Pope Benedict's Apologies Teach Spiritual Lesson For All

Rabbi,

You want to deal only with the matter of apologies, and I shall do the same. I await the day when the Pope will apologize for excommunicating the mother of the nine-year-old child raped by her stepfather, to the doctors who performed the abortion on the impregnated little girl. Note that the rapist-stepfather remains a member in good standing of the RCC. We'd all like this to be the best of all possible worlds, but it isn't. Something was rotten in the Vatican that re-communicated Irving's friend Williamson. Rabbi, some questions asked by Quinn and Meacham don't have to be answered.

When the Catholics of the rest of the world stand up and demand that the mother and doctors be given a formal apology, "recommunicated," etc., you might more meaningfully post. They could do that. Will they?

Friday, Mar. 06, 2009
Nine-Year-Old's Abortion Outrages Brazil's Catholic Church
By Andrew Downie / São Paulo

The case of the pregnant 9-year-old was shocking enough. But it was the response of the Catholic Church that infuriated many Brazilians. Archibishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of the coastal city of Recife announced that the Vatican was excommunicating the family of a local girl who had been raped and impregnated with twins by her stepfather, because they had chosen to have the girl undergo an abortion. The Church excommunicated the doctors who performed the procedure as well. "God's laws," said the archbishop, dictate that abortion is a sin and that transgressors are no longer welcome in the Roman Catholic Church. "They took the life of an innocent," Sobrinho told TIME in a telephone interview. "Abortion is much more serious than killing an adult. An adult may or may not be an innocent, but an unborn child is most definitely innocent. Taking that life cannot be ignored."

The case has caused a furor. Abortion is illegal in Brazil except in cases of rape or when the mother's life is in danger, both of which apply in this case. (The girl's immature hips would have made labor dangerous; the Catholic opinion was that she could have had a cesarean section.) When the incident came to light in local newspapers, the Church first asked a judge to halt the process and then condemned those involved, including the 9-year-old's distraught mother

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html
-----------------------
NB: Rabbi, "the Catholic opinion was that she [the little girl] could have had a cesarean section." Note the year, Rabbi--2009.

EMONTY:

Ok, so you are a moderate Catholic! WEll stated reply by you and appreciated.

This reminds me of the story about the woman who was going to be stoned. Jesus comment was "if anyone of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her". We humans seem very quick to judge and punish one another; Christ was forgiving. Yet he was not accepting of all behavior since after the crowd left, he told the woman "to go now and leave your life of sin"

Re: Infallibility

I think part of the doctrine also presumes the Pope will be in agreement with the bishops and people in order to be infallible. In the two cases in which infallibility was 'used' (if that is the right word) the Pope merely affirmed what the laity had believed to be true for centuries. This is why the doctrine has never been applied to something like birth control although I am sure some people wish it would be; the 'sense of the faithful' would be that it is not a true teaching.

Well stated, Brad. You are a true teacher. Peace, Nate Walker

Re infallibility: As Rabbi Brad says, the doctrine is complex. The Church itself took nearly two millenia to come to a full understanding of what it meant.

Among the things it doesn't mean; That a pope cannot err even on matters of faith and morals when he is not speaking "de sede,"--from the chair of St. Peter. Doing so is a highly conscious act; it is only undertaken after serious study, internal debate and deliberation, and prayer. It's been done by a Pope alone only twice since the dogma was defined in the 1800s, and clearly many times before that when Popes spoke in a similar vein with the authority Catholics have always believed Jesus gave to Peter and his successors.

It also doesn't mean that a pope can say anything infallible at all if it is not about faith and morals. From this standpoint, the doctrine was necessary to put to rest all the pronouncements that addressed issues of science or other matters that had nothing to do with faith or morals. Galileo wasn't first exonerated by Pope John Paul; if you think about it, he was implicitly exonerated by Vatican Council I in the 1800s.

Another thing: Infallibility certainly does not confer sanctity. Witness the behavior of some pretty bad popes.

Here's a more subtle point: Infallibility does not mean that a pope, when speaking "from the chair," can simply open his mouth and the full truth will be spoken. It means that the pope will not make a mistake when he speaks on faith and/or morals. Big difference.

Mr. Hirschfield is satisfied to accept an apology for statements made by the Pope in regards to statements about Islam, denial of the Holocaust, and sex abuse by priests. Has he ever considered the simple remedy of the Pope's total rejection of these and other inconceivable beliefs including the idea of infallibility?

An apology in and of itself means nothing if it doesn't change behavior. The Pope's apologies were words only and did not lead to any difference in his actions.

He didn't revisit his decision to promote the holocaust denier. He apologized in the US for the harm that errant priests have caused to children but he made no effort to remove or punish those church leaders who knowingly transferred priests from parish to parish.

It's easy to utter words. It's hard to bring about the changes necessary to rectify the reason why you're apologizing in the first place.

The pope's apologies were symbolic only and required no great courage to make.

GABY,

Ferverent? Some of my more right leaning bretheren might wish to throw me out of the Church! I am not sure what 'ferverent' means but I might surprise you by telling you that I agree with you about birth control, as do most Catholics, and I find it dishonest that a panel of experts, including reputable theologians handpicked to support the policy, recommended a change in both the theology of and approach to birth control 40 years ago only to be over-ruled by the controversial pope of that time. I believe the treatment of women in the Church is a scandal. The problem with 2,000 years of history is that a lot of mistakes get made and no organization is slower to admit to a mistake than the Catholic Church although I must also acknowledge that no organization's enemies are more willing to point out the mistakes and ignore the progress than the enemies of the Catholic Church.

I am absolutely sure you know more about the German, and Bavarian, versions of Catholocism than I ever will and I am sure the Pope is a product of his environment and times as am I.

It seems that most European Catholics voted with their feet and left in the last 40 years or so and all wings of the Church from right to left will tell you they know exactly why. I am not quite that wise. On the other hand many American Catholics chose to stay and work for change from within. The left strives for a church than has never existed and the right longs for a church that never existed and both sides show little evidence of Christian charity in dealing with the other. I leave the wisdom of the choice to leave or stay, and how to deal with others in the faith who don't agree with them to the consciences of those who make those choices.

In the current Pope I see an academic trying mightily to be 'pastoral', a role in which he has had very little experience in his career in the church, but I give him credit for trying although I think he needs to learn that most of his flock would rather put their trust in mercy than theology. I think the disciples did exactly the same thing in the context of their times. This is what I mean by my comments about what the Pope is and what he is trying to be. If I put a charitable spin on an apple trying to be an orange at least I err on the side of mercy.

Brad,
.
There you go being reasonable again. You just don't get it do you? The point of these blogs are to stir up mistrust, hatred, and discontent, among readers. Why can't you just get with the program???
.
But seriously: Well said.

EMONTY:

It is obvious that you are a fervent Catholic and I bear you no ill will.

However, I do bear the Catholic Church ill will for propagating their total intolerance for birth control (please do not give me that lecture about ovulation counts or abstinence), its stance on abortion (even when the mother is sure to die {I guess two Catholics in heaven are better than one}), and its continued stance on the celibacy of priests and nuns when we all know that it's observed by neither.

Pope Benedict's views on Jews and their religion is highly colored by his German upbringing, especially since he was already alive during the Hitler years. Please do not misunderstand, most (if not all) Germans bear Hitler's cross. Germans, in general, carry a national guilt that is even pervasice today. I was born 8 years after WWII and the holocaust ended, but that did not absolve me from the debt my countrymen heaped upon generations. So, if you don't mind, I'll take the Pope's views on Judaism with a grain of salt.

What Benedict is trying to be and what he is, is comparing apples to oranges. No different from any other human being programmed by their upbringing and surroundings.. Benedict is not a"people person", he is a scholar (and accompilshed one), but a far cry from being able to relate to his laity, so to speak. All you need to do is read his biography.

By the way, I grew up in Bavaria, a stronghold ol Catholicism in Germany, therefore I have a good understanding of Benedict and his Catholic views. (Not to sound overbearing or callous.)

Fourth? I guess I have room to grow in my basic math skills too!

HumanSimpleton

The Pope's action(s)? First, apologizing. Secondly, continuing to try to speak with those who can't, or won't look deeply into what he said and did, or what he didn't do, or didn't say. An example might be his alleged 'anti-Muslim remark' in which he only quoted someone far back in history, and not approvingly either by the way. Fourth, going many extra steps to clarify, again, his feelings about Catholic-Jewish relationships. There are other examples. I suppose it would depend on what one considered actions.

In terms of knowing many people who can, and do, admit being wrong, apologize, and recognize that they have room to grow, I congratulate you on a good set of acquaintances! It has been my experience (I work in education and lay ministry) that many, many people have a terribly hard time admitting wrongdoing, and making amends for it. I see one in the mirror everyday. I guess I have room for growth too.

Emonty asks:

"The Pope's actions to me show that he can recognize his own shortcomings, and therefore, knows he has room for growth. How many of us can say the same thing?"

I can, and so can many who I know.

Exactly what are the Pope's actions, though?

A very sympathetic point of view from Rabbi Hirschfield. Would that some of the posters on these boards (both columnists and bloggers) would take his advice to heart...

I have heard many leaders say something along the lines of " I am not perfect! I can admit when I am wrong." Sadly enough, most of those leaders never seem to be able to identify an occasion when they were wrong, and when they admitted it. The Pope's actions to me show that he can recognize his own shortcomings, and therefore, knows he has room for growth. How many of us can say the same thing?

Those who judge the Pope for what he is should also take into account of what he is trying to be.