Vatican Republic, Catholic Political Party... nonsense or something that should exist?
Hi everybody, it is intriguing why somebody can be so staunch and firm about only an ideological stance, as if contingency and social realities were unable to make him abandon the world of ideas (???????????? ?????). I think we live in a very platonic society: the hyperexaltation and deification of ideas make us not to care about what really have in life and for life, what we really must assume.
Some days ago I talked with other people about all the aspects of the Social Doctrine of the Church and I realized how unaware I was of its political dimension. After the Papal Encyclical of Leon XIII, Rerum Novarum, the social side achieved much more relevance. This meant: direct defense of human rights, good working and life conditions, social and democratic values and, in summary, whatever has something to do with the dignity of human beings (i.e. a NGO with a religious ?????). The Church not only takes into account the spiritual dimension of believers but also the needs that can't be meet by dysfunctional international politics. With Pope Francis, it keeps displaying that image, taking care of those who most need it (this is basically the Catholic church in Latin America). So, I wondered if the Social Doctrine of the Church should in fact be so political. ¿Must the help provided by the Church have more political visibility or it must confine itself to its institutional side?
Some days ago I talked with other people about all the aspects of the Social Doctrine of the Church and I realized how unaware I was of its political dimension. After the Papal Encyclical of Leon XIII, Rerum Novarum, the social side achieved much more relevance. This meant: direct defense of human rights, good working and life conditions, social and democratic values and, in summary, whatever has something to do with the dignity of human beings (i.e. a NGO with a religious ?????). The Church not only takes into account the spiritual dimension of believers but also the needs that can't be meet by dysfunctional international politics. With Pope Francis, it keeps displaying that image, taking care of those who most need it (this is basically the Catholic church in Latin America). So, I wondered if the Social Doctrine of the Church should in fact be so political. ¿Must the help provided by the Church have more political visibility or it must confine itself to its institutional side?
Comments (128)
If the church focuses on performing the requirements of Matthew 25:35-46, if it preaches faithfully, if it is salt and leaven--all to the good. The church has to take account of the social, political, and economic movements of the world without being partisan, without further afflicting the afflicted, and without siding with the princes and their palace politics. The church can't side with wealth and power and remain faithful.
Preaching to the choir as if there was no world on the other side of the stained glass windows is failure. But still it's tricky to be in the world without getting stuck in the swamp.
I'm no longer a believer, and I don't have very high expectations of The Church (however defined). Even so, the church can be a force for good (when it isn't busy helping the devil).
I'm perfectly free to be in politics, and to be partisan, so I'd say democratic socialist. Americans get nervous (and well they should) when church and state get too close, because the State is secular and it functions best when it sticks to secular business and secular values.
The church can and should take about justice, fairness, the good of the people, moral public behavior, and so on. This may place it squarely in opposition to the partisan establishment of the state. Maybe the partisans in politics will praise the church for its messages about justice, but in either case, the church should avoid partisan involvement -- for its own good.
Aside from partisan involvement, the church must even more avoid back-door involvement with a partisan state, especially fascist states (like Spain under Franco, Italy under Mussolini, the various S.A. juntas, US sponsored banana republics, and so on. Backdoor relationships with a benevolent socialist state should also be avoided by the church.
The church should avoid these relationships because the generally the state will seek to use the church to cloak unsavory activities, and defang the church with complicity.
In Europe there was the Zentrum Catholic party in Germany, for instance. There were also Christian democratic parties which were Protestant. That was part of their tradition and it worked for them. I can't imagine such an arrangement being tolerable in the US. A large number of Americans would be adamantly opposed to a Catholic-oriented party, just because it was Catholic. Similarly, a lot of Americans would be opposed to a political party explicitly aligned with evangelicals. (Never mind a Jewish or Islamic party.)
In India the BJP is currently the dominant party, combining religious and nationalist elements. There are Islamic parties in various countries. It isn't just a Christian/secular issue.
My preference is for secular political parties and secular states but... other people have other preferences.
But "the West" has become much more secularized and this changes what the church should do. As I mentioned, I'm no longer the Protestant believer I used to be, but if the Church has a valid and valuable message, then it ought to do a better job of preaching. I have not the slightest idea of how it should do this. Or secularists need to come up with a compelling morality and mode of being in the world (which would be a tough act all round).
The Secular City is worth reading but you might find it a bit dated -- he was writing in an up-beat time where extensive and (to many) desirable changes were happening in the world. 54 years later, we all aren't so upbeat.
anniversary edition and some parts are translated into Chinese (besides, if you let me to joke, I like books that relate "religion to the Miss America Pageant, Playboy magazine, and campus sex") Its central question "How is the biblical God, who acts in history, and not just in the church, present in our history today?" is clearly related to what I say here and thinking about the "dynamic interplay between the religious and the secular" is key for this discussion but it seems it focus on the theological aspects, not the political ones. In any case, I think it has ideas to discuss in other threads like "the “resacralization” that some observers speak of is due rather to the fact that certain deep-seated religious impulses have never died. They had once remained under the radar, out of sight of cultural elites, but they are now becoming more assertive and visible. I believe one of the main reasons for the return to visibility of religion in the secular city is the enormous impact of globalization." He also mentions interesting titles in the preface. All in all, it is sobering to see how seriously he and all those authors have thought about these issues, it is a much higher level that what we can try to say in a more or less orderly way in online forums.
Thanks again for the recommendation and if you just want to have a look yourself, you can download the new edition from this den of thieves http://lib1.org/_ads/C59686EFACC6B4DDFE3969776945C09E
The way to do a better job of preaching is to let go of the talking of the talk, and channel all that energy in to the walking of the walk. The walking of the walk is credible, talking of the talk is not, especially in the modern age when everybody is talking about everything all the time.
This is an especially important shift for the Catholic Church, because it has been working over time at flushing it's credibility down the toilet in recent years. By "credibility" I'm referring specifically to one's ability to influence those outside of one's point of view.
There is an institution within the Church that already has great credibility, because it has long focused on service, the walking of the walk. And that would be the nuns. If the Church was serious about it's message, it would have the nuns and priests swap jobs. The credibility of the clergy is totally shot for now, so they belong behind the scenes, not out front.
But unfortunately, the Church is not serious about it's message, as proven by the fact that it insists on continuing patterns which serve the clergy, but not the message.
Yep, just another lapsed Catholic here. Haven't been to Mass in 50 years and doubt I'll ever return. I wish them well, but don't have a lot of hope for the enterprise at this point.
Yes, I agree with this. My favorite stat is that Catholic Charities is the 2nd leading provider of social service to the needy in the United States, topped only by the federal government. That's an impressive accomplishment which I salute.
But if one were to explore the Catholic web for years as I have you discover that few Catholics are actually interested in discussing this accomplishment. Instead, there are thousands of sites focused on the talking of the talk. This is not in any way evil, but imho, neither is it credible or persuasive.
Quoting CarlosDiaz
I respectfully disagree. The Church shouldn't go beyond it, the Church should fix it in a decisive credible manner which would persuade those outside the Church that the mistakes are really over. Chanting more of the same old sanctimonious platitudes has no chance of accomplishing such a positive transformation of the Church's reputation. Only decisive bold action can do that.
Such decisive bold action should have the effect of making those outside the Church sit up and take notice and say, "Wow, they did what??" Having the clergy and nuns swap roles would accomplish this, without requiring the Church to stop being the Church.
Regrettably, none of this is going to happen because anyone capable of bold thinking and acting has already given up on the Church and walked away. The Church has separated itself from the forces which could renew it.
What will happen instead is what you seem to be suggesting. The Church will wait out the media storm and then go back to doing what it's always been doing. If we could run time in reverse and head back to earlier centuries that would be a good plan.
On the other hand, when I said "go beyond that", I didn't mean, "let's forget" the sexual abuses cases. I of course agree with you, they should be fixed "in a decisive credible manner" and "only decisive bold action can do that". My "beyond" means "let's see the whole picture". The Church is not a congregation of paedophiles, its prestige has just been exploited by them. It is also highly debatable the statement "The Church has separated itself from the forces which could renew it" (in fact it could be a good idea to discuss about it in another thread) I rather see it as a huge organization with many forces acting at the same time within it, some of them pulling it apart, some of them making it stronger, others acting only inside... Not having a Second Vatican Council in sight doesn't mean that things are not moving or evolving within the Church. Sentences like "who am I to judge gays?" said by Pope Francis were unthinkable a few years ago. The renewal of the Church is another huge theme to talk about. I would like to have more time to do it now but I don't
The talking of the talk is credible and persuasive to those already in the Church. Perhaps it is also persuasive in the third world, I admit to not being very informed about that. But the reason the Church now has a third world Pope is that the talking of the talk is no longer credible and persuasive in the West. You know, the Church is being run out of it's traditional European homeland, which doesn't bode well for the future.
Quoting CarlosDiaz
What decisive bold action do you have in mind? What decisive bold action does the Church have in mind? I may be under informed, but I haven't heard anything that would qualify in my mind.
Quoting CarlosDiaz
This is what I mean by talk lacking credibility. The clergy has proven itself to be a congregation of paedophile enablers, not just here or there, but globally. We can't separate the Church from paedophiles as you are trying to do here, unless we are also going to separate the male clergy from the Church, which is basically what I was trying to do with my "put the nuns in charge" proposal.
I'm just trying to be realistic. Whether it's fair or not, the credibility of the male clergy is shot, gone, dead, over, for some number of coming generations. I'm not suggesting we should hate the male clergy, only that they need to be taken off the public stage asap. But, we can probably agree that's not going to happen, which is why I'm not hopeful.
Quoting CarlosDiaz
Well, ok, you could point to specific renewal moves if you wish. Whatever such moves are, they don't seem to be working, as perceived from here at least.
Quoting CarlosDiaz
This is a very low standard by which to measure renewal, imho. Real renewal in this area might take the shape of some gay bishops and cardinals, such as is seen for example in the Episcopal Church. But of course, thank to the child rape scandal, this is now impossible.
I take no offense because surely no one is obligated to engage with me, or anybody else either. If Catholics prefer to talk only with people who already agree with them, that is their right, and that choice is very normal.
But you see, I thought the mission of the Catholic Church was to change the world, and that would seem to be impossible if Catholics are only willing to talk with other Catholics, and those who can't or won't present a challenge to Catholicism.
I would remind you that once upon a time long ago, Catholics were confident and brave. They dominated Western culture to a degree unimaginable today for 1,000 years. A thousand years.
But those days are gone. Today's Catholics are afraid of their own shadow, unwilling and unable to engage anyone who might present a threat to their worldview. And there's nothing really wrong with this either. But one can not change the world from a position of fear.
I wish you well too, but predict you will find philosophy forums too inconvenient to bear. Catholic Answers is likely what you're really looking for.
I wish people would stop using this sort of pompously dismissive response -- it's been cropping up more often lately in various threads, and it does not improve discussion. (And, btw, I don't intend this to be a terminating response to you.)
Well, honesty is a pretty good policy. If that's how someone feels, I'd rather hear that than something they made up. However, because you clearly don't agree with me, I will not be talking with you anymore. :smile:
Returning to the opening post, I see a possibility for some agreement. "Abandoning the world of ideas" seems somewhat similar to my suggestion to trade the talking of the talk for the walking of the walk.
Quoting CarlosDiaz
I would suggest, replace the doctrine with action. Don't talk about it, do it. This is not a moral argument, but a practical one, based on the following assumptions.
1) Thought is inherently divisive, and love is inherently unifying. As example, the Apostle John put it with great concise clarity when he said, "God is love". Three words! Note that John didn't say, "God is a doctrine about love".
2) Action is far more credible than theory. As example, I'm writing a fine sermon about love here, but I'm not actually DOING anything to help anybody else. Thus, readers will likely scroll over this post at the speed of light, seeing it accurately as just another pile of yack. Being credible matters if the mission of the Church is to influence the larger society.
It is important to remember that the organization of the the church - is a human organization. As such is inherently flawed.
There is no doubt at all that the sex abuse scandal is horrifying on many levels - and will certainly have an impact on the faith of many followers - and that is completely understandable. But The Body of the Church has endured worse and it will survive this.
As to what The Church should do, well I am a traditional leaning Catholic, so at least IMO what the Church should do is to just be Catholic. Be clear and constant in the same core message that has been the heart of the Church for 2,000 years. And as you say Jake - let your actions match your words.
and yes - Deus caritas est which is the great truth of the Church, and also a great encyclical letter !!
Good point. I'm not suggesting the Church can be perfect, only that it can be more credible.
Quoting Rank Amateur
This is what I'm rejecting, the "just be patient and this will blow over" mindset. Let's remember how the Church failed to take decisive action when it discovered child rapists in it's employ. The "this will blow over" mindset is more of that. Will the Church survive no matter what it does? Probably so. It will survive as a religion increasingly dominated by old ladies lighting candles in parishes with dwindling membership. It doesn't have to be that way.
Quoting Rank Amateur
This is what I mean. You've failed to learn anything from the crisis, and plan to keep on doing more of the same that got the Church in to the crisis. You have every right, but it's not going to work.
I didn't say this....
You're arguing with assertions of your own invention.
this interpretation is in absolutely no way consistent with my concern over this horror. That is just a restatement of your view of the situation attributed to me. My only point is the Church will survive this.
Quoting Jake
actually the point was to just keep doing what the church has been doing for 2,000 years. To continue to tell Its truth as It see it, and ( to be religious for a sec) as the Holy Spirit directs it. Because that is all it can do.
to this point
a brief aside - there is a Jesuit ( and others) concept called Spiritual Freedom. It says in context of this discussion is that the Church should just do what it believes is right and be unconcerned of the consequences.
Well ok then, what bold action do you propose other than just waiting?
What you said was...
Quoting Rank Amateur
I don't see anything but waiting for it to blow over in there, but if you can correct my impression, please do. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just reporting what I'm hearing.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Except that this is not all it can do. It could do something decisive, such as have the male clergy and nuns swap jobs. People like nuns because nuns are usually associated with service and not speeches. Nuns are credible. Nuns are very Catholic. What's the problem?
I'm not suggesting that this is the one and only suggestion that could possibly work, I'm just trying to provide an example of the scale of action which is required to restore the Church's credibility. The industrial scale raping of kids is a very big deal, which I assume you agree with. My point is only that a very big problem requires a very big response. The child rape scandal needs to be replaced with another big story. Again, this is just a practical tactical point, that's all.
Quoting Rank Amateur
In my understanding, what would be right from the Church's perspective would be that the Church be an effective change agent in the world, that it be credible, and capable of winning the hearts and minds of those not already in the Church.
It can not do this - Pope John Paul II "authoritatively" declared that women can not be ordained as Priests, and it is "authoritatively" stated in the Catechism and less importantly Cannon Law . These are theologically impossible hurdles to overcome. We can ordain woman to the deacons , and I think this will happen at some point.
Quoting Jake
I think that has always been the mission of the Church.
Quoting Jake
This is more personal opinion than my view of what the Church believes, but I think the best way it can do this - is what I said above - be Catholic and say and live the truth as they see it - as the Church as done - or at least aspired to do since the beginning.
Probably there isn't much that can be said that will make much difference. One could say something like"The Church hierarchy clearly has tolerated child abuse when it should have rooted out the individuals who were in violation of everything the church considers holy. It did not, much to its undoing." or something along those lines.
Then move on, unless you really want to get into the child abuse scandal, which you probably do not want to do.
It's like when I reference socialism, and somebody says it's a totally unworkable fraud, I know there is no common ground with this person. One just has to move on.
Quoting CarlosDiaz
I wasn't criticizing your writing really, just the way you (and other people) terminate engagement. I mentioned that it wasn't all about you, it was about that sort of termination popping up fairly often.
Some people do not share enough of your commitment to or interest in the church to have a conversation in much depth. The same goes for me and people who loathe socialism: we might as well avoid getting into a squabble, because their views and mine are just not going to be similar.
Jake and Rank Amateur were discussing your topic several hours ago and it didn't go very well. They don't share enough agreement.
Sometimes. you know, it is impossible to get simple arguments through the thick skulls of otherwise intelligent, caring, sensitive, handsome, charming, Christ-like individuals. For the sake of the forum, just move on. You'll eventually be writing about something they and you can agree on enthusiastically, then it will be nice to be on good terms with them.
(Yeah, I know; sounds great in theory, and truth be told, there are times when I have been painfully rude and undiplomatic in face-to-face settings, and it's surprising that those people ever spoke to me again. (Well, some of them haven't, actually. I've been banned from one of my sisters homes by her husband who found my views on certain elderly -- now dead -- southern senators (real racists) to be intolerable. I think the last time I visited their house was 20 years ago.)
Your advice came late, I already moved on but thanks anyway (and I don't think you are "painfully rude and undiplomatic" when you talk face-to-face with a racist, in fact it is just the other way around)
Where in the New Testament did Jesus say that women could never lead the Church, even 2,000 years after his death?
Let's look at who you are referencing...
1) Pope John Paul II
2) Catechism
3) Cannon Law
That is, you are accepting as your authority not Jesus, but the clergy, the very people who have lost Europe and trashed the reputation of Catholicism.
It is of course true that Jesus had only male apostles. And it's likely true that the social structure 2,000 years ago was too rigid for women to be effective as leaders, so Jesus's decision was probably wise for his time.
But today, in the world we actually live in now, women are in leadership positions in many other Christian denominations, and guess what, nothing bad has happened.
But, the Catholic Church will ignore all this, cling stubbornly to a social model from 2,000 years ago, and have great difficulty attracting priests, who won't be listened to once they are ordained.
There is so much that can be said. But I agree it won't make much difference in Catholic culture.
Quoting CarlosDiaz
For what it's worth, I didn't find your dismissal of engagement to be pompous or otherwise problematic. You no longer wanted to chat and reported that situation. No harm was done to anyone. And...
Your hasty retreat illustrated a situation which may be educational for those unfamiliar with Catholic culture online. In my experience your retreat was quite representative of Catholic dialog with non-Catholics online.
Here's evidence of that claim. Visit as many Catholic sites as one can. What you'll see is that they are overwhelmingly, close to exclusively, Catholics talking to other Catholics. I've never seen a site specifically set up for Catholics to talk to non-Catholics, and if there is one I'll bet my bank account that it was established to create a platform for Catholics to play the role of teacher, ie. not real dialog.
I should add that Catholics have no obligation at all to talk to anybody outside of their community. Except that, um, their mission is supposed to be to change the world, which is kinda hard to do when one hides inside one's own house. Thus, when Catholics retreat from real dialog with non-Catholics they aren't arguing with me, but with their own religion, with Jesus.
It would take a bit to explain what undoing something like that would mean, but it would be very much like pulling on a thread that unravels the entire sweater. I am sure you will tell me how wrong I am about this, but I do know something about Catholicism, and it would not be possible for the Church to ordain women, without putting in question all of what the Church believes to be Divine Revelation by apostolic Tradition. In other words, it can not do this, and be Catholic.
Again, this is just information, not argument.
For what it's worth, it's ok to argue with me should the need arise, I don't object. Should you need to yell at me, that's ok too, doing so does not make you a bad person etc. Or, if you prefer, you can pretend you're not arguing while you argue.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I understand what that means to a traditional Catholic, I just don't share that view. And, reality check, most American Catholics ignore the Pope when they feel that's necessary. Do a search for Pew Research and look up their professional objective "no skin in the game" analysis of Catholic opinion. Roughly half of American Catholics ignore the Pope on gay marriage and abortion, and almost all of them ignore the Pope on contraception, even though such personal morality issues have been a key focus of the Church in recent years.
So, what does it mean "when a Pope speaks authoritatively"? It means that those who agree will agree and those that don't agree will withhold agreement. In other words, the Pope has no real world authority, even within his own community. He can suggest, he can share, he can point in this direction or that, but he has no control over any Catholic's interpretation of the faith. That is the REAL WORLD of Catholicism beyond the traditionalist's fantasy, a billion Catholics, each crafting their own version of Catholicism.
As example, many conservative traditionalists have adamantly claimed in the past that Catholics must follow the Pope no matter what. And then Pope Francis, a somewhat liberal Pope (at least compared to recent Popes), came along and now they are in an uproar.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Where exactly in the New Testament does Jesus say that women can never ever take on leadership roles in his church? You've dodged this entirely reasonable question because you know the answer is nowhere.
You're also ignoring the reality that the credibility of Catholic male clergy is trashed, over and done, at least for the next century. At this point the clergy has no power to influence anybody except those who already agree with them, which is to say, they have no influence. And so as humanity rushes towards some kind of existential crisis during the 21st century Catholic clergy will be stuck on the sidelines, unable to do anything but watch.
In my view, to accept this situation is to betray the mission Jesus gave to the Church.
This would bring the Jakist community to a decision. Which is more important? Father Jake, or the message of Jakism? If they chose me, that would reveal they aren't too serious about their message.
This concept of Sola Scriptura ( where does Jesus say ) that you are alluding to - along with your challenge of Papal authority were the heart of the Reformation.
You can personally believe, along with millions of others if the the fundamental teachings of the Church on Apostolic Tradition and Papal authority are good, or real, or anything else - I will have no argument with your beliefs. I am not an apologist or an evangelist - believe what you will.
I am merely trying to give you what the Church itself believes - specifically on the ordination of women - and the reason why it can not do this, without giving up the core beliefs that make it Catholic.
maybe I am not being clear on what I mean by Apostolic Tradition -
It is a fundamental belief of the Catholic Church that the totality of Divine Revelation is both the Bible AND what the Church believes by Apostolic Tradition - the Church does not say either of these is superior or inferior - they are equal.
Also the Church believes when the Pope speaks authoritatively on matters of faith or morals, it is the inspired word of God ( Holy Spirit ), in effect it is God speaking through the man, it is not the man speaking - it is why it is believed to be infallible.
Again - like a few million others - you are more than free to think this is nonsense - but it IS what the Church believes. -
Yes, agreed. I hope we might also agree that the challenge to Papal authority also exists within the Catholic community, as example, those millions of Catholics who blatantly ignore Church teaching on some collection of issues.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I'm accusing you of neither, not that there would be anything wrong with being an apologist or evangelist. You know, I'm an evangelist for my own perspectives. I do appreciate your willingness to engage as Catholicism is still interesting to me, and probably should be of interest to any member of Western civilization. I'll try to dial back some of my rhetorical excess, though as you wisely advised us, we are not dealing with perfection here. :smile:
Quoting Rank Amateur
Here we arrive at the question of, what is the Church?
For many people, what they mean by "the Church" is the clergy and the products of the clergy, such as doctrinal statements etc.
What I mean by "the Church" is the sum total of a billion or more Catholics, who obviously do all not believe any one particular thing. In my view "the Church" is instead a meeting place like this forum where people who are interested in a certain set of topics can come together to explore those issues.
To me, the clergy is not "the Church" but instead a small group of serious influential Catholics who have appointed themselves to leadership positions.
Ok, "apostolic tradition" is another way of saying "clergy". And, the clergy do not all agree among themselves. Some support traditionalist perspectives, some are more progressive, some felt hiding crimes was a good plan for the Church, some did not etc.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Yes, I understand this doctrine. But the Church, even defined as being the clergy, does not believe this. If they did, there would not be constant ideological maneuvering among the high ranking clergy. If the clergy believed in this doctrine they would simply fall in line peacefully behind whoever was currently Pope, given that according to the doctrine it is God speaking through the man.
https://catholicmoraltheology.com/
There's no conversation there, though they have the comment section enabled for some reason. They might accept comments from those whose focus is entirely supportive. Or maybe they just stopped reviewing comments altogether, can't say.
Anyway, the authors are professional Catholic theologians, and their perspectives may be of interest to some. I was interested, until I realized the opportunities for dialog were pretty much non-existent. To each their own.
No, not even close - may be a bunch to type here - but a quick search would get you there.
Quoting Jake
actually none of that is true when the Pope is speaking "authoritatively" on matters of faith and morals. And it is completely true, often productive, when he is not speaking " authoritatively". This is an important distinction - not everything the Pope says is "authoritative" and therefor inspired. It is rare when they do - and they make it clear when they do.
I
Who is creating apostolic tradition but the clergy?
Quoting Rank Amateur
I know all this too, and I also know you are dodging around the fact that there is constant ongoing ideological maneuvering among high ranking clergy, and no evidence of peaceful universal agreement with the Pope in whatever mode he is speaking. And little of this never ending internal ideological conflict would be necessary if the nuns were in charge and the focus was put squarely on love in action.
In an attempt to leapfrog over ideological arm wrestling I would propose the following...
Thought is an electro-chemical information medium which operates by a process of division. That is, a single unified reality (sometimes called God) is broken up in to conceptual parts. The human condition, for the better and the worse, arises from this fundamental process.
All products of thought inherit this property of division. As evidence, we can observe that every ideology ever invented has inevitably sub-divided in to competing (often warring) internal factions. Remarkably, this is true even of Christianity, an ideology which has the explicit goal of uniting people in peace.
Trying to say, it may be that ANYTHING made of thought (including my own proclamations) will inevitably lead to conflict, which if true seriously undermines any debate regarding which idea represents the "one true way" to peace.
Where does that leave us?
With the nuns, and a shift of focus from ideology to service.
As example, if a nun were sitting next to me right now I'm guessing she might give me a stern but loving look over the top of her glasses, and tell me to stop screwing around inflating my ego with all these grand ideas and get serious about doing something that's actually useful.
Now that's Catholicism, as I understand it.
But we're never going to get that level of sanity from men, as my own posts should clearly demonstrate.
the Catholic answer is God -
here is the teaching:
ARTICLE 2
THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION
74 God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth":29 that is, of Christ Jesus.30 Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth:
God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations.31
I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION
75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32
In the apostolic preaching. . .
76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33
- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".34
. . . continued in apostolic succession
77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36
78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38
79 The Father's self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."39
II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE
One common source. . .
80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44
Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions
83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.
I am not dodging anything - except the an argument on merits of the teachings of the Church - I just continue to tell you factually, what the Church teaches - and you want to argue about the validity of the teachings - I have no desire to do that. Pointless.
My only issue was, to give you, from the perspective of the Church why they can not ordain women and remain Catholic - there is a bunch of Theology behind this. And I know it pretty well.
So, how about we just agree to disagree - Or if you prefer - you win - you are 100% right on everything you think is true about the Catholic Church - I really am indifferent to either option.
That is what the Church teaches IF we accept your definition of what the Church is, ie. Church=Clergy. What you're dodging is that even if we accept your definition of the Church we are left with the reality that the clergy is not of one perspective, thus the Church is not a single thing, but instead a collection of related things. In the real world beyond theory, the Church is like this thread, a collection of people interested in similar subjects, but having no universal agreement on those subjects.
Quoting Rank Amateur
How about we keep discussing, instead of running and hiding from inconvenient challenges? I propose that this procedure is more in line with the mission of the Church. The Church can not influence the world by hiding within it's own walls.
Quoting Rank Amateur
The classic Catholic attempt to be both in the debate, and above it, at the same time.
as you wish
Are Catholics who dialog almost exclusively with other Catholics honoring the mission of the Church to change the world? That is, are they actually Catholics?
It's indisputably true that the Church does a lot of good work. It also seems true that these good works are good for the reputation of the Church, which increases it's credibility, and thus ability to influence the larger world. Increasing such influence seems an important point of leverage because ideally the Church would not just be doing good works itself, but also inspiring others to do good works, thus multiplying the impact of the Church's good works.
So if good works are good for the Church, would doing more good works be better for the Church? A larger issue would be, is the Church in a position to ask this question? Is the Church capable of using the processes of reason to analyze it's charitable operations so as to dramatically boost their impact? Can the Church both adapt to the crisis of the modern world, and the crisis of confidence within the Church, while remaining true to it's core values?
Here's one example of how such a fully and truly Catholic rethinking might unfold to the benefit of all, including the Church.
I live in the American south, where one comes upon a fancy multi-million dollar Christian church building on every fourth corner. The Catholic Church alone owns billions to trillions of dollars worth of expensive church buildings, which sit empty most of the time. What if this vast investment was redirected out of real estate and in to people in need?
We know what the clergy would say, because they've had 2,000 years to make such a decision and have declined to do so. Their perspective on such a matter is firmly on the record for all to see.
So we arrive at the question of what Jesus would do. What we know from the gospels is that Jesus the carpenter never led a church construction fund drive. To my knowledge, Jesus the carpenter never showed the slightest bit of interest in church building construction. When Jesus talked about building his church, he was referring to people, not stained glass.
But, but, but the sleeping faithful will demand, without a fancy building where would we celebrate Mass??? How about in the same place that Jesus did, in a park, an open field, a hill, the town square, anywhere that people would gather. If that was good enough for Jesus, why is it not good enough for you?
Some people, with the best of sincere intentions, will tell us that they are very faithful Catholics, while they ignore the clear example set by Jesus and take food out of the mouths of hungry children so as to construct elaborate expensive buildings which typically get used only one day a week.
Ok, so that's the human condition, and none of us are perfect including this writer. The goal here is not to poke anyone in the eye, because we all live in glass houses. The goal is instead to challenge the Church to rise to the example set by it's founder, and by doing so dramatically improve it's reputation, influence and impact upon the world. That is a very Catholic goal.
But of course, as is always true in life, there is a price tag. And that would be to let go of the tradition of blindly following the clergy as they lose entire continents, drag the Church's reputation through the mud, create a crisis of confidence in the congregation, squabble endlessly among themselves etc.
Can the Church rethink it's future while maintaining it's core values? As a wannabe person of reason I would have to vote no upon examining the evidence. But I could be wrong, and it would be cool if I was.
I see the Church as much closer to the Whiskey Priest in "The Power and The Glory" than to the perfection of Christ.
Stealing this part because it is written better than I can -
The protagonist in The Power and the Glory is also a good metaphor for the Church. We would like to imagine the Church striding through history like a hero or a saint. But, if we are honest, we must admit that the Church has ever staggered through history like the Whiskey Priest – all too often drunk on (worldly) power and sin, cowardly, less than faithful, self-interested, etc. But, while it has never been more than a Whiskey Priest, it has, by the grace of God, never been less. In spite of all its shortcomings, it has borne Word and Sacrament to the world. And it has also raised up exemplary saints – known and unknown. As with Graham Greene’s priest, we know that in spite of its shortcomings, the Spirit does not abandon the Church and God’s power and glory are present in and through it. But only and always by God’s grace, not its own heroic or saintly purity.
And there’s the rub. The compulsion and presumption to create a pure Church, whether that be pure in holiness or pure in teaching or pure in justice – however and by whomever any of those is defined – is rooted in either pride or impatience (or both). If we continually expect and demand that the Church stride through history like a hero-saint we will continually be frustrated by its actual plodding through history like a Whiskey Priest. But we will also miss the opportunity to learn what it means to live by God’s power and glory rather than our own. We will miss the fact of God’s sheer grace. I wonder if the refusal to accept and love the Church as a corpus permixtum – a mixed body of sinners and saints – is not rooted in our own unwillingness to see ourselves as simul justus et peccator – simultaneously righteous and sinful. We only ever live under the Mercy.
The Whiskey Priest has no such illusions about himself. As a result, he ends up exhibiting those basic gospel virtues, humility and charity – virtues that continue to be shaped even, and perhaps especially, in a Church that, like the Whiskey Priest, bears the Good News in spite of its all too evident imperfections.
I agree of course. True of any group of humans. I'm not demanding perfection, just wondering if improvements are possible. I don't know the answer, but apparently I'm still interested enough to find the question interesting.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Not pure, just improved.
That said, I plead guilty to impatience and frustration. Impatience and frustration are the price tags of progress. Would you not prefer that lapsed Catholics experience impatience and frustration with the Church rather than boredom and utter disengagement?
Quoting Rank Amateur
My point throughout the thread has been that, fairly or not, Catholic sermons on virtue, humility and charity are no longer credible or persuasive to those outside the Church. The sermons sound like empty sanctimonious platitudes now. At the first mention of the word "Catholic" the first image to come to mind in many or most people's minds is now the scandals. The brand has been burned.
In my comments above I've tried to offer examples of possible remedies. The specific suggestions I've offered are of course debatable, but I hope they at least serve the purpose of illustrating the scale of change I believe is necessary to reverse the brand damage.
The challenge as I see it is to implement dramatic change without violating core Catholic values, and that's what I've aimed for in my suggestions.
Ouch!
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/world/europe/vatican-signals-more-tolerance-toward-gays-and-remarriage.html?ref=todayspaper
...but that the Church (defined here as the clergy) are not yet ready to simply say...
"There's not a darn thing wrong with homosexuality, and we were stupid to say that there was for centuries, thus needlessly harming many millions of people."
"More tolerance towards gay" is not an example of game changing leadership, imho.
Tell us what you know.
Francis is trying to gradually tip toe his way towards reality, positioning the tip toeing as an act of great humility and compassion on behalf the Church etc. My point is that such self serving watered down half measures will not accomplish brand repair.
What might help with brand repair would be for the Church to simply admit that it's long been totally wrong on this issue, and then apologize repeatedly for all the harm it's wrong teaching have inflicted on so many people. You know, come clean, yank the band aid off, get it over with.
The tip toeing is not compelling news, but a full clear unequivocal admission of error would be. If brand repair is to be successful, the child rape saga has to pushed out of the news with other more positive stories.
Well it is not quite there. Homosexuality is, according to the church, disordered. But, it is not the inclination or tendency that is sinful, it is acting on it. Which does make those who act on their homosexuality, sinners. Just like everyone else, in a church full of sinners.
And here is the part about tolerance
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Now a call to chastity is an awful cross to carry. But we all have crosses some heavier than others
Quoting Rank Amateur
Just so that everyone is clear about this, chastity is a cross I have never considered bearing.
Have either of you heard of Dignity, (the gay Catholic organization)?
The organization was started in 1969 to advocate for gay Catholics within the church. One of their principle activities was the organization of masses for gay Catholics, held at places like Newman Centers (Catholic student centers at state college campuses). There was no shortage of gay priests to celebrate. They earnestly and patiently advocated for decades. In 1986 the church started expelling Dignity from Catholic facilities in the United States (and elsewhere). The ban on gay catholic organizations using church facilities has not been rescinded as of 2018. So much for progress.
The Anglican and Lutheran churches have been far more forthright in accepting gay people. Lutheran ministers can, for instance, perform gay marriages using the standard liturgy (with a slight language change).
Not all protestants have done so well. The United Methodist Church (my church tradition) is deeply split over the issue. I'm not quite sure where Baptists stand (haven't checked).
So what happened to Gay Catholics? Well, they either left the church or they found friendly parishes and became active members without denying their sexual orientation. Most parishes are happy to have active members, whoever/whatever they are. This kind of integration into parishes does not fundamentally change the church, however. Gay people have always been part of the church -- priests, nuns, monks, and members. (How do you think so many priests died of AIDS?)
My point is that it's not going to be possible to do successful brand repair while the Church clings to such gibberish. Nor will it be possible for the Church to provide credible moral leadership beyond it's walls, just as it wouldn't be if the Church said all of the above about black people. Imho, it's not in the Church's interest to cling to this 8th century stuff. Better to just admit it was wrong, apologize for the damage done, and then try to change the subject.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I'm glad to hear that the Church will be performing gay marriages from here out!
Somebody beat me to it...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-best-choice-for-pope-a-nun/2013/02/15/83c8be2e-76c6-11e2-95e4-6148e45d7adb_story.html?utm_term=.fca1cf7b50be
From the article:
While that may well be true, it would come with a theological problem. If, as the church has done, and believes these positions are based on divine revelation, then a dilemma exists. Either God was wrong, or their understanding of what God said is wrong. And if you choose the latter, it opens you up to the question of what else, do you have wrong, including the very things that make you Catholic. Or you can, hopefully with great honesty, believe your view of divine revelation is correct, and the world view is wrong. And then stand by your beliefs, and accept what the consequences that brings
There is tension in the church on homosexuality. From the church point of view, like about a million other things, homosexual attraction is just a temptation. Giving into that temptation is sinful. Again no different than those who give into their particular temptation. And when we all fail, there is always forgiveness.
This just makes those with homosexual attraction just like everyone else in the church, a sinner. What many homosexual Catholics want the church to do, is accept their actions as not sinful. Which it can't.
So like many many many others there are literally hundreds of other religions that will do as they ask. And it is an individual act of reflection to chose.
New occasions teach new duties; Time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still, and onward, who would keep abreast of Truth;
Lo, before us gleam her camp-fires! we ourselves must Pilgrims be,
Launch our Mayflower, and steer boldly through the desperate winter sea,
Nor attempt the Future’s portal with the Past’s blood-rusted key. -- James Russell Lowell
Now you know damned well that the church doesn't list homosexuality as one more temptation among a million others. Homosexuality isn't right up there with eating too many Danish pastries during Lent. The church says homosexuality is "inherently disordered" (following the reasoning of Tom Aquinas). Paul didn't like homosexuality either, but then he didn't like a lot of things. It goes back to the Hebrews who wrote Leviticus. But Jesus overthrew the law. So, go ahead and have a pork chop and some lobster bisque. Just don't suck cock (or do other amusing activities along the same line).
The Pope wasn't infallible until July 18, 1870. Before that, he was fallible. Did the pope suddenly get much better at being pope? No. The First Vatican Council decided, for one murky reason or another, to declare one of their own incapable of error on matters ecclesiastical. The first ex cathedra decree took place in 1950, when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as an article of faith. Apparently the old girl was "assumed" (odd verb) into heaven. This allegedly happened about 2000 years earlier, and for some strange reason the church was't sure that getting assumed was an article of faith. Well, now it is, so you had just better believe it.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Golly gee whiz, what could possibly go wrong with humans deciding not only what God said, but what God meant? Dilemma indeed!
Quoting Rank Amateur
I would humbly submit that a greater temptation for the church to fall into is the temptation of thinking their doctrine is infallible. [The doctrine of the infallibility of ecumenical councils states that solemn definitions of ecumenical councils, approved by the Pope, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere, are infallible. Such decrees are often labeled as canons, and they often have an attached anathema, a penalty of excommunication, against those who refuse to believe the teaching. The doctrine does not claim that every aspect of every ecumenical council is infallible.]
But then Protestants only recognize the first 4 ecumenical councils, not the dozen or so that followed.
With quite a bit of justification the whole church (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) has been called "The Great Apostolic Blunder Machine".***
And you know, I don't actually care that much any more what the holy and apostolic catholic (lower case c) church thinks about homosexuality or abortion or divorce or most things. Infallibility is just the temptation of Christian hubris!
No Catholic takes their marching orders from New England Protestant poets, of course, but Lowell is right about this: Time makes ancient good uncouth.
You, like jake, are free to believe as you wish. Again, I am not an evangelist. I am indifferent to what you chose to believe.
The homosexuality issue illustrates my perspective. I'm advocating the Church align itself more with Christian values. Generally speaking, the culture at large has already done so.
Quoting Rank Amateur
With the intent of restoring the Church's credibility. If successful, that may lead to more followers. It doesn't concern me so much that those aligning themselves with Christian values be labeled Catholic.
Quoting Rank Amateur
To continue with the homosexuality example, if Jesus had wanted his church to lead a jihad against homosexuality I believe he would have said that, given that homosexuals have always been with us. If Jesus had thought the issue of homosexuality was worth even discussing, he would have likely discussed it. The dilemma is that some folks have chosen to follow the clergy instead of following the example set by Jesus, and then they're attempting to label that choice "divine revelation".
A key difference between us is that you keep referring to "the Church" as being the clergy. From my perspective, the clergy is a small group of serious influential Catholics within the Church, who don't always agree among themselves. To me, "the Church" is like this thread, a collection of people exploring issues of common interest.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Where in the New Testament did Jesus suggest that a centuries long oppression of gay folks would be a good plan?
Quoting Rank Amateur
That is a view of SOME people in the Church. I very much doubt it's even the view of all clergy.
Quoting Rank Amateur
The Church you are referring to (ie. the clergy) is a bunch of old men who may have never even been in a relationship, never been married, never raised children, never had sex, and yet they consider themselves experts on family values. That's why the clergy can't remove the sin stigma from homosexuality, as a group they have no idea what they're talking about. They're just clinging stubbornly to ignorant beliefs of the past, and thus continuing to contribute to the pain and suffering such ignorant stubbornness has long inflicted on the gay community.
Please note that it's not just homosexual Catholics who want the clergy to give this nonsense up. According to data from Pew Research 67% of American Catholics support gay marriage.
http://www.pewforum.org/2018/03/06/pope-francis-still-highly-regarded-in-u-s-but-signs-of-disenchantment-emerge/pf_03-06-18-pope-00-15/
We don't have to beat the homosexuality issue to death, I'm just using it as an example. Here's perhaps a better example...
http://www.pewforum.org/2016/09/28/4-very-few-americans-see-contraception-as-morally-wrong/
You are stating what SOME in the Church believe. To the best of my knowledge you are describing that subset of Catholicism accurately.
Can you understand why others might not be indifferent to what you choose to believe on the homosexuality issue, given that Church teachings on the subject over the centuries has been a significant factor (not the sole cause) of a great deal of oppression and suffering involving many millions of people? Are you comfortable being a party to that?
While I understand your point on the clergy, and again you may well be right, on matters as above the faithful have 3 options, believe, not believe and leave, not believe and stay. And in the case of the last one I am not sure why one would do that, other than for non spiritual reasons.
Now on entire list of all kinds of things not clearly identified as the inspired word of God. We can fight like the dickens with the clergy, and in many cases should.
I shall, thank you -- and so will you. And that's fine by me. But when, exactly, was it decided that priests must not only all be male, but they must always be celibate? Even the BVM had sex after Jesus was born, you know, because Jesus had brothers. If the allegedly ever-virgin Mother of Christ can have sex, I don't know why priests can't. If it was good for Mary... He also had a disciple whom he loved. Jesus at least masturbated, you know that don't you? Not only that, he probably had sex. If God Incarnate can, then surely a mere priest ought to be able to get it on.
Quoting Jake
Quite a few of these guys have had sex, and with (surprise, surprise) actual consenting adult men. Some have even managed to have sex with actual adult women.
I think a celibate priesthood, especially given the job description that priests have, is a psychosocial nightmare.
Here you have single men without partners of any kind who give their lives to the service of the church. They carry increasing workloads as the number of priests declines. They are immersed in people's problems with few if any sources of comfort for themselves, save prayer and fasting. Some comfort! They often live in parish residences by themselves or with other priests that are just as strung out as they are. A lot of them warped and twisted out of shape like green lumber.
Some of them are gay to start with. Given the way gay men operate it is relatively easy for priests to have a gay adult sex life, with actual relationships, out of the view of the church. (I was in a relationship with a priest for a couple of years.) I would think it would be more difficult for a woman and a priest to pull off the same thing. In either case (gay or straight) time is a restraint.
I suppose the church views priests having sexual relationships as a bad thing, but I think it is even worse for priests to go through life without having a sexual relationship.
I understand. To the best of my imperfect memory you are stating the doctrines correctly.
Quoting Rank Amateur
No Catholic is required to believe anything just because the clergy tells them to. The clergy doesn't own the Church just because they claim to, just as I wouldn't own this thread just because I declared myself to be "the Thread".
The reality is that Catholics make up their own minds on what they want to believe. There are probably as many different versions of Catholicism as there are Catholics. Even those who claim to believe the Pope in every circumstance without fail start getting upset when we get a new Pope who charts a different course.
Quoting Rank Amateur
It's simple. Millions don't believe in this or that doctrine and still stay because they don't recognize the authority of the clergy on all subjects.
That's a very Protestant view. Just saying...
If I wasn't so mature I would quip here, "Don't forget the kids!" Luckily I am too nice a guy to take such a cheap shot.
It's the reality of the situation, in every religion. One need only spend a little time on the Catholic web and observe all the endless ideological infighting to realize there is no single unified agreed upon view of what Catholicism is.
Oh, I wasn't forgetting the kids. Pedophiles tend not to also have adult relationships. It's maybe not a hard and fast rule, so to speak, but a tendency. Priest-work is a great way to gain access to children, just as school teaching, or olympic coaching or boy-scout work is a great way to have access to juveniles.
A married priesthood wouldn't change the behavior of pedophiles operating in the church and having sex with children. What a married and an openly gay priesthood would do is greatly increase the pool of candidates. Given an enlarged pool, the church could become more selective. Given a larger priesthood, the church would become more effective. Maybe the church should insist that their priest candidates be partnered--with somebody--male or female. So, what kind of title would the wife or husband of the Pope have?
Great points Crank. Hey, let's make the pool of candidates larger yet. Women are over 50% of the population. Thus we see the priest shortage is yet another unnecessary self inflicted wound brought upon the Church by incompetent management.
Another example of incompetent management would be that people like you with good ideas that could breathe new life in to the Church are either drummed out out of leadership positions or bored in to walking away. And so the same old stuff that has proven to lead to crisis just keeps rolling along.
On the other hand....
My wife's father is 85 and sinking in to senility. In his prime he was a force to reckon with, an architect that designed many prominent buildings in Miami. But now he forgets everything in about 10 minutes, and no longer wants to bathe. We could obviously claim that not bathing is illogical etc, but...
Does that really matter at this point? He's 85 and has his nose pressed up against the existential window. His gay husband of 50 years just died two months ago. Everything that has a beginning also has an end. So he doesn't bathe. So what? Why worry about such things now?
This might be another way to look at the Church. It's had a great run. 2,000 years. For half that time the Church dominated Western culture to a degree that we can't even imagine today. Like my wife's father, the Church has left it's imprint upon human history for both the better and the worse, as we all do. Ok, so the Church does a number of things that seem blatantly stupid and not in it's own interest. What do we expect of a 2,000 year old man? At least the clergy is still bathing, we could be happy about that. :smile:
Quoting Bitter Crank
This requires some clarification. Readers need to understand that Crank suffers from a medical condition called "Excessive Maturity Syndrome". Every so often he can't help himself and he blurts out something blatantly reasonable and sensible, even though this is a clear violation of forum culture. But hey, please remember folks, it's not nice to make fun of disabled people!
All really good ideas to increase the pool for the clergy, and remove some roadblocks to make it an easier road to accept - certainly could put more folks in the pews.
And, like most good ideas, it has been done - one is free to pick from any number of Protestant Churches that do all of the above, and more. If you look hard enough I am sure you could find one with a married lesbian pastor, who will not only save your soul, but promise you wealth on earth as well.
There is only some conflict, if you happen to believe that the RC Church is the one true Church and the best path to your salvation – if you believe in such things. Then you have a dilemma - you can change to meet the teachings of the Church on these matters, or you can try to change the Church to align more closely to your views. History would suggest you would be in for quite a long wait.
As a guy who still struggles with the implementation of Vatican II and prefers the Tridentine Mass, I may not be the most optimistic guy on the ability of the Church to undergo such dramatic changes as you suggest.
I think for better or worse, the RC Church is, in general what it is. It has undergone changes in the past, and it will undergo changes in the future. However, because of some deep beliefs, rightly or wrongly - much of what you would have the Church do – it is no longer in a position to do. Like your example - in many respects it is what it is.
Oh, dear... Rank, bless you for holding down the paleo end of the Christian continuum. It's dirty work but somebody has to do it.
I attended a Tridentine Mass once. Far, far, far too long. I'm a Missa Brevis man. It seems to me that some bishop told Mozart to keep it short -- 45 minutes. Wise bishop.
The Lutheran lady reverend at the church across the street likes to drag things out, the weekly communion service ends up being about 80 minutes long. Very inefficient.
Trinentine mass, has 2 forms one is read and relatively short - one is song and is a little longer.
Yeah, us dino's are waiting for our own personal meteor. Actually, to my amazement - Latin mass is gaining a relatively large following among the Catholic Millennial crowd - not 100% sure the reason -
Putting more folks in the pews is not the ideal goal, that's the old thinking, imho. Putting more folks in the homeless shelter should be the goal. It can be a Catholic homeless shelter, that's a-ok.
Quoting Rank Amateur
By "RC Church" what you really mean is the clergy, because Jesus didn't prohibit any of Crank's suggestions. So, if one believes that the RC clergy knows better than Jesus, yea, then there's a conflict.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Well said, and not easy to debate. And probably not worth debating. It seems a shame for such an prominent institution to continue a slide in to decline over such unimportant matters such as what gender the clergy will be. But yea, it most likely is what it is. Maybe it's wiser to let the old girl go down naturally than to keep poking her with a stick to try to keep her alive. I'd be receptive to such an argument.
Here's my favorite Catholic Church, in St Augustine Florida.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nombre_de_Dios_(mission)
Here are some photos:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Nombre+de+Dios+st+augustine+photos&client=firefox-b-1&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjtf6ysNHeAhXH7oMKHahtA0kQsAR6BAgFEAE&biw=902&bih=442
Ok so I'm not actually that interested in the church building itself, nor do I attend services, but...
The grounds are great! The church is on a beautiful piece of property overlooking a bay which leads to the Atlantic ocean. There's a distinct atmosphere of peace throughout the park which is tangible to those who pay attention to such things. My wife loves to feed the squirrels, the critter who she spends SO MUCH time with here at home. If you bring a bag of peanuts dozens of squirrels will follow you around the park and happily eat right out of your hand.
The grounds contain a cemetery of those buried in the 1800s, and I find it philosophical to walk around reading the headstones, wondering about the life of the person they describe.
The church and park are right in the middle of town, very easily accessible on foot for anyone doing the tourist thing in St. Augustine.
The philosophical point here is that Catholicism need not be limited to just ideology and ceremony. Peace tends to descend upon my soul at this place, and I don't really care what that's called.
Another example...
As I've mentioned my wife is an AVID wildlife rehabber, she spends hours every day working on that.
Being a nerdman philosopher guy, when I observe her total immersion in wildlife I think that what she's really connecting with is something beyond the creature she is attending to. In my theory, babies and old people are special, because whatever that special is, it's leaking over from the other side beyond the life/death boundary. This is just a theory that works for me, I make no claims other than that.
But my wife is not a philosopher, she's a person of compassion. So she doesn't feel any need to develop an ideology to go along with her wildlife experience. In my view, that doesn't matter at all, because whatever it is that is special is speaking to her in her own language. Not my language, not your language, her language.
I think what happens in most religions (not just Catholicism) is that people like you and me, philosopher/writer types, hijack the religion and try to claim ownership of it.
It's typically a sincere mistake. For people like us, philosopher types, religion is very much a philosophical business, a matter of ideology. As example, look at the religion threads on any philosophy forum. They are almost exclusively about ideology, and almost never for example, about the experience of love. So TO US religion seems to be about philosophy, ideology, because that's how we experience it. I'm having that experience right now as I type this post.
The mistake people like us typically make is in the assumption that because philosophy is the open window to religion (or anti-religion) for us, therefore philosophy is the ONLY open window, a singular "one true way", the real deal. But really philosophy/ideology is only one way to approach religion (or anti-religion) and not a very good way at that.
As example, my wife is just as smart as me (we have the same college degree) but she's simply not a philosopher or writer, but a person of compassion. She couldn't write a philosophy post to save her life. But, she walks the walk in an astounding manner which puts me to shame. I tease her by calling her a "selfish Karma hog". :smile:
I can talk the talk all day long. I'm articulate, I'm typoholic, I have a million philosophical opinions. But I don't really perform much useful service to anybody else, given that I am so busy "saving the world through blowharding" (my wife's funny description of what I do).
So, a question for you...
If my wife and I were Catholics (we are not) who would be the better Catholic?
1) the person who can talk the talk but not really walk the walk, or...
2) the person who can walk the walk but not really talk the talk?
My proposal to put the nuns in charge is just a way of saying the walkers should replace the talkers.
Now, given that I have hundreds of years of Catholic DNA running about in my brain, I know what happens next. The clever Catholic talkers will find some intelligent articulate way of escaping from the above question by squaring the circle, saying it's all really the same thing, we must do both, yada yada yada.
I respectfully reject all that. My vote is that the walkers are the real Catholics, and the talkers are just talkers.
The apostle John said, "God is love".
He didn't say, "God is a doctrine about love."
Part of the genius of Christianity is that one doesn't need to know a single thing about ideology in order to love, which makes the experience accessible to all human beings.
This is my sermon. This is the one true way! Everyone who doesn't agree is a heretic, for it clearly says in the Book Of Jake, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, or whatever it was.
Some theology.
A significant difference between Catholicism and protestant sects is Catholics do not believe in the concept of Sole Fide saved by faith alone. Catholics believe it is both faith and actions.
As to the who is the better Catholic, ( as if there is some Catholic rating system)
if your "words" are just that words they are unimportant. It your words are an expression of your beliefs, and your beliefs are ordered, that is a little better. If your words are also an action, meaning they have a purpose that is ordered, such as helping others understand the faith better - that is better still. And tying it into your point of "Des Caritas Est" Cathloics would believe it is an act of love to share the faith with others. Feeding the soul more important than feeding the body ( all that by bread alone stuff)
If your wife actions, assuming of course that your wife's actions in this context are loving acts of kindness for others, than it becomes somewhat a question of motive and intent. To make this clearer
let's say a rich celebrity hands a homeless person a $20 bill as they gets out of their car. This is an act of kindness. But if say there are reporters around, and either they do not want to appear cheap or if he is doing it for the cameras, than the same act becomes more about the celebrities love of himself than an act of love for others. On the other hand, let's say that homeless person who just got the $20 bill, and that is all he has, shares it with a friend, who's act is greater. The rich giving $20 for selfish motives or the homeless giving $10 selflessly?
So to completely square the circle - it depends on the intent and use of your words and the intent and motivations of your wife's actions. However all things being, as I think you intend the case to be, in just my opinion, for all that is worth, your wife's actions would be superior to your words.
We are what we do.
Discussing the Philosophy of religion, is not discussing religion it is discussing philosophy. And there is nothing at all wrong with that. Not much different than discussing any other topic.
Understanding, learning about the precepts of a particular religion is Theology, and is not the practice of religion, and requires no faith, just understanding. Still a worthwhile endeavor - but no difference than the study of anything else.
Believing, by faith, in the precepts of a particular religion, and according ones life as such is the practice of religion. And in these cases ones actions should be consistent with ones words, and maybe more importantly, acknowledge when they don't and try to do better.
Not sure if I have squared all the corners off your circle yet - let me know what I missed.
The opening...
The author discusses celibacy and abuse which the author explains is not a result of celibacy. A very large percentage of priests are not celibate anyway, and their relationships are with male and female adults. What has happened is that the church's rigidity on celibacy has caused very large numbers of men to leave the priesthood. Many of the men who sign up for seminary find celibacy more of a shelter from their immature and highly conflicted sexuality than a sacrifice. It is from this group that pedophiles are likely to emerge. (The number of pedophiles in the priesthood are most likely not large, but the damage that hundreds of pedophiles can do is enormous.)
Alexander Stille, the author of the NYRB article, blames John Paul II for closing the door on married priests, and for contributing greatly to the push to cover up priestly abuse.
Worth a read.
Would argue the semantics some - like many, many, many issues that The Church follows. If there is no reason to solicit a Papal decree on the matter, it is not done. It is only when there is an issue that where there is conflict within The Chuch that a Pope can be asked, or feels called, to act or issue an authoritative statement on the issue. This is what Pope John Paul II did with an Apostolic Letter called
ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS
Here is the Apostolic Letter on the issue
http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html
here is the sound the door makes when it closes:
"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."
Ok, agreed. What I'm reacting to in part are thousands of Catholic websites which focus almost exclusively on ideology, with barely a mention of say, Catholic Charities.
Everybody is going to have their beliefs, that's the human condition. But the balance between faith and action seems to be way out of balance. I suspect that's because the talking of the talk is quite a bit easier than the walking of the walk. As example, I can and do write many fine sermons which provide me with the impression I'm doing something that somehow matters, when really it doesn't. But the illusion can be compelling sometimes.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Um, Catholics are constantly debating who is the real Catholic.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Excellent squaring sir! I knew you'd be up to it. :smile:
I would counter with this. The most accurate guide to what our beliefs really are is found in the actions that we take. So for example, if a parish had no ceremony and no ideology talk etc, and the only option was action, everyone would soon discover what kind of Catholic they really are. That seems a useful clarity device.
Quoting Rank Amateur
As to my words, and perhaps most words by most people, I cast my vote for my wife's humorous description "saving the world through blowharding". It can indeed feel like "saving the world" but "blowharding" probably gets closer to the truth. That is, we tend to be very good at self deception, and typically we are serving ourselves and not others or some higher mission. Such self deception is easy with words, especially for those of us with a knack for words. Not so easy with actions.
As example, I honestly feel most clergy sincerely believe they are "saving the world" with their sermons and writings etc, but it's probably closer to the truth that they are saving the clergy. I don't mean that cynically, or directed to clergy alone, just describing one view of the human condition.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I'm not making a moral case here, but the danger in discussing philosophy of religion is that we may mistake such discussion for actual religion. That's what I see happening in most religions, not just Catholicism or Christianity.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Hmm.... Just to be argumentative, I might argue that belief is not really religion, but rather talk about religion. As example, we could compare the experience of unity with God with a description or belief about such an experience. The experience is one thing, the explanation something else.
Good discussion. I'm glad we're not yelling at each other, and credit you for much of that.
As usual, a ridiculously sensible analysis from Monsignor Crank. This theory would explain why child rape has so afflicted one particular institution (a most unlikely one!) while not blaming child rape on celibacy specifically, which doesn't make sense. If true, celibacy doesn't cause child rape, it just creates an atmosphere that may attract some troubled people.
I can actually have some compassion for the pedophiles, but the people who covered it up, well...
Hey, given the great respect for tradition with Catholicism, maybe it would be a good idea to bring back burning at the stake?
Based on what exactly?
I don't know, I'm clearly not objective on this, but it just doesn't pass the smell test for me. The male clergy reports that God told them that only male clergy can run the Church? What a coincidence! How incredibly convenient!
"Hey, we're not stealing the Church, God made us do it!"
Back at ya
Again, not making a value judgment here, just giving you the theology from the perspective of the church
It is the belief of the Church, that when a Pope acts authoritatively as Pope John Paul did above, he is protected from error by God , in the form of the Holy Spirit. There is direct line, between this concept and this apostolic succession that is the Authority of the Church itself.
The entire authority for The Church is based on Jesus establishing His Church on earth with Peter as its head, and with the direct line of Apostolic succession thereafter. And through some very good men and some very bad men that have been Pope, the church would argue that when acting authoritatively on matters of faith and morals none have shown human error.
Yet again many will call all that hogwash, and it may well be, but that is the belief.
Thanks, but I cribbed that from the article. The author also addresses your second point - he says the church, like schools, is a most likely place to find pedophiles. Again, he suggests there aren't a huge number of pedophiles; it just that there are some, and because the church wouldn't deal with it openly, they caused lot of damage to the church -- reputationally as well as financially.
Pedophilia isn't a mental illness; it's a "para-philia"--like getting turned on by women's red high heel shoes or underwear, or... whatever. It's certainly not good for the objects of pedophilia. Paraphilias don't seem very readily changeable. A large number of people, maybe a super majority, are to some degree paraphilic: certain things (blond hair, nice breasts, good legs...) turns a lot of men on; other things for women. Whatever it is, people find it difficult to separate themselves from these objects of arousal.
Convicted pedophiles are generally sentenced to rehabilitation programs where they are supposed to overcome their attraction to pre-pubescent children. There is generally a term. So, they complete the program; their term of commitment ends. Then what? The institutions can't guarantee that the person has been forever changed (or changed at all) so they aren't released. Not releasing people who have completed the program creates legal problems for the state. They weren't sentenced to life, but if they can't prove they are cured, how can they be released?
We have not arrived at a solution yet.
I suspect the solution will be to accept the pedophile's para-philia and teach the pedophile how to manage their desire without having sexual contact with children. They can't give up the desire, they will have to find alternatives.
We don't know how to cure schizophrenia, bi-polar, or OCD, The same goes for psychopathy or pedophilia.
Hmm... Permanent confinement with virtual reality children?
That is the belief of SOME in the Church.
While I appreciate that you're trying not to be argumentative, the language you use suggests that you believe that traditionalist Catholics own the Church, because they say they own the Church. To me, such a notion is no more valid than me claiming that I own this thread, when in fact this thread is a collection of people of various opinion exploring topics of shared interest.
I would argue it's not even possible for anyone to own the Church ideologically, because none of us are capable of controlling what someone else will choose to believe. What the clergy actually owns in the real world is a real estate empire, a cash flow, and a pile of papers which proclaim SOME of their opinions and their claim to ownership of Catholicism. This is the equivalent of me printing out one of my posts claiming to own this thread, and then waving that paper around in the air as proof of my ownership claim.
Yea, I think we just have a definition problem.
When I say "The Church" above I mean the organization of the the Church, the magisterium, the teaching authority.
That does not mean everyone who identifies them self as Catholic. The sub set of what that group believes is almost unlimited.
Well, it seems it's not just a definition problem, as it's pretty fundamental to our varied views.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Understood, and a certain collection of assumptions arise from that view, which you've been expressing pretty well. I agree this is a widely held theory of what the Church is, but in my view not the reality. As example, who is it that funds the clergy, and thus the magisterium and the teaching authority etc?
Quoting Rank Amateur
Yes, that's the reality. A very large diverse community, with many competing interpretations and perspectives contained within. If there was no such diversity there would be no ideological debates, and we know that there is.
By the way, God just told me that I own this thread, that I am "the Thread", so from here out anyone who doesn't agree with most of my interpretations is not really a member of this thread, but only an outside observer. And in any case, member or observer, you have no vote about anything because I own everything, and all of you are my children to be instructed by my superior wisdom. Amen.
Say rather "the Catholic Church" or "the Greek Orthodox Church" or "the Mormon Church" etc.
Everyone should believe in something. I believe I will have another drink.
https://sketchfab.com/models/a7daa3abb0604070a6319c1906a34e27
https://sketchfab.com/models/3db382f1e1624fd09a9613f3cbc03513
https://sketchfab.com/models/d85d513315434eab85b82b9684488eee
:smile: :smile:
What is the purpose of this ??
An admitted generalization. Or maybe just overly sensitive. But why do so many atheists/agnostics feel some need to disrespect the theist position? Truly interested in the motivation for this, if you can share.
Did that drawing disrespect the theist position? The cover of John Fry's book The Great Apostolic Blunder Machine has a drawing of a church presented as a chugging steam engine. Fry is quite scathing in his criticisms of the church, but is himself a committed Christian, one who is dissatisfied with the church. Nothing new about people being dissatisfied with the church. It's perennial.
I like satirical, mocking stuff--religion politics, people in general. That's one motivation.
Some people receive no religious education, direction, or encouragement. They are atheists by default. Most people do receive religious education in various degrees, and have varying degrees of involvement. From the group of religious, some will eventually (sooner or later) reject their religious background. This group tends to be the most hostile towards theism. They feel burnt by religion (burned in some way; disappointed; disturbed by inconsistencies; offended, etc.). They want to demonstrate that they are no longer theist.
Fairly late in life (in my 40s) I reached a point of formally rejecting theistic belief, and religion in general. Christian theology, however, was too central to my thinking to be tossed overboard. It was the 'operating system' whether I liked it or not. Putting psychological distance between me and the church has always been a necessary but tricky procedure. Lots of cognitive dissonance and ambiguity.
I'm not generally hostile towards theism, but I do tend to be hostile towards certain presentations of theism. Rigid dogmatism irritates me. Some/many/most/??? of the doctrines of the church have ceased to hold water. For instance, I have never understood the necessity of the Trinity and have yet to hear a good explanation for this doctrine. I'm pretty sure the church could get along without the trinity.
I actually am a member of a church -- Lutheran -- and contribute time and energy--cleaning, helping in the kitchen, serving meals at a shelter, stuff like that. The church I joined is literally across the street; my late partner was an active member, and after he died I felt I needed to establish more social contacts.
Christianity is, of course, a critical part of western civilization and it can't and shouldn't be disentangled. One of the lamentable aspects of a decline in religious education and knowledge is that many people are missing a major chunk of information about the culture in which they live. Most religions -- not all, in my opinion -- make positive contributions to society; Christianity does. Of course, not everything it contributes is positive, which is true of other religions too -- or technology, science, secular institutions, etc.
I disrespect the atheist position too, if that helps. :smile:
Thanks, maybe I am just too sensitive.
but I was, an still am interested in this generalization, that many, present company excluded, atheists feel some need to disparage the theist view. Let's call it the Flying Spaghetti Monster syndrome.
It is an interesting phenomenon, when so many otherwise thoughtful and intelligent people would be so willing to degrade a perfectly reasonable worldview held by literally billions of other people. I have a theory. It goes something like this.
People manufacture or develop a view of who they are, how they define themselves
Some define themselves as intellectuals, learned, sophisticated people.
Somewhere a little while back, many of these folks were told, and they chose to believe it, that intellectuals don't believe in God, only those other kind of people do.
And for many, I think that is the order in which their path to atheism went. First, I chose to be an intellectual, intellectuals are atheists, I am an atheist.
Now for folks like this, there is no point to being an intellectual if you can't use it to make yourself feel better about yourself. And the best way to do that, is to show your superiority over those less gifted, say, the believers.
Conveniently, there appears at this same time, an equally thoughtless group of vocal, political, fundermental Christians. Some with beliefs so deeply in conflict with fact and reason, they become a easy target for the intellectuals in need of a superiority fix.
And between these two entrenched camps, lopping bombs at each other is a no mans land where most of us live.
My hope is for an armistice in this trench warfare of believers and non-believers. Where we are all free to intelligently present our beliefs, and if the are reasonable, have them respected as such by the other side.
Occasionally, I like to stand up in this no man's land and try to wave a white flag. Normally this results in machine gun fire from both sides.
Bertrand Russell observed that many atheists bring to their atheism the style of their former belief. So, formerly Catholic atheists will have a flavor that differs from formerly fundamentalist atheists. A wishy-washy Christian or Moslem will become a wishy washy atheist.
It's the atheists who reacted to strong belief, like atheists that came out of a strong Catholic or Protestant backgrounds, that are most likely to be snarky, snide, and sneering. The atheists that came out of wishy washy backgrounds just don't care enough to attack belief.
A gay Catholic friend (who trained for the priesthood but left after being subjected to an alcoholic superior) noted that the pickiest critics of Catholic liturgy are those that have become non-believers. Oddly, thy want the ritual to be fastidiously high church. I've seen this in Protestant churches too -- Lutherans and Anglicans, particularly, which inherited and maintained high church liturgy (smoke and bells).
Your situation, with respect to standing up in the no-man land between believers and atheists, is not unique. The same thing happens in far leftist circles, where the followers of various venerable brands of Marxism unite to shoot down anyone who tries to negotiate common ground. My guess is that vicious infighting goes on among old-style psychoanalysts. Some people just like obscurantist battles. Lots of specialists can not stand deviation.
Do try to grow a thicker skin for your own sake. (Easy advice to hand out. ME? a few patches of thick skin with lots of vulnerable, thin pink skin just waiting for a lashing of nettles.)
I go 2 church, am protestat, reddeem gospel, very few rules compared 2 othres. But problem is philosophy is about knowledge which affect belief. So if am philospher how not to apply reason to belief also? Is why am more athiest even if I go 2 church. My reason is deeper than faith coz more practical value than just hope in life after death. If religon say now is more important then I see more value. If idea of tomorrow is more important then when is today value?