There’s a story in the Post today, Pope’s 1st Year Lacks An Ideological Edge, that deserves reading.  The Post, of course, uses its subtitle to stick its thumb in conservatives’ eye (”Centrist Approach Concerns Conservatives”), but I think the equally important line is how arm-flappingly hysterical some liberals became when Benedict was elected, and how silly that looks now in hindsight.  Everybody made too much of a political fuss over Benedict, and I think the bigger lesson isn’t whether conservatives or liberals look sillier, it’s that perhaps we shouldn’t be so quick to apply secular political terms to the Church.  The Roman church has been around for a very long time, so we should probably trust its institutional intuition regarding self-preservation, rather than buy into the apocolyptic hooplah that a few hard-liners on either end might preach.

I do think the final graphs (regarding Benedict’s first encyclical, God is Love) are worthwhile:

When the encyclical on love appeared, “a lot of people said it wasn’t the condemnation we expected, it was very open to others. That’s true. He talks about the love of Eros. Here’s the ‘Panzer Cardinal’ talking about erotic love!” he said.

But, Fessio noted, the encyclical also says that when erotic love is purified, it leads to exclusiveness and permanence. “And what does that mean? He’s saying that that kind of love is only between a man and a woman, so he’s rejecting homosexual unions. And he said it’s exclusive and permanent, so he’s excluding divorce and promiscuity.”

“So on the surface it was non-controversial — but underneath he was laying the groundwork, the principles, for conclusions that are controversial,” Fessio said, adding: “I think this second year is going to be the one to look it.”

You heard it here first:  “Pope rejects homosexuality, divorce, and promiscuity; controversy ensues.”

Tomorrow: “Bear craps in woods; deer, rabbit: ’stunned.’”

Posted by Apollo in Faith