The visit of the pope, and all the fawning journalistic accounts of his every word and genuflection, have had on me the effect of an emetic. At Ground Zero, in lower Manhattan, he, like the Administration of George W. Bush, benefitted from the way in which the aura of hushed reverence surrounding anything associated with 9/11 tends to shut down thought. He pronounced solemn words, cast his blessing to the four corners of the compass, and, the talismanic qualities of the 9/11 backdrop substituting admirably for soaring architecture and stained glass, basked in the worshipful approbation of the assemblage. As our "war president" knows, he could have announced that the square root of sixteen is six and no one would have objected.
The pope's message, with the feel-good banalities elided, was that American Catholics need to return to "a more disciplined faith." By "more disciplined faith" we may assume he was referring, however obliquely, to teachings regarding sexuality and reproduction, such as those promulgated in Instruction on Respect for Human LIfe in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions of the Day, issued in 1987 over the signature of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in his capacity as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the position he held before being elevated to the papacy. The instruction of this document may be accurately and succinctly summarized as follows. Catholic couples who are fertile but don't want children, or don't want more children, must not avail themselves of contraception; couples who are not fertile but want children must not avail themselves of surrogate mothers, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, or any reproductive method other than sexual intercourse.
So it is no wonder that the emphasis was on the feel-good banalities. Amazingly, the pope even got good reviews for addressing the sexual abuse scandal in the American Church, despite the fact that he did not address it in any way that mattered: he met with victims and spoke talking points. Is it the vestments and funny hat? Who would take him seriously if he got to dress conventionally?
Comments