Whats the difference between the elevation of Ratzinger to Pope Benedict and Gene Robinson to Bishop Robinson?

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?)

• Both Churches held a conclave.
• Both Churches prayed for God's guidance in making their decision. 
• Both Churches voted. 

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.

Comments

[Adriane]

"Is it better to die on your feet than live on your knees?"

The Catholic Church would rather die on its feet; the Episcopalian Church would rather live on its knees.

Each of those decisions has appealed to different peoples at different times in human history. So I don't think we are going to come to a definitive solution here in the comments sections.

As to '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?' Actually, I do.

The problem I think you** are going to find with that, is that I accept in this world, that while I would like to be remembered for my charm, my intelligence, or even my poetry, it is entirely possible that God's plan for me is to be remembered only as a bad example to teach others what not to do. Anything else is vanity, on the scale of Job.

** Based only what I have read on your web-log, of course.

I do not know the big picture and while I can strive to understand it in greater detail, I am more frightened of the fact that one day I might believe that I KNOW the big picture, than I am of one day coming to the bone chilling*** realiztion that I NEVER will.

***Think "bone chilling" = Zen. A stronger degree of certainty than an intellectual, Philosophy 101 kind of, realization.

Of course, you are free to believe the same; and, again, from your weblog**, I doubt you share my opinion as to who will be remembered for their wisdom and who will be remembered for their foolishness. :-)

Anyway, best of luck to you in your personal endeavors. And, thanks for letting me use your bandwidth.

Adriane

[RonF]

What's the difference between the elevation of Cardinal Ratzinger to Pope and the elevation of Canon Robinson to Bishop?

When Canon Robinson was elevated to Bishop, a number of the Bishops who so voted did not quote God as having inspired their choice. Many of them quoted Anglican custom that a Diocese should get it's choice as Bishop. Given that the mechanism of electing a bishop in the ECUSA requires the other dioceses of the church to approve such an election, that kind of fudges the question. But my point here is that these bishops took their refuge in Canon law (man's law), not the Bible or God (God's law). And that doesn't take into account voters (both bishops and laity) whose vote was grounded in ideas of social justice instead of Scripture. Your starting premise that they were similar since both sets of voters supposedly all claimed inspiration by God is thus incorrect.

Here's another difference: there was no bar, either scriptural or canonical, to Cardinal Ratzinger's election. Whereas there were such bars to Canon Robinson's election, but the majority of voters chose to ignore them.

[RonF]

As far as the concept of elevating a fellow sinner to Bishop goes, that's not the point. The church has always elevated sinners to Bishop. Since we are all sinners, that's unavoidable. The issue is that in Canon Robinson's case, he claims that what he does is not a sin. The church heretofore has not been in the habit of elevating un-repentant sinners to Bishop, or people who deny that what the church has consistently held is a sin for two millenia is now all of a sudden not a sin.

[Patrick]

But my point here is that these bishops took their refuge in Canon law (man's law), not the Bible or God (God's law). And that doesn't take into account voters (both bishops and laity) whose vote was grounded in ideas of social justice instead of Scripture. Your starting premise that they were similar since both sets of voters supposedly all claimed inspiration by God is thus incorrect.

I remain unconvinced that my premise is incorrect. Both parties invoked through prayer the guidance of God. It does not matter what particular laws or customs were followed or not, even if from the Bible. This is because God is a higher source of authority than either the law of man or even the Bible as God is free to change His mind.

The issue of a scriptural or canonical bar to either person holding office is also a blind alley because these requirements change on continuing basis. Not that long ago a non-Italian Pope would have been unthinkable for example. Or prior to that a Christian Leader that was not Jewish. Or one that was not married.

As far as the concept of elevating a fellow sinner to Bishop goes, that's not the point. The church has always elevated sinners to Bishop. Since we are all sinners, that's unavoidable. The issue is that in Canon Robinson's case, he claims that what he does is not a sin. The church heretofore has not been in the habit of elevating un-repentant sinners to Bishop, or people who deny that what the church has consistently held is a sin for two millenia is now all of a sudden not a sin.

Many Popes have been unrepentant sinners. There are even a few who were quite unsavory characters. And the first head of the Anglican Church was King Henry, and he was hardly a repentant sinner himself.

I still see this as a matter of Faith, not legalisms and dogma. You either believe that God is a living, potent force in the world our you do not. And if you choose to be a member of a particular religious body, you do agree to follow it's precepts and decisions. Otherwise it's just cafeteria style religion shopping. You may choose not to be a part of that body, as many in the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches are doing, but if you agree to be a part of it, then it is your own feet that brought you there.

And the line: "or people who deny that what the church has consistently held is a sin for two millenia is now all of a sudden not a sin." is not accurate, at one time Christianity had a much more variegated and diverse set of beliefs than exists even today. Again, the councils of Nicea and others have perhaps changed some of that. But look at their process for doing so.

[Paul]

Regarding your slavery comment: there's an interesting story...I believe in Acts of the Apostles. Paul is writing to a man, a fellow christian, whose slave has run away. The slave has, in the meantime, become a Christian.

More info:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11797b.htm

In a nutshell, Paul says, the christian slave is the Lord's freedman, and urges his friend to accept the slave as his christian brother. In which case, though Paul never says "free him" the implication is right there. What authentic Christian would hold another as a slave? The epistle does not say whether or not the man does this, but it implies again, that it happened. The man later becomes a bishop. There is no explicit condemnation of slavery, but an implicit one.

[Shane]

If you are not a Catholic, then it is only a political and sociological question, and there is no difference. If, however, you are a Catholic who believes in Papal Infallibility, then the authority with which the pope "binds and looses" is from the Holy Spirit. That is a distinction with a difference.