Say WWWWWHHHHHAAAATTTTT?

No. In retrospective, Martin Luther was not right.

Opines Mike Potemra at The Corner today:

Religions, like people, are internally complicated-and are capable of changing for the better. Five hundred years ago, Catholics wanted to burn Martin Luther; now, even very conservative Catholics are looking to Luther as a model for how to reform the Church in response to the pedophilia scandals. And even Luther himself was complicated: He was a really bad guy in many ways (for example, he was a virulent anti-Semite), but he fought courageously against corruption and helped set the whole world on the path to greater political freedom.

"Very conservative Catholics" are "looking to Luther" as a "model" for "how to reform the Church"?

I don't know about anybody else, but this just leaves me speechless. Almost.

I think, perhaps, the allusion is to these largely witless remarks by Frank Keating:

.... “Remember, it was Martin Luther who suggested early in his efforts that the lay community get involved in reforming the Church so there would not be a collapse of faith by the faithful,” Keating said, answering critics who say laity boards should not seek removal of bishops.

“Unfortunately, in retrospective, Martin Luther was right,” he said. “Just think what positively could have occurred if lay people in the 16th and 15th centuries had been involved. None of us is a theologian, and every one of us [on the board] recognizes the authority of those who speak for the religious part of the Church. But the human part needs more lay involvement, to make sure these types of calamities don’t occur again.” ....

Come on. This is just... dumb. Don't the Council of Trent and the influence of the Spanish Doctors, for instance, count as anything "positive"? (Would Gov. Keating know to what and to whom I am referring here?) And, if you want to see lay involvement, just take a look at the wholesale, brutal, catastrophic destruction and oppression of the Catholic Church in England initiated by wonderful members of the laity, such as Queen Elizabeth I and her House of Commons.

And what on earth is this alleged distinction between the "human" and "religious" "parts" of the Church? Is Keating really this dumb? I mean, he's had to have been a politician for a long time. Surely, he knows by now how to speak his mind to reporters. Hopefully, his thoughts have been... garbled... by the press.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 07/11/02 03:41:06 PM
Categorized as Classic.