Book Review: Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week by Pope Benedict XVI

An Expression of Catholic Doctrine

The Pope deliberately included his birth name, Joseph Ratzinger, on the title page so as to assert that the contents of this book are merely his personal reflections on Jesus’ life, and not binding on the consciences of the faithful.

One need not be a scholar to understand this book.  But I am surprised at how well received it has been among Protestants, as it is basically an expression of Catholic doctrine.  Jesus of Nazareth starts off with a good explanation of Jesus’ prophecy about the destruction of the temple.  Ratzinger offers some interesting insights into the symbolism of Jesus’ acts.  For example, the washing of the disciples’ feet is symbolic of the need for the constant renewal/cleansing of the Christian, who though washed in baptism still remains a sinner.

With insights such as this, “Jesus clearly presents himself as the new Moses, who brings to completion what began with Moses at the burning bush,” Ratzinger does a good job explaining the continuity of the Old Testament into the New, and how the New fulfills the Old. 

Ratzinger describes at length the type of unity that he thinks should be seen in the Church.  Not surprisingly, he and his Church hierarchy are described as being central to and at the forefront of bringing about this unity.  I really don’t agree with that, but that is the myth that he wants to perpetuate.

The Last Supper is explained as the new Passover, Jesus being the perfect Lamb of God.  The death and Resurrection of Christ being the Passover that endures.  According to Ratzinger, the institution of the Eucharist is at the heart of the Last Supper tradition where Jesus gave himself to the disciples in the form of bread and wine.  The earliest communities probably “broke bread” more according to the Passover meal traditions.  Whereas the current Eucharistic celebrations evolved over time.

Ratzinger leads us through the Mount of Olives to the Trial of Jesus.  He gives insight into the motives behind Jesus’ trial, and explains the ordinary and prophetic utterances that led to Jesus’ crucifixion.  He delves into the questions of political power versus truth, prompted by Pilate’s question, “What is truth?”  This is presented as a question that has relevance even today.  The Pope seems to have a blind spot, though when it comes to the fact of political power and injustice within his own Church.  The Catholic Church is definitely not above it all.  I think it’s fair to say that those in positions of power in the Catholic Church are at least as corrupt as the temple authorities of Jesus’ day.

The crucifixion is explained as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies.  Jesus’ suffering embodies Israel’s suffering all mankind’s suffering so as to transform it mysteriously.  It is also explained in terms of the new symbolism for the new Church.  The water and blood from Christ’s side are view as symbolic of two sacraments—baptism and the Eucharist.

“If Christ has not been raised, then our faith is in vain.”  Ratzinger describes the Resurrection as something more than mere resuscitation from the dead.  A mere resuscitation would have been no more spectacular than Lazarus being raised from the dead, or when people are resuscitated by doctors.  Christ’s Resurrection is supposed to be a whole new form of living, where the infinite meets the finite.

Ratzinger writes like a professor teaching his students.  His style is easy to read.  The book ends with a summary of Christian thought about God’s continued presence despite his seeming absence.

The Strange and Winding Roads of Believers

I apologize to my non-religious readers if I’ve been too “Christian” lately.  I promise to write more secular things, especially once school starts.  In no way do I wish to force anyone to believe anything.  And I apologize to my religious readers if I am too blasphemous.  I don’t really fit into any category too easily.  And so, I will attempt here to explain the labyrinth of believers and unbelievers and approximately where I fit in.

I’m more religious than people who are totally non-religious and I’m less religious than most good, practicing Catholics or Christians.  Like Anne Rice, I can’t be anti-gay, or anti-Democrat, or anti-anything else that you’re supposed to be against to be a good Catholic or Christian.  She renounced Christianity in the name of Christ.  I renounce all of that stuff as well.

It’s hard to explain to people who haven’t been around the Christian block what the differences are between Christian, born-again Christian, Catholic, non-practicing Catholic, Catholic/Christian, Christian but not Catholic, Bible Christian, real Christian, Cafeteria Catholic, Orthodox Catholic as separate from the Orthodox Church.  Indeed, I don’t even understand all of it myself.

First of all, you have to distinguish between Catholic and Protestant.  Think it doesn’t matter?  It matters a lot to “believers.”   Let’s start with Protestants.

“Real” Christians are not Catholic or Orthodox, but they expect universal conformation to their orthodox beliefs.  They may be Baptist or Church of Christ or Pentecostal or non-denominational mega-church or some variation therein.  You know somebody’s a “real” Christian because they denounce those who aren’t.  And if they say, “They think we’re narrow-minded,” that’s a sure sign that they’re narrow-minded.

Then there are Fundamentalists.  Fundamentalists are sometimes also known as born-again Christians, Bible believing Christians and “real” Christians.  They may or may not be creationists, but try to adhere to what they believe to be the fundamentals of the Protestant Christian Faith.  They’re the gun-toters.  They speak gibberish in tongues.  In other words, you cannot dialogue with them.  Ironically enough, most Bible Christians have barely read any of the Bible.  They memorize a handful of verses and make up “moral” rules as they go along.  They “believe” in a book that they have not read.

Mainline Protestants are usually fairly normal people who can’t much be distinguished from worldly people.  Whether that’s a good or bad thing, I do not know.  Mainline Protestants would include Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians.  And within these groups, you will occasionally find Fundamentalists and real Christians.

As complicated as the splintered world of Protestant Christianity is, you’d think that the Catholic world would be a singular refuge from such pious disagreements.  But no.  The Catholic Church easily matches the Protestant Churches for disordered beliefs and holy infighting.  The Catholic Church goes well beyond the infighting among the laity and has factions and groups who are ordained or vowed either licitly or illicitly, traditionalist or non-traditionalist.  Groups such as Opus Dei, Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), and many others.  There are many other “good” Catholics who are better versed in these groups than I am.

As a (long ago) convert to Catholicism, I am not entirely familiar with all of the various Catholic names that different “believers” are called.  The most common derisive name for “other” Catholics is Cafeteria Catholic.  Invariably, this and other names are always attributed to other people.  You never hear of Catholics announcing to the world that they are Cafeteria Catholics and that others are so much holier.  Cafeteria Catholic refers to the fact that people pick and choose only parts of the faith to practice, and not the whole thing.  It’s what everybody does though.  It isn’t, in actual fact, limited to a group of heathens or sinners, it’s a fact of humanity.  I guess I’m a bit of an unbelieving, non-practicing Cafeteria Catholic.  I don’t even go to Church on Sundays.

And within the Catholic Church, certainly, the vowed and ordained have a very real contempt for the laity.  They view the laity as things to be used to push their various agendas, just like real politicians.  So that makes them more Christian than the laity.

And do all of these wonderful groups and factions love and respect each other?  No.  So the Catholic Church has this system wherein different people and groups of people who essentially hate each other can supposedly be united.  And that is through the Pope.  Ask what that means and you’ll get many answers that don’t agree with each other.  Ask a Presbyterian what that means, and you’ll be denounced for being a Papist.

In all, Christians, on the whole are no holier than anybody else, sometimes especially those who consider themselves holy and wrap themselves up in ten tons of religion.  The one thing that truly unites most Christians and Catholics, isn’t the Lord Jesus, it’s their love of money.  The Pope lives in a castle.  Does he share with his brothers and sisters in Christ?  No.  Poor people really aren’t welcome at Catholic Church.

Even though I’m not a “believer,” religion is clearly something that torments me.  The hypocrisy, the selfishness, and everything else that can be found in religion.  When I tried to practice religion according to their rules, I was only made a mess of.  And then, in confession, the priest blasted me.  He announced, “You have no peace.”  He couldn’t have been more giddy.  This is one of the worst problems with religious people, as I see it.  They are delighted to cause other people’s suffering and to see other people suffer.  I guess, like Charlie Sheen, it proves that they’re “winning.”

Pope John Paul II Beatification--No Controversy With Me

John Paul II will be beatified on May 1, and some people find this move very controversial.

He was someone who truly believed in the dignity of every human being.  He proved this to me personally by writing this letter to me.

Out of millions of letters that he got, he freely chose to respond to me.  As busy as he was he chose to respond to me.  Despite all of the other millions of reasons that he may have had, he chose to respond to me.  That has real meaning to me.

Some people find his beatification controversial because he didn't do enough to stop priestly abuse of minors.  But, realistically, there was only so much he could do.  The people on the ground floor had much more of an obligation to intervene, and they did nothing.  People misunderstand the true role of the Pope.  He is not called to be a policeman to the Church.  People in the Church are supposed to police themselves, and each other when need be.  Rather, he is called to be a loving spiritual father to all, and that's exactly who John Paul II was.  He spoke of a greater vision for the world, and hoped that others would rise to their calling.  He always desired for the best of humanity.

Perhaps he could have done more about sex abuse and other abuses within the Church.  But he was only human.  It would have been impossible for him to do more without the assistance of others.  Plus, as repugnant as abusers are, John Paul II believed that everyone could be redeemed.  I also think he couldn't believe some of the charges, because he had seen so much contempt in this world.  He had a hard time believing that his own could be so repugnant.

He is someone who passes my smell test, and that is very difficult to do.  Most religious people do not pass my smell test, not even close.  John Paul II was someone who in some small ways made the world a little bit of a better place, and that should be recognized.  It's uncommon.  He was someone who recognized that he was privileged in this world, and used that privilege to do good.  Some have speculated that he was instrumental in the fall of communism.  But ironically enough, even Fidel Castro was a fan of his.

What I would ask the doubters is, who would they beatify?  There is really no one left.  There is no one else who can pass so many hypercritical smell tests.  There is no one else who crossed so many boundaries, and brought people of all walks of life together.  He was not a controversial figure to me, just a truly decent person who desired for everyone's true good.  And he deserves this recognition.

I Like Religion, but Not Religious People

Is that possible?  I even thought of becoming a nun for  a time, because I liked the idea of living for God and having some meaning in my life.  But the religious people I've encountered, some were all right, but some were so mean.  I was especially surprised by how bitchy and catty the nuns could be, as well thought of as they are.  They seemed to think they had reached some level of perfection to which all others must conform.  They were constantly trying to "convert" people, in the worst sense.  I guess it almost goes without saying that they were intolerant of gays.  Many of them were totally intolerant of everything that they viewed wrong with other people, and they always made their views known.

What's really upsetting about this, for me, is that it's so totally contrary to legitimate Christianity, as I see it.  Jesus was always a friend to the outcast, and those who had been dumped on and "robbed" by society.  He healed the oppressed, he wasn't an oppressor.  Even though, according to Christian theology, he was literally perfect, he never beat up on people for their petty sins.  He wasn't constantly trying to wrestle people down into some sort of a conversion.  These are the real values in Christianity, and unfortunately I just didn't see it in the religious people I encountered.  But they were very good at making people feel bad.

I guess it can be hard to find kindness anywhere in this world.  That's why it's so disappointing that these Christian/Catholic people who pride themselves on being Christian are so cruel.  Why do they even use the title "Christian"?  For the Catholic hierarchy, I guess the answer is obvious.  They live lives of privileged leisure because of their title of priest or bishop or nun.  They are practically worshipped by so many people for  their title.  In other words, they are hooked up.  All the more reason why they shouldn't be so hard on other people.  The laity have to worry about things like working to pay for their bills, accommodating their families, and generally making a go of life without the institutional support of a multi-billion dollar multi-national.  Many of the parishes are multi-million dollar extravagances, and yet the religious people are still motivated by getting more money from people.  They want money from people who are poorer than themselves.

But do they, at least, give good life guidance?  No.  I got a lot of domineering advice and criticism from them in all the years that I went to Church, but none of it helped me in the least.

I still like the idea of religion, though.  The idea that different people from different backgrounds could come together and be friends for a least one part of the day, as it should be at Church.  Church isn't supposed to be a place of alienation and contempt.  For people who aren't sincere, it should at least be a place where they put on their best selves for at least a moment.  A place of respite for your soul.  A place where everyone's innate human dignity is valued, most especially the outcasts and those who've experienced real hardship in life.  But I never found a Church that truly welcomed me.

Happy Good Friday

So today is Good Friday.  It's a celebration of the day that Jesus Christ was crucified.  How can that possibly be good, you might ask.  Well, it's because of his crucifixion, his glorification of the Father, that Christian Salvation was to enter the world.  And it was only after his crucifixion that we could celebrate his resurrection on Easter Sunday.

Still, sometimes, even though I know how the story goes and what it's supposed to mean, I don't know how these things are relevant to me.  I'm glad for whatever meaning and joy people can find in the Easter season, but death is just sad to me.  When you've lost someone who's really close to you, you know how much it hurts.  Perhaps if everyone's loved one were resurrected after death, it wouldn't seem so bad.

I've never been a very good Christian.  I've tried, but I've always tried to really get at the deeper meaning of these things and find myself alone in doing so.

There is no Mass said on Good Friday.  It's the only day of the year that there is no Mass said.  The reason for this is that Good Friday is the day of Crucifixion--prior to the Resurrection.  It's the day of the sacrifice.  The Perfect sacrifice.  And only after that can the Mass be celebrated.

So, anyway, Happy Good Friday.  Hope it has meaning for you.

Lent

Lent is supposed to be a time of reflection, and renewed appreciation for God's grace in our lives.  A grace might be something like being healthy, where others are sick.  Or being intelligent.  Even intelligent enough to be a scientist with no regard for religion.  It's also a time for penance.  A time to recognize our own failings, always with the hope of the Easter resurrection.  I think one of the purposes in giving something up for Lent is indeed to feel deprived of something that we like.  If we feel deprived by our own choice we might develop a greater empathy for those who are deprived through no real fault of their own.  Mother Teresa said to "give until it hurts."  So that  "we know how 'they' feel."  Mother Teresa's religious order, by the way, rakes in hundreds of millions of dollars, so she didn't mean it too literally.  Anyway, as much as it hurts to go without by free personal choice, it hurts even more to suffer unnecessarily through the choices of other people.  The Lenten spirit might somehow give us a greater compassion and empathy for our fellow human beings.  And a greater healing for those who suffer unnecessarily.

The Friday Fast

This is what I'm giving up for Lent this year--food on Fridays.  It may seem a little extreme, but when you consider that there are people in this world who have to go without food involuntarily for days, it isn't so bad.  I actually failed Friday April 1st, and ate midday on.  But I have made it every other Friday so far.  It works out well, because according to official Catholic practice, we are not to eat meat on the Fridays of Lent.  If I don't eat anything on Fridays, then I definitely won't eat meat.

An official fast, according to Catholic practice, is to eat two small meals and one normal meal for the day.  For some reason, though, moderation has never gone well with me.  That kind of a fast, in some ways seems more difficult because you really have to pay attention to what you do.  It's more like a healthy diet than a fast.  Perhaps that's why they encourage people to do it.  You end up not feeling very deprived.  Either way, one day of fasting won't make much of a difference on the scale.  If I were really intent on losing weight, I would do well to do my fast on Fridays and the official fast the rest of the week.  People often think that religious rules are so severe, but sometimes we're harder on ourselves than any outside institution would be.

But imagine if I had to fast, not by choice, but because there was no food.  The kind of fasting that people throughout the world in poorer countries have to do.  Or what if I was deliberately deprived of food by a brutal dictator, as is the case in Libya.  After a few days of fasting, I would probably quit expressing myself and fighting for ideals.  Fasting by choice can only give me a small insight into the frailty of us humans.  So, then, a fast should lead to gratitude for that which I do have.  For me, it is only a personal choice.  For some, it is beyond their ability to control.

Book Review: Light of the World by Pope Benedict XVI with Peter Seewald

Here's my review of Light of the World, previously posted on Amazon.com:

If I hadn't previously read John Paul II's wonderful interview book Crossing the Threshold of Hope, I might have given this book 5 stars. That's a tough standard to measure up to. Light of the World is still a good book and definitely doesn't require a theological background to understand. While many of the subjects covered are quite interesting, they aren't covered with the same depth as Crossing the Threshold of Hope.

The Pope

The Pope emerges as a down-to-earth, humble man, somewhat remarkable in his ordinariness. I was surprised to learn that he was the son of a police officer. He is at home in questions of both ordinary and extraordinary importance. He offers a view of God that is more than cheap moralism or oppressive reductionism.

The Church

Peter Seewald gives the Pope a chance to clear up some past scandals in the Church such as lifting the excommunication of a Holocaust-denying bishop. I feel satisfied with his explanation but that he lays partial blame at the feet of the Anglican Church.

There are a few disappointments. When speaking of the sex abuse scandal, he downplays the role of clerics in fostering clericalism, and instead casts blame on the laity for putting priests and religious up on a pedestal. This attitude denies the fact that the Church hierarchy is designed to put priests and religious up on a pedestal. And if religious leaders cannot be trusted, then there really isn't much of a Church.

Overall, though, Light of the World is informative and interesting, and a tiny window into the life and mind of the Pope.