The Pope - Conspiracy theories

After my last blog, I can hardly complain about conspiracy theorists doing their thing! Of course, as I broadly said of myself, suspicions of one sort or another are pure speculation from most of us. Few outside the Vatican (or within I'd guess) are privy to the machinations of such a powerful, multi-national enterprise.

It has surprised me that the first time I have seen any reference to conspiracy theories is in today's newspaper. Of course, I may have missed an earlier article, but the mainstream media seem to have focused so far on what a holy and lovely chap Benedict is, as well as speculating on his succcessor. Why the delay in what is so obviously a good story? The media isn't usually shy about promoting controversy!

In truth, serious journalists should probably ignore conspiracy theories about the pope's resignation and focus on the more enormous Roman Catholic conspiracies that directly affect millions of lives every day.

• Contraception - the conspiracy to maintain numbers, reduce libertarian education and keep a power base in the developing world; largely ignored in N. America, W. Europe and Australasia.
• Re-writing history - the conspiracy to make itself appear not only institutionally innocent but even persecuted in matters such as child abuse; the pretense that institutional failure and corruption is really just a few bad apples.
• Patriarchy - the conspiracy to keep women out of anything important; closely connected with the wider conspiracy to make scripture say whatever the institution wants about itself.
• Confession and the monopoly on forgiveness - the conspiracy to maintain control of congregants' lives, donations and speech.

 The list could continue, but I'm getting bored, as you are too, no doubt.  Why does the press not plug away at these huge conspiracies? Are they frightened?

Gay marriage and hypocrisy

 The debate in the House of Commons about gay marriage fascinated me.

 

I am still bewildered by some of the strange and twisted arguments used by those opposing the right for homosexuals to marry. How on earth (or in heaven) is gay marriage supposed to undermine my ‘conventional’ marriage? If marriage is for procreation, then why are marriages allowed between people beyond child-bearing age? In what alternative universe has marriage ever been anything other than a civil contract, controlled by the state?

In the last case, institutional churches may rightly claim to have carried out vast numbers of marriage services, but the words of the actual marriage section are purely legal. No marriage that takes place in Britain is recognised in law without the correct form of words being used in the ceremony and until various other legal requirements are completed. The churches’ claims are legal and financial, not spiritual or religious. There is nothing to stop Christians, or people of other beliefs, from separating the legal and spiritual aspects of what currently takes place in religious buildings.

If people choose to believe that homosexuality is wrong, then so be it. There are also plenty of people who believe that all spiritual beliefs are wrong or that social norms are evil. So be it. Each to his own. But none of these people has the right to deny others a reasonable degree of social, legal and emotional equality. 

It is not the job of Christians to tell other people how to behave, to hold the copyright on the meaning of words or to deny others the same rights of marriage as they enjoy themselves. The job of all followers of Jesus is to represent Jesus, who came 'not to condemn but to save'. How dare divorced MPs stand up and preach on the sanctity of marriage? 

They should look to themselves. Moats and beams! Splinters and planks! Yet more ammunition for critics to claim that 'christian' and 'hypocrite' are synonymous.

Papal retirement - am I just cynical?

I just can't shift the idea out of my head.

Popes don't retire; at least, not voluntarily.  

Of course, throughout the shameful history of the Roman Catholic sect there have been many forced retirements.  These have usually been the sorts of retirement employed by the Mafia - fatal.  In a few cases, the retirements have taken the form of forced exile.

What about this one?  Is the poor chap really simply too old and frail to carry on? He's not nearly as feeble or gaga as some within living memory. Perhaps he has more sense than most and wants to die with some degree of dignity instead of being kept alive as a puppet figurehead. Or perhaps he has been forced out.

Is there something in his past that is in danger of coming to light? Is it blackmail by those who oppose his papal declarations? Could it be a personal fear of potential embarrassment? Is 'mother church' worried about something popping out of the closet? 

All this is very unfair. The truth, of course, is that I am taking the view that there is no smoke without fire. But this expression is not true when applied to people. It would be more true to say that there is no hurtful gossip without empty speculation. And, yes, I have to admit that these thoughts I claim are inexcapable are purely speculation. I have invented the smoke out of my own imagination; out of my prejudices and pride. 

The one thing in all this that I know is true, is that no one should be in the position of being a pope or any other form of leadership that is, to all intents and purposes, unquestionable. This applies as much to archbishops, moderators, apostolic leaders or whatever titles people take. If the RC sect wants to act as the body of Jesus then now is the time to renounce the wordly, commercial, power-based model of leadership. 

Naturally, this is no more likely to happen than with the Anglican's recent change of archbishop. These denominations - all denominations - are the same, with each wanting to maintain its own  distinctiveness and hierarchy.  

This is the opposite of what Jesus said.

Is that surprising? Not really! Or am I being cynical again?