The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionAfter 'Taliban Catholicism,' now 'Taliban Orthodoxy'?
by John L Allen Jr on Mar. 04, 2010
Without really trying, I’ve generated controversy in some quarters by coining the phrase “Taliban Catholicism” to describe a psychological tendency (as opposed, let the record be clear, to any actual person or group) in today’s church. I understand it as the equal-and-opposite extreme from what George Weigel has usefully described as “Catholicism Lite,” meaning a kind of supine assimilation to secularism.
“Taliban Catholicism,” then, is an exaggerated allergy to anything that smacks of secularism, liberalization, or corruption by modernity – an angry form of the faith that knows only how to excoriate and condemn.
Of course, Catholicism hardly enjoys a monopoly on the “Taliban” instinct, which is more akin to a potential distortion within any religious system. In some ways it may be especially virulent within ultra-traditional and nationalist strains of Orthodoxy, as a recent “Patriarchal and Synodal Encyclical” from Archbishop Bartholomew of Constantinople makes clear.
Traditionally the Patriarch of Constantinople is considered the “first among equals” in the Orthodox world, and Bartholomew has won international acclaim for the way he has used that office to promote ecumenism, inter-faith dialogue, and a keen sense of social responsibility. Among other things, he’s known as the “Green Patriarch” for his strong ecological emphasis.
Yet Bartholomew also has strong critics within Orthodoxy, who see his openness as a potential liability – especially as it regards relations with the ancient enemy of Rome. Bartholomew addresses that criticism head-on in his encyclical, dated Feb. 21.
Here are a few choice passages:
“With a sense of duty and responsibility, despite its hurdles and problems, as the First-Throne Church of Orthodoxy, the Ecumenical Patriarchate cares about protecting and establishing the unity of the Orthodox Church, in order that with one voice and in one heart we may confess the Orthodox faith of our Fathers in every age and even in our times. For, Orthodoxy is not a museum treasure that must be preserved; it is a breath of life that must be transmitted and invigorate all people. Orthodoxy is always contemporary, so long as we promote it with humility and interpret it in light of the existential quests and needs of humanity in each historical period and cultural circumstance.”
“To this purpose, Orthodoxy must be in constant dialogue with the world. The Orthodox Church does not fear dialogue because truth is not afraid of dialogue. On the contrary, if Orthodoxy is enclosed within itself and not in dialogue with those outside, it will both fail in its mission and no longer be the ‘catholic’ and ‘ecumenical’ Church. Instead, it will become an introverted and self-contained group, a ‘ghetto’ on the margins of history. This is why the great Fathers of the Church never feared dialogue with the spiritual culture of their age – indeed even with the pagan idolaters and philosophers of their world – thereby influencing and transforming the civilization of their time and offering us a truly ecumenical 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.
“It is precisely for these reasons that, with the mutual agreement and participation of all local Orthodox Churches, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has for many decades conducted official Panorthodox theological dialogues with the larger Christian Churches and Confessions. The aim of these dialogues is, in a spirit of love, to discuss whatever divides Christians both in terms of faith as well as in terms of the organization and life of the Church.”
“These dialogues, together with every effort for peaceful and fraternal relations of the Orthodox Church with other Christians, are unfortunately challenged today in an unacceptably fanatical way – at least by the standards of a genuinely Orthodox ethos – by certain circles that exclusively claim for themselves the title of zealot and defender of Orthodoxy. As if all the Patriarchs and Sacred Synods of the Orthodox Churches throughout the world, who unanimously decided on and continue to support these dialogues, were not Orthodox. Yet, these opponents of every effort for the restoration of unity among Christians raise themselves above Episcopal Synods of the Church to the dangerous point of creating schisms within the Church.”
“In their polemical argumentation, these critics of the restoration of unity among Christians do not even hesitate to distort reality in order to deceive and arouse the faithful. Thus, they are silent about the fact that theological dialogues are conducted by unanimous decision of all Orthodox Churches, instead attacking the Ecumenical Patriarchate alone. They disseminate false rumors that union between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches is imminent, while they know well that the differences discussed in these theological dialogues remain numerous and require lengthy debate; moreover, union is not decided by theological commissions but by Church Synods. They assert that the Pope will supposedly subjugate the Orthodox, because the latter submit to dialogue with the Roman Catholics! They condemn those who conduct these dialogues as allegedly ‘heretics’ and ‘traitors’ of Orthodoxy, purely and simply because they converse with non-Orthodox, with whom they share the treasure and truth of our Orthodox faith. They speak condescendingly of every effort for reconciliation among divided Christians and restoration of their unity as purportedly being ‘the pan-heresy of ecumenism’ without providing the slightest evidence that, in its contacts with non-Orthodox, the Orthodox Church has abandoned or denied the doctrines of the Ecumenical Councils and of the Church Fathers.”
“Beloved children in the Lord, Orthodoxy has no need of either fanaticism or bigotry to protect itself. Whoever believes that Orthodoxy has the truth does not fear dialogue, because truth has never been endangered by dialogue. By contrast, when in our day all people strive to resolve their differences through dialogue, Orthodoxy cannot proceed with intolerance and extremism. You should have utmost confidence in your Mother Church. For the Mother Church has over the ages preserved and transmitted Orthodoxy even to other nations. And today, the Mother Church is struggling amid difficult circumstances to maintain Orthodoxy vibrant and venerable throughout the world.”
It will be interesting to chart reactions to Bartholomew's encyclical within Orthodoxy – and, perhaps, to ponder the extent to which some of the same points might be made with regard to Roman Catholicism.
Mr. Allen, The Taliban
Mr. Allen,
The Taliban executed women, apostates, homosexuals, and anyone else that disagreed with their brand of Islam in a public forum.
To continue to use "Taliban Catholicism", no matter how many times you need to explain yourself only serves to feed anti-Catholicism in general.
You sir should immediately stop using that term.
When Cardinal DiNardo starts rounding up dissenters and chops their heads off inside the Co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart then I see your point.
Shame on you!
What is “religious” about the
What is “religious” about the culture of alienation and dominion? Nothing. Alienation and the culture of dominion are fundamentally irreligious.
What is specifically human is the capacity of self-reflection and intelligence that recognizes individual origin from two-person mutuality, female and male. Not only does the human body witness to the human reality of female/ male mutuality, but so does the processing of intelligence. Intelligence is characterized in two-pole dialog of emotional intelligence (left brain) and rational intelligence (right brain.) Defective rationality, failed mutuality between faith and reason, frustrates human relationships and the capacity to be “religious,” to be human. This defect of character is an anomaly, a deviancy—a malicious deviancy when it is intentionally cultured to advantage one sex over the other.
Faith is emotional intelligence, the deep well of self-reflectivity in which the virtue of mutuality, of other concern, accommodates individuality to social virtue. Reason is rational intelligence, the day-to-day communication of reason with contingencies at hand and accommodation to faith-inspiration. Personal/ social humanity is frustrated when the dialog of faith/ reason is frustrated.
The culture of male bachelorhood, as in hierarchical clericalism, puts the individual person and the social community at risk of deviant culture, that is, of dominion by one sex and suppression of the other; religiously implicated violence roots in the deviancy of male hyper-culture, as for example, by the Taliban, and by the Roman Catholic Church in the institutional alienation of women from hierarchical structures.
If the deviant male clergy cannot self-correct for this malicious defect, it needs to be corrected from the outside, that is, by social reflectivity that recognizes the fatal injury of the alienation of the sexes, and by action to enlighten and correct the violent defect.
The schism in the Roman Catholic Church, that is, of the Councils of Trent and Vatican I versus the Second Vatican Council, is a schism of denied mutuality and affirmed alienation of persons, male and female. The affirmation of the essential working between faith and reason, as affirmed by Pope John Paul II and now by Pope Benedict XVI, is an affirmation of essential human mutuality.
The hermeneutic of human continuity, of evolution from lesser authenticity to greater, is a hermeneutic of transformation, a continuity process of perpetual updating. Reduced to its essence, the schism between continuity and discontinuity, between Vatican I and Vatican II, is a schism of cultured alienation versus cultured mutuality. Alienation frustrates mutuality—what it means to be human, to be authentic; mutuality advances continuity—what it means to be human, to be “religious.” Neither humanity nor nature can tolerate the fatal injury of cultural alienation, of deviant male clericalism.
So if I try to cut through
So if I try to cut through chaff of this comment, am I right to interpret your solution to the problem of deviant male clericalism as allowing for women priests? This is hardly a solution at all; That only men can be priests is in the Catechism (para 1577), and as such is dogma a Catholic is required to accept. If this isn't your solution, I suggest that you write more simply. Although you write very beautifully with big words, you must admit that their vagueness obfuscates and alienates (a point of irony no doubt).
To blindly accept far
To blindly accept far outdated church "Dogma" and Chatechism is absolutely ridiculous in this day and age. The three great religions--Christianity, Islam and Judiasm--were founded in the antiquated and religiously insane middle east many hundreds of years ago---by men. Then, as now in the middle east, men held that they alone were to be in charge of their religions and their societies. Equating the Taliban to the all-male leadership of the Catholic church is not at all far-fetched. They are both male-only structures that denigrate women and their roles in the world. The Catholic church will collapse and become a footnote in history sooner than you think if it doesn't allow priests to marry and to let women become priests. The "dogma" created in the middle ages by abusive and egomaniacal popes, cardinals and bishops must end and the humanity and equality of men and women created equally by God must be recognized immediately if this church is to escape irrelevancy. Do you really believe that God made men superior to women? Come on! As a man who attended 12 years of catholic school in his youth, it astounds me that so many smart Catholics have allowed this ineqality to persist--and base the reasons for doing so on man-made "dogma". Let's get real and save the Church, and its wonderful educational system, by renouncing and revising ancient discriminatory rules in our religion that are fast becoming its undoing for a great many, painfully obvious, reasons. Catholics that fail to do othwerwise will play a role in the demise of their own religion.
Blindly accept? So you are
Blindly accept? So you are saying you outsmart Jesus Christ and his teachings?
"Let's get real and save the Church"? Do you not read the bible? We have already won.
I guess this is the result of poor chatechisis from Vatican II.
"Faith supposes reason as
"Faith supposes reason as grace supposes nature." John Courtney Murray, S.J. This is a supposition of Vatican II's "Apologia Theologica" that opts symbiotic inclusivity over fideistic alienation, love over dominion.
Equality does not equal
Equality does not equal sameness. Modernity has resulted in a return to the pagan ethos that sees women as objects of sexual pleasure, not as full human beings.
Truth does not evolve from one meaning to another based on the age. To think so shows the arrogance of elitist white people who want to live according to their genitals without using their brains.
God created men and women equally, but he also created them differently.
Radical feminism has resulted in two generations of people who cannot form stable, loving relationships, which is evidenced by the high divorce rate. It is built on the lie that equality means sameness. Men and women are fundamentally different, and science has borne this out.
Secularists seem to love to congratulate themselves for their "tolerance" and "open-mindedness," but they have murdered as many people in the name of equality than have been murdered by the religious. 200 million since 1789 to be exact.
In today's world the intolerance in Western society comes from the secularist Taliban who expects everyone to think the way they do.
The fact you attended Catholic school for 12 years does not make you an expert on anything. It just shows you learned nothing and have chosen to be like Lucifer saying: "I will not serve."
Take your Luciferian feminism and keep it to yourself and don't impose it on others.
The COMMON GROUND is us.
The COMMON GROUND is us. Inherency and coherency, substance, energy and process, are aspects of the cosmic continuum — and we are its self-reflective consciousness — we are “common ground” in community with all life on Earth.
So, what is the “bridge” connecting common ground, all vitality, all cosmic continuity? It is the wave/particle inherency of quantum electricity — the electromagnetic spectrum — the radiant energy of the sun. All communication, all substantive transformation rides on the waves of electro-magnetism.
This understanding takes all religion to a place it's never been before, and that is “openness to evolution,” to the ongoing transformation of all substance, all consciousness. The cultured fixations of dominion theology no longer have credible standing in the Sacrament of Natural Order.
Christian religions have the urgent task of revisioning theology in a way never before envisioned. For religion as we've known it, it is a matter of change or perish. The cosmic WAVE OF THE FUTURE is the hope of the future, for authentic religion, for humanity. God is the God of Change, of Eucharistic transformation no one escapes, of intentional symbiosis.
The tide of evolution will not be stopped, no matter how fervent declarations to the contrary, or how deeply held are investments in past fixations.
The 12 apostles were all
The 12 apostles were all male. If God wanted woman priests Jesus would have
chosen at least one female. Not allowing priests to marry is not a dogma and
only a rule that can be changed. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not
out dated and was published while John Paul 11 was pope.
St. Mary Magdalene was indeed
St. Mary Magdalene was indeed apostle, teacher, leader. The patristics were not ready for her, nor the romans ("holy romans).
## The 12 apostles were all
## The 12 apostles were all Jews. If God wanted Gentile priests Jesus would have
chosen at least one Gentile.
Which explains why all priests in the CC have been Jews - and always will be. Gentiles are not being second-class citizens; those who want Gentiles to be ordained are forgetting the principle of complementarity.
And as St. Paul says in Galatians 3.28:
"There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus". So even though the Church cannot ordain Gentiles, the words of the Apostle show that Jew & Gentile are one in the Church, so it is just as though Jews were not able to ordained as priests, & as though Gentiles could be. So why complain ?
"Equating the Taliban to the
"Equating the Taliban to the all-male leadership of the Catholic church is not at all far-fetched."
How is it that false, or at least badly misguided, allegations of sexism are constantly in the forefront of the minds of the fan base of NCR? The good Mr. Allen does not apply the term "Taliban Catholicism" to the hierarchy but to those who think of themselves as "more Catholic than the Pope." Taliban Catholicism describes extremism such as that particular insanity that regards the hierarchy as a bunch of wimps because they have not yet caused the LCWR to be burned at the stake. In a Taliban analogy the hierarchy would be the relative good guys referred to as moderates. Not everything is about perceived oppression of women.
A3drss uyvuraauixkg,
A3drss uyvuraauixkg, [url=http://xlxbsykmlvgz.com/]xlxbsykmlvgz[/url], [link=http://sytzzwrcnirl.com/]sytzzwrcnirl[/link], http://gchmuedizknf.com/
It has existed because most
It has existed because most Catholics are sheep. The way the all male run Church wants to keep them. It is time for educated, thinking Catholics--who are also the Church-- to either speak up and speak out; deny the beast the meat it feeds on (money), or clear out and found an independent, Roman Orthodox Church.
The Cathechism is a teaching
The Cathechism is a teaching tool and as such is dicta, not infallible doctrine. Doctrine can be changed - they will rewrite the Cathechism.
Male only clergy is NOT a
Male only clergy is NOT a dogma. It is a teaching — all dogmas are teachings, but not all teachings are dogmas. Look it up.
Do you know what dogma is,
Do you know what dogma is, Sir? There IS a difference between dogma, doctrine, and tradition--do you know what that difference is? Just because something is in the catechism does not make it dogma. Many catechisms have been written over the centuries; each one eventually gets discarded or rewritten to include a new generation's insights into the treasures of Christian faith. This catechism has its usefulness, certainly, but its statement on the ordination of women is not dogma. Dogmas are the essentials of Catholic Christian faith: the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, Christ's Presence in the Eucharist, the Assumption of Mary, Mary's Immaculate Conception. The ordination of women (or of men, for that matter) hardly can be ranked among such an exalted category as dogma.
Now, do yourself an intellectual favor and find out when the priesthood really develops. It is not until the sixth century that there are priests in the way we have them today as liturgical and sacramental ministers. Christian priesthood was unknown in the early centuries of Christianity. As a matter of fact, in all the New Testament, there is only ONE priest for Christianity, and that is the High Priest, Jesus, in the Letter to the Hebrews. St. Paul was not a priest, nor was St. Peter, nor St. John, nor the other apostles. The gospels tell us that the women who were present at Jesus' crucifixion were followers of His who accompanied Him on His way to Jerusalem; they very likely were relatives of the male disciples. Since Josephus (a first century Jewish historian) tells us that Passover was a family meal, it is likely that these women (along with their children) joined their husbands and fathers (i.e., the male disciples of Jesus) at the Passover meal Jesus had with His disciples the night before He died. (At least, in Matthew, Mark, and Luke this is a Passover meal; in John, it is not.) In short, the Last Supper historically was not the ordination of the apostles as the first bishops of the Church. (There is not a shred of historical evidence to support this Catholic myth.) And, by the way, the office of bishop was quite a common one to religious associations of Greco-Roman antiquity, whether Jewish, Christian, or Pagan. Plato writes of "episcopai" (women "bishops" or "overseers"--a common office in just about any group), and the Dead Sea Scrolls describe the duties of the bishops who were overseers of the communities for whom the scrolls were written.
You need not take my word for it. Do your own intellectual homework and find out for yourself.
Yes do your homework and read
Yes do your homework and read the Didache and how it speaks of bishops, prespyters, and deacons. Seems like they had the orders figured out by then end of the 1st century.
Is the CCC divine revelation?
Is the CCC divine revelation? Is it Holy Writ? If not then it is simply a man-made compliation of justifications for the status quo, written by men in support of male and clerical domination.
There may be a shortage of
There may be a shortage of priesthood, but there sure isn't a shortage of vocation to the papacy.
Your intelligence is high, but your faith is weak.
Who cares what humanity can tolerate. It is what the Bridegroom of the Church can tolerate that I care more about, in the guidance of our dear Holy Father.
I am a female and cannot stand those that back of the feminist point of view. It is the new feminity that is shown through the Blessed Virgin by her love and obedience, along with her loyalty.
Although most nuns show this, those who yack on radio shows don't exemplify this.
I look for to the new feminity movement, not the old feminist movement that are afraid of men. I am empowered spiritual and will support 110% all male clergy from hearing such male bashing.
Awful article.
Form your post it seems that
Form your post it seems that you see the feminist of today thru a very narrow and, I believe, distorted lens. I have known many, many women who are feminist and don't recognize your description of them ("afraid of men"???). I also think that there is a time to be obedience and a time not to be. May we all be able to prayerfully discern when which is appropriate.
I agree entirely with Tito
I agree entirely with Tito Edwards. 'Taliban Catholicism' is NOT a fitting parallel to 'Catholicism lite!'
Normally a balanced journalist, John Allen is doing a serious disservice by repeatedly using this sound-bite phrase. Alternatives abound: 'Irascible Catholicism,' 'Ornery Catholicism,' 'Watchdog Catholicism,' 'Bitter Catholicism,' 'Rottweiler Catholicism.'
Some people like 'lite' beer, salad dressing, etc. The point is that most beer-lovers look down on 'lite' beer. But to use 'Taliban' as a counter to 'lite' is just sensationalist.
Well said Mr. Edwards. Mr.
Well said Mr. Edwards. Mr. Allen is WAY out of line with this comment. But it's not the first time and won't be the last. One can easily argue that NCR types have the same aversion to orthodoxy which they have unsuccessfully tried to stamp out for decades. Their approach is more "Taliban" than anyone else's.
I, too, think that "Taliban"
I, too, think that "Taliban" may be too harsh of rhetoric. Perhaps since the "Catholic Lite" analogy comes from the beverage environment, a counter image from the beverage industry might be "Red Bull Catholicism". Red Bull is a potent energy drink, as it conveys that those within Catholicism desire a more potent Catholicism vis-a-vis the culture. However, just as "Catholic Lite" has a negative suggestion, i.e. watered-down, "Red Bull Catholicism" also has a negative connotation as well, i.e. unhealthy overstimulation of good instincts. And let's be honest: both tendencies exist and they are not healthy. Those infected by "Red Bull Catholicism" risk losing their souls just as much as "Catholic Lites".
"Talaban Catholicism" serves
"Talaban Catholicism" serves only to confuse, and provides yet another stick with which to beat the Church. Worse still, the term equates politics and religion. To understand Islam, and the Taliban in particular, one needs to regard it as a politico-religious movement. It is still moot point if Muhammad intended to found a religion or political state. One must regard the Taliban as a political movement. The questionable term muddles the distinction between church and state. Jesus made us aware of the difference (render to Caesar...).
The use of "Taliban" in
The use of "Taliban" in connection with either Roman Catolicism is utterly irresponsible. It is an ad hominem technique that casts aspersions on those you disagree with, without discussing the actual issues. It is debasing and degrading, and without any substance. As another critic pointed out, the Taliban have engaged in terrorism, war, mass killings, executions. Show me one Orthdox or Catholic conservative leader who has advocated such steps. Until you do, hold you tongyeu, and hang your head in shame. Your words bring disgrace upon you.
John, I hadn't seen you refer
John,
I hadn't seen you refer to "Taliban" Catholicism. Really. This is beneath you. You have established a good reputation as an objective journalist. But now to throw verbal molotov cocktails at people with whom you disagree--this is the kind of rhetoric that belongs on NCR's editorial page, not in your column. You do with "Taliban" what others do to "fundamentalist."
You need to follow the spirit and letter of the AP stylebook, I think.
"fundamentalist The word gained usage in an early 20th century fundamentalist-modernist controversy within Protestantism. In recent years, however, fundamentalist has to a large extent taken on pejorative connotations except when applied to groups that stress strict, literal interpretations of Scripture and separation from other Christians. In general, do not use fundamentalist unless a group applies the word to itself."
In this case, only use "Taliban" to refer to those groups that use that term of themselves. Anything else is emotionalistic boilerplate.
Taliban Catholicism....who
Taliban Catholicism....who exactly has been shot? Where is the violence associated w/ the Taliban? Suicide bombers? Destroying (literally) religious objects from other religions?
It's not that the terms
It's not that the terms "Taliban-Catholic" or "Taliban Orthodoxt" are innacurate as you have defined them, it's just that they are so polemically loaded as to be utterly unhelpful in reasonable discussions. Raher than providing accurate terms to aid in clarifying dialogue, they shut down dialogue by labeling certain positions or groups as wrong, a priori. It's like Hitler analogies and holocaust references in the culture wars and abortion debates. It's not that comparing the number of abortions to the number of deaths in the holocaust is an exaggeration, it's just that it's almost never helpful. All it accomplishes is to turn discussions into shouting matches.
"Orthodoxy does not fear
"Orthodoxy does not fear dialogue." Wow! What a powerful statement. If only the extremists on both sides could take that message to heart, what a bright world this could be.
Taliban Catholicism as the
Taliban Catholicism as the "equal-and-opposite extreme" to Catholicism Lite? Last time I checked, conservative Catholics have not been pushing for torture and execution of women accused of adultery. Mr. Allen, you need to educate yourself on what the Taliban actually did. Then your cavalier labels will be less insulting.
God Bless.
God Bless.
God Bless.
God Bless.
Sadly John, you have let your
Sadly John, you have let your tongue run away with your brain on this one.
You have, hopefully inadvertently, given some in our Church the impetus to continue the "Culture Wars" that professor Diarmiud McCulloch, Oxford (UK) University Professor of Church History, identifies as the inertia that the Catholic Church has actually being suffering from in the decades since Vatican II. Mc Culloch wrote in his "History of the Christian Church" and had great difficulty trying to figure out how the Catholic Church has been trying to keep faith with the mission given by Christ in Matthew 28.
Give up this 'Taliban' language, otherwise, people might just give up on you and that would be a pity as you do, usually write very well.
I've been following your writing now since the late 1990's.
Re: "“Taliban Catholicism,”
Re: "“Taliban Catholicism,” then, is an exaggerated allergy to anything that smacks of secularism, liberalization, or corruption by modernity – an angry form of the faith that knows only how to excoriate and condemn."
Hmmmm. To excoriate and condemn is to be "Taliban"....
Really, "Taliban" like....
Well Mr. Allen, you may not have tried to generate "a controversy"... but it seems to me you did so by way of an immature, emotional, and completely innapropriate analogy.
Or would you prefer calumny?
HCSKnight
BTW, I stopped reading after the second paragraph. Hopefully it's now obvious why.
Some Greeks call their clergy
Some Greeks call their clergy the Taliban.
"Orthodoxy is not a museum
"Orthodoxy is not a museum treasure that must be preserved; it is a breath of life that must be transmitted and invigorate all people."
Hmmm, I initially thought the Patriarch might be suggesting B16 rethink the advisability of trying to bring back the museum-like Tridentine mass.
O, well, one can always hope...
Actually, the bringing back
Actually, the bringing back of the Old Mass has increased relations with the Orthodox east, who saw the Novus Ordo has an abandonment of our tradition and as a complete joke in the way it was practiced (insert giant puppets and clowns here).
The Orthodox liturgy was
The Orthodox liturgy was written by St. John Chyrsotom around the 4th Century.
It pre dates the Tridentine by 1000 years or more.
Darn new fangled Latin Mass!
Right. I'm sure that the
Right. I'm sure that the Patriarch is equally put off by the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or the Liturgy of St. Basil. The cafeteria is closed, but the museum is open...
The Divine Liturgy of St.
The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is quite beautiful and is often celebrated in contemporary English in the United States. I doubt Patriarch Bartholomew is put off by it. For the record, I am a western rite Catholic.
It is not only used by Orthodox Churches but also by some of the Byzantine Churches that are allied with the Holy Father.
The term Catholic Taliban is
The term Catholic Taliban is offensive in the highest degree. It is in no way similar to Catholic Lite. Taliban conjures images of terrorist groups fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Your wordplay insinuates an dark connotation. Your first paragraphs attempt to justify your use of the wordplay but it hardly suffices. Furthermore, Taliban is associated with a different religion altogether; again a dark connotation. When you paint a group of the faithful with a broad brush as you do, you not only are intolerant of the faults within your brother but go on to slander them. May God forgive me for my indignation.
"The term Catholic Taliban is
"The term Catholic Taliban is offensive in the highest degree. It is in no way similar to Catholic Lite."
## Unlike the language they adopt towards Catholic liberals, which is never insulting - & if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you :)
"Furthermore, Taliban is associated with a different religion altogether; again a dark connotation."
## How very appropriate - the CT are always telling Catholcs not orthodox enough for them to "join another Church" or "join the Episcopalians". The term Catholic Taliban seems very appropriate. It's interesting that the CT are very good at dealing insults out tpo others, but hopeless at taking a bit of their own medicine.
Would "More Catholic Than Thou Brotherhood" be a more acceptable collective description ?
"union is not decided by
"union is not decided by theological commissions but by Church Synods"--Vatican II really brought 'unity'.
A short prayer paraphrased
A short prayer paraphrased from the ending of, The Light of the East, by John Paul II:
Mary, Mother of the star that never sets, dawn of the mystica day, rising of the sun of glory, show us the Orientale Lumen. May God shotern the time and distance. May Christ, the Oriental Lumen, grant us to discover that we are very close.
Schism with the Church pains the Lord and we should pray for our reconciliation in truth and in a united faith.
Nick
A short prayer paraphrased
A short prayer paraphrased from the ending of, The Light of the East, by John Paul II:
Mary, Mother of the star that never sets, dawn of the mystical day, rising of the sun of glory, show us the Orientale Lumen. May God shorten the time and distance. May Christ, the Oriental Lumen, grant us to discover that we are very close.
Schism with the Church pains the Lord and we should pray for our reconciliation in truth and in a united faith.
Nick
Amen
Amen
"...truth does not fear
"...truth does not fear dialogue, because truth has never been endangered by dialogue."
This statement is so profound yet so simple. These words should be "required reading" for every political office holder and every member of every church clergy. As long as we see each other with an "us versus them" mentality, we can accomplish nothing because we are too focused on differences. Those differences might be real, however, Love must override those differences so that we can see that all of us, regardless of our views, are God's beloved children. When we put our energy into working together, we can accomplish much more than we can divided.
Let the Western Catholic
Let the Western Catholic Church join the Eastern and make Bartholomew the Patriarch of Constantinople co-equal with the pope. The open orthodoxy of the Eastern Church, as Bartholomew states it, is the healthy dose of reality the Western Church needs, the People of God needs.
'Taliban Catholicism' is just
'Taliban Catholicism' is just a mean spritied term. Say what you will about outright conservatives but you wouldn;t see them beating women with a stick on TV or allowing Al Qaeda to do what they want
No, Denis, Taliban Catholics
No, Denis, Taliban Catholics beat their women with sticks OFF of the TV, quietly in the dark where no one can see it. And yes, men are allowed to do whatever they want with the women...especially if they are married women. The good Catholic women have to have lots of sex and lots of babies with their Taliban men, whether they are willing or not, because that is what is decreed from on high as their purpose and role in life by the celibate Taliban Catholic men.
Then out in the open, they pray piously on Sundays, glad they are not one of those "dirty women."
You know if they're good
You know if they're good Catholics, the have unhealthy attitudes towards sex. ;) Lots of babies? How many women do you know with more than 3? What is this? 'The old country' in the 1920s?
This posting is so biased and
This posting is so biased and mean-spirited, and shows such a generalized and simplistic view of groups of one's co-religionists as to preclude the author from having any of the theological virtues, particularly charity. To say that traditonalist or conservative Catholic men beat their wives and maintain them in a state of quasi-servitude is beyond the pale.
Repent.
Anonymous: I always thought
Anonymous:
I always thought that was the taching that goes on at those 'New Cana' retreats.
Come to think of it, did the wedding at Cana ever work out? Maybe they got divorced?
Who does this? I am a person
Who does this? I am a person who some might apply the term Taliban Catholic, because yes I do speak up when Catholics won't defend the unborn.
So . . . you know this about me, that I beat my wife and abuse her, how?
tom in Ohio
No, "you wouldn't see them
No, "you wouldn't see them beating women with a stick on TV" - but you will see them call those who are pro-choice not real Catholics, want to deny them Communion and if they had their way, like they do in the Phillippines, jail women for having an abortion, even if she was raped. Even if it was a child of 12 years old & her life is threatened who got raped by her dad like the case in Brazil, even if the woman who is in her first term who has just been diagnosed with cancer of the brain that is spreading rapidly she can't have treatment for cancer because the abortion law says that the fetus is more important than the health & life of the mother, even if it means the woman will die they will not discuss it, even if she had five or six other children to take care!! Her role as a mother to her other children is not as important as the fetus. Sure sounds like a beating up of women and in some cases it is also a killing of women and little girls. Many young girls who are raped in the Phillippines have a baby and the baby has all kinds of health problems as well as not having the nurturing it needs to have a life in a true sense of the meaning of a life outside a garbage dump!!! That's caused by 'Taliban Catholicism.'
John has the name right 'Taliban Catholicism" in which an extreme sect in the RCC will not discuss this matter without condemning the other person who does not agree with them. It's their way or the highway.
Same as the Taliban. You just don't see the damage & death that is created for women, young girls and their families by the 'Taliban Catholicism' that exist today. You just don't see it.
"You just don't see the
"You just don't see the damage & death that is created for women, young girls and their families by the 'Taliban Catholicism' that exist today. You just don't see it."
You don't see it because there isn't any.
Are you so sure that
Are you so sure that official, systemic, Church exclusion of women is all that more more enlightened than Islamic "justice" toward women? What kind of measure is that? that "you won't see conservatives beating women?" Wow. That's not very far beyond Taliban, and scant credit for people who claim to be Christian.
you left out words like
you left out words like "marginalized", "patriarchal", and 'paternalism'
John, I wish you had found
John,
I wish you had found another way of making your point, which I think is s valid one without using the word "Taliban Catholism". There is too much incendairy language in public discourse today. And the effect of this has done great harm. It is something that pleases the extreme, inflames them with self-rightiousness and is used for justification for more hate. Yes, I wish you had used another way to make your, otherwise, thoughtful observation.
I don't think that you coined
I don't think that you coined the phrase "Catholic Taliban". I have been hearing this for some years (and thinking it, unfortunately). It is hyperbole, of course. There is a tendency among some "people of faith", people who may feel economically or intellectually disenfranchised, to root belief in anger and fear - fear and anger harden into intolerance and intolerance cloaks itself in "orthodoxy". I think that the only way out is compassion.
Taliban Catholicism? I agree
Taliban Catholicism? I agree with those who find it a mean-spirited phrase that tries to throw gasoline on the flames of the culture wars, within and without the Church. Let's drop it.
At least that is true today. But not too long ago, sub specie aeternitatis, it would have fit quite well. I am not thinking only of the wars of religion in early modern Europe (or elsewhere), but of the roundup and execution of dissenters as heretics. Or of someone like Pope Gregory XIII, who in 1572 ordered a Te Deum sung in Rome to celebrate the murder of some 5,000 to 30,000 French Protestants (Huguenots) in the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. (The culture of life, lite). That Te Deum continued as an annual affair for many years.
Fortunately for all of us, the Church that never changes does in fact show some forward motion. Who was it who said that "The Roman Catholic Church has a strong sense of tradition and no sense of history?" We can all learn from history, and it can sometimes be a humbling experience for us.
Mr. Allen, I hope someone
Mr. Allen, I hope someone takes away your shovel so you can stop digging your hole. Seriously?!?!?
If anybody should be
If anybody should be objecting to the term "Taliban Cathlics," you would think it would be ordinary Afghan University students. After all, "taliban" is just Pashto for "students." When you hear it said, you don't know if people are talking about the Taliban or just the taliban. Kind of like Tradition and plain old tradition.
If the liberals like to call
If the liberals like to call people names, that's no big deal. What is a big deal is that they wont defend innocent life, resulting in the killing of 1 million chidren per year. Isnt it bizzare that they talk of justice?
If the conservatives like to
If the conservatives like to portray themselves as preserving the TRUE faith against the heathen liberals, that's no big deal either. What is a big deal is that conservatives won't defend human life after birth, say, 200 deaf boys molested by a priest and let off by Benedict's office. Or say, politicians who represent both Catholic *and* non-Catholic constituents. Or say, gay men and women who are denied civil rights by a secular government created by and for the people. Or say, ordinary Catholic men and women who dare to think for themselves instead of marching in lockstep with Benedict.
Now now. Conservatives just
Now now. Conservatives just like to get to the truth rather than react solely on the basis of mass media sensationalism. Who could trust that? When it turns out that the accusations are false we refrain from joining the chorus. Falsely accusing our neighbours is contrary to our religion.
http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601
I have two issues with the comment about "ordinary Catholic men and women".
You are suggesting that forming a view that Peter will feed us good food precludes thinking for ourselves. As a formerly atheist Catholic with an atheist upbringing I have formed the view that Peter will feed us good food. That appears to be the most logical option. I resent your insulting comment. You are suggesting that people like me don't think for themselves.
In this regard, in contemporary society educators and media are notoriously liberal. We start spending most of the day most days away from our parents at an early age and are bombarded with liberal ideology ever after. Surely a more conservative viewpoint demonstrates independent thinking whilst going with the liberal flow doesn't demonstrate anything.
The other issue I have with your criticism of Catholic men and women who accept Benedict is that it makes perfect sense for ordinary Catholics to do that. What distinguishes a Catholic from other Christians? Surely it would be acceptance of the Pope as legitimately guided by the Holy Spirit in faith and morals. With hundreds of thousands of protestants it would be difficult to find another distinction that always applied.
I note that you seem to be buying into the excuse pro-abortion Catholic politicians make for supporting abortion. In reality voters vote for candidates as they are when elected including their ethical standards. If we pretend that secular voters vote for a candidate and genuinely believe that he or she fully subscribes to the Catholic faith then they would take it for granted that the candidate would not support abortion at the time of voting. They might not personally support it but might consider that candidate the best fit for their overall beliefs. In reality such secular folk vote already knowing the candidate is pro-abortion and only for that reason do the candidates need to live up to their original convictions thin excuses to fellow Catholics aside. Most of them have a long history of doing all they can to create an open slather on abortion.
I totally agree!
I totally agree!
I agree as well! So called
I agree as well! So called conservative "defenders of life" apparently begin in the womb, stop sometime after birth and pick up again in the hospital bed. There is so much life to be lived in between, and that life quite often encounters attacks and denials of justice.
"If the liberals like to call
"If the liberals like to call people names, that's no big deal."
## 1. They are "calling names" because that is the "charity" that they have dealt out to them by the Taliban RC Traditionalists. Those who don't want to be called names, should not an example by doing so; they've brought it on themselves. They can hardly complain of being treated by others as they first treated those others.
"What is a big deal is that they wont defend innocent life, resulting in the killing of 1 million chidren per year. Isnt it bizzare that they talk of justice?"
## 2. From the Church that tolerates allowed child-abuse on a massive scale, & then tries to deny it, that is some chutzpah. The Church "won't defend innocent life" either - such crimes have been dismissed as "petty gossip" by a Cardinal. Not by an insignificant non-entity tapping away at a PC, but by someone nearly at the very top of the CC, a "Prince of the Church", no less.
Post new comment