open Democracy News Analysis - democracy in the catholic church? - Comments

Arakano on "The pope’s mixed signals "

Arakano — Thu, 01 May 2008 13:35:51 +0100

While there are certainly more Protestants in the US than Catholics, they are not all members of a single unified church. Also, the UN is about more than just the US, as hard as this may be to accept for some, so one should bear in mind that world-wide, no other Christian church is as large and unified (and influental, one may argue) as the Catholic church. I am no Catholic myself, and am not in favour of the special status granted to the pope and his church, but there are reasons for it beyond the fact that he is sovereign of a few blocks in Rome. Besides, the size of a state does not (officially) matter in the UN, and I am sure Luxembourg and Liechtenstein are glad about it.

What I found a bit strange was the quip at Germany, mentioning that the former Cardinal Ratzinger was opposed to Turkey's "entry into Europe" (Europe and the European Union are not the same, by the way, just like America is not the same as the US, but obviously this is something Mr. Walsh does not deem important enough to bother with) "as a good German". Was this meant to imply that Germans were generally opposed to the entry of Turkey into the European Union? If so, it is far from the truth. There is no more opposition to Turkey's membership in Germany than in most other members, as far as I know, and unless proven wrong with convincing evidence, I would appreciate a cessation of such remarks.

Legenhausen on "The pope’s mixed signals "

Legenhausen — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:16:06 +0100

The Pope only gets to speak at the UN because the Vatican is recognized as a member nation. Just because the Pope is sovereign of a few blocks in Rome, he is able to appear and speak before the General Assembly. The leaders of other Christian denominations, let alone non-Christian religious leaders, miss the publicity and the political profile because they lack a state. In the interests of ecumenism, perhaps the US could grant the late Rev. Falwell's Liberty University independent sovereignty so that Jerry Falwell Jr. could address the General Assembly, or maybe after McCain is elected, he could arrange for sovereign status to be given to Rev. John Hagee's church. This could help balance the underrepresentation of Israel at the UN. And why stop there? The US could create hundreds of ministates within its boarders, and it could pressure the UN to accept the proposed new sovereign states as full voting members of the UN. After all, there are more Protestants in the US than Catholics. Maybe some of their leaders should be given equal limelight with the Pope.

timnmaryann on "Benedict XVI in Brazil: raising the Catholic flag"

timnmaryann — Fri, 11 May 2007 00:53:42 +0100

I'm not sure if it is a case of being "liberal", but a case of the Catholic Church and its heirarcy have lost any moral authority. Many Catholics (including priests and nuns)that I know from Central and South America comment on that.

For example, that the Bishops hammer on Sobrino and on "private" issues (birth control, etc.), yet give Pinochet a full Catholic funeral ... the irony is not lost on the "faithful"

And the Pentacostal "just accept Jesus and you will go to heaven" , that justice on Earth is irrelevant, is actually encouraged there.

William MacDougall on "Benedict XVI in Brazil: raising the Catholic flag"

William MacDougall — Thu, 10 May 2007 21:58:47 +0100

I am afraid I don't understand the argument. The author explains how stricter Protestant movements are booming in Brazil and then concludes - without any evidence whatsoever - that if only the Catholic Church would become more liberal it would grow. Surely the evidence suggests the opposite: to retain its place in Brazil the Church should become more conservative...

ianniscarras on "The Pope and the Patriarch"

ianniscarras — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:23:20 +0000

The article by Michael Walsh reveals a rather poor knowledge of the Orthodox Church.

First the Ecumenical Patriarch was elected mainly because he was the only viable candidate, not because he was anti-Turkish. On the contrary, the only other candidate, the then Archbishop of America, Iakovos, was a far more political contender, but though apparently supported by the United States, he was opposed by Turkey and this seems to have been one of the reasons why he was not chosen.

As Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew is first among equals of other Orthodox Patriarchs. That means his leadership is entirely spiritual. Indeed he is not even allowed to intervene in the diocese of other Bishops, let alone Patriarchs, as all Bishops in the Orthodox Church are considered equal (he can however coordinate groups of Bishops to deal with specific issues in other dioceses when problems arise as recently vis-�-vis the Patriarch of Jerusalem).

Any visitor to the Patriarchate will immediately see that the lack of any worldly power has made it into a very spiritual place, a marked difference from many other Orthodox Patriarchates. Bartholomew�s main contribution in a field related to politics has been to work ever since his election on the theology of the environment, raising awareness of the importance of God's creation through his voyages, usually by ship, throughout the Orthodox world.

The structure of the Orthodox Church of course means that it is a very slow moving body because it is not directed centrally like a state, or indeed like the Vatican. But things do move, if at a snail's pace. It is interesting to note that the Archbishop of Athens, usually considered a nationalist, is the next senior Orthodox prelate that is off to see the Pope. Indeed here in Greece one recent opinion poll suggested this Pope with his firm grasp of theology and interest in dialogue is surprising popular. I am not in a position to comment on Russia, though I imagine hostility to Roman Catholicism runs deeper there, perhaps a result of the fear that is still a feature of a Church which has been so infiltrated in its upper echelons by the secret services of the former Soviet State.

There is still far too much theological and emotional work to be done to consider reunion any time soon, but it is impossible to be an Orthodox Christian and not to wish for the reunion of the Christian Church. It took 600 years for the Eastern and Western sides of the Church to drift apart, 1054 being only a nominal date that conceals more than it enlightens. It seems somewhat silly of the author to imply that moving together again can happen in just a decade or so. It is beyond doubt however that the warm meeting of this remarkable Pope with this remarkable Patriarch has shown the way forward, and it is a hopeful way.

Iannis Carras,

Athens, Greece.

KVB Tharoor on "The Pope and the Patriarch"

KVB Tharoor — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 11:40:17 +0000

In the ninth century, the Bulgar khan Boris tried to play off Rome against Constantinople, seeing whether the Pope or the Patriarch would grant more in terms of symbolic power and access to his rule. Boris' letter to Pope Nicholas I (and Nick's subsequent response) remains one of the most revealing windows into the murky realm of medieval networking.

Like Boris' fledgling Bulgaria, Turkey stands at a crossroads. The EU seems to beckon, yet internal resistance is mounting to the perceived recalcitrance of European views of Turkey. The diplomatic and political battles waged in the next few years, one imagines, will be as intricate as the Pope and Patriarch's ancient contest over Bulgar souls.