Today's religious issues

On Tuesday the pope issued a statement confirming that in his view, the Roman Catholic Church is the true church of Christ, while the Orthodox churches are defective for not recognizing papal authority, and the Protestant churches are a step down from that, lacking as they do a sacramental clergy.

As Atrios at Eschaton remarked, it's not exactly astonishing that the man in charge of this vast, prestigious and traditional institution would have this opinion. Otherwise, he'd be unlikely to be a member. Chester Scoville at The Vanity Press opines that ecumenism, along with other nostalgic efforts at a vaguely defined "unity," is overrated, even if the past efforts to reduce active hostility have been worthwhile.The medieval lay aristocracy were devoted to war. “Men-at arms” (knights, squires when criticized (especially by the unarmed clergy) argued that they had the exclusive right to wage war and to profit from it, too. But that does not mean that men-at-arms were enthusiastic about fighting each and every war. In England The reign of Richard II(1376-1399) is very interesting for giving us moderns a feel for what political debates were like at the end of the 14th century. There was room for debate -- especially among nobles and high-ranking clergy: Was it now time to make peace with the traditional enemy? Especially since a joint Anglo-French crusade expedition to Turkey (Anatolia) had ended in disaster? Or some other war? Then there were people who thought that no war would be best. Taxes were so high already... Our best accounts of the politics of England, including especially Froissart’s long account focus on the personal interests and actions of King Richard and the leading dukes. There was a tension between those dukes – sons of the Edward III, who had died in 1376—and the young Richard, grandson of Edward who succeeded him at the age of 10. For a good long while the uncles took care of royal business, but as Richard matured he began to have opinions of his own. Richard came to admire the style of the French court and was inclined to make peace with the traditional enemy. Some (though not all) were opposed, for both practical and emotional reasons. Thomas Duke of Gloucester, the youngest son of Edward III and Richard’s uncle was well-known for his hardline position on France, and Froissart used the duke as an illustration of the dangers of the belligerent English royal family. Froissart included this portrait of Gloucester as a chronically dissatisfied great lord . Froissart I must now say something of the Duke of Gloucester, whose heart was by no means inclined to the French, and who was more pleased than hurt at the melancholy loss which they had sustained in Turkey, The duke's most confidential adviser was a knight, by name Sir Johnn Lackingay, with whom he held such conversations as the following: " These rare boasting Frenchmen have been nearly annihilated in Turkey. Such knights and squires as join company with them are very ill advised, they are too vain and presumptuous ever to bring anything they undertake to a successful issue. This has often been apparent during the wars of my lord and father, and our brother the Prince of Wales, for they never could obtain a victory over our men. I know not why we have truces with them. If the King of England had a good head, and were as desirous as I am of war, and would take some pains to recover the inheritance the French have so shamefully stolen from him, he would find 100,000 archers and 6,000 men-at-arms ready to cross the sea and serve him with their lives and fortunes. There never was so favourable an opportunity to carry the war into France as the present, for the flower of the French chivalry is slain or in captivity [a reference to Nicopolis]. If peace continue, we shall languish and become more enervated than ever since my nephew came to the throne. Things cannot long remain in this state ; the people will perceive and redress them. The king raises heavy taxes on the merchants, who are greatly discontented ; he squanders the money no one knows how, and thus is the kingdom impoverished. True it is he gives largely to those about him, and in whom he confides; but the people pay for this, and it will shortly cause a rebellion. As soon as the truces between France and England are signed, he gives out that he will make a voyage to Ireland ; he has been there already and gained but little, for Ireland is not worth conquering. The Irish are a poor and wicked people, with an impoverished country he who should conquer it one year, would lose it the next. Lackingay, Lackingay ! all you have just heard me say, consider as truth." Froissart elsewhere sums up the hostility between Duke Thomas and King Richard thus: The medieval lay aristocracy were devoted to war. “Men-at arms” (knights, squires when criticized (especially by the unarmed clergy) argued that they had the exclusive right to wage war and to profit from it, too. But that does not mean that men-at-arms were enthusiastic about fighting each and every war. In England The reign of Richard II(1376-1399) is very interesting for giving us moderns a feel for what political debates were like at the end of the 14th century. There was room for debate -- especially among nobles and high-ranking clergy: Was it now time to make peace with the traditional enemy? Especially since a joint Anglo-French crusade expedition to Turkey (Anatolia) had ended in disaster? Or some other war? Then there were people who thought that no war would be best. Taxes were so high already... Our best accounts of the politics of England, including especially Froissart’s long account focus on the personal interests and actions of King Richard and the leading dukes. There was a tension between those dukes – sons of the Edward III, who had died in 1376—and the young Richard, grandson of Edward who succeeded him at the age of 10. For a good long while the uncles took care of royal business, but as Richard matured he began to have opinions of his own. Richard came to admire the style of the French court and was inclined to make peace with the traditional enemy. Some (though not all) were opposed, for both practical and emotional reasons. Thomas Duke of Gloucester, the youngest son of Edward III and Richard’s uncle was well-known for his hardline position on France, and Froissart used the duke as an illustration of the dangers of the belligerent English royal family. Froissart included this portrait of Gloucester as a chronically dissatisfied great lord . Froissart I must now say something of the Duke of Gloucester, whose heart was by no means inclined to the French, and who was more pleased than hurt at the melancholy loss which they had sustained in Turkey, The duke's most confidential adviser was a knight, by name Sir Johnn Lackingay, with whom he held such conversations as the following: " These rare boasting Frenchmen have been nearly annihilated in Turkey. Such knights and squires as join company with them are very ill advised, they are too vain and presumptuous ever to bring anything they undertake to a successful issue. This has often been apparent during the wars of my lord and father, and our brother the Prince of Wales, for they never could obtain a victory over our men. I know not why we have truces with them. If the King of England had a good head, and were as desirous as I am of war, and would take some pains to recover the inheritance the French have so shamefully stolen from him, he would find 100,000 archers and 6,000 men-at-arms ready to cross the sea and serve him with their lives and fortunes. There never was so favourable an opportunity to carry the war into France as the present, for the flower of the French chivalry is slain or in captivity [a reference to Nicopolis]. If peace continue, we shall languish and become more enervated than ever since my nephew came to the throne. Things cannot long remain in this state ; the people will perceive and redress them. The king raises heavy taxes on the merchants, who are greatly discontented ; he squanders the money no one knows how, and thus is the kingdom impoverished. True it is he gives largely to those about him, and in whom he confides; but the people pay for this, and it will shortly cause a rebellion. As soon as the truces between France and England are signed, he gives out that he will make a voyage to Ireland ; he has been there already and gained but little, for Ireland is not worth conquering. The Irish are a poor and wicked people, with an impoverished country he who should conquer it one year, would lose it the next. Lackingay, Lackingay ! all you have just heard me say, consider as truth." Froissart elsewhere sums up the hostility between Duke Thomas and King Richard thus: The medieval lay aristocracy were devoted to war. “Men-at arms” (knights, squires when criticized (especially by the unarmed clergy) argued that they had the exclusive right to wage war and to profit from it, too. But that does not mean that men-at-arms were enthusiastic about fighting each and every war. In England The reign of Richard II(1376-1399) is very interesting for giving us moderns a feel for what political debates were like at the end of the 14th century. There was room for debate -- especially among nobles and high-ranking clergy: Was it now time to make peace with the traditional enemy? Especially since a joint Anglo-French crusade expedition to Turkey (Anatolia) had ended in disaster? Or some other war? Then there were people who thought that no war would be best. Taxes were so high already... Our best accounts of the politics of England, including especially Froissart’s long account focus on the personal interests and actions of King Richard and the leading dukes. There was a tension between those dukes – sons of the Edward III, who had died in 1376—and the young Richard, grandson of Edward who succeeded him at the age of 10. For a good long while the uncles took care of royal business, but as Richard matured he began to have opinions of his own. Richard came to admire the style of the French court and was inclined to make peace with the traditional enemy. Some (though not all) were opposed, for both practical and emotional reasons. Thomas Duke of Gloucester, the youngest son of Edward III and Richard’s uncle was well-known for his hardline position on France, and Froissart used the duke as an illustration of the dangers of the belligerent English royal family. Froissart included this portrait of Gloucester as a chronically dissatisfied great lord . Froissart I must now say something of the Duke of Gloucester, whose heart was by no means inclined to the French, and who was more pleased than hurt at the melancholy loss which they had sustained in Turkey, The duke's most confidential adviser was a knight, by name Sir Johnn Lackingay, with whom he held such conversations as the following: " These rare boasting Frenchmen have been nearly annihilated in Turkey. Such knights and squires as join company with them are very ill advised, they are too vain and presumptuous ever to bring anything they undertake to a successful issue. This has often been apparent during the wars of my lord and father, and our brother the Prince of Wales, for they never could obtain a victory over our men. I know not why we have truces with them. If the King of England had a good head, and were as desirous as I am of war, and would take some pains to recover the inheritance the French have so shamefully stolen from him, he would find 100,000 archers and 6,000 men-at-arms ready to cross the sea and serve him with their lives and fortunes. There never was so favourable an opportunity to carry the war into France as the present, for the flower of the French chivalry is slain or in captivity [a reference to Nicopolis]. If peace continue, we shall languish and become more enervated than ever since my nephew came to the throne. Things cannot long remain in this state ; the people will perceive and redress them. The king raises heavy taxes on the merchants, who are greatly discontented ; he squanders the money no one knows how, and thus is the kingdom impoverished. True it is he gives largely to those about him, and in whom he confides; but the people pay for this, and it will shortly cause a rebellion. As soon as the truces between France and England are signed, he gives out that he will make a voyage to Ireland ; he has been there already and gained but little, for Ireland is not worth conquering. The Irish are a poor and wicked people, with an impoverished country he who should conquer it one year, would lose it the next. Lackingay, Lackingay ! all you have just heard me say, consider as truth." Froissart elsewhere sums up the hostility between Duke Thomas and King Richard thus: The medieval lay aristocracy were devoted to war. “Men-at arms” (knights, squires when criticized (especially by the unarmed clergy) argued that they had the exclusive right to wage war and to profit from it, too. But that does not mean that men-at-arms were enthusiastic about fighting each and every war. In England The reign of Richard II(1376-1399) is very interesting for giving us moderns a feel for what political debates were like at the end of the 14th century. There was room for debate -- especially among nobles and high-ranking clergy: Was it now time to make peace with the traditional enemy? Especially since a joint Anglo-French crusade expedition to Turkey (Anatolia) had ended in disaster? Or some other war? Then there were people who thought that no war would be best. Taxes were so high already... Our best accounts of the politics of England, including especially Froissart’s long account focus on the personal interests and actions of King Richard and the leading dukes. There was a tension between those dukes – sons of the Edward III, who had died in 1376—and the young Richard, grandson of Edward who succeeded him at the age of 10. For a good long while the uncles took care of royal business, but as Richard matured he began to have opinions of his own. Richard came to admire the style of the French court and was inclined to make peace with the traditional enemy. Some (though not all) were opposed, for both practical and emotional reasons. Thomas Duke of Gloucester, the youngest son of Edward III and Richard’s uncle was well-known for his hardline position on France, and Froissart used the duke as an illustration of the dangers of the belligerent English royal family. Froissart included this portrait of Gloucester as a chronically dissatisfied great lord . Froissart I must now say something of the Duke of Gloucester, whose heart was by no means inclined to the French, and who was more pleased than hurt at the melancholy loss which they had sustained in Turkey, The duke's most confidential adviser was a knight, by name Sir Johnn Lackingay, with whom he held such conversations as the following: " These rare boasting Frenchmen have been nearly annihilated in Turkey. Such knights and squires as join company with them are very ill advised, they are too vain and presumptuous ever to bring anything they undertake to a successful issue. This has often been apparent during the wars of my lord and father, and our brother the Prince of Wales, for they never could obtain a victory over our men. I know not why we have truces with them. If the King of England had a good head, and were as desirous as I am of war, and would take some pains to recover the inheritance the French have so shamefully stolen from him, he would find 100,000 archers and 6,000 men-at-arms ready to cross the sea and serve him with their lives and fortunes. There never was so favourable an opportunity to carry the war into France as the present, for the flower of the French chivalry is slain or in captivity [a reference to Nicopolis]. If peace continue, we shall languish and become more enervated than ever since my nephew came to the throne. Things cannot long remain in this state ; the people will perceive and redress them. The king raises heavy taxes on the merchants, who are greatly discontented ; he squanders the money no one knows how, and thus is the kingdom impoverished. True it is he gives largely to those about him, and in whom he confides; but the people pay for this, and it will shortly cause a rebellion. As soon as the truces between France and England are signed, he gives out that he will make a voyage to Ireland ; he has been there already and gained but little, for Ireland is not worth conquering. The Irish are a poor and wicked people, with an impoverished country he who should conquer it one year, would lose it the next. Lackingay, Lackingay ! all you have just heard me say, consider as truth." Froissart elsewhere sums up the hostility between Duke Thomas and King Richard thus: Reading about this papal statement, which doesn't exactly impress me as very significant, made me think about how the religious issues of any given time are not handled very well in journalistic and even scholarly discussions. For instance, a historically Christian intellectual culture tends to emphasize theological doctrines (teachings about God, and his relationship to the universe and humanity) as expressing the essential nature of any religion or religious faction. But how much do people really care about the essential teachings of their own faith? Some ideas really are fundamental. I can't see why anyone who doesn't believe Jesus Christ is the savior of the world would even want to be called a Christian. But what about the Procession of the Holy Spirit? It's in some of the earliest "creeds" or statements of faith. Do you know anyone who understands what this means, much less why it is as important to believe as, say, the resurrection of the dead and the last judgment? Why should different ideas about this Procession have separated Rome and the Orthodox churches for over a thousand years? I think the big issues of religion today, or at least Christianity (but maybe not just Christianity) are things hardly discussed by the gospels or the creed writers from 325 AD on. Here they are:

• Marriage, who's allowed to have it and under what conditions
• Birth control and abortion
• The status of gays in a Christian community: lepers or leaders?

These issues are the ones that are tearing apart traditional alignments. For instance, the world-wide Anglican communion is on the rocks on the issue of whether same sex unions can be blessed and whether gays can be bishops. The protagonists are the national Anglican churches in the United States, Canada, and Nigeria, while the Archbishop of Canterbury, who leads a national church where most members never go to services, tries to keep things together. It looks to me, though, that there isn't much middle ground between Anglicans who want to return to a traditional disapproval of sexual diversity, and those who want the approval of God's church -- the one they belong to -- for their family life, even if Moses condemned it in the laws of Leviticus. And the Anglican church is hardly the only one in this position. The religious landscape is always a complicated one with lots of inconsistencies and apparent paradoxes. One Japanese Buddhist leader long ago taught that true Buddhism meant that everyone should be married and no one should be a monk (!). Just looking at the labels or even at the official teachings of the labeled groups doesn't help understanding very much. Remember when, in North America, getting a divorce was a lifelong disgrace? No? Gather round, children, and I'll tell you a story... PS: You will note that I didn't list under religious issues people care about the Evolution/Creation as in Genesis debate. Certainly many people do care, but how many of them live outside the United States? Honest question.