From the National Catholic Reporter:
Was this notice timed to coincide with the Feast of Saint Mary Magdalene? (My emphasis)
The Vatican press office announced today that Pope Benedict XVI has written a children's book called, "The Friends of Jesus". His friends were 12 men, acccording to the book.
The prologue, by Spanish Fr. Julian Carron, president of the Fraternity of Communion and Liberation, begins: ""One upon a time there was a small group of men who, one day two thousand years ago, met a young man who walked the roads of Galilee . Each had his own job and family but, in an instant, their lives changed. They were called Andrew and John, Peter, Matthew, Thomas, etc. They were twelve and we know them today as the 'Apostles'. ... In Jerusalem at that time everyone knew that they were Jesus' 'friends'. ... Later they were joined by St. Paul ..."
Il Papa wants the little children (and adults, too!) to understand that all of Jesus' close friends were men. The close circle of Jesus' friends was closed to women. Got that, everyone?
Read the rest at the NCR.
Thanks to Ann V. for sending the link.
So much for Mary and Martha, I guess...
ReplyDeleteIT, yes. And we'll need to put out of our minds that Mary Magdalene was the first to see Jesus after the Resurrection. What was Jesus thinking?
ReplyDeleteWhat? Ignoring the plain meaning of scripture, is he? Who funded Jesus' little venture? His enemies?
ReplyDeletePig!
(I have worse words for the current pope but this blog is run by a southern lady.)
Paul, as I view the antics of Benny and Rowan, too, I become more and more convinced that the troglodytic institutions headed by the two men will have to die before they can be born again as the Body of Christ.
ReplyDelete"Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you."
ReplyDeleteThe pope writes a little book for kids about Jesus and the twelve disciples, and, because he calls them "friends," as Jesus himself is, he's a pig and a troglodite.
Does this sort of hair-trigger animosity advance anything? Are the children asked to pledge, at the end of the book, that Jesus had no friends but the Twelve?
Does this sort of hair-trigger animosity advance anything?
ReplyDeleteRick, surely, not so offensive as delicta graviora for women's ordination, at least not from where I sit. Tell me what the delicta graviora advances.
The Vatican press office announced today that Pope Benedict XVI has written a children's book
ReplyDeleteThis is like reading "inspirational speaker" and "politician" in the same sentence, the heart just sinks. When you get to the contents it's even worse. Still, it's got a King Canute feel about it, doesn't it?
PS: Rick. I'm a small-potatoes nobody. I hope that you visited the NCR website to chastise them for the first sentence in the article.
ReplyDeleteYou should understand, whether you like it or not, for some of us, the pope has little or no moral authority left. You, of course, may defend him to the death, but don't be surprised that I don't look to the pope for moral leadership. The kindest response I can muster for his latest PR effort is a laugh.
From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded.
"Tell me what the delicta graviora advances."
ReplyDeleteIt makes very clear what the consequences are for actions that promote schism in violation of canon law. I have no doubt that the Episcopal Church has comparable canons conforming to its own norms, and I have absolutely no problem with the deposition of clergy who violate that norms, whether done by Episcopalians moving one direction or Catholics moving another.
Still, what that has to do with a silly little children's book, I have no idea.
I have many differences with the interpretation of Christianity advanced by the Episcopal Church, and by other churches, but I don't think I have ever made a personal remark about Presiding Bishop Jefferts-Shori, or the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is only because I like you that I ask whether these sort of broadsides against the pope really serve any purpose. You have left one Christian church for another (jsut as I did). But you can certainly continue your advocacy for women's ordination and GLBT liberation without questioning the bona fides of those you left behind.
Rick, I like you, too, which is why I take the time to respond. My first beef with the pope is that he is a foreign head of state who sticks his nose into politics in my country, and I resent that.
ReplyDeleteThen there is the business with the advisories, lies, and prohibition of the use of condoms, in which one of the Catholic parties in a marriage is HIV positive. The pope's words cause sickness and death to real people, and if I did not speak out about that evil, I could not live with myself.
I could go on.
And you may not believe me, but I am concerned about the RCC because I drew much that was good from the church in my 60 years, and I still care, but the leadership today is in a pitiable state. My words affect the RC hierarchy not at all, I'm sure, but the words from those within the church mean a whole lot more.
you can certainly continue your advocacy for women's ordination and GLBT liberation without questioning the bona fides of those you left behind.
ReplyDeleteBut I think Mimi left precisely because in all honesty she could not avoid questioning those bona fides.
Does Monsignor Gänswein get to play a role in the book?
ReplyDeleteCathy, the precipitate cause for my departure from the RCC was the child abuse and cover-up scandal in my own small diocese, where I knew too much. However, mine was an uneasy relationship with the RCC for some time before the scandal broke, and part of the problem was the church's attitude toward women.
ReplyDeleteIn those days, in all honesty, I was still in homophobe mode. My conversion from homophobia began after Bishop Gene's ordination in 2003. Sad, but true.
Welcome, M Bidet. I'm afraid I can't answer your question, as I have not read the book. I'm not sure that it's even available in English, and my grasp of Italian is so slight that I'd struggle to read even a children's book. However, I may look into purchasing the Italian version anyway. It's sure to be a collector's item. I'll have my Italian-English dictionary handy as I plough my way through.
ReplyDeleteRick, I don't believe Grandmere made a personal remark about the Pope. She and others have criticized him. Why should he be beyond criticism? Why can't some things he does be questioned?
ReplyDeleteIt makes very clear what the consequences are for actions that promote schism in violation of canon law.
ReplyDeleteConsecrating a bishop irregularly, would seem to directly promote schism.
I fail to see how irregular ordinations of priests would, prima facie, promote schism. [If the argument be "not by the diocesan," I would counter w/ "ordinations of religious" by a bishop not of the local diocese.]
This all begs the question, moreover, whether even "promoting schism"---as bad as I believe that is---rises to the "delicta graviora" level of child sexual abuse.
>:-(
Bex, thank you. The pope is a public figure who is not above criticism, even from those outside his church.
ReplyDeleteJCF, yes.
"Why should he be beyond criticism?"
ReplyDeleteHe shouldn't be. But for a kids' book because it refers to Jesus' disciples as "friends"? It just seems so typical of the age of FOX. If you don't like someone, they are to be trashed. If it's a bad thing, you criticise it relentlessly. If it's a good thing, it's too little or too late. If it's a trivial thing, it's "symtomatic." The point is to trash, consistently, in season and out of season, not to try to reach a sympathetic understanding of one with whom one disagrees, not to say, "I am not convinced, but I know where he or she is coming from," not to take every opponent's words for their best meaning rather than for their worst.
There is so much hatred now openly expressed among the various Christian communions and for their leaders. Criticise, yes, but with charity and sympathy. Criticise, yes, but with an aim to understand.
But I will be done with this. I only ask, if I seem to be trashing someone for the fun of it, please, if you are my friend, call me on it.
Rick, nobody here is trashing anybody for the fun of it. If there is to be sympathetic understanding, all parties must be open to it. When that is not the case, those who prefer to dictate terms must be called out.
ReplyDeleteRick, I'm done with this, too. We never seem to get anywhere with these discussions, do we?
ReplyDeleteI don't see how an irregular bishop is schismatic, but an irregular priest isn't. Priests lead parishes and can and do lead those parishes away from the accepted doctrines of the church. Irregular ordinations of priests is still breaking canon and leads people to the idea that "If they can break that rule, then I can break this one."
ReplyDelete"We never seem to get anywhere with these discussions, do we?"
ReplyDeleteOh, I find them helpful, and I've at least talked myself into a few things, if no one else.
I've at least talked myself into a few things, if no one else.
ReplyDeleteWhat? That I'm like FOX News? :-)
I'm the one guilty of the ad hominem attack and name-calling. Mimi's a lady. I am an unreconstructed pottymouth.
ReplyDeleteEven a children's book written in the 21st century on the topic of Jesus' friends ought to give some nod to the women in Jesus' life. I certainly do not conclude the Bishop of Rome is denying other friends beyond the twelve but it is a glaring omission in our day and age and one that I do believe signifies a larger mindset for which there is no lack of evidence.
Were the book title "Gli Apostoli" or "I Dodeci" it would make more sense to name just twelve men. But the title is "Gli Amici di Gesù."
As both sacred mystery and embodied ministry around the world I happen to love the Roman Church. If I did not care about its future I would not have cringed at the current pope's election. The "pig" comment was trashy shorthand for my longer comment here. I don't think it is either incidental or insignificant that women are not included. I thought "male chauvinist" would be unnecessary. It is clearly about much more than a book for children.
My language about +Cantuar is no kinder.
...and leads people to the idea that "If they can break that rule, then I can break this one."
ReplyDeleteChris, I believe that a good many Roman Catholics and members of other denominations have already arrived at that idea and don't need to be led.
It is clearly about much more than a book for children.
ReplyDeletePaul, so it seems to me, too, which would make the trashing, if such it is, not gratuitous.
We're visiting BP's aunt who comments that she's come to think that THIS Pope was given to the Church to destroy it so it could be reborn.
ReplyDeleteRick won't like that but it has it's point.
No, Mimi hasn't made personal remarks about Josef Ratzinger. I'll happily do that.
ReplyDeleteWhy does a children's book matter? Because what you teach children is what you'll have to live with later.
Mark is right about what you teach children. I'm sure it will continue to be reinforced by the RC Church. Oh for the days when nuns taught the children. They're such a good corrective.
ReplyDeleteIT, BP's aunt is a wise lady. I'd say the same about Rowan and the Anglican Communion.
ReplyDeleteMark, you are absolutely correct about teaching children for life.
Amelia, the loss of the wonderful (in my experience) nun/teachers in the RC schools is a great loss, indeed.
Priests lead parishes and can and do lead those parishes away from the accepted doctrines of the church.
ReplyDeleteWell, from my catholic understanding (formed in TEC), no they don't.
A BISHOP, ultimately lead every parish in his/her diocese. The priest may (ala CofE) vicariously administer the parish, but s/he doesn't ultimately govern it (it varies from Church to Church, just how much say the parish has in its own governance).
Irregular ordinations of priests is still breaking canon and leads people to the idea that "If they can break that rule, then I can break this one."
I was talking prima facie leading to schism. No, "irregular" anything isn't preferable (even my beloved Philadelphia 11!). But it takes more than an irregular ordination to, per se create a schism.
But an irregular bishop? Bishop of WHERE? That's a schism-maker, fer shur! (Which is why Mr Minns isn't a bishop in my book---though other Episcopalians disagree in that regard)
JCF: "baying for blood!" re the Pope. Well, no I'm not---I don't think anyone is (contra some of the Popoid hysteria I've been reading today!)