The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionDisaffected Catholics and 'bad Catholics'
by Richard McBrien on Jan. 11, 2010
This column has called attention for a number of years (the first time in 1969) to the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. This ecumenical program, observed annually between Jan. 18 and Jan. 25, was originally proposed in 1908 by an Anglican (later Roman Catholic), Paul Wattson, as a "church unity octave."
Wattson's initial idea was broadened in 1935 by Abbé Paul Couturier to become a Universal Week of Prayer for Unity. Since 1966 the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity has been a joint project of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Faith & Order Commission of the World Council of Churches.
The Week of Prayer provides an annual benchmark against which to measure ecumenical progress -- or lack thereof. Some observers have been describing the recent ecumenical movement as in a state of "drift." Relations remain warm between and among individual separated Christians, but there has been little forward movement between and among churches and ecclesial communities.
This year, however, the column turns its attention to a different kind of church-unity problem -- not to the state of ecumenical relations within the entire Body of Christ, but to the stresses and strains on unity that exist within individual churches, namely, the Catholic church and the Anglican communion, of which the Episcopal church in the United States is a significant part.
In late February 2008, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released a major survey that found that nearly a third of U.S. Catholics have left the Catholic church. Some have joined other churches, but most have simply slipped from active membership in the Catholic church to become part of a group once described as "lapsed Catholics."
This means that about 10 percent of all Americans today are former Catholics. It has been estimated that, if these ex-Catholics were to constitute a denomination unto themselves, they would be the second largest religious body in the United States -- after the Catholic church itself.
It should be noted in passing that the major losses suffered by the Catholic church in recent years have been largely offset by the new immigrant population, mostly from Latin America. In addition, over two percent of the population has joined the Catholic church within the same time-period.
But how has the pastoral leadership of the Catholic church responded to this acutely serious problem?
To the extent that the bishops have reacted at all, they seem to believe that disaffected Catholics are simply "bad Catholics," who cannot accept the morally demanding teachings of their church.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Some bishops convey the impression that the church's official teachings on contraception, divorce-and-remarriage, homosexuality, the ordination of women, and obligatory celibacy for priests are so clear and compelling that only a person of bad will could possibly disagree with them.
And yet there are many committed, well-educated, still-practicing Catholics, including many priests and religious women, who do disagree with these teachings, in whole or in part.
And how does the church's pastoral leadership respond to those with questions? In the case of priests, they are ruled ineligible for appointment as diocesan bishops. In the case of nuns, they are subjected to a "visitation" that is a thinly veiled investigation, and the leadership of 95 percent of their communities is subjected to a "doctrinal assessment."
The Pew study also found that young Catholics, ages 18-29, are much more likely than older Catholics to say that they are not affiliated with any particular religion. If these generational patterns persist, the survey warns, recent declines in the numbers of native-born Catholics and growth in the size of the unaffiliated population are likely to continue.
Whatever the case, the situation calls for bolder and more imaginative pastoral initiatives than have heretofore been proposed or tried.
Unless the Catholic church is the strongest and most committed participant in the ecumenical movement, the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity can have only a limited effect.
As for Catholicism's Anglican sisters and brothers in the Body of Christ, their communion is currently rent with deep divisions over the issue of homosexuality, especially in the episcopate. It is the gravest pastoral problem on the Archbishop of Canterbury's plate.
Anglicanism has traditionally seen itself a bridge within the divided Body of Christ. But, again, if the Anglican communion is itself torn by internal division, how can it serve the full Body of Christ as an effective bridge between the Catholic church and the broad community of Protestant denominations?
Those committed to the restoration of Christian unity should be deeply concerned about these developments within Catholicism and Anglicanism.
The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity is an appropriate time to act upon these concerns.
© 2010 Richard P. McBrien. All rights reserved. Fr. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.
I've been Roman Catholic for
I've been Roman Catholic for 76 years. I love my church but decry it's destruction from above (the recent Popes and many bishops appointed by the same). Almost every edict from The Vatican has been destructive, driving thinking people away. Where do they think they get the power to excommunicate people for following conscience?
I remain and proudly see myself a Cafeteria Catholic, accepting what my informed conscience tells me fits Jesus call and rejecting/ignoring all that Jesus would disprove.
Ed B.
I agree with you, Ed! Thanks
I agree with you, Ed! Thanks for putting into words what so many of us believe.
Peace!
I agree with you ED. All
I agree with you ED.
All glory goes to God alone. God is our sovereign Lord, our King. The Bishop of Rome has no real power to excommunicate people for following their conscience. God does not want robots; he wants people to praise and worship Him from their hearts, not by rote acceptance of human doctrines.
As a proud and free-willed
As a proud and free-willed Cafeteria Catholic, may I help you with that tray?
I understand they have an exquisite Friar Boff Buffet here . . .
And the De Mello Mellow Melon Melange is to live for!
Please permit me to suggest, as a confirmed vegetarian, these Balasuriya Soy Burgers simply redefine the art form . . .
But you know this place far better than I . . .
Don't worry about the charge; the tab's been covered long ago . . .
Let's do lunch!
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
"As a proud and free-willed
"As a proud and free-willed Cafeteria Catholic"
It is a relief that you finally came out and admitted it!
Why did it take you so long?
I'm a post VII Catholic (b.
I'm a post VII Catholic (b. 1958) who agrees with you. The destruction that was wrought by the Council is so maddening. Fortunately, the data show that teh Restoration has begun.
Born 1958, and "a post VII
Born 1958, and "a post VII Catholic?"
You do the math as I cannot . . .
post seventh what?
Ok, so there was Pope Paul VI, the Sixth . . .
Was there a succeeding seventh, to whom you are post?
At precisely what point were you converted to the true Faith?
I won't even ask about this "teh Restoration . . ."
Do you here (perhaps far too) subtly refer to the restoration of the great Jesuit Priest and Roman Catholic theologian, the Reverend Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, SJ, to his rightful place of respect and authority in our Church, as one who is indeed and truly Venerable, as the Venerable Bede and not as some more recent offerings?
My response to this must be: DIGNUM ET JUSTUM EST!
Nevertheless, I must inquire upon what basis you so refer to this holy and learned priest, in this Year of the Priest, not only upon a first name basis but a diminutive as well. Leaving aside the burning questions of the proper French pronunciation of his name, may we without shame truly call him: "Teh?"
as in:
"Hey, Teh! Time for Tea! Tea time, Teh! Now, where has that Teh gone! Not to that bone pit again!"
In any case I must agree with your assessment, in light of the recent Papal encyclicals and other writings, that the time of the restoration of this great and Catholic thinker has begun.
And I urge you to take heart. Once the destructive effects of the unfortunate Wojtyla usurpation pass, that personal papacy, Truth will out, for as Saint Maximillian Kolbe said: "Hate cannot win because hate cannot create."
Only Love is eternal, abiding, victorious.
Constructive.
In the long run.
At the Omega Point.
He's from Scranton.Is that
He's from Scranton.Is that next to Lincoln Neb.? What a great church. Keep the faith.
Your informed conscience is
Your informed conscience is erroneous
Yet 76 years old . . . I may
Yet 76 years old . . .
I may trust his conscience, his knowledge, his wisdom, his keen discernment, his joy, his Love for our Church . . .
Many are with you Ed B.
Many are with you Ed B. Christ and His message are the measure. What many other of the self-described loyally orthodox don't seem to realize is that they are in the same camp, sort of. If one reads so many of their posts they too pick and choose who and what they stand for, they just seem to be mostly "against" anyone else.
Thanks Ed for your
Thanks Ed for your comment...I totally agree.
I agree with you, Ed.
I agree with you, Ed. Catholics are so much better educated today. They are not interested in the ideologizing of religion. They have educated consciences and seek out clergy and laity who nourish their spiritual lives. They read. They think. They pray. The current climate in the church turns them off. The church reacts. Archbishop Quinn's letter to the Bishops published in America magazine really identifies what a pastoral church looks like.
Two U.S. catholic Cardinals
Two U.S. catholic Cardinals have said that it makes them sick to see the pervasiveness of homosexuality within the walls of the Vatican, especially the dominance of homosexuality in the Majisterium. They said the Catholic church as lost any thread of moral authority it once thought it had. According to these 2 Cardinals, the Pope has said that he will remove any Cardinal that appears to implicate the Pope in the Coverup. They said that much of the trafficking of pedaphile priests among parishes and priests required the personal approval of the Pope, and that John Paul II was personally actively involved in orchestrating and managing the Coverup - for the best long-term interest of the Catholic Church. They said the homosexuality at the highest levels wanted the involvement of the Vatican covered up: they attempted to protect their fellow homosexual priests. As much as the Vatican hated the exposure of rampant pedaphilia throughout the priesthood, (a) the Vatican wants the focus of pedaphilia to be at the parish level rather than let it be known the pervasiveness of homosexuality among the Majisterium and
Vatican, and (2) as much as they do not like the exposure of the pedaphilia, they prefer that the focus word be pedaphilia - in order to cloud that fact that 99.9% of the pedaphilia (adult on child) occurred between male priests and boys - which is homosexuality - and it is homosexuality (sex between 2 males priests) that is most prevalent within the walls of the Vatican. Homosexuality is a much larger problem within the priesthood than pedaphilia, and the Vatican does not want that exposed. There are over 25,000 cases of known priestly pedaphilia in the U.S. performed by over 4,500 priests in the U.S. - and the problem is much larger outside of the United States. Wherever there is any person or institution that claims that the truth is only revealed to them or that they are the only true interpreter of the truth or that they can in any instance be infallible or they put themselves in the position of issuing their own dogma and doctrines - there lies the seeds of corruption, deceit, dishonesty, and evil. It is the Catholic Church itself that is the real Predator.
Ah,now you are getting close
Ah,now you are getting close to the real truth. I am a "hidden dissenting Catholic". I am a practicing, well educated, over 65,cradle Catholic, seven children, etc. But, I disagree with most of the teachings of the Church. Why am I still here? Besides not wanting to cause a stir or faith flubber in the family, I want to die Catholic. We do a lot of things well, and the entrances and exits are the best. I have a whole list of liturgical lovlies that keep me here but the exit rites are the strongest.
The message to those of us
The message to those of us who are still in, is clear: LEAVE. We don't want your kind in OUR Church. I have not yet chosen to leave but may some day out of the simple need to find someplace where I am fed. We cannot continue to live on stones instead of bread forever.
I wouldn't urge
I wouldn't urge disaffected/dissenting Catholics to leave. The pastoral thing to do is to call them to repentence. Since Christ and the Church constitute the Christus Totus, or "whole Christ," (CCC, para. 795), Christ speaks and works in and through the Catholic Church. Therefore, one cannot dissent from the Church and still claim to be following Christ. But the solution is not in driving such people out; the solution is their coming to repentence and accepting the whole teaching of the Church. We need to pray for them, and also pray that we do not in any way create scandal that would drive them further away from the truth.
"One cannot dissent from the
"One cannot dissent from the Church and still claim to be following Christ."
Respectfully, sir, it's sentiments like this that drive people away from the church. Sometimes the church is wrong. Limbo, the inquisition, the rejection of suicide victims as irredeemable sinners no matter what their circumstances, putting the pastoral care of abusive priests ahead of the need to protect their victims--Catholic doctrine was used to justify all of these things.
(Sigh) If you'd like more Catholics to stay, its not enough to just set a good example. The church needs to stop treating its respectful dissenters like they don't have the capacity for rational thought. It should respect and engage their dissent instead of being embarrassed by it, and encourage people to think for themselves about how Catholic principles can and should be applied to their every day lives.
It's true that some people leave the church out of laziness--it's just too much of a bother to go to Mass and once there, too uncomfortable to be reminded that we are our brother's keepers. But I think more people leave because some priests and bishops treat independent thought like it's a disease in the Mystical Body of Christ.
I'm a dissenter who felt the call to return to church. And I wish you peace, Theologian.
--MB
"Sometimes the church is
"Sometimes the church is wrong. Limbo, the inquisition, the rejection of suicide victims as irredeemable sinners no matter what their circumstances, putting the pastoral care of abusive priests ahead of the need to protect their victims"
None of these regrettable practices or beliefs held the status of official Church doctrine. No one is saying that the Church can never be wrong; all I am saying is that the Church, in her official, magisterial teachings, speaks with the authority given to her by Christ her head and founder. If you reject this, you cannot truly be a Catholic in good standing.
As for how the Church treates dissenters, I would say that the Church does treat them respectfully. Maybe this was not always the case in the past, but in recent years theologians like Hans Kung, Roger Haight, et al have been censured only after the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dialogued with them, pointed out their errors and lovingly corrected them. And yes, sometimes censure is the most loving thing the Church can do, not only for those in error but also for those who might be led estray by their error.
Welcome back to the Church. I reciprocate your wish for peace.
Thank you, Theologian. I
Thank you, Theologian. I appreciate your response.
In regard to all of the church's "magisterial teachings," I always thought that they were developed over centuries. After all, neither Jesus nor the apostles wrote the copy of the Catechism that is on my nightstand.
I've read it, slowly, cover to cover. It contains much wisdom. But it doesn't contain *all* wisdom. My point about dissent is that it has the potential to add to our understanding of Catholic teachings and their application to everyday life.
By your definition, I am probably not a Catholic in good standing. Still, I am here. Still thinking, still praying, still engaged.
Peace to you,
--MB
The secret to understanding
The secret to understanding the greatest novel of all time, Mr. James Joyce's Ulysses, is capturing its concept of Parallax, of multiple perceptions and their imperfect expressions.
He was a Roman Catholic Jesuit trained, and this has much to do with our individual necessarily imperfect perception of our Faith, of God, of Love.
In fact a central theme of that great novel is the incapacity of our language to express fully Love.
Same with our Faith, which at its root, is Love.
The more perspectives we can comprehend, the better grasp we may have upon Love, how to Love, what is Love. Love thy enemy.
Read the most distant theological work you can, and the closest.
Upon your nightstand please place as well Dorothy Day, Friar Boff, Father de Mello, Father Schillebeeckx, Father Balasuriya, Water Buffalo Theology,
Mary Daly.
Where's the Love?
And still standing
And still standing
Could someone point out the
Could someone point out the "errors" of Hans Kung for me.
What counselor ever though censure was the best form of correction? (except my seminary professors)
Toohey responds ewll to this
Toohey responds ewll to this erroneous passage above, liable thus for our righteous censure if not lovingly and respectfully and immediately corrected:
"As for how the Church treates dissenters, I would say that the Church does treat them respectfully. Maybe this was not always the case in the past, but in recent years theologians like Hans Kung, Roger Haight, et al have been censured only after the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dialogued with them, pointed out their errors and lovingly corrected them. And yes, sometimes censure is the most loving thing the Church can do, not only for those in error but also for those who might be led estray by their error."
"Estray?"
Is that like Estray Rides Again?
Destry? Oh. "Astray?"
I too with Toohey require, respectfully, documentation of this reputedly charitable and respectful proceeding.
I have read Harvey Gallagher Cox's account, and the Reverend Father Curran's accounts, and read the primary documents in the Reverend Father Balasuriya's bizarre case, etc., etc., and etc. and have read further accounts in other cases here in these comprehensive and Catholic pages of the NCR (Fathers Phan, Dupuis, etc., etc., and etc.) and I fail to find any charity, or respect, for any of these great Roman Catholic theologians.
Rather I see a marketing ploy, as Wojtyla's book sales were way far below theirs, and so they had to be stopped.
Particularly in the case of the bestselling Reverend Father Hans Kung, Ratzinger's former professor who got him his first teaching job and started his career, only to be disrespectfully, uncharitably, and unjustly called upon the red carpet in the Holy Office and made to crawl . . .
Toohey requests: "Could someone point out the "errors" of Hans Kung for me."
As far as I can gather, he placed a question mark after the word Infallible as a title of one of his several bestselling books (Unfehlbar? Eine Anfrage, 1970), in which he fully discusses the concept, its history and meaning, and invites discussion.
The following year Rev. Father Rahner invited and edited a response in Zum Problem Unfehlbarkeit (The Problem of Infallibility), to which Ratzinger added an article in which he then wrote, ""A predominantly critical article should not, however, ignore the positive side of Kung's book. This can be clearly deduced from all that we have said before, when we affirmed that he opened for discussion, in an explicit and unequivocal way, problems that must be reformulated. He denounced obscurities in the historic and systematic structure of Catholic theology, which in fact have persisted and until now have usually been avoided and not confronted head-on."
This can of infallible worm violated by the powerful can opener of a question mark nevertheless proved too much for a particularly power mad papacy.
Or of course I could be ranting . . .
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Most theologians censured by
Most theologians censured by the Vatican are not offered any opportunity of loving dialogue.
The Inquisition was central to Catholic theology, polity, spirituality, and law for seven centuries.
The defence of the Magisterium, even when it is wrong, or especially when it is wrong, is a bad, bad cause, and one that is doing a lot to freeze Catholics out of the Church.
And these zealous defenders of the Magisterium have shown again and again their contempt for the magisterium of Vatican II, the only teaching body since the 16th century to look beyond the perpectives of narrow Roman ultramontanism.
For further reading on the
For further reading on the sort of dialogue offered,
See Harvey Gallagher Cox on the Friar Boff Affair, The Silencing of Leonardo Boff: The Vatican and the Future of World Christianity.
See the two analyses by the Reverend Father Charles Curran, Faithful Dissent and Loyal Dissent.
See the Reverend Father Tissa Balasuriya's primary documents in Mary and Human Liberation: The Story and the Text
This list could go on and lamentably on (v. Phan, Dupuis, etc.), like the inquisitional torture session which opens Poe's Pit and Pendulum.
cf. I am A Happy Theologian by the late and very venerable Father Edward Schillebeeckx.
or our own Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien . . .
Frere Charles: An interesting
Frere Charles: An interesting reading list. Have you seen Hans Kung's DISPUTED TRUTH, his memoirs for the period 1968-1980? It is an intriguing account published in 2007, including a blow-by-blow description (from his point of view) of his dealings with Church authorities and their eventual lifting of his credential to teach as a Catholic theologian.
Please help me here. Is My
Please help me here.
Is My Struggle for Freedom considered Volume One of his memoirs, and Disputed Truth subtitled Memoirs II (published a month ago?)?
Before I throw down the big bucks!
Yes, this book, subtitled
Yes, this book, subtitled Memoirs II,is a sequel to MY STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM. As Kung explains on the final page of DISPUTED TRUTH, he had intended to make this book the memoirs of the second half of his life, but the years following 1968 bacame so complex that the details required him to cover only until 1980, when he lost his position as a faculty member in Catholic Theology at Tubingen.
No need to plunk down the big bucks, Frere Charles. Send your mailing address to me at raymonda2@aol.com and I'll send you my copy.
It seems to me that much of
It seems to me that much of the tension of the Church was caused by this single fact: The Papacy itself refused to respect the magisterium. Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul have done as much as possible to discredit the great Council, forcing us to make a choice: To whom do we listen? A body of the world's bishops convened by a pope, or a single pope with his own agenda? This, of course takes us back to Vatican I, where the world's bishops surrendered their apostolic authority to a single imperious pope. It forces us into a terrible choice. I side with the Council.
I have no sense that you
I have no sense that you listen well, Anonymous Catholic Theologian, but your statements of how some progressive theologians have been treated by (then) Cardinal Ratzinger, and Popes John Paul and Benedict, are not in keeping with a number of writers on the subject. 'Loving' or 'dialouged' or, at times, even 'respectful' are not found much in the current climate of the Vatican or it's Bishops. There is, clearly, great confusion throughout all levels and in all corners of the Church about what is doctrine, what is tradition, what is infallible, what are opinions vs. "official" teachings, and on and on. Many bloggers here may be clear, but the vast majority of the faithful are not, and many of those do not care any longer. The Pope and the bishops do not speak with the rest of the Church: they tend to speak most often at us. One thing is clear now: the majority of Catholics in North America are doing what Europeans have done for decades before: they make up there own minds about what practices or instructions from the heirarchy/Vatican they are going to follow and which ones they are not. Aside from those who do so from a truely informed conscience, the recent past and present Popes and the recent crop of bishops have brought this situation about by their inaction and even deliberate evasions in dealing with the widespread abuse of children and parishoners, the re-victimization in the most cruel ways of victims who stepped foward in their struggle to heal the deep trauma caused by the "respectful" and "loving" Church, and the outright refusal to deal with the true reasons for such abuse and instead finding a scapegoat on which to lay all blame. These are not people to be emulated, are they? As a result, they have lost their standing among most Catholics. So the widespread results of "cafeteria" Catholocism, of the exercise of critical dissent and demands for clarity, or - most sadly - the loss of so many of the faithful, are really of no surprise. So many of us are waiting for the loving Church you speak of. We don't see it on the horizon.....yet.
I am an 82-year-old 'cradle
I am an 82-year-old 'cradle Catholic', still active in the Church. My sister is married to a former Protestant who 'converted' to Catholicism. His lovely grandmother was a 'fallen-away' Catholic, who left the Church many many years ago because she was told the Church would not allow her to be buried in the same cemetery as her non-Catholic husband. On her own deathbed, she asked her grandson and my sister whether she should re-join the Catholic Church. They advised her to go in peace, which she did.
My son, Catholic-educated and a practicing Catholic, wanted to marry a good woman who has never been baptized and has no particular religion. They agreed to be married by a Catholic priest. I asked a family friend, a Franciscan priest, to assist them. They received a dispensation from the Los Angeles Archdiocese to marry, but the wedding had to be in a Church building. Since the bride wanted a 'garden' wedding, they chose the latter rather than a priest presider. I obtained a one-day deputation from the Los Angeles County Registrar/Recorder to perform weddings, and presided at their wedding in beautiful Descanso Gardens.
From these two experiences within my own Catholic family, it is no surprise to me that there are so many "former Catholics" out there.
I totally agree---God gave us
I totally agree---God gave us a brain and conscience so we can each weigh issues and come to educated thoghtful decisions. God did not intend for us to be mindless lemmings. After being Catholic for 72 years, no one has the right to tell me whether or not I can keep my faith tradition and identity---especially not men who adorn themselves with jewels and medieval robe to try and set themselves apart.
That is not true. There has
That is not true. There has always been dissent and disagreement within the Church. One can love the church but disagree with it at times. What about the mystic who told the Pope he was going to hell during the Medieval period. The conservatives take peices of the "tradition" small "t" without looking at the whole of the "Tradition" capital "T" and re-write church history according to their view point.
True unity in a Christian
True unity in a Christian community must be grounded on Jesus of Nazareth, his teaching and vision, not on the coterie which has assumed his identity and pretend to speak in his name for their own aggrandizement. The Grand Inquisitor still lives, bringing magic and mystery to a mystified people while rejecting jesus. This is a game of power, not faith.
An example: When Jesus said, "Do this in memory of me," it was in the context of the communal meal, the Eucharist which binds us all into one body, which heals (salutatem), nourishes, and unifies. The Eucharist is the central sacrament, after baptism, within the church--the only reason for ordination is to assure the continuation of Jesus healing presence in the Eucharist. However, the actions of the so-called leaders of the Roman church, as distinct from their words, make it quite obvious that, when Jesus said, "Do this in memory of me." he meant keep the priesthood male and celibate; why else deprive the community of its life? Such an absurd and illogical application of scripture would make Goethe's Mephistopheles dizzy.
Is the real problem that people are leaving the Roman church or that the Roman church has left the people?
Well, I must be ignorant
Well, I must be ignorant since I do not understand what a coterie may be. With this apology forward, mea culpa, as you may - did you not identify the Eucharist as the central sacrament? Then you identified male and celibate as one grouping as if they were both as central to the celebration of the sacrament. Perhaps you should review the meaning of sacrament and further your religious and doctrinal vocabulary to increase your coterie of words? When you do, remind me that I should have capitalized the word, "Sacrament."
"Some bishops convey the
"Some bishops convey the impression that the church's official teachings on contraception, divorce-and-remarriage, homosexuality, the ordination of women, and obligatory celibacy for priests are so clear and compelling that only a person of bad will could possibly disagree with them."
- I wouldn't say this of Non-Catholics. However, the teachings on homosexual activity, ordination of women, contraception are established teaching. They won't change. Ever. They're right there with purgatory the Trinity. The Church has said this. Celibate priesthood is a different matter, however. It is a matter of discipline (and could, theoretically, change) not doctrine. Grouping it with the other points shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the differences. Catholics who know their Faith, know this.
"In the case of priests, they are ruled ineligible for appointment as diocesan bishops."
- Well, if you don't accept the teachings of the Church, why should you be a bishop?
"The Pew study also found that young Catholics, ages 18-29, are much more likely than older Catholics to say that they are not affiliated with any particular religion."
- This is a major problem, and I have seen it first hand. I meet many of these people in my day to day life. I work with many of them.
Of the many I have met and had the chance to get to know fairly well, they fall into two categories:
1. Never were really instructed in or learned their Faith.
I'm not talking about being a theologian here. I mean the simple stuff. I've been told by them things like "Nobody believes in the Devil since the Middle Ages." I've also been told that the Church doesn't and never did teach that the Eucharist was the Body, Blood, Soul and divinity of Christ. A couple even have the mistaken idea that the Church teaches Sola Fide. These are not BAD people. They were just never taught their Faith, or were taught what can best be described as a caricature of it, and as a result, saw to reason to continue practicing it.
2. Refusal of Church Teaching.
The biggest of these is the Church's teaching that fornication is sinful. They know it, and they leave because they don't want to follow what the Church taeches.
I'm sure there are many more, but like i said, these are the two primary groups they fall into. The first is actually far larger than the 2nd.
"Whatever the case, the situation calls for bolder and more imaginative pastoral initiatives than have heretofore been proposed or tried."
- I don't say this often, but you are absolutly right, Fr. McBrien. We must reach out and preach our Faith boldly. Not just the easy stuff or those parts that make us feel warm and fuzzy, but ALL of it. Christ's teaching was not simply 'Hey, like, be nice to everybody, yo!'. It was Earth shattering. And many said 'this is a hard teaching, and who can follow it?' That didn't cause Jesus to say 'Oh... you don't like that part? That's ok. We'll get rid of it.'
What about Limbo? I wouldn't
What about Limbo?
I wouldn't say this of Non-Catholics. However, the teachings on homosexual activity, ordination of women, contraception are established teaching. They won't change. Ever. They're right there with purgatory the Trinity.
Would that be like Limbo, also?
Limbo was never doctrine.
Limbo was never doctrine. Look it up.
And thank you for illustrating what I'm talking about.
Oh come ON! Limbo was
Oh come ON!
Limbo was drummed into this Catholic School alum's head in Catechism classes, both in preparation for First Holy Communion and for Confirmation.
Whether it entered into official doctrine at any given time, it has been an enduring tradition, a taught tradition, and a heavily discussed question, even by Cardinal Ratzinger.
The notion that lapsed Catholics are simply not well-educated is absurd at worst and elitist at best.
Limbo was theological
Limbo was theological speculation. Like I said, look it up.
Actually, since you probably won't do that, I did it for you. You can read about it here.
Once again, you prove my point.
I must agree. I went through
I must agree. I went through the Chicago Catholic school system starting in the 1950's. Limbo was most certainly taught there. We were also taught that those "disgusting" protestants were headed straight to hell. That teaching was sugared-up a little bit over the years. They don't want to sound too crazy you know.
Let's not forget all of their many teachings that go directly against the bible. A book which I agree is questionable at best. However it is, along with the made-up Catholic traditional stuff, supposed to be the basis of this faith.
I didn't raise my children in any faith and they are all very happy, successful adults who are not riddled with superstitions and irrational guilt for being just what they are...human beings.
Right up there with the
Right up there with the goodness and rightness of slavery (1866), the evil of usury (18th century), the evil of religious freedom (1964), the evil of ecumenism (Mortalium Animos), the deicidal perfidiousness of the Jews (until 1965), the goodness of torturing and executing heretics (last church-instigating execution for heresy toward the end of the 18th century), the goodness of torture, directly commanded by many Popes up to at least 1600.
See, this is what happens
See, this is what happens when you skim history looking for ways to attack the Church because you have an agenda you're trying to push. When you actually try to READ the history and understand Church teaching in light of it, it gets a little clearer.
Here are some links and explanations for you:
On Slavery:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0007.html
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0050.html
On ecumenism:
http://catholicphilosophy.com/sys-tmpl/ecumenism/
"perfidiousness of the Jews":
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/JEWS.HTM
Torture:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0612fea4.asp
I think part of your problem stems from a confusion of infallibility with impeccability.
I realized after hitting
I realized after hitting "Save" on my last post that I didn't answer your objection about usury. Here you go:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15235c.htm
http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/FRNOONAN.HTM
Would that your two solutions
Would that your two solutions be the answer. 1. My un-educated Irish ansestors knew little about catachesis but knew the sacred. 2. sex excess and overeating will always be with us.
A few years ago my son attended a wedding presided over by the bride's uncle, a retired cardinal from a distant city. At the reception the entire extended family ignored the man. [Yes he was an arch-conservative] My son sat alone with him a while and was stunned by his being ignored. I wondered how true this is in Italy, i.e. family ignoring their Cardinal uncles, Italy, where the
young are even more dis-affected then the USA. A study should be made...
If you mean what would my
If you mean what would my specific strategies, I don't know.
One thing I DO know is that we as parents must, from a very early age, TEACH OUR CHILDREN our Faith. Not just memorization of catechism, but the HOW and the WHY of our Faith.
Regarding fornication, gluttony, pride, etc., yes, they will ALWAYS be around as we are fallen men living in a fallen world. But we must never take the Church's teaching on them and throw them aside or make them 'optional' because the teaching is hard.
"1. My un-educated Irish ansestors knew little about catachesis but knew the sacred."
- as did mine when they arrived on these shores from Bavaria, not knowing a word of English. I'm willing to bet that, if asked, our ancestors probably couldn't expound on St. Thomas' proofs of God BUT... they would know what the Eucharist was, wouldn't they?
Of course, a good answer is prayer, and lots of it. 'For the prayer of a just man availeth much.'
actually, many of them leave
actually, many of them leave because they get tired of attitudes of righteousness and judgmentalism about every thought. People who are so oppressively sure of where everyone else went wrong and so sure of how right they are. It's boring and tiring and lets little of the spiritual in to breathe life into the Christian community, where reconciliation is to be more important than self-righteousness.
I think I may know what
I think I may know what you're saying.
When I used to live up north, my local church was kind of like this. If someone not knowing anything about the Faith happened to sit in on a sermon or two, I think they would have come away with the idea that the Catholic Faith was nothing but a strange list of rules. That way of trying to spread the Faith doesn't work.
But I've been to FAR MORE parishes where, the same person walking in, would get the idea that the Faith was little more than the command to 'give canned goods to your local food pantry and smile at everybody.' That method will never work either, as you don't have to even be Catholic to do this, so why bother?
What kind of Faith is it that inspired the early martyers? No one just gives their lives away in horrible torment for the sake of a list of regulations. No one will walk singing to the arena to get torn apart by wild animals for the sake of 'being nice to everybody'. It is the FULLNESS of the Catholic Faith that inspired them. And THAT is what me must teach!
Then,Pete, despite your
Then,Pete, despite your knowledge, I think you have missed the point behind a lot of things spiritual and expressed in these blogs.
Because I think we should
Because I think we should teach the FULLNESS of the Faith? The hard as well as the soft, like Jesus did? Because of that I miss the point?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying...
Pete, I haven't heard this
Pete, I haven't heard this old time theology in a long time; thanks for reminding me of this banal stuff. "Sola Fide" when was the last time I heard that, except perhaps from the converted ministers on EWTN--they love that notion. And then of course your fantastic definition of the Eucharist the "Body, Blood, Soul and divinity of Christ (why "divinity" and not "Divinity"). There's just so much redundancy here. Is this some new formulation? Why not just the "real presence".
You call this "simple stuff". What's the complicated stuff?
Sadly for you Pete, it would be the rare Catholic who remembers any of this. In my simple little rural church high up in the mountains where we have one Mass a week and no young people and most people are old like me we cherish the simple faith. If I yelled out "Sola Fide",
they'd write me off and ready for the nursing home.
I'm actually not sure what
I'm actually not sure what the entire point of your post is. But anyway...
"Pete, I haven't heard this old time theology in a long time; thanks for reminding me of this banal stuff. "Sola Fide" when was the last time I heard that, except perhaps from the converted ministers on EWTN--they love that notion."
- First, I think the notion that anything dealing with the battle of ideas as to what is required for eternal life is 'banal' is a rather strange attitude to have. Second, if you can't remember when you last heard the idea of Sola Fide then you must not talk with any of our Protestant brothers. I was talking about the concept two days ago with a Baptist friend of mine (although he didn't use the latin term, of course.)
"why 'divinity' and not 'Divinity'"
Well, because I was taking advantage of a form of speech first explained I believe by Augustine and then expounded upon by St. Thomas. I don't know what the Latin term for it is, but, roughly translated, the concept can be explained as "typing fast during a lunch break and missing the 'Shift' key." I think it's mentioned in the first book of the Summa.
""Body, Blood, Soul and divinity of Christ (why "divinity" and not "Divinity"). There's just so much redundancy here. Is this some new formulation? Why not just the "real presence""
The term was first used by the Council of Trent, but is in the Catechism, here:
"The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species "is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.""
To some, it may seem redundant, but there are always reasons for things. For example, let's look at this section from the Nicene Creed:
"God of God, light of light, true God of true God."
Things like this were often fashioned to emphasize and leave NO ROOM FOR DOUBT WHATSOEVER as to what was being taught.
"What's the complicated stuff"
Try to explian, I mean REALLY EXPLAIN, not just state the definition of, the Trinity, or Eucharist.
"If I yelled out "Sola Fide", they'd write me off and ready for the nursing home."
Or maybe they'd just turn and say "Brother, I think you're in the wrong Church." (Just kidding! :-))
pete once used NO caps . .
pete once used NO caps . . .
isn't sola fide a Lutheran heresy of a Pauline misreading, dismissed earliest in the Letter of Saint James the Great, who repeatedly demonstrates that Faith without works is dead?
Although of course the HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism is our most trustworthy and faithful source on any matter, we may also turn to Wikipedia which hosts a large article fully exploring this phrase, and find that pete correctly ascribes it to other faiths:
"The Roman Catholic view tends to exclude sola fide as grounds for justification, holding instead that grace, which implies good works, is also necessary for salvation, Matthew 25:31-46; that is, by God's grace through faith (also a favour given by him, Matthew 16:17), Ephesians 2:8-10, and the Christian's response to it in God's grace Galatians 5:6, as faith perfected by good works, James 2:22."
Also useful is the treatise Not By Faith Alone, in which the highly controversial Sungenis posits: "A thorough study of his epistles reveals that Paul used the word faith and its cognates over two hundred times in the New Testament, but not once did he couple them with the adjectival qualifiers alone or only. Are we to believe that though he intended to teach justification by faith alone, he was never convinced that he should employ the attributes of the word alone to express explicitly what he invariably meant?"
"isn't sola fide a Lutheran
"isn't sola fide a Lutheran heresy of a Pauline misreading, dismissed earliest in the Letter of Saint James the Great, who repeatedly demonstrates that Faith without works is dead?"
- it started out rather narrow. In modern times, however, it morphs around in various forms of purity in MANY protestant churches, especially in those mostly 'non-affiliated' independent protestant churches you find in many places in the deep southern states.
Pete, you hit the nail on the
Pete, you hit the nail on the head. The biggest problem in the Church today is the sheer ignorance of so many of its people, laity and clergy alike, frankly, regarding the Church's teaching, her divine constitution and mandate, and her history. There is an entire generation of Catholics, perhaps two generations, who were never catechized and as such do not know and understand the Church's teachings.
As to the second group, those folks have always been with us. In the Gospel of John, Christ, in His teachings on the Eucharist, declares that those who do not eat His Body and drink His Blood have no life in them. Many of his followers wander off, leave him, saying, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" They refuse to accept His teachings. Judas, one of the twelve, refuses to accept His teachings. The Jewish leaders refuse to accept His teaching. It should come as no surprise that there are "Catholics" in name only who refuse to accept Christ's teachings as handed down by the Church. Christ did not, not once, moderate His teaching. He did not compromise for the sake of keeping followers. Rather, He told the truth, and, when people left, He was sad but He accepted it. No one drove those people away from Christ, they left of their own free will. No one drives anyone away from the Church, people leave of their own free will.
Of course, we never give up on these folks. We pray for the second group, for their conversion of heart. We work to catechize the first group. We are always and constantly aware that Christ works His will in and through imperfect tools such as ourselves. May we always be willing to be the instrument of God's will.
Clint, who is this "we"
Clint, who is this "we" that's praying for me?
Does this mean you follow the teachings of Jesus Christ?
You have sold all that you have, given the money to the poor to come follow him?
Love thy enemy and do good to those who harm you?
When someone needs your coat in this cold weather, you give your shirt as well?
Receive the stranger at the gate as Christ? Liberate the captive and the imprisoned? Following Matt. 25?
Who is this "we" that's praying for me?
I want to know how to thank you, and to support your on-going work of liberation, for peace, for justice!
Speaking of which, Charles,
Speaking of which, Charles, have you sold your cloak and bought a sword yet? :-)
As Jesus commands we put up
As Jesus commands we put up our sword and Saint John the Baptist commands us to give our cloak to the one who has none, I find I lack either, and thus can only play you this drum, my dear pete.
In fact it was to and through Saint Peter Our Lord commands us to put up our sword.
You might therefore find it most instructive, most edifying to read the treatise of a similar name written by ncr's Reverend Father John Dear SJ.
I enjoy riding the public bus in Mexico; the city buses in Ciudad Juarez are all retired School Buses from the states, and one photo I recently had published from such a ride (although lamentably not in this great NCR) shows above the driver the ancient painting of Saint Martin of Tours parting his cloak with his sword to give to a naked man, fulfilling thus the commandments of Jesus at Matt. 25.
On my way to Solesmes over 35 years ago, I had the great and eternal grace of visiting the Basilica of Saint Martin of Tours. With your images of sword and cloak, thank you for restoring unto me that blessed memory.
Charles, you missed the whole
Charles, you missed the whole point of my post. :-)
You were tossing out biblical one liners to Clint and asking him if he had done them yet. So I tossed out one to see if you had done it yet. It was more in jest than anything, which is why I put the smiley face after it.
So, you haven't bought a sword yet? How do you plan to imitate the great saint and cut your cloak if you don't have a sword???
It would be better if you
It would be better if you stopped your game playing...you know you can't tolerate anyone who thinks differently than you as you have demonstrated over and over in your many, lengthy posts. So, just be yourself. We expect it of you, Pete.
Of course, the "we" in
Of course, the "we" in question refers to all who are members of Christ's Body, the Church. We, all of us, have the obligation to pray for those who do have fallen away from the practice of the Faith, those who are treading close to heresy or schism, etc. I had assumed that was obvious. Clearly, I assumed wrongly.
As to the rest, I do not owe you, nor anyone save Christ, an account of how I live my Christian life, particularly when you attempt to use such as a club against those who disagree with you, or as a means to exalt yourself. However, I will say this. I believe that God has called me to teach, and so I do the very best I can to teach. I teach, to the best of my ability, those students with whom I am charged. In so doing, in answering the call and using my talents for the benefit of my students and for the glory of God, I am following Christ's teachings.
As to the rest, to the charity and works of mercy I engage in, it is none of your business and none of your concern. That is between God and me, in keeping with the commands of Christ in Matthew 6: 2, "So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full". Perhaps you could meditate on that one in addition to Matthew 25.
Thank you Jessssus for Pete
Thank you Jessssus for Pete and Clint and those who know exactly what it means to be Catholic. The kind I was leaning towards also, until....
Dissent is a moral obligation
Dissent is a moral obligation when faced with the evils the intitutional church has visited upon the civilized world. ANY religious fundamentalism, encluding EWTN Catholics is an instrinsic evil. ONly honesty and reform of a deeply divided and corrupt institution will suffice. As for the brainwashed and the rigidly conformist pseudo-religionists, REPENT, for the kingdom of heaven does not permit the unregenerate to enter therein. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. I dare you to challenge me with your religious vision in an attempt to intimidate me. I DARE YOU. I have an advocate who will defend me, and it isn't Jesus' mother. You guess who.
Dear Fr. McBrien, The facts
Dear Fr. McBrien, The facts and figures given in your epistle are just so much data. Have any of the people in the 30,000,000 lapsed Catholics been approached as to why they no longer practise Catholicism? Going back 50 or 60 years ago when innummerable Catholic Churches across the U S supported many different types of devotion throughout the weeks of the liturgical calendar many of which were nightly get-togethers in Church to what we are expieriencing now mainly our Saturday or Sunday gathering for the Eucharist why wouldn't a Church fall apart? Each of us need minute-by-minute discipline and what is wrong with the daily evening devotions?
Take a look at the Confessional Service. Maybe a half dozen faithful per week participate and yet hundreds take His Holy Body and Blood each weekend Mass! What is wrong with this picture? We must look for a Revival in our own Community prior to asking others to join us! Moral Relavtism is talked and written about frequently today! Isn't it in fact a REALITY??
Where does it all end if
Where does it all end
if everyone says where does it all end
and no one tries to find out
where it would all end if we went on.
Kurt Marti
En Avant? If not now, when?
Thanks, Father McBrien, for a
Thanks, Father McBrien, for a reasoned and reasonable description of the state of affairs in the American church today. In face of all of this our bishops offer little. And why is that?
On the one hand Catholics who grew up in the second two thirds of the last century, up until the sixties and now question Rome, are Catholics bishops would consider "bad"--weak, spineless, too educated for their own good etc etc. And the bishops say to them--good-bye and good riddance. That's very understandable since many bishops grew up in the same milieu. And those Catholics and bishops knew all about being "bad"--it was drilled into them.
But the young Catholics, say under 40, born in 1970 or later and who just drift finally away from not only Catholicism but most religion what do our bishops say to them? These baptized Catholics never knew what it meant to be a bad Catholic--it is a meaningless term to them. What do the bishops offer them? To the older Catholics they offer hell-fire. But offering hell-fire to young Catholics would be ludicrous.
Finally, go to practically any Catholic church on Sunday---do you find teens there? Do you find twenty or thirty somethings there? Not many and in many churches none. Our bishops thunder on about abortion and same-sex marriage but this is met with deaf ears in this age group. It's as if our bishops want it this way. And maybe they do.
I am in the age group you
I am in the age group you were lementing at(in my 20s) At my parish there are quite a few young adults and teens active. At least 7 altar boys ( several being teenagers) at every Sunday mass and a CYO with 200 kids. We also have a parish with traditional music, latin, and Catholic teaching is preached without fail. Just saying...
Just asking: what is this
Just asking: what is this thing called "Catholic teaching?"
Oh.
That must be what the Reverend Father Ellacuria was doing, that got him killed with his companions . . .
And the Archbishop before him . . .
Very interesting observation
Very interesting observation - that "disaffected" and lapsed catholics could represent the largest US Christian "sect" after the Catholic Church itself.
Both my children, though not in the US belong to this cadre. Most of my neices and nephews as well. They are almost all adults now beginning families-good, decent, valued people (in my view), some married (after having lived "in sin" but with mutual love and respect; others searching). I am convinced that the Spirit does not operate only within the confines of the hierarchical pyramid.
These young adults and their ilk not only refuse but find simply irrelavent the demands for orthodoxy, doctrinal cow-towing and its ancillary exclusivism, idolatry, misogyny and hypocritical embracing of contradictory values or selective ethical (ie political) positions. Irrespective of statistics to validate my view, I think that most 35year old and under are falling increasingly into this group. They deserve to be sought out, listened to, responded to and SEEN AS THE HOPE FOR A LESS DIVISIVE, EXCLUSIVE AND POSITIVELY CHRIST-LIKE hope for the future. Why, because that is where they are. I suspect that if one delved into the Iranian, Irqui, Israeli, Canadian, US,etc., populations of youth, you would find a broad group who would love to meet in sacred space and commit to love and peace. Now there is the real mystical body of Christ.
Post new comment