The Pope versus Polanski

I'm no great fan of popes, but here is a fascinating (because true) article by Dominic Lawson comparing the treatment of the Pope over assumed knowledge of sex abuse, with the treatment of Roman Polanski over actual rape.

From the article:

Last weekend I went to see a new film by a child-abuser. Very good it was, too. Roman Polanski's The Ghost shows no diminution in the artistic powers of one of cinema's most enduring talents: I can understand why the reviewers have been unstinting in their praise. Yet Polanski has not been doing the usual TV interviews that accompany critical acclaim. He is under house arrest in his Swiss chalet, fighting the attempts of a California court to extradite him for the sexual abuse of a 13-year-old girl, Samantha Geimer, in 1977.

The world of film – indeed, of art in general – regards this (Polanski's arrest, that is, not his abuse of a 13-year-old girl) as a scandal. This attitude was most clearly evident in the remark of the Hollywood actress Whoopi Goldberg, who last year defended him with the observation, "I know it wasn't rape-rape". With this remarkable neologism, Goldberg gave a new gloss to the old line (usually uttered by men) of "she said no, but she meant yes".

Richard Dawkins gets (dis)honourable mention too.

George W. to convert to Roman Catholicism?

According to this report George W. Bush may convert to Roman Catholicism after he leaves office.

From the article:

Several Italian newspapers cited Vatican sources suggesting that Mr Bush may be prepared to convert. One source told Il Foglio, an authoritative newspaper, that "Anything is possible, especially for a born-again Christian such as Bush."

We shall see. Personally, I've often wondered how far George W's claims to be an evangelical Christian have had political considerations in view, and this report doesn't do anything to remove those questions.

Thanks to Tim Challies for the link.

Roman Catholic schools

Talked to a father at the parent teacher thing yesterday who was really annoyed about one of the Roman Catholic schools wanting to know if his daughter had been baptized and if they attended mass, before they would consider her as a student. "I mean, that's not the core stuff, is it? It's not just about ticking the right boxes!"

I agreed that it might not be the core stuff, but if they were making it a requirement for potential students, then maybe they did think it was the core stuff. We kept talking, but it looked for just a moment as if the thought had not occurred to him before.

Answering Roman Catholicism

Up at Men's Katoomba Christian Convention (MKC) we had a very fine session from Baptist speaker Anthony Petterson, who lectures at Morling College (the local Baptist theological college here in Sydney). It was on answering Roman Catholicism, and pointed out how within Roman Catholicism, the basic vocabulary of salvation is distorted. Grace means not so much God's generosity, for example, as a sort of metaphysical infusion of a substance that allows you to choose to do good works. (Anthony used the parallel of a blood transfusion enabling you to get up and get on with life, and it made a lot of sense as an explanation of the Roman Catholic perspective).

As such, even though the claim within Roman Catholicism is that we are saved by grace, in reality this means something quite different from the Bible's teaching that we are rescued by God without any input from ourselves.

For the average Roman Catholic believer, this means that assurance of salvation is impossible and indeed, forbidden by the teaching of the church. Assurance, for Roman Catholics, is the sin of 'presumption'. For how could one be assured of being right with God if good works are necessary to our right-standing with God, as Catholicism teaches? But on the Roman Catholic view, not only is assurance ruled out, but the very idea of salvation is placed under threat, for our good works can never be good enough to gain our entry into heaven.

Roman Catholic doctrine thus undercuts Christ's work on the cross, as his work in dying for sin is no guarantee whatsoever that God will declare us 'not guilty' on the final terrible day of judgement.

Along the way Anthony pointed out that the Roman Catholic church does not believe that non-Roman Catholic churches can lay claim to the title of being genuine Christian churches, and used the current Pope's words to demonstrate that this traditional view hasn't changed at all in recent times:

Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century... do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called "Churches" in the proper sense."

Find the quote in context here.

Anthony Petterson thought that the current Pope was doing something useful for all Christians by clarifying the difference between Protestant and Catholic beliefs. He certainly is! We mustn't pretend that in essence, all the so-called Christian churches are on about the same thing.

Anthony also gave a good plug for Ray Galea's latest book on the subject, Nothing in my hand I bring. Well worth a read, and before World Catholic Youth Day hits town.

Roman Catholicism

What an idiotic religion.

They teach a view of God that makes their underpants turn brown.

And then they sit there, blinded to the truth that rescues them, and turning to Mary for help. Instead of the Lord Jesus who died on the cross to save them from their sins and the judgement of God.

(And the rest of us as well.)

The day of resurrection will cause you problems. And indeed, anyone who is unprepared to meet not only the dead Jesus hanging on a cross, but the risen Lord of glory.