Angry in the Great White North

From the Toronto Star:

So the Pope is thinking about excommunicating our Prime Minister, is he?

In the religion game, that's called hardball.

I don't know if excommunication is being considered. The technicalities of Canon Law are subtle. But leave that as is.

We're told he hasn't made up his mind. We're told he's taking advice from his bishops. They're an open-minded, in-tune-with-public-sentiment bunch of guys. They may not think it's such a wonderful thing to do if they happen to have been sitting around smoking a lot of dope.

You know, when you see the bishops and cardinals walking in their vestments, seeming to glide through the halls of the Vatican, the hushed whispers of discussions theological and mundane, knowing each of these men has at least one or two doctorates, and many with more life experience in countries ravaged by war or oppression than a 100 average Canadians, Slinger's slyness comes off not as clever, but as petty and mean. He becomes an object of disdain.

But that's a personal impression only. Your impression might be very different.

Picture this: the Right Honourable Paul Martin, Prime Minister of Canada, stands at the altar rail.

The priest shakes his head and points a sanctimonious finger toward the exit. "No communion for you," says the priest.

Jerry Seinfeld could've named the judgmental character in his shows "the Soup Pope."

Get that everyone? Salvation, the body and blood of Christ, a bowl of Mulligatawny soup -- it's all the same to people like Slinger.

And we're supposed to take his opinion seriously?

But his attitude is instructive. For many people, even some Catholics, the sacraments are just so much show for the tourists. Looks nice, take a snap, move on to the next bit of the tour. Next show in a week's time, every Sunday.

If the Church doesn't play by the script for the weekly show, though, the bosses will get mad. The bosses being, of course, progressive thinkers like Slinger:

It was because of John Kerry's pro-choice record that influential American bishops, with the vigorous encouragement of the man who's now Benedict XVI, threatened to deny him communion during the U.S. election, inflaming enough conservative parishioners to deny him the presidency.

So if the Pope wants to play hardball, fine. We can play hardball too.

How about he can excommunicate our Prime Minister and we can get rid of the tax exemption on Catholic church property?

What a windfall that would be. Millions. Millions upon millions. Mega-millions if we make it retroactive back to, say, 1848 when St. Michael's opened its doors.

They'd have to start selling their real estate. Failing that, we'd have to seize it and auction it off. It's happened before. It was a fairly popular medieval screw-you gesture.

I hope this won't be mistaken for some kind of threat. It's just that if the Pope feels inclined to give us something to think about, we might as well give him something to think about.

Typical liberal -- John Kerry lost because of a conservative plot. No, John Kerry lost because a majority of Americans decided he'd make a lousy president.

In part because he could not be true to his own faith, which suggests a weak character, but not just that.

But Slinger says "we" can play hardball. Well, don't include me in that "we", thank you very much.

Slinger thinks this is threat and counter-threat. It is not. It is the Church being true to her teachings. It is the Church demanding of her members what each promises at baptism and again at confirmation, to follow God's laws and to reject evil in all its disguises.

For those who cannot do this, or even make a good faith attempt to do this, and who feel no regret for their lack of effort, the Church is no longer a place where they will feel welcome, unless they repent.

But because the Church dares apply her internal rules to a politician, she must be bankrupted and destroyed. Now communion is obligation that the Church must provide, at least to all politicians who demand it, lest they be embarrassed.

Does the same go for me? If I embarrass a politician, is Slinger going to demand that I lose my house too? If too many people write nasty things about the Prime Minister (or about Slinger) on the Internet, is Slinger going to demand that the Internet be brought to heel as well?

So Slinger is leading the charge to put the Church back in her place. Or more accurately, to put politicians in their place. A place above all criticism, where the rules that others live by do not apply, whether those rules are obligatory or willingly accepted.

Where all that matters is that politicians are not embarrassed.

Come to think of it, Slinger seems to worship at the altar of the Liberal Party. What? Someone has embarrassed you, Lord Martin? I will crush them!

I don't know what Paul Martin can offer Slinger that is more enticing than what the Church offers, but then Slinger doesn't have faith anyway, so maybe a Senate seat one day is the best he can hope for from the universe. Sort of sad, really.

The funny thing is, I don't know what he's worried about. As much as I think he's exaggerated the effect of pronouncements from the Church on John Kerry's campaign results, the fact is, in Canada, any influence is likely to be much smaller. Canadians are generally a faithless lot (as characterized by Slinger and Paul Martin). I doubt the Church will be able to influence political decisions all that much.

As I've said before, this is more about keeping the clergy in line than slapping down a politician (or even saving that politician's soul).

If that's the case, why the viciousness? Part of it seems to be a deeply held loathing of the Church. We can analyze the roots of this, but we'd be speculating (in my experience, it generally seems to be a form of jealousy from those who secretly wish for the comforts of faith, but cannot forgo the pleasures of faithless hedonism -- I don't know if it applies to Slinger).

But Slinger tells us what the other reason is: "What a windfall that would be. Millions. Millions upon millions. Mega-millions if we make it retroactive back to, say, 1848 when St. Michael's opened its doors."

Money. Money for the Liberals. Money for government programs designed to make people dependent on the State. Money to make people believe that all true power emanates from Ottawa, and that Ottawa holds the pursestrings of salvation.

Go ahead. Take the money. Take the churches. Shut down the schools. Tax everything.

And guess what? The Church will still be there, the faithful will still pray, the sinful (politicians or not) will still be held to account, and Slinger will still think he's being clever.