Dan Mooney

RE: Pope Mobile (sorta)

I’ve already written this entry once, so I don’t have to explain my ideas again. But I will, because I want the message to be clear to all.

In response to the first comment by Jennifer (first of all, thanks for taking the time to respond):

There are actually two separate metaphors in here, one connecting Catholicism and the Pope, another connecting Catholicism and the White Rabbit’s house. My struggle with Catholicism involves the constricting house, and only incidentally relates to the suffering of the Pope (who so happens to represent the religion that is constricting me; in terms of my criticism that’s almost beside the point). The Pope’s illness is not written to have anything to do with my own apparent suffering.

Your words imply — or am I inferring? — that I am insensitive to the gravity of this situation and, worse, ignorant of the Pope’s good works, in religious and secular arenas. My words, however, demonstrate my compassion for the man (“I admire and pity him;” “I don’t write of his illness with glee;” “this {archaic, destructive fear} is what I hope dies before any member of any Church.”) And though the visual symbolism of the ailing Pope and his ailing Church is harsh and blunt, it is not inaccurate; the truth is never inaccurate. I write that his Church is ailing in the sense that its membership is decreasing, vis-a-vis the priesthood and the congregation.

At the base level, though, and I enjoy writing this: We don’t necessarily disagree with one another. Your compliments of the Pope focus on his works, his good deeds. I agree with this method of judging the quality of a man’s life. It’s positive. It’s practical in our world, and to its inhabitants. It doesn’t focus on or even involve, really, the things he did that he wasn’t supposed to do, or that he failed to do. He performed kind actions? That’s good. I respect that, and him.

My problem isn’t with Pope John Paul II, who’s obviously of a higher caliber than I. My problem is with the corrupted religious system of which he’s a part. Because in my lifetime, Catholicism isn’t only about Love, the Love the Pope so rightfully exemplifies. Catholicism is also about creating guilt and inducing fear, having more control over its followers than is necessary or good for them. It’s also about dishonesty and cover-ups and ruining, rather than saving, lives.

In response to the second comment by Argus, which I also appreciate:

You write, “As long as you follow the rules, you get your reward at the end.” It’s a reasonable definition, and I concur, but my problem is with the fact that the reward seems only to come at the end. I’m not greedy, I’m looking for a practical method of assessing the worth of my journey in medias res, rather than posthumously. It’s a small point about Catholicism that sticks in my side.

Regarding your third paragraph: The inherent problem with any religion in our world is that the religion is fairly static, as it should be, but the world is changing and evolving. Human thought is evolving. Bill Hicks once said, “Evolution didn’t end with us growing thumbs.” Spiritually, physically, our bodies and minds and hearts and needs are of the world of this moment, and the literal Catholic faith, when you get down to it, is of the world of two thousand years ago.

But more importantly, and I hope you’re still reading this: Catholicism has changed. But not in entirely base-level, everyday ways. What about limbo? Inventing a state of being? Such power these perceptive human beings have, these people who happen to work for the Church. Vatican II? Changed a lot of things. e.g. My father was an altar boy, and heard mass in Latin. Not so much any more. Oh, V-II also posited that non-Catholics would never know God. Great.

I’d only be writing so much about this if it really mattered to me, which it does.

My critique is one you address, how a religion should stick to its guns. You see, I want it both ways: I wouldn’t mind if Catholicism never, ever changed. Then I could disagree and quietly be on my way. But if the religion is malleable, which it seems to be, if slightly, I want them to put forth good ideas, removing original sin, ditching the misogyny, spending less money on decorating the churches in rich parishes and more to feed and shelter the hungry and homeless. To name a few.

2 Comments »

This entry was posted on Monday, February 7th, 2005 at 2:00 pm and is filed under Posts. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.