Must be a weary time for Benedict XVI!

I sometimes make the comment (normally looking over my glasses as I do so) that it was a pleasure crossing the Tiber because I now could lecture on, for example, the Cloud of Unknowing without being interrupted by 'how could one talk about prayer when women are being oppressed world over by church stands on contraception?' Though my own theology is quite orthodox and could be 'backed up' at least to the 5th century, I do not agree with all of Rome's positions. Yet I do admire Her integrity. I find it very annoying, quite frankly, when writers do not uphold or question a doctrine or moral teaching based on an intellectual approach, but appeal entirely to emotions or other agenda. Lord have mercy, conflicts are as old as the Church, and hard-hitting Paul of Tarsus already had no illusions that his preaching what he saw as truth from the Risen Christ would be heeded by all and sundry. (Peter and Paul both had issues of inclusivity to address...)

It is so very ...restful to be worshipping in a setting where there already are married clergy, women priests, and so forth. :) And no illusions that having married and female clergy solve the problems of the world.

Today, I stopped at an RC cathedral and prayed in the presence of the Sacrament. Oddly enough, I found myself nearly crying with compassion for Benedict XVI. There is no equivalent of the sort of responsibility he has taken on - and obviously my first twinges were that a theologian, elderly and probably wishing for a peaceful time working on books, had to assume such a burden. Yet to take this on, not in a climate of loving warmth such as greeted John Paul, but with press reports already recording large disappointment about and fear of him, and some even speculating about his death and successor, Benedict now must be the loneliest man on earth.

Recently, I was reading of the Orthodox church's approach to the ordination of married men and to the remarriage of those who have divorced. Were Pope Benedict to proclaim positions in these areas which exactly conformed to Orthodoxy, he'd immediately be shouted down from left and right. "What? I'm supposed to say divorce is a sin, and remarriage a pastoral concession! My divorce was a new beginning!" (When is repentance anything but a new beginning?) Priest-sociologists would be saying it alienated people - or (if it were that annoying Andrew Greeley) that American ways do not include permanent relationships - nuns would be crying that this move was another oppression of women - some Catholic family movement or another would be seeing an attack on how they stayed together at all costs...

Were Benedict to speak on thousands killed in a battle or the modern equivalent of concentration camps, some web sites would be criticising that 'he didn't even mention abortion - the worst slaughter of all.' If he stated that the ordination of women could be open for further discussion, one side would criticise his discriminatory employment practises, another group would be moaning that encouraging ordination of anyone denied the universal call to holiness and contribution of the laity.

Benedict is in a position where indeed he must be a teaching authority and pastor, and where integrity must be maintained. Yet too many writers, scholars, etc., even if they are fully aware of the doctrinal positions and their development, will oppose them not based on the essence of the doctrine but on 'people could feel left out.' Just borrowing my earlier example, the Orthodox approach to divorce and remarriage has a sound theological basis - as does the RC attitude towards the same subject (though they differ, and regardless of whether one agrees or not.) An approach such as 'someone might feel left out and not come to church' is not theologically based.

I am wondering if there can be a proper balance, with any major church leader, between the current stress on being inclusive and maintaining doctrinal integrity - and shall be interested to see how one with as fine a theological mind as Benedict deals with this situation. The C of E always did tend to have a reluctance to say 'this is what we believe' lest those with Calvinist or Roman leanings have a sense of being outsiders. My attitudes towards ecumenism would not, for example, include understanding of the RC bans on intercommunion - yet I am uncomfortable with approaches to ecumenism that either ignore genuine differences of doctrine or hesitate to define either the difference or the doctrine.

In not only Benedict's case but that of every papacy within my memory, the press and popular authors indeed defy logic (and, since some are Roman priests, that is unforgiveable... I believe that, when I get to heaven, I'll learn that defying scholarly norms is the sin against the Holy Spirit.) The reasoning seems to be 'the popes hate women - they want everyone to have lots of babies and no one to have sex.' (I suppose the babies therefore arrive when the angels bring them. Angels used to do quite a business of that type in Ireland, unless the mother had plenty of gin and hot baths when she missed her first period, and this until she was sterilised at the age of 30.)

My point is that matters which are not related theologically are lumped together and judged as a wicked agenda. (I've been reading a number of online articles this past week - and one priest, who does not deserve to be dignified by a link, said that John Paul 'hated women,' a statement for which I see no substance whatever.) Celibacy for the clergy is a matter of discipline, not doctrine (not to mention that there are many married RC priests), and indeed could change. The ban on contraception is argued from a standpoint of 'natural law,' yet (though it is ignored by most Catholics, as every poll and any look at RC congregations would show) those who protested against it most seem more concerned with that Paul VI did not take the recommendations of the group he assembled to study the question than anything else. (John Paul, as far as I know, did not form any groups to discuss the matter - yet there are protests centred on the lack of, shall we say, a democratic vote more than whether the natural law position can be defended.)

I cannot imagine that any pope would declare abortion to be moral - and it seems far-fetched that anyone would have expected this. Perhaps (and I have seen essays on this) there is a position amongst some that, even if one is considered to be a human being with human rights even in the womb, this would not be so from the moment of conception, but when (for example) brain function begins. Logically (if one works from the RC premise that one is a human being from the moment of conception), one could not concurrently say that abortion is permissible if the mother is very young, or if the child is 'defective,' or the parents are unmarried, etc.. Such an argument would be, in effect, saying that whether one is a human being depends on the circumstances of one's conception.

Whether the RC position of abortion as immoral means 'one must vote, invariably, for a politician who gives lip service to opposing abortion, with no consideration of any other matters' (an idea I find absurd) would say more about the limited views (and possibly agendas) of those arguing that position than one with the intelligence and learning of Benedict. Ratzinger, as a theologian, and in saying that voting for someone in order to specifically further abortion is using sound principles of moral theology - where intent is an essential component of any moral act. I can see very serious problems if Benedict should encourage excommunication of those who are 'pro-choice politicians,' let alone those who vote for them, but that remains to be seen.

Whether women can be ordained has nothing to do with contraception, abortion, or divorce, though writers often class them together (a flight of the illogical that is beyond me.) It has to do with the nature of a sacrament - not with 'women are inferior and need to be barefoot and pregnant.'

Whether one agrees with Rome or not, the official positions are consistent and logical. I have no problem with (and indeed would encourage) scholarly agreement or challenges to any of them. What I find so irritating is that writers and theologians who know better than to do so present versions of the teachings (or the supposed motivation behind them) which not only can confuse people but spark anger at what is supposed rather than what is.