Update II
Joe at Evangelical Outpost puts asks a similar question.
Update: 04/21/2005
As a foot note, there is an interesting editorial in the LA Times today that may have relevance on the subject. It's written by Charles E. Curran, a Catholic Theologian who was censured by Ratzinger.
A quote:
But it doesn't have to be that way. History shows that the Catholic Church has changed its moral teachings over the years on a number of issues (without admitting its previous position had been wrong). A very sorry page in Catholic history, for example, is the fact that for over 1,800 years the popes and the church did not condemn slavery. And until the 17th century, popes, in the strongest terms, condemned loans with interest as violating God's law.
Full article here.
Over at Bill Hobs site, he says:
Eternal truth is eternal truth. If Pope Benedict XVI stands up for it, and stays committed to it, the world will be better off. The last thing the world needs is a post-modern pope who believes the church should change its teaching based on public opinion polls.
One of his commenter's, Terry says;
I don't remember, did any of our media elite do public opinion polls when the Episcopal Church appointed an openly homosexual and adulterous man a bishop? Maybe they did and I don't recall, but I doubt it.
Yes, they did, but this started me thinking:
Whats the difference between the elevation of Pope Benedict and Bishop Robinson?
Why is the elevation of Ratzinger accepted without question by religious conservatives while Robinson's elevation is almost universally condemned? (Not to mention the man himself?)
And then both Churches elevated a priest to a higher office that they felt he was worthy of and called to, in their eyes and in the eyes of God.
I remember a short time after the vote on Robinson, one of the priests at the conference was being interviewed by a Fox commentator. O' Reilly I think.
Anyway, what the priest said was that they had prayed for the Lord's guidance and that he had faith that God did not fail them. You could tell that the priest actually believed this by his manner and by the look in his eyes. He was a man of faith in the truest sense of the word.
The Fox host just gave a quick snort of derision. Then he realized that it might not look too good for him to openly mock a priest on national TV, so he quickly closed the segment. And people complain about the treatment of religion by the "liberal" media.
Why do so many Christians believe that God had a hand in choosing the Pope while failing to believe that he also had a hand in choosing Robinson? Why is one decision considered sanctified and the other is not? Is God so weak or choosy that he only guides Catholics in the selection of their leaders? Why do they have such little faith in God?
You might tell me that it's because of Leviticus...yada, yada, yada.... Basically that the voting Bishops in Robinson's case acted so out of the norm from the Bible that it was heresy. But I just can't buy that as a good excuse.
Not because of Leviticus specifically, but because Christian religions, when making changes to themselves over the centuries, have often gone way beyond simply elevating a fellow sinner to Bishop.
There was the initial divorce of Christianity from Judaism for example. Celibacy for priests was another big change in the Christian doctrine since priests could still get married for about the first 1000 years of the Churches history. The ordination of women. The shift from polygamy to monogamy. All these things were momentous changes in Christianity that it still managed to survive.
Some might tell me that the core beliefs of Christianity have been the same for quite awhile, but exactly how did that happen?
A bunch of Bishops got together in a place called Nicea, and asked God for guidance in making their decisions. Then voted and argued until they came to agreement on what would define Christianity. Sound familiar? If trusting the ability of God to guide our decisions when we ask for his guidance, worked back then, why doesn't it work now?
What's also interesting is that homosexuality has been brought up so frequently in reference to both Robinson's and Ratzingers situations. Maybe the question of how Christians should deal with gay and lesbian people will be one of the defining moral challenges to Christianity of this age.
But then again, maybe it's the same one they have been presented all along. How do you treat the stranger at your door? It's easy to love someone when you have been taught that they are worthy of it. But what about when someone truly is, by everything that you believe in, an abomination in the sight of God? If presented with the Devil, do you grant him mercy?
I must say that so far I'm not impressed by the way Christians have answered the knock of the stranger at their door. So I don't think it's a very pretty city on the hill that they have built so far. But since they have locked me out of it I guess the question is moot. It might be a good thing. There was that other place that wasn't very hospitable to strangers and look what happened to them. Sodom and Gomorrah I think it was called. I think they mine salt there now.
Its probably not politically correct for me to say that the overall actions and motivations demonstrated by Christians as they deal with gay and lesbian people are guided more by human prejudice, rather than divine revelation or mercy. However, that doesn't mean it isn't true.
The fact is I think, that most Christians would act in revulsion toward gay and lesbian people whether they had ever read Leviticus or even opened the Bible in the first place. Prejudice toward gay and lesbian people has been woven into them so tightly that they mistake it as instinct. A sort of "natural law". But such deep felt feelings can be deceptive. In truth they have simply adopted the local, transient values of the culture they have found themselves in. It's not really about the Bible or eternal truth. It's still just about needing an "other" to project your own failings on.
In a hundred years, I wonder how Christianity will view the careers of both Robinson and Pope Benedict. Who will have had the biggest impact? Or maybe it will be neither. Maybe God is the right answer to that question.
I still have hope that it is.
Faith.
