[His words]… were delivered in the calmest, meekest, least ranting way possible, and yet they carried a great authority that largely comes, I think, from the Pope’s sense of holiness and evident goodness, as well as from the dignity of his office.
Even hard-hearted cynics and sceptics could not fail but listen.
Most extraordinary of all, here was a religious leader prepared to confront the modern secular world ”“ and modern secular Britain ”“ with the timeless values of Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.
These values, said Pope Benedict in his final address yesterday, had been traduced by abusive priests who had seriously undermined the moral credibility of the Roman Catholic Church.
It is almost a shock to hear a religious leader speak in so blunt a way, so inured are we to our own religious leaders, particularly Church of England bishops, accommodating themselves to secular values.
“In a manner wholly unlike our home-grown clerics, the Pope spoke to the soul of our country, affirming eternal moral verities which our own political and religious leaders normally prefer to avoid”.
Maybe now would be a good time to visit the USA, too.
This editorial is very perceptive in capturing the unique experience of modern secular Britain hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ spoken with “authority”. But I’m afraid the writer doesn’t grasp the source of the Pope’s authority when he refers to the doctrine of papal infallibility as being “bizzare”. In the end it’s childish to continually complain about your Anglican clerics failing to speak clearly like the Pope as if it were a personal quality that produced the authority.
I was just going to say the same thing. The writer lists all these marvelous qualities that the Pope has, contrasts them to their absence in the leaders of the Church of England, and then calls the doctrine of infallibility as “bizarre.” As if the differences had simply arisen randomly. Now that would be “bizarre” indeed.
I, likewise, was somewhat baffled by the cheap shot at the doctrine of papal infallibility. I thought that was intellectually unnecessary to an otherwise interesting analysis of the Papal visit. While I don’t agree with papal infallibility, it is not a bizarre doctrine to understand. The Pope came off as someone who understands his role, is clear and articulate about his goals and integrity, and makes no bones about exercising both his roll and goals in the performance of his role. That is just good, basic leadership skills. Papal infallibility did not need to even be invoked.
“And whereas the Pope speaks clearly in English, which is his third or fourth language, Dr Williams often speaks opaquely or in riddles in the language that is his own”.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with “papal infallibility”.
I regard Mr. Glover’s article as balanced and perceptive, for the most
part. I, too, was instantly energized by his remark …
“…the bizarre doctrine of Papal infallibility. ”
If Mr. Glover wants bizarre, he need only read the 6th chapter of
the Gospel of St. John, especially those parts about eating His flesh
and drinking His blood. Now that’s shockingly bizarre, and it did lose
Him most of His disciples. My intention is not to bash Mr. Glover, but
to point out that the faith calls upon us to see Truth in a way very
different from the way in which the world understands truth.
Whilst broadly welcoming Glover’s assessment, I absolutely concur with #2: Glover (and the media generally) seem to think that moral authority comes from moral superiority. While the present Pope may be an admirable person, the source of his authority is of course the mandate of Jesus Christ.
One problem with the authority/superiority view is that it can very easily be reduced to treating as authoritative only those of whom one already approves, and with whom one already agrees.