Total Pageviews
Sunday, February 2, 2014
The eve of Saint Blaise
Thursday, December 26, 2013
DIY religion
Monday, November 18, 2013
The heresy test
The Blessed Virgin Mary was the mother of Jesus. Jesus was, of course, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, which means he was God. If you follow this line of thinking, you will probably realize that this makes Mary (a human being) the mother of God (who is eternal).
How can a mother be younger than her own son?
A: Oh, to hell with logic. Mary is the Mother of God. Period. End of story.
B: Mary was the mother of the human part of Jesus. She's not the mother of God; that wouldn't be logical.
C: Mary is the mother of Jesus in some sense of the word, but not in every sense of the word. We shouldn't try to define these things too precisely.
The correct answer is A. This was established (with some strife) at two Church councils: the “robber’s council” of Ephesus in 449, which claimed B to be correct, and the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (only two years later!) which reversed Ephesus and laid the Church’s path to the present day.
Did you get the question right?
I didn’t think so.
Burn in hell, heretic.
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Book review: “How to Train a Wild Elephant (& Other Adventures in Mindfulness)” by Jan Chozen Bays
Monday, November 11, 2013
The hundred-and-eight sorrows
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Saints and talismans
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Prayers
Saturday, September 7, 2013
I hate David Brooks
Thursday, August 15, 2013
More reasons that I am not a Christian
Thursday, July 18, 2013
For Ramadan: Harira
Friday, June 7, 2013
Vacation Bible School
Saturday, May 18, 2013
What makes me not a Buddhist
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Why did Pope Benedict retire?

Popes do not resign very often. Official Church history doesn’t even give an exact number, because several very early popes may or may not have resigned. The two most famous are these: Celestine V in 1294, who hated his job, and Gregory XII in 1415, because there were three popes at once, and – well, it’s a complicated story.
The outgoing Pope, Benedict XVI, said he retired because he’s “infirm.” Aha. Well, popes generally stay put until they crumble into dust. The previous Pope, John Paul II, was very ill for at least the last ten years of his life, but continued to do his job, and was respected for it. Here’s the reasoning: the Holy Roman Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Trinity. The Holy Trinity gives spiritual guidance to the College of Cardinals when they elect the new Pope. Presumably, the Holy Trinity will not guide the College of Cardinals to elect someone who needs to step down after a few years.
So: we are forced to conclude that His Holiness Benedict XVI stepped down for more earthly and/or carnal reasons.
Here are a few earthly and/or carnal suggestions:
- Benedict (formerly Josef Ratzinger) was a member of the Hitler Youth, and fought in World War II. His family, and the Church, has maintained that young Josef was defiantly anti-Nazi, and went so far as to avoid Hitler Youth meetings! (Well, really, if he’d wanted to be anti-Nazi, he could have gone underground.) Is it possible that someone has positive proof that young Josef was an active member of the German National Socialist Party, and is blackmailing him with the information?
- One rumor goes like this: Benedict commissioned an investigation into the “gay Mafia” that runs the Vatican. The report was so overwhelmingly damning that Benedict decided he couldn’t run things anymore.
- Same rumor, different twist: the “gay Vatican mafia” got so mad at Benedict that they forced him out.
- Benedict is a famously bad personnel / money manager, and so are his lieutenants. Could this be about something as simple as financial mismanagement?
- How about this? There are lots of sex scandals, both within the Vatican and outside. Let’s say Benedict discovered an embarrassing one – some cardinal or monsignor – and was silly enough to think he could pay off a blackmailer. Now it’s all about sex and money.
And here’s the thing: there was a time when we would never have known the truth. But things are changing. People are speaking up. People aren’t so much afraid of the Church hierarchy anymore.
Stay tuned, kids. Who knows what we might learn?
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Papal election update

A surprising number of my friends and acquaintances are paying attention to the Papal election. One of them wants me to be the new Pope (I’m a baptized Catholic, so I’m eligible). Another wants the Roman church to go the Anglican route: an African church, a South American church, etc.
Maybe I’m wrong, but this will not be a brief conclave. I see a couple of opposing forces here, as follow:
- A retiring Pope, who thinks it’s within his power to name a successor;
- A College of Cardinals whose members know very well that the outgoing Pope has no such power;
- A largely Third World congregation, which would love to see a black or Hispanic Pope;
- A strongly European Church hierarchy, which thinks that the Catholic Church is still a European entity.
Yikes!
The funniest part of this is that Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley (from Ohio), is being touted (by the local Boston / Providence media) as a frontrunner. Well, nothing’s impossible. But, really: an American Pope? I doubt it.
Same for an African Pope, or a white South African Pope. Not much of a chance.
Shortly after Benedict’s resignation announcement, the Vatican leaked the implication that this would be a quick conclave; there’d be a Benedict-approved candidate (probably the Italian Cardinal Scola), and the cardinals would vote for a day or two, and it’d be over.
But I just don’t think so.
But then again, it’s all in God’s hands, isn’t it, kids?
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Kooky konklave

The Pope (as you probably know) resigned recently. Well, he sort of resigned. The Vatican announced the other day that he will be “Pope Emeritus,” and will continue to be addressed as “His Holiness.” In other words: he’s not giving up very much of his beloved privilege.
Except, of course, he won’t be in charge of the Holy Roman Catholic Church anymore. So he won’t be responsible for what happens from here on.
When he acceded to the Papacy some years ago, his questionable background – Hitler Youth? – was known to all. Christians were expected to forgive him for this. Also, he’d been John Paul II’s right-hand man for a long time and it was expected – expected! – that he would succeed John Paul II as Pope.
Well, Joseph Ratzinger got his wish, and became Pope at the age of 78. He wanted an old-fashioned Medieval papacy, sitting on the throne, making occasional pronouncements. He got a modern papacy, presiding over a church awash with scandal: financial, sexual, quasi-political. Every day brings a new scandal. A Scottish cardinal has agreed to stay away from the conclave electing the new Pope. An American cardinal has, contrariwise, refused to stay away, though he’s accused (along with a Mexican cardinal) of moving pedophile priests from post to post. Then there’s the Vatican butler who released papers last year. There was nothing really dreadful in those papers, but there’s always the suggestion that there’s something terrible in the wings, just waiting to be revealed.
According to Malachy’s list, the next pope – Benedict XVI’s successor – is the last.
I hope so.
The Catholic Church is worn out. It’s time for something different.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
This week in the Papacy

It was big news the other day when we heard that old Benedict XVI had resigned. “Are you getting ready?” a coworker asked me. “Ready to be summoned to Rome?”
“If called,” I said modestly. “Who am I to ignore a summons from Holy Mother Church?”
Let’s not even worry about why Benedict is resigning; we’ll never know the real reason in any case. (I’m assuming the “age and feebleness” rationale being advanced by the Vatican is a big fat lie; he became Pope at the age of 78, and he wasn’t exactly a spry little bunny in those days either.) It’s fun to theorize about scandal, hidden secrets, blackmail, etc., etc., but it will end up being one of the Mysteries of Church History, like Pope Joan and the throne with the big hole in the seat.
The word is that there’s already a top contender, Cardinal Angelo Scola, to wear the Shoes of the Fisherman. The current Pope (soon to be Herr Ratzinger again) has apparently given him his blessing. We will see how well this works. (Two Africans and a Canadian are in contention too, but – I mean really – is the Church ready for a Canadian?)
To be honest, I’d love to be Pope, for about a billion reasons. The hats alone would make me deliriously happy. I love being chauffeured around. I’ve always thought candles and incense dress up a place.
And then there’d be all the fun I could have with Church dogma. I have a couple of ex cathedra statements ready for my first couple of weeks – priesthood for women, marriage for priests, etc. It’s time to shake some of the cobwebs off the Church; the Second Vatican Council was a nice start, but it didn’t go anywhere near far enough, and the last two Popes did everything they could to take the church back to the way it was before Vatican II.
You might think it’s unrealistic of me to think I’d be made Pope, given that I’m not in holy orders. Not a problem! Any baptized Roman Catholic man is eligible. See?
Best of all, I could probably figure out a way to pre-canonize myself, so that I’d go straight from the Papacy to the Litany of the Saints upon my expiration.
I tell you: if there were a Pope like me, I might actually become a practicing Catholic again.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Sweetness and cruelty; or, the Christian religion
I recently picked up a translation of a sixteenth-century Catholic treatise on “Christian tortures,” mostly concerning the various ways in which the martyrs died. There’s a modern (illustrated) appendix explaining how crucifixion works. A Protestant version of the same book – the famous “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs,” narrating the tortures and deaths of the early Lutherans and Calvinists at the hands of the Papists – was very popular in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
Before you say “Ugh!” and turn away, ask yourself: why were these books so popular? And why do we continue to be so morbidly fascinated with pain and torture and death?
Let’s look at it more closely. Saint Lawrence (my name saint!) died on a barbecue grille, and is often depicted holding the instrument of his death (see the above image). Barbara was thrown from a high tower by her own father. Catherine was broken on a wheel. Many early martyrs were thrown to wild animals, or torn apart. The Protestant martyrs were mostly burnt or hanged, but often suffered horrible tortures beforehand.
Again: why do we read about these things, over and over again?
Maybe it’s the same reason we enjoy picking at a scab: it’s a mild agony, a remote pain. It reminds us that we’re alive.
Also we seem to like gruesome stories, up to a point.
However: religion – and in particular the Christian religion – seems to like to tell us that pain and suffering and death are a positive experience. We will get there sooner and more smoothly, we’re told, if we accept and even welcome suffering into our lives.
(A co-worker spoke to me once, with great feeling, about her experience in Catholic school back in the 1950s and 1960s. She was taught about Maria Goretti, the twelve-year-old who’d been raped and murdered, and later made a saint (mostly through the agency of her very aggressive mother). She was, therefore, for some perverse reason, presented as a model of Catholic girlhood: suffer, and you’ll go to Heaven.
(My friend said that, even as a child, she was horrified by this.
(I don’t blame her one tiny bit.)
We need to remind ourselves – we, who are comfortable in our lives – that human suffering is very real. But we should not revel in it, or reassure ourselves that it’s the summit of the human condition. And we should not in any way make it a religious trial, as if suffering were a prerequisite for happiness.
This is a poem by Stevie Smith. I’ve quoted it before. It’s her response to the doctrine of Eternal Hell. It’s the most eloquent rejection of suffering in the name of religion that I’ve ever read.
Is it not interesting to see
How the Christians continually
Try to separate themselves in vain
From the doctrine of eternal pain
They cannot do it,
They are committed to it,
Their Lord said it,
They must believe it.
So the vulnerable body is stretched without pity
On flames forever. Is this not pretty?
The religion of Christianity
Is mixed of sweetness and cruelty
Reject this Sweetness, for she wears
A smoky dress out of Hell fires.
Who makes a God? Who shows him thus?
It is the Christian religion does.
Oh, oh, have none of it,
Blow it away, have done with it,
This god the Christians show
Out with him, out with him, let him go.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Theory and belief

People on the right/conservative side of the political spectrum have taken to saying that science is “just another theory,” and that religion – or craziness like “intelligent design” – is just as valid as any scientific “theory.”
But science is not “just another theory.”
Science is based upon observation. A real scientific theory begins with observed phenomena, and posits explanations for those phenomena, which can be disproved. (That last phrase is very important. Read it twice or three times.) If these explanations can’t be disproved by modern methods, then – huzza! – the theory is valid. (Until a better or more elegant theory comes along.)
Here’s an interesting statement: “I have a theory that Satan buried dinosaur bones to confuse us into believing in the false theory of evolution.”
Is this a real theory?
Well, is it based on observation? Not really. There are certainly dinosaur bones, but Satan’s fingerprints are nowhere to be found on them.
Is it disprovable? Nope. The more I argue with this “theorist,” the more he insists that I’m a dupe of Satan.
Is this, therefore, a real theory? Nope.
Here’s another theory: “Dinosaurs existed hundreds of millions of years ago.”
Here are some facts:
- Dinosaur fossils have been found all over the world, and have dated to the right periods, using reliable methods.
- These fossils have been found in geologic layers which have also dated to the right periods.
(Is this disprovable? Yes, in many ways. Our dating methods might be found to be unreliable, or the fossils might be found to be fake. But, at this point, neither is the case.)
- Thus: we have no reason to doubt that there were dinosaurs back in the Jurassic.
Except, of course, that the Religious Right tells us that God doesn’t allow for that kind of thing.
Here’s your friend and mine, Bill Nye the Science Guy, explaining sweetly and reasonably why science is important:
I respect people of faith, but I do not want to hear them dismissing science anymore.
Because they just don’t know what they’re talking about.