Potpourri

Anti-papist hipsters visuals courtesy of DCeiver, with a nod to Louis XIV.

I have neither the time right now nor, truthfully, the inclination to devote the attention the new papacy has been deemed as deserving. But I do enjoy the Pope jokes. I will say, for reasons that are partly aesthetic, slightly theological, and mostly irrational, I greatly prefer mainstream Catholicism to the branches of Protestantism to which I've been exposed. Ultimately it's all various shades of who-cares—I'm not personally invested in the question—but I would say that 1) I'm not at all surprised or very bothered to see the Church suggest that competing religions do not provide the "fullness of the means of salvation" (the man has to promote his brand), but 2) I am incredibly sorry to see indication that the Holy See may be following its rebel cousin here in the South into the sorry pop-theology arena of Intelligent Design. I've always respected the Catholic Church for maintaining a decent distance from questions of physical mechanism, focusing (historically, anyway) on metaphyics. Soon they'll be telling you that Protestantism is only a "theory."

The best question raised I've seen raised about Pope Benedict XVI was proferred in a post by Lindsay Beyerstein and elaborated in comments. To wit: Given Ratzinger's decision at 14 to collaborate with the Nazis to the bare extent that he had to in order to survive—which strikes me as a morally defensible decision, taking into consideration his age and what we might adduce to be the limits of his perspective—does he have the moral authority to pronounce that those Americans who voted for John Kerry (i.e., pro-choice politicians) are participatory to mass murder (i.e., abortions)? The merit of that claim notwithstanding (I think it's garbage, politically, metaphysically, and theologically speaking); I'm concerned here about the way that the Pope's morality or moral authority operates. BXVI's solutions to these problems are discrete: the indemnification he receives for tacit collaboration does not extend to others' collaboration in the face of structurally similar crises. (According to Christian hyperbole vis-a-vis the abortion "holocaust," the resemblance is there.)

Point of fact, though, BXVI has acknowledged his dubious association with the Nazis—but recognizes the decisions he made as right, and still considers himself eligible to condemn others for a mistaken moral framework he previously endorsed. While I see the ecumenical utility to the atomicity of moral pronunciation (i.e., one decision does not impinge on a later decision, even if the latter runs contrary to the former) really, that's a position that calls for some serious stones.

I'd be tempted to mention the dread prospect of relativism, but the whole infallibility thing would seem to render the point moot. I do think that BXVI is immune from charges of hypocrisy, since his job description includes levying summary judgments against large swatch of mankind and history. But you'd think there would be a rule.

(Cross-posted at Begging To Differ)