Vatican 'Horrified' by Criticism from Germany ... Some even think the pope could resign

[fix]

How are they not equivalent issues?

One is the Church dealing with a religious matter and one is the state. I see no equivalence in this matter. Please show me how they are equivalent.

 

[Kaninchen]

One is the Church dealing with a religious matter and one is the state. I see no equivalence in this matter. Please show me how they are equivalent.

Are you saying that the Church has a right to comment and act on issues affecting States but States have no right to comment on the Church’s comments and acts?

 

[BRZ]

Well, I am not saying that is your intent Kaninchen. Actually, I know nothing about you. For all I know, you could be someone who really loves Democracies.

What I am saying is though that, the Church does in fact have a right to comment on things the states does in concern with Morality. For instance, being against Abortion or some other thing. Germany has no right to comment on Church policy regarding something concerning our religion because religion does not fall under the authority of the state in my opinion.

That isn’t to say that Merkel, in this case, may have had a concern about the issue of the holocaust but it was done in a very tactless way. She could have expressed concern without having to try to chastise the Pope on something she has no real authority with. She could very well have requested clarification on the issue in a more charitable way. Then there is the case of others using this incident to attack the Pope and the church in other ways.

 

[Steeltemplar]

If we are going to talk about diplomacy, then why didn’t Merkel ask for clarification privately? Would that not be the diplomatic route?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

If we are going to talk about diplomacy, then why didn’t Merkel ask for clarification privately? Would that not be the diplomatic route?

Since the interview was made public, I think her comments on it had to be made in public as well. And the pope clarified in public as well.

 

[Steeltemplar]

Since the interview was made public, I think her comments on it had to be made in public as well. And the pope clarified in public as well.

She did not have to make the statement in the interview, which would be made public.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

She did not have to make the statement in the interview, which would be made public.

I meant that since Bishop Williamson’s interview was public, her response had to be public as well. Remember, all it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. She had to speak up when this issue was brought into the public forum.

 

[Steeltemplar]

I meant that since Bishop Williamson’s interview was public, her response had to be public as well. Remember, all it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. She had to speak up when this issue was brought into the public forum.

Ah, ok.

Nonetheless, she did not need to make the comment she did publicly. She can criticize Williamson without taking an accusatory tone towards the Pope.

 

[tomarin]

Nonetheless, she did not need to make the comment she did publicly. She can criticize Williamson without taking an accusatory tone towards the Pope.

But that would require thinking.

 

[vs_trumpet]

Kaninchen, it seems you are not understanding the issue because you seem to be under the influence that the State is everything, again, this stinks of Socialism or Communism or some other form of these. The State is NOT everything and everything does not fall under it.

I agree but same goes for the church. The state does not fall under the church.

But both church and state fall under society and the human community. They both are at the service of mankind and the state can prod the church and statesmen can chastise church leaders when they go astray.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Ah, ok.

Nonetheless, she did not need to make the comment she did publicly. She can criticize Williamson without taking an accusatory tone towards the Pope.

I didn’t notice the accusatory tone. But then I don’t understand German and just read a translation in English. So perhaps I missed the tone.

Merkel has the job of representing a repentant Germany. Imagine a convert to Christianity who had committed murder before his conversion. If he were to hear someone say about his past life “he didn’t do anything wrong killing that guy, he had it coming to him”, the convert would feel a duty to correct it and say “yes, I did somethign wrong.” A truly repentant person would feel the need to correct such a statement. And from what I’ve read, thats all Merkel did. She asked the pope to more clearly say that no one should ever deny what her country did 60 years ago. Who else has more responsibility to stand up and make that statement, if not the leader of Germany?

 

[vs_trumpet]

The Catholic Church is not accountable to anyone.

That is extreme and dangerous. It’s that kind of thinking that led to many crises and scandal in the church and many crises/scandal of other kinds, including the economic ones we face today.

The hiearchy is at the service of the people. At minimum they should be accountable to the people they serve just as corporate executives to their shareholders and customers, governors to their state’s citizens, etc. Many good people in American government express the view that they work for the people and are accountable to the people. The church must be accountable to the people too and not just to Catholics but to all people since the church is in most every nation and inextricable from the society of every nation.

Catholic hiearchy just like everyone else must obey the secular law of the land. Unfortunately, in the Catholic canon law, bishops can give permission for marriages that may run afoul of secular law (at least priests are directed to obtain permission from bishops in these cases). Maybe the church thinks in exceptional cases such violations of secular law may be wise, but that’s putting the church above the law. No one is above the law, not the pope, not a bishop, president, governor, etc. It is a shame that some stubborn priests violate secular law knowingly by not protesting abortion within the bounds of the law. They go to the courts and sometimes some kind judge has mercy on them but they often go to jail. If the secular law of the land, enacted by the state, says you can’t protest in this way, Catholics must respect that just like any other group.

This bishop is alleged to have violated German law. He needs to respect German law. German law doesn’t prevent you from having an opinion or even speaking of it privately. German prosecutors are investigating the matter. If the bishop thinks the German law is bad or a violation of human rights, he can campaign to change it but while it remains, especially since he is not even German, he needs to respect it just as a Muslim should respect the customs of a Christian home or vice versa.

 

[fix]

Are you saying that the Church has a right to comment and act on issues affecting States but States have no right to comment on the Church’s comments and acts?

Depending on the circumstances and how you define “right” then yes that is what I am saying.

The Church has the authority, and duty, to speak on moral issues. The state has no authority, or duty, to instruct the Church on Church governance.

 

[vs_trumpet]

Depending on the circumstances and how you define “right” then yes that is what I am saying.

The Church has the authority, and duty, to speak on moral issues. The state has no authority, or duty, to instruct the Church on Church governance.

Sure it does. BTW, why do you capitalize church but keep state lower case?

The state has the right to approve or not the entrance of clergy, religious and others the church wishes to send to a country or to appoint as a bishop in a country. If the church wanted to have a non-American be appointed bishop of Washington, D.C., the state has authority to reject that appointment, to deny the non-American entry just as it has for any other non-American.

Even within the country, the state has a right to enact laws requiring certain qualities of certain corporate office holders. The local bishops are corporate office holders and if there were such laws enacted, the state would have every right to enforce them on the diocesan corporations as it would on any other corporation the law governs. So for example, if the federal government or a state, required that all corporate office holders of a certain level be free from any felony conviction but the church wanted to appoint someone who has a felony conviction that didn’t bar him from the priesthood and who has been exemplary in holiness to be bishop, the state would be right to prosecute those who defied the law of the land in a state or in the nation.

Many others come to mind.

Besides, canon law as I mentioned specifically says laity can make known their opinions to the hiearchy inclusive of the pope, according to their, among other things “prestige.” So at minimum, when it comes to Christian or Catholic laity who are prestigous members of Congress or members of the Canadian Parliament, they can do what canon law says is not only their right but at times their “duty.”

 

[fix]

Sure it does. BTW, why do you capitalize church but keep state lower case?

The state has the right to approve or not the entrance of clergy, religious and others the church wishes to send to a country or to appoint as a bishop in a country. If the church wanted to have a non-American be appointed bishop of Washington, D.C., the state has authority to reject that appointment, to deny the non-American entry just as it has for any other non-American.

I think we want to separate out some issues here.

If the Church wants to replace a retiring bishop in NY with a priest from CA the state has no right to stop that. Now, if the man has done something illegal and the state wants to prosecute that is not interferring with Church governance.

What you are saying is not proof the state has the “right” to interfer with how the Church governs itself. The state can enforce its own laws on all people.

Even within the country, the state has a right to enact laws requiring certain qualities of certain corporate office holders. The local bishops are corporate office holders and if there were such laws enacted, the state would have every right to enforce them on the diocesan corporations as it would on any other corporation the law governs. So for example, if the federal government or a state, required that all corporate office holders of a certain level be free from any felony conviction but the church wanted to appoint someone who has a felony conviction that didn’t bar him from the priesthood and who has been exemplary in holiness to be bishop, the state would be right to prosecute those who defied the law of the land in a state or in the nation.

Again, that is not what I am speaking about. All citizens are bound by the civil law. That is vastly different from claiming the USA can decide who may or may no be ordained.

Besides, canon law as I mentioned specifically says laity can make known their opinions to the hiearchy inclusive of the pope, according to their, among other things “prestige.” So at minimum, when it comes to Christian or Catholic laity who are prestigous members of Congress or members of the Canadian Parliament, they can do what canon law says is not only their right but at times their “duty.”

That canon gets to be interpeted by the Church, not the politician.

 

[Kaninchen]

Well, I am not saying that is your intent Kaninchen. Actually, I know nothing about you. For all I know, you could be someone who really loves Democracies.

I’m sorry to have been so obviously dismissive. When I was younger I was a conservative activist in a world with real communists and real socialists in it, so sometimes I find thundering American Conservative ‘keyboard warriors for freedom’ rambling on about ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ very funny. This is not fair on everyone I’m talking to, of course, but it’s been a long thread.

What I am saying is though that, the Church does in fact have a right to comment on things the states does in concern with Morality. For instance, being against Abortion or some other thing. Germany has no right to comment on Church policy regarding something concerning our religion because religion does not fall under the authority of the state in my opinion.

Well, that’s a point of view but it’s very American. The historical link between religion and the state in European countries has been very, very long and involves very vexed issues - wars between countries and civil wars have been fought over it.

That isn’t to say that Merkel, in this case, may have had a concern about the issue of the holocaust but it was done in a very tactless way. She could have expressed concern without having to try to chastise the Pope on something she has no real authority with.

Obviously, I don’t agree that it was tactless but there’s also something that you’re missing here. She’s Chancellor of Germany and the German electorate would expect her to say something and “I had a quiet word with a secretary in the Vatican and he said ‘don’t worry your pretty head about it, dear’, so everything’s ok,” would not really be enough.

 

[Kaninchen]

Depending on the circumstances and how you define “right” then yes that is what I am saying.

The Church has the authority, and duty, to speak on moral issues. The state has no authority, or duty, to instruct the Church on Church governance.

Does the State have no authority or duty to speak on moral issues?

 

[tomarin]

Does the State have no authority or duty to speak on moral issues?

Even if it does, that has no application here, as Pope Benedict has done nothing wrong or immoral.

 

[Kaninchen]

Even if it does, that has no application here, as Pope Benedict has done nothing wrong or immoral.

Consequences of actions, whether intended or unintended, are another matter.

 

[Father_of_9]

Please read a new post concerning comments from Rabbi Kula concerning this topic. He feels that the whole incident has been blown out of proportion by those Jewish leaders who protested.