If you're going to call Pope Benedict a "fundamentalist"...

... by referring to his comments about fundamentalism, you may want to actually understand what the Holy Father is saying. Case in point: a column by Peter Laurie, who is described as "a retired diplomat and a commentator on social issues." Laurie's opinion piece (or is it an editorial? It's not clear) at NationNews.com is a rant about "right wing" Christians and "fundamentalists," and includes an obligatory comparison of radical Muslim terrorists and Pat Robertson (Yawn! Exactly how many people has Robertson murdered? Terrorized?).

Laurie explains that "Fundamentalists are people who are disenchanted with the modern world and believe that salvation is only possible by returning to a literal reading of their particular sacred text. Religion trumps reason, science and common sense." There is some truth to that description, however simplistic and self-serving it might be, but it is really meant to set up this passage of frenzied cyberventilating:

Although Christian fundamentalism is more typical of Protestantism than Catholicism, the Catholic Church, after the surge of openness engendered by the Second Vatican Council, retreated under the papacy of John Paul II into a more authoritarian and traditionalist stance in the hope that this would stem the tide of liberal change that Vatican II threatened to unleash. This Catholic fundamentalism looks likely to be reinforced under Benedict XVI.

In the mass he celebrated before the conclave at which he was elected pope, Cardinal Ratzinger made a point of defending fundamentalism as eminently reasonable, when he said that "having a clear faith, based on the creed of the church, is often labelled today as fundamentalism, whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and 'swept along by every wind of teaching', looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's standards." [emphasis added]

So did then-Cardinal Ratzinger really defend fundamentalism as "eminently reasonable"? No, he simply observed an obvious fact: "Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism." He then stated:

Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be "tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine", seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires.

We, however, have a different goal: the Son of God, the true man. He is the measure of true humanism. An "adult" faith is not a faith that follows the trends of fashion and the latest novelty; a mature adult faith is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ. It is this friendship that opens us up to all that is good and gives us a criterion by which to distinguish the true from the false, and deceipt from truth.

Do people actually label as "fundamentalist/m" the notion of having a "a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church"? Mr. Laurie provides an affirmative answer by doing just what Cardinal Ratzinger accurately described:

The challenge for Christianity is not, as fundamentalism suggests, to cling absolutely to these truths as then expressed in the face of all change, but to constantly reinterpret those eternal and universal truths in the light of new advances both in science and ethical awareness.

The opposite of fundamentalism is not relativism, but a religion, anchored in faith and love of truth, which comes to terms with reason, science and social progress; accepts the ethical complexity of life; and fully engages the modern world, warts and all.

Laurie, then, is clueless about what Ratzinger was saying — so clueless, ironically, that he misuses a text that perfectly describes his own fundamentalist-like mentality, which asserts that science and reason trump religion. (The Catholic Church teaches that faith and reason don't "trump" each other, but are entirely compatible, especially since they share a common source: God.) And if Laurie had bothered to study some of Ratzinger's books, he may have found that the great theologian addresses these issues many times over. In fact, in Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions (Ignatius, 2004), Ratzinger directly challenged the clueless assertion that papal teachings are equivalent to a "'fundamentalist' version of Islam" (p 190. See "The Truth of Christianity", pp 130-209 of Truth and Tolerance for much more on this and related issues). Then there are these remarks, made by Benedict XVI just a few months ago, on January 1, 2006, marking the World Day of Peace:

9. Nowadays, the truth of peace continues to be dramatically compromised and rejected by terrorism, whose criminal threats and attacks leave the world in a state of fear and insecurity. My predecessors Paul VI and John Paul II frequently pointed out the awful responsibility borne by terrorists, while at the same time condemning their senseless and deadly strategies. These are often the fruit of a tragic and disturbing nihilism which Pope John Paul II described in these words: ''Those who kill by acts of terrorism actually despair of humanity, of life, of the future. In their view, everything is to be hated and destroyed''.(9) Not only nihilism, but also religious fanaticism, today often labeled fundamentalism, can inspire and encourage terrorist thinking and activity. From the beginning, John Paul II was aware of the explosive danger represented by fanatical fundamentalism, and he condemned it unsparingly, while warning against attempts to impose, rather than to propose for others freely to accept, one's own convictions about the truth. As he wrote: ''To try to impose on others by violent means what we consider to be the truth is an offence against the dignity of the human being, and ultimately an offence against God in whose image he is made''.(10)

10. Looked at closely, nihilism and the fundamentalism of which we are speaking share an erroneous relationship to truth: the nihilist denies the very existence of truth, while the fundamentalist claims to be able to impose it by force. Despite their different origins and cultural backgrounds, both show a dangerous contempt for human beings and human life, and ultimately for God himself. Indeed, this shared tragic outcome results from a distortion of the full truth about God: nihilism denies God's existence and his provident presence in history, while fanatical fundamentalism disfigures his loving and merciful countenance, replacing him with idols made in its own image. In analyzing the causes of the contemporary phenomenon of terrorism, consideration should be given, not only to its political and social causes, but also to its deeper cultural, religious and ideological motivations. [emphasis added]

Another aspect of fundamentalism — one that Laurie does not mention — is that fundamentalists often ignore evidence, logic, and arguments that expose their beliefs or assumptions. They also fail to fairly present the beliefs and arguments of their opponents/enemies, if they present them at all. They usually resort to name-calling and fear-mongering. Hmmmmm....so who does that sound like? A pope who has written books addressing nearly every sort of religion and religious/philsophical belief known to man, or a "commentator on social issues" who doesn't even understand a text he uses as a weapon against the pope? The sad part of this is that Laurie claims to be a Catholic, writing in a 2003 column:

Let me declare my interest. I’m a Catholic who is often at odds with his church. I’m also not crazy about the present papacy. Nevertheless, I feel comfortable in the Catholic Church, and until they throw me out, kicking and screaming, I’m staying. ...

The Pope, however, remains resolutely infallible. But, damn it; we’re all still Catholics – including the Pope. It’s not the dogma; it’s the “culture” of Catholicism, warts and all, that attracts me. Religion now appeals to me less as a set of beliefs, than as mysteries and rituals that celebrate the miracle of life and our passages through it, deepen our spirituality, put us in a right relation to life and our fellow creatures, and point us, however ambiguously, towards the ultimate meaning of the universe. ...

I understand the appeal of tradition. Some persons feel more comfortable with the image of God as a bearded old white man. That’s cool. But I prefer to imagine her as a beautiful young black woman. That’s cool too.

Far out, dude. I just hope you appreciate that the Holy Father understands you far, far better than you understand him. Or even yourself. In his words:

How many winds of doctrine have we known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking. The small boat of the thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves - flung from one extreme to another: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism and so forth. Every day new sects spring up, and what St Paul says about human deception and the trickery that strives to entice people into error (cf. Eph 4: 14) comes true.

Comments

[Deacon John M. Bresnahan]

The irony of all the attacks on "fundamentalist" Christianity of any sort (or on strong creedal Catholicism) is that it is the statist political fundamentals who turned the 20th Century into a slaughterhouse and it was Christians who did the most to close down their butchery while the American Left was in Love with Stalin.

[Kevin Vail]

Its really strange to read these pieces from the left.
As a Catholic who tries to practice the Faith as it has always been practiced and taught, without the novelties of the last 40 years, I see the last 3 Holy Fathers as intolerably in love with the world, swept up by the zeitgeist.
These pieces are always calling them "conservative". It's just bizarre to me.

[Carl Olson]

I see the last 3 Holy Fathers as intolerably in love with the world...

Don't forget that other Father: "For God so loved the world..."

[JDM]

I can't even tell who's who or what's what in the blog entry above. (As far as comments go, way to go, Carl!)

Conservative, liberal, fundamentalist, fanatic...

All I get is that someone is attacking someone because that someone thinks a word means something and the other someone thinks a word means something else and there is this clash and they think they are enemies when in fact everybody is in the same boat.
Make sense?