Kevin asked that John review the Rat’s most recent encyclical (open letter to The Faithful), Spe Salvi. I had previously thought that I’d like to do a bit of a review of Deus Caritas Est, the prior encyclical but am having difficulty slogging through it. I still hope to get to it.
An encyclical is roughly like a presidential signing statement. It’s an opportunity for the Pope to clarify matters of faith in a philosophical manner (in the sense that its intent is philosophical discourse). Again, it’s helpful to use the presidential metaphor, as the Pope is seeking dialogue only in a broad sense of the term: he is not speaking ex cathedra, but he’s still the Pope.
*ahem* I should warn against reading the following and advise beforehand that I am still a recovering Catholic who grew up in a household that uses the terms I use herein for the current Pope as terms of endearment, that my parents have met him and felt that the former Pope was simply too nice. There is a large dose of vitriol in the following and I thought hard about re-writing it (sometimes you just need to vent, neh?), but I don’t think it’s undeserved. I understand that some people believe the things I’m about to mock & I’ve heard most of the arguments telling me just how wrong I am and how much I will suffer. Most of them came from my close family. Yes, it is clear that I did not grasp the full meaning of the encyclical, to do so, I would have to swallow the tripe it is feeding me. Yes, I’m going to hell, but not just for this, don’t worry.
Spe Salvi, then, is B-16′s philosophical discussion of the role of (“Christian”) hope in the everyday lives of his people. Given that the first was on love, we can look forward to a third encyclical regarding faith any time now. The concept of “Christian” hope is rooted, obviously, in the torture & execution of Jesus. I say “Christian” because, as head of the Catholic or “universal” Church, the Pope uses “Christian” to mean “Catholic” with perhaps an occasional side note that other “Christians” might understand the true meaning of “Christian” if they started worshipping bread & Mary, too.
The hope that comes from believing that bloody torture is good is that you don’t have to undergo it. Jesus died for the past & future sins of every believer because His Father was made of Love. This causes Hope because now believers who confess don’t have to spend time being tortured in Hell. And that, my friends, is Christian Hope.
As near as I can tell, belief in an actual Hell is the source of some of the more bizarre practices and beliefs across the religious board. I believe that when I die, I’m dead. But, were I to have Christian Hope, I would believe that when I die, I’ll get judged by a guy in the sky with a clipboard and a list of my actions. I will then be shunted into Hell, Purgatory, or Heaven.
Spe Salvi goes into great detail about how hopeless are the lives of polytheists and atheists. Belief in Hell, of course, comes with a complementary belief in Eternal Life If You Manage Not To Get Sent To Hell. This, one presumes, is where the real hope is.
Personally, I expected no less from the former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He was often referred to as Pope John Paul II’s “doberman” (get it? ’cause he’s German). It was essentially his job to say “sinners are cosmically fucked” which freed JP2 to go around saying “God loveth all his children”. From my standpoint, it’s entertaining to watch his handlers scramble to turn “fucked” into “loveth” (see: Brazil), since he’s just so used to being on the attack. And maybe that is what the Catholic Church needs: some steel in its spine to throw out the whores seeking to turn it into some pansy inclusive religion. Wait. Isn’t “universal” a synonym for “inclusive”…? Maybe I just don’t get this Catholic thing.
I’m sure this does absolutely nothing to answer Kevin’s original question, but as for being angry when you read it, I think that’s the actual intent. If you’re not the select few (and why aren’t you?), then you’re obviously devoid of hope in the world. I suppose the most charitable thing I can say about it is that it encourages environmentalism (if you can make it that far). The concept of hope based upon a theology of fear is a poor sort of hope, in my mind.
