentina’s Dirty War. I suppose this old truism
will assert itself: “The truth lies somewhere in between [these] extremes.”
And where do I stand as I
write this piece? I am a Buddhist who is a member of a sect without leaders, a
sect consisting of only one member - me. My interpretation of the Buddha’s
teachings - admittedly only my own opinion - is given elsewhere on this blog,
so I won’t summarize them here. My motivation in writing this article is to,
hopefully, drive a couple of more nails into the coffin containing the barely
living body of Catholicism, though I hold the other Abrahamic Faiths to be
equally deserving of such treatment.
As is my usual custom, I
will hold up to the light of public scrutiny the very words used by (and/or
lived by) the subject himself - in this case, Pope Francis.
Follow the money
QUOTE:
[Pope Francis] had also thought of …how [St.
Francis of Assisi] was a "poor man, a simple man, as we would like a poor
church, for the poor."
St. Francis of Assisi, who gave up his own wealth
and prestige, is revered among Catholics for his work with the poor.
So there we have it. Or do we? In the
spirit of St. Francis having given up his own wealth, are we to understand that
Pope Francis will attempt to give up the wealth of the Catholic Church in order
to help the poor? If Pope Francis wants to do this, can he? I have to honestly
admit that I don’t know if papal infallibility extends to uncontested control
over the Church’s bank accounts. This is an issue which deserves greater public
awareness.
I don’t really know if Pope Francis can
have, or was intended by the conclave to have, much of a long-lasting impact on
the Church. He is, after all 76 years old, which is about the same age Cardinal
Ratzinger was when he became Pope Benedict XVI. And his reign lasted slightly
less than 8 years. I hope this tendency to elevate the extreme elderly (men, of
course) for short terms of office doesn’t continue. For people who point out
that the age of the Cardinals eligible to vote for Pope lies heavily in the 70’s
range, I point out that Cardinals are not obligated to vote for one of their
own.
The Spiritual Exercises
of St. Ignatius of Loyola
As a Jesuit, Pope Francis had to embrace
the precepts contained in the Spiritual
Exercises. Since a man can become known by means of his own writings as
well as the writings he embraces, I thought it wise to look into at least some
of these Spiritual Exercises.
I will quote three rules in particular
that came to my attention, each rule followed by my own comments in brackets:
QUOTE:
Thirteenth Rule: To be right in everything, we ought always
to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so
decides it, believing that between Christ our Lord, the Bridegroom, and the
Church, His Bride, there is the same Spirit which governs and directs us for
the salvation of our souls. Because by the same Spirit and our Lord Who gave
the ten Commandments, our holy Mother the Church is directed and governed.
[My comments on the 13th: The first five
words in this rule need to be challenged immediately, for how can one be “right
in everything” if one reduces oneself to being a mere mindless conformist in
the worst Orwellian tradition? If the exercise of our God-given free will is to
mean anything, then we must be allowed a conviction that what we see with our
own eyes is to be a worthy basis for actions taken by means of the exercise of
that free will.
I’m also troubled by this part: “if the Hierarchical church so
decides it.” Perhaps this would be an improvement: “if the Hierarchical church
so sees it.” The point being, why would
the Church decide something in opposition to what it itself (secretly, no
doubt) really sees? [And I thought the Prince of Lies was a title reserved for
Satan.]
As far as “Christ [as Bridegroom]…and the Church [as
Bride]…[having] the same Spirit,” it would be well to remember that mortal men
(even if they be Cardinals or Popes) can stray or be in error whereas Christ
cannot.
As for “our holy Mother the Church,” there have been too many sins
committed by that Church to consider it holy - at least “holy” in the sense
meant in the title “the Holy Mother of God,” which is used in reference to
Mary, mother of Jesus Christ.
As for “the salvation of our souls,” that seems to be a province
in which the Church has no say, as indicated in its own doctrine of
predestination, which I’ll address in the section below entitled “GRACE AND
PREDESTINATION.”
Fourteenth
Rule: Although there is much
truth in the assertion that no one can save himself without being predestined
and without having faith and grace; we must be very cautious in the manner of
speaking and communicating with others about all these things.
[My comments on
the 14th:
As in the 13th rule, the first five words of the 14th
rule need to be challenged immediately. If there is indeed “much truth” in the
assertion about to be stated, I am forced to ask: “And what part(s) of the
assertion are false or (more charitably) uncertain?”
As for “we must be very
cautious in the manner of speaking,” one would expect of a theologian that
similar caution should be exercised when expounding upon any religious topic.
Fifteenth Rule:
We ought not, by way of custom, to speak much of predestination; but if in some
way and at some times one speaks, let him so speak that the common people may
not come into any error, as sometimes happens, saying: Whether I have to be
saved or condemned is already determined, and no other thing can now be,
through my doing well or ill; and with this, growing lazy, they become
negligent in the works which lead to the salvation and the spiritual profit of their souls.
[My comments on the 15th: And why shouldn’t “we…speak much of
predestination?” Since this seems to be a doctrine of extreme importance, much
should be spoken in order to assure that a proper understanding is conveyed.
Unless, of course, the Jesuits consider their flock to be mostly a bunch of
dumb asses who just can’t get it.
The 24 words immediately following the colon add force to my
contention that predestination should be spoken of much, often, and thoroughly
lest such misunderstandings arise. Assuming of course that these 24 words
comprise a misunderstanding in the first place.
And lastly, I’ll emphasize the words “growing lazy.” It seems
there are a lot of theological intellectuals and, in particular, austere
monastics who consider the common man as lazy. Even though untold millions of
common men and women are extremely industrious, they are not so much in the
ways considered important by (among others) Pope Francis, the People’s Pope.
This attitude stands in stark contrast to the Buddhist teaching contained in
the Lotus
Sutra that it is improper to look down on the efforts of others. Some
might call that “judging that ye not be judged.”
GRACE
AND PREDESTINATION
The following quote is from
a section entitled “Grace and Predestination.” I will add my bracketed comments
within this quote.
QUOTE:
The Church following Holy Scripture teaches that
there is Election by God of the chosen to be saved as a free will grace on His
part Who has the initiative in salvation and so is the First Cause of their
salvation; the Church also teaches that man has free will to accept this grace
or not. It is traditionally summarized in four statements:
[As for “man has free will to accept this grace or
not,” what about murdered infants? They certainly aren’t able to use their free
will to “accept this grace or not.” If, however, murdered infants get a free
pass into heaven, maybe by a macabre application of logic, parents would be
doing their newborns a huge favor (at the peril of their own souls of course)
by killing them.]
God wills all men to be saved and so gives sufficient
grace to all to be saved;
[If “God wills all men to be saved,” then all men
must be saved or else God must be considered less than omnipotent.]
But not all men are saved; those who are not saved
are damned by their own free will (cf. Council of Orange);
[This is sloppily stated: “those who are not saved
are damned by their own free will.” Better would have been: “those…are damned
by bad choices made by an improper application of their own free will.” I’ve
always had the uneasy feeling that free will is something the Church has always
been uncomfortable with, in that people might (rightly, I believe) use that
free will to interpret scripture and theologies in ways not to the liking of
the Church hierarchy.
Perhaps not all men are saved because some of them
have never even heard of Jesus Christ or the People’s Pope.]
Those whom He chooses to be saved will infallibly
be saved in a way that respects their freedom, and this is called
Predestination;
[How does Predestination “respect their freedom”
(that is, their free will)? God is giving an ultimatum: “It’s My way or the
highway (or, if you prefer, the low way straight to hell). If you don’t use
your free will to My liking, I’ll arrange eternal torment for you.” That
doesn’t sound very respectful to me. However, there can only be genuine respect
between equals, which is obviously not the case in God v. Man.]
Those who are not saved are not chosen by God in
view of their foreseen free will rejection of grace which will be given and
without which no one can be saved.
[This says that God already knows in advance
whether His grace will be accepted or not and, therefore, already knows who
will be saved and who will be damned. He already knows in advance how each of
us will exercise our free will. All that being said, how can the Church -
admittedly a creation of very human men - lead anyone to salvation, since
salvation has already been predetermined? Or will it be claimed that God knows
in advance how the Church will, in each individual case, work its magic upon
the free will of its congregants thereby allowing them to be saved?
If God knows all this stuff about me in advance,
why indeed should I bother with worrying about salvation? Instead, I choose not
to worry about God at all (though I do Buddhistically pray for His elevation to
Buddhahood) and do good works instead. If that’s not good enough for God,
tough.]
Anyone who denies the four propositions is a
heretic. How to understand the four propositions is where different theologies
come in. Anyone who denies that God knows our future free actions denies God's
infallible choice of the Elect and God's infallible knowledge of the Damned and
so is a heretic.
[“…God knows our future free actions...” The hell
you say? Then what am I, what was I created to be (that is, assuming God
created me, which I don’t assume at all) - a mere marionette?]
Alternatives to Eternal Damnation
I can think of two alternatives
to the Eternal Damnation v. Everlasting Life in Heaven scenarios.
ONE: Dis-creation
Dis-creation is a word of my
own coinage, which represents my idea that would spare the Almighty from the
charge of being eternity’s most profound Terrorist. For if the only two options
are Heaven and Hell, then God would be acting as Supreme Terrorist/Torturer by
arranging for sinners to suffer the flames of Hell for Eternity. My suggestion:
If God hates sin and won’t allow the unrepentant to enter Heaven, why not -
instead of torturing them forever - simply
dis-create them? We all came from nothing (or unconscious dust, if you
prefer), so why not simply reverse the process (as it were) and render those
denied heavenly entrance back to the form of the unconscious dust from which we
all arose?
TWO: Create a Third Realm
In addition to Heaven and
Hell, surely God could arrange (even at this late date!) to create an
additional afterlife location(s) - a place devoid of God but also devoid of the
Devil. As for places devoid of God, the more honest among us have to admit the
vast majority of us, living on this planet at this time, are devoid of
connection with God. He does not talk to us, He does not give us signs, He does
not show Himself. Some are satisfied to be filled with the spirit of God, but
that’s not the same relationship Adam had when he walked with and conversed
with God. I’m forced to ask, “For those who anticipate going to Heaven, do you
think you’ll walk and talk with God then as Adam had done so long ago? Or will
you be satisfied to never see Him but instead be filled with His spirit and
maybe see an angel once in a while?”
So an afterlife location
without God would be very much like what we’ve already got right now. Maybe in
His infinite mercy, He could construct several such afterlife destinations,
each one reserved for those whose sins were roughly equal. I mean, why put
murderers in the same place as jaywalkers? In a manner of speaking, that’s
pretty much how Buddhists envision the Afterlife (or I should say, the Next
Lives). Only it isn’t God Who dictates where we’re to go, it’s the sum of our
actions in this life (and earlier lives) that so determine. Only we don’t go to
permanent Heavens or Hells of various intensity and gradation. We get reborn in
places and circumstances fitting to our past actions, with yet another chance
to work our way up.
Up to and including this
day, I’ve never understood why the Abrahamists think we’ve only got one life to
get it right. Given the brief time we’re here, the enormity of the challenges
facing us, and our limitations, how could anyone (or Anyone) expect us to make
any spiritual progress if one life is all we have to work with?
Pope Francis’s Priorities
It must really bother the new Pope that
Argentina and Spain had, years ago, legalized same-sex marriages. Both are traditionally
very Catholic countries. Or maybe all they ever were were lip-service Catholic
countries. So what’s a Pope to do, especially one from such a strong prayer and
meditation oriented background as himself? Will he see it as his primary
mission to make serious Catholics of these lip-servicers? Will he frown upon
those churches which serve only as social gathering places for the “faithful?”
Or will he stumble along the way on trivial pursuits, for instance by trying to
convince the British to relinquish control of the Falkland Islands to his
native Argentina?
My personal prediction is, after all the
hoopla dies down, Pope Francis will come to be seen as a nice guy
(well-intended and all that) who managed to create an era of good feeling
(especially among his fellow Latinos) but not much else. I’m hopeful that not
only he but also top-down Catholicism will end up in the dustbin of history.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (2008 and 2012)
Founder of the Independent
Contractors’ Party
“Had I been elected US President, I
wouldn’t have even sent a congratulatory telegram to Pope Francis.”
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment