The Vatican's Revisionist Hat Trick
In case you think that the Vatican’s rewriting of doctrine and dogma applies only to what they consider the most pathetic, decrepit and disposable segment of society (i.e., me), well, take solace — they’re also rewriting history at the other end of the worthiness spectrum:
Krakow’s Roman Catholic archbishop spoke Tuesday of a possible miracle performed by Pope John Paul II in France that a church tribunal will focus on as the Vatican pursues its case for beatification.
…
The Vatican needs proof of a miracle before it can proclaim John Paul eligible for sainthood, and a church tribunal from the archdiocese of Krakow, Poland, has been gathering evidence from witnesses.
They need a miracle from John Paul II to make him a saint, so of course you know — you know — that they’ll find one. Either that, or they’ll just dumb down the definition of “miracle” to suit their needs.
On that, you can have faith…
—
And it’s not just human sexuality or the supernatural abilities of a dead pope that the Vatican can forever “update” with the stroke of a pen. Nope, they can even change the cosmos itself, in all its dimensions:
According to Italian media reports on Tuesday, an international theological commission will advise Pope Benedict to eliminate the teaching about limbo from the Catholic catechism.The Catholic Church teaches that babies who die before they can be baptised go to limbo, whose name comes from the Latin for “border” or “edge”, because they deserve neither heaven nor hell.
Last October, seven months before he died, Pope John Paul asked the commission to come up with “a more coherent and enlightened way” of describing the fate of such innocents.
In other words, replace the old nonsense with some fresh nonsense, that will no longer torture the ignorant faithful parents of children who die unbaptized with cruel, sadistic dogma about eternal non-Heaven for their lost babies.
—
Being an atheist, I simply cannot imagine how embarrassed and humiliated most Western, educated, reasonable Catholics must be feeling these days, especially here in America. Your church is now the laughingstock of the world, and rightly so.
Which invites the question: isn’t it time for you lay Catholics to start doing something about it?
Similar Posts:
- Limbo, R.I.P.
- Vatican Ready to Embrace China’s Communists
- Kirche: “It’s the Kueche and Kinder, Stupid!”
- To Dream The Impossible Merger
- The Legacy of Pope John Paul II
Filed under: Uncategorized
Spot on Kip!
You didn't actually explain why you think the Vatican is rewriting history, or redefining miracles in your comment about the cause of John Paul the Great.
Furthermore, the church isn't changing the cosmos with regard to limbo, which was only ever a theoretical explanation, rather than dogma.
"Your church is now the laughingstock of the world, and rightly so."
This last comment doesn't follow.
I seriously doubt we will see the late Pope beatified in our lifetime. Things like this move very slowly, and the miracles attributed to many saints occurred after their deaths. There is plenty for Catholics to be embarrassed about, but it centers more around the criminal way the leadership handled the abuse more than articles of the faith.
11 29 05
It is clear that you are anti Catholic and seemingly anti organized religion. The policy makers in the Church certainly don't speak for all Catholics but mandatory celibacy makes this rule superfluous and biased. I wonder about the heterosexual pedophiles. But I also wonder why the Catholic Church has attracted such a small segment of the overall sexual criminal tapestry. I took a human sexuality course this past term and we learned that homosexual pedophelia is extremely RARE among sexual offenders. And I can see how forced celibacy could affect the psyche, but I dare say it doesn't turn people into pedophiles. What is it about that institution that attracts these people in DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBERS? I still haven't figured it out and am looking for something to chew on. Good post KEsquire.
Rather than creating "a more coherent and enlightened way" to describe the concept of limbo, wouldn't a practical person think to just baptize the baby at birth? But that's asking too much, I know. Instead, they go with replacing nonsense with nonsense, as you say. And they wonder why so many younger people are ex-Catholics.
I always understood the old limbo definition was largely to guarantee future customers and baptism fees for the church by spreading the fear that peoples' little babies would be forever caught in not-heaven if the parents waited until the kids were older for baptism. See also stories that evil Satanists were kidnapping unbaptized babies for their rituals.
As far as PJP2 and miracles, those who haven't heard about the whole Monica Besra cured tumor miracle with Mother Teresa should google on that to see how high the standards are here.
Indeed, the whole limbo concept is rather baroque. An old friend of mine had worked for a time in a Catholic hospital, and he told me that they actually had a special device for performing in-utero baptisms in medical emergencies when a fetus seemed in jeopardy. This would sometimes lead to all sorts of theological gymnastics later on if the child survived, since the parents would inevitably want the joy of a baptism ceremony for their child (and you're not supposed to baptise twice, and you couldn't allow a precedent of saying the in-utero one didn't count, etc).
On the other hand, if you read Dante's Divine Comedy, where the cosmology of the afterlife is definitively explored, I always thought that the least circle of Hell, where the "virtuous pagans" spent eternity in relative comfort, would be the most interesting place to end up. Great company, certainly.
Oh, and on a related tangent, I read at AndrewSullivan this morning that the Pope's latest hobgoblin is "usury." Apparently, any charging of interest on loans is immoral, and the whole practice of paying interest is part of our society's general moral decay. It seems that His Holiness is striving mightily to alienate the entire world.
[Kip replies: Someone tell the Vatican Bank. And, for what it's worth, "all interest is usury" is also a fundamental premise of Islam.]
I too am an atheist. I am not anti-Catholic, just as I am not anti-bikerider. I am willing to live and let live. There are some beliefs that are damaging to those that hold them, and for their sake I wish they could/would see the light and drop them a la carte. For instance, the belief in Hell does not help the believer. God must be cruel and capricious to create or allow a Hell. Without the belief in Hell their God is much more pleasant. Well, I stumbled onto a God believers website that makes a pretty good case for no Hell. It appears it all boils down to a problem with translation and the meanings of words over history.
So, live and let live, but don't believe in Hell.
Thanks,
Peter
I was Catholic. I'm not any more: precisely because of this whole Orwellian "nothing's different, we've always been at war with EastAsia" stance of the Church towards communicating doctrinal changes. I'm a medieval scholar: I know doctrine changes. Priests used to be married, the "filioque" is a late revision, and, if you really want to piss off a historical revisionist, point out to them that Charlemagne was openly polygamous, as was common practice.
I don't care what atheists choose to believe, and I'm not sure why they're always so hot and bothered over what we do: after all, there are just as many religious atheists trying shove their dreck out there as there are members of the "theocracy squad" out there. Remember bright boys and girls, you cannot prove something, only disprove it… aka "God hasn't been proven" is as far as you can go b4 you leave science and are just as much of a freak as the fundies with their snakes.
————————————
But if I were to try to teach a fish to fly, and discuss a definition of hell that an atheist might accept, let's try this:
a) posit the existence of a soul that survives death
b) posit that the soul is shaped by our acts while living
c) posit a conscious, beneficent creator
Our actions in life basically echo throughout time. Christianity asserts that God gives you a choice, and as many "mulligans" as you want. You may be damaged by your selfish actions, and that suffering is yours to bear, but who you become is up to you. To steal a line from a friend, our acts determine whether we wind up looking like something from the Lovecraft Mythos, or whether we become something that could possibly be mistaken for an angel. When that happens, we get exposed to the source of all being. It's benevolent. If WE are, then exposure to that source is like being on the beach in perfect sunbathing weather. (A.k.a., "ahhhhhhhh".) …. if we've decided to become monsters, instead of being able to luxuriate in the goodness of creation, that comfy light has more the characteristics of a blowtorch. Heaven, hell… same place. It's who you've become that makes the difference.