Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Pope round-up

This post is a compendium of random thoughts that occurred to me as this new pope was being elected. Keep in mind that I'm a left-wing atheist who left the church 10 years ago, so if you don't wish to read commentary on catholicism from my perspective, you might want to skip this post.

1. The "just a humble worker" statement would have been much more effective without that regal red cape around his shoulders.

2. I think no matter what your stance on abortion, euthanasia and related issues, you might want to be concerned about the views expressed here. It seems to me that he's saying he thinks abortion/euthanasia/etc. are bigger, more important issues than war. No matter how you feel about abortion et. al., he should be going around trivializing war like that!

3. The more they go around denouncing moral relativism, the more I think it's a good idea. If everything is absolutely black and white, sin or not sin, there's less motivation to actually be the best person you can, particularly if you adhere to that one passage in the bible that apparently means that everyone is necessarily a sinner. But if all sins are relative, some are worse that others, you get bonus points for attempting to minimize harm, and some things that are generally sins are acceptable under certain extenuating circumstances, people have more motivation to be on their best behaviour and consider the consequences of their actions rather than simply going through the motions of confession/forgiveness. Although this might be why the current church regime is so opposed to moral relativism in the first place.

4. In all the brouhaha, I picked up the factoid that divorced people are to be denied all catholic sacraments. I don't think this is fair, because, under common law at least, both spouses' consent is not required to get a divorce. It seems that living apart for two years is grounds for divorce, and once one spouse has filed for divorce all the other spouse can contest is the terms of the divorce, not the divorce itself. So imagine your spouse suddenly, without warning, abandons you. They don't tell you where they're going or anything, they just disappear. If you make an attempt to have them tracked down, they accuse you of stalking and get a restraining order. Two years later, they file for divorce on the grounds that you've been living apart. When you are summoned before the judge, you can either agree to your spouse's divorce application, or you can contest the grounds of divorce (for example you could try to make it be based on abandonment or cruelty or adultery rather than irreconcilable differences), or you can contest the way you split up all your possessions/sue for alimony etc. If you refuse to show up in court or sign the papers, the judge will grant the divorce on your spouse's terms. There is no mechanism for saying "Your Honour, I do not consent to getting divorced. I love my spouse very much and want to do everything possible to save our relationship." That simply is not an option. One spouse requests a divorce, eventually it will be granted. Because a divorce could happen without someone's consent and despite their best efforts, it is terribly unfair to deny divorcé(e)s the sacraments. You don't go around condemning someone to hell because their spouse was an asshole to them.

5. The more I think about catholicism, the more it reminds me of an abusive relationship.

No comments: