The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
In preview of new encyclical, Benedict reprises 'dictatorship of relativism' speech
by John L Allen Jr on Jun. 28, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionBY JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Rome
By the time Pope Benedict XVI’s new social encyclical appears in early July, it may well seem largely anti-climactic. Extracts have already appeared in the Italian press, and yesterday the pontiff actually scooped himself by devoting his remarks for the close of his “Pauline Year” to the theme of Caritas in Veritate, “Charity in Truth,” also the title of his long-awaited meditation on the economy.
In effect, what Benedict laid out last night likely amounts to the theological and spiritual substructure of the encyclical, minus the specific economic prescriptions.
The core of what Benedict said, during an ecumenical vespers service at the grand basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls, is that building a better world requires forming better people. Structural reform thus presupposes personal moral and spiritual renewal, including a life devoted to prayer and the sacraments.
[Editor's note: For more analysis from John Allen on the new encyclical, see: Economic encyclical expands on church's 'best-kept secret'.]
In a passage evocative of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s famous “dictatorship of relativism” homily four years ago, Benedict urged Christians to be “non-conformists,” refusing to accept the values of secular modernity. In particular, Benedict XVI rejected a “do-it-yourself” version of Catholic teaching, insisting upon opposition to abortion and gay marriage as part of what it means to have an “adult faith.”
Standing just a few feet away from what Christian tradition regards as the tomb of St. Paul, the pope also revealed that carbon-14 testing has confirmed that the fragments of bone contained within the sarcophagus belong to a man of the first or second century – thereby confirming, Benedict said, “the unanimous and uncontested tradition” that the sarcophagus contains “the mortal remains of the apostle Paul.”
The vespers service yesterday evening closed a “Pauline Year” opened last June 28 by Benedict XVI to commemorate the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of St. Paul, the “apostle to the gentiles.”
The idea that a better world must be built on better people is likely to be a core theme in Caritas in Veritate, and the pope dealt with it at length yesterday.
“Paul tells us [that] the world cannot be renewed without new human beings,” Benedict said. “Only if there are new human beings will there be a new world, a renewed and better world.”
From that premise, Benedict said that personal spiritual renewal requires “non-conformism,” an unwillingness to “submit oneself to the scheme of the current epoch.” Doing so, the pope said, requires a new way of thinking at odds with the values of the world, shaped by encounter with the “new man” of Jesus Christ.
“The way of thinking of the old man, the common way of thinking, is generally directed toward possessions, well-being, influence, success, fame, and so on,” Benedict said. “Thus in the last analysis, the ‘I’ remains the precise center of the world. We have to learn to think in a more profound manner,” the pope said, based on the desires of God rather than the self.
Benedict recalled Paul’s insistence upon an “adult faith,” mocking the use of that phrase to justify dissent from official Catholic doctrine.
“The phrase ‘an adult faith’ in recent decades has become a diffuse slogan,” the pope said. “It’s often used to mean someone who no longer listens to the church and its pastors, but who chooses autonomously what to believe and not to believe – a ‘do-it-yourself’ faith. This is then presented as the ‘courage’ to express oneself against the magisterium of the church.”
“In reality, however, courage isn’t needed for that, because one can always be sure of public applause,” the pope said. “What takes courage is adhering to the faith of the church, even if it contradicts the ‘scheme’ of the contemporary world.”
Benedict specifically highlighted opposition to abortion and gay marriage as part of that package.
“Part of an adult faith, for example, is a commitment to the inviolability of human life from its first moment, radically opposing the principle of violence, precisely in the defense of the most defenseless of human creatures,” the pope said.
“Part of an adult faith is also recognizing marriage between a man and a woman for life as part of the design of the Creator, newly reestablished by Christ,” he said.
Those comments came as part of a meditation on chapter four of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, the same New Testament passage underlying then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s homily just before the conclave that elected him to the papacy four years ago in which he identified a “dictatorship of relativism” as the central challenge to the faith today.
Yet Benedict insisted that what it means to be a “new person” in Christ is not primarily about what someone opposes, but what he or she supports. In that regard, the pope said, the test of one’s commitment to truth, or veritas, is one's love, caritas.
“Love is the test of truth,” the pope said. “Ever more we must be measured by this criterion, that truth becomes love and that love makes us truthful.”
Benedict argued that because Christ’s love extends to the entire universe, Christian concern for the world must likewise have a cosmic dimension. Though the pontiff did not develop the point last night, on previous occassions that insight have provided the basis for a strong environmental message.
“The crucified Christ embraces the entire universe in all of its dimensions,” Benedict said.
Benedict closed by urging a life of prayer and participation in the sacraments as a remedy to what he called the “interior emptiness” of modern life, reflected among other things, the pope said, in drug use.
The Pope would have us accept
The Pope would have us accept the institutional church's version of "adult faith" which follows teachings of a hierarchy that excused, hid and in many ways facilitated the abuse of little children, by clergy chosen with no input from the laity. That is not adult faith, but blind obedience, to these fallen men.
They have left us waving in the breeze while they close ranks and close churches to garner funds to pay for their sins. I say NEVER AGAIN! It is time for the People of God to take back the church. We should decide who leads us. The ordination of any priest or bishop chosen without the consent of the people is invalid according to the early church and that should certainly be true now. Any encyclicals or other writings by these men with invalid ordinations are likewise invalid.
It is they who have left the church, not us.
The Church has never belonged
The Church has never belonged to "the people"; the Church belongs to Christ. The Church is not a democracy.
True the church is not a
True the church is not a democracy; but I do not believe it is a dictatorship requiring blind obedience given with out thought or response because someone said so. Didn't Christ answer the challenges of the people of his time. I don't remember reading anywhere that the people who followed Christ were required not to think and answer questions.People are too smart for that today. After all many people have died so that speech and thought could be free.
Right, it's not a democracy -
Right, it's not a democracy - it is an absolute dictatorship which is not what Christ had in mind. In the early Church there was a democracy among the people who elected people to perform certain duties. All of the Christian community, together served the Lord and were counted as equal in their service to the Lord.
Cardinals get together to democratically elect a Pope. Bishops get together and democratically vote on certain issues. All the decisions of the Church are by an elite group of people and the entire Church should be involved in these decisions. The laity has no say at all and this is a great tragedy as the voice of the Holy Spirit is shut out by such a process of exclusion.
I believe that you are wrong
I believe that you are wrong Mr. Anonymous. At its beginning, the church was a democracy...
Jesus was not a bishop or a priest and niether were the disciples. There is a reference to Jesus as a priest in the Letter to the Hebrews. The author uses the word to refer to Jesus as the new and last “High Priest,” ending a long line of Jewish leaders. The author claims that priests are no longer necessary because no more sacrifices are needed. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice and is our final high priest.
If you read church history, you will find that Jesus was not focused on priesthood. He was focused on ministry. He called people to minister alongside him, regardless of their status in society. Everyone was responsible for the kingdom of God.
All were invited to minister and they did so with various titles given to them by the community based on their gifts. Some were called prophet, others teacher and still others apostle. It is not until 215 A.D. that there is evidence of an ordination ritual for bishop, priest and deacon, under the influence of the Roman Empire.
Pope Gregory I, 590 to 604, coined the phrase, "servant of the servants of God" to describe the papacy. He implored, urged, recommended and discussed, but still got the job done without being a dictator. He believed in the old Roman adage, "What touches all, must be approved by all," i.e., everyone affected by a decision should have a seat at the table. Vatican II affirmed that.
However, corrupt forces within the hierarchy have been seeking to turn back the clock to a time when, like the scribes of old, they are revered by church members and not questioned. Jesus warned against these scribes and said that they devour the property of widows. (Read Mark 12:38-44)
It is these corrupt forces that would take away our seat at the table and spread their corruption. We should not listen to them.
How shall the People of God
How shall the People of God take back the Church? You suggest the laity should decide who leads.
Any further details? Should there be general elections in parishes and dioceses? Or would lay commitees appoint priests, bishops, cardinals and ultimately the Holy Father?
I can only imagine a worldwide Papal election campaign, complete with primaries, stump speeches, and Catholics "going to the polls" by casting their vote in the collection basket.
And if your candidate lost, would you still be complaining how the People of God need to take back the Church?
Though it's not the "American Way," I am thankful that the Church is governed as it is. No form of human governance is pefect; yet when the Holy Spirit flourishes in the souls of our priests and bishops, it certainly beats a representative democracy.
Yes, these men are flawed, and, unfortunately, some very deeply so. The latter have no place in the priestly ministry. Still, I see many strong, courageous, and compassionate shepherds in the hierarchy of the Church.
How is it that two people can
How is it that two people can read the same article and come to opposing views. I was delighted to read this report and thought what a wonderful leader we have! It is my experience that those who oppose the leadership of the church are living lifestyles contrary to the teachings of the church - so of course they would. If you don't like it, you don't have to stay!
Fallen men who speak with
Fallen men who speak with authority given them from above, by a God who was there and saw them fall. If you have a problem with whom God has given authority in this world, take it up with Him, and be ready to listen to what He has to say with an adult faith. If you are looking for perfect men to obey, then your search is misguided. If you are looking for salvation without obedience, then your search is even more misguided, since it is precisely from disobedience that we are saved. If you think that the obedience requested of you is blind, you have but to read the encyclicals that you so blithely declare invalid, and the myriad other documents that explain what is asked of you. Again, if you have a problem with those things, take it up with God, and be prepared to listen with an adult faith.
Well written, well said. In
Well written, well said. In total agreement with you. A.M Bourassa
Fallen men who speak with
Fallen men who speak with authority given them from above, by a God who was there and saw them fall. If you have a problem with whom God has given authority in this world, take it up with Him, and be ready to listen to what He has to say with an adult faith. If you are looking for perfect men to obey, then your search is misguided. If you are looking for salvation without obedience, then your search is even more misguided, since it is precisely from disobedience that we are saved. If you think that the obedience requested of you is blind, you have but to read the encyclicals that you so blithely declare invalid, and the myriad other documents that explain what is asked of you. Again, if you have a problem with those things, take it up with God, and be prepared to listen with an adult faith.
Seems to me an "adult faith"
Seems to me an "adult faith" would be able to see the value of the Church's teaching despite it being carried in "earthen vessels".
"We should decide who leads
"We should decide who leads us." Great. I hereby reject Ken C. and the next 10,000 applicants.
With respect, Ken, the battle
With respect, Ken, the battle you are currently fighting was fought some five hundred years ago. That skirmish was called the Reformation. Every point you made would be cheered and applauded by my Baptist aunts and uncles -- from Roman corruption to popular election of ordained ministers to appealing to some discarnate "church" that doesn't have fallen men leading it, you've taken as your own virtually every virulently anti-Catholic anodyne I've ever heard. You are already apparently a congregational protestant at heart. At least that's what you sound like. Why don't you just be honest and join up with them? You have literally thousands of sects from which to choose. Or, of course, you can start your own - dozens of other men and women do every week.
Dear Fr. B., Jesus did not
Dear Fr. B.,
Jesus did not declare that the church had to be run the way it is! That was purely a matter of history and human decisions. Did it ever occur to you that the reason that there are so few monarchies in the world today (and the church is a monarchy), is because people got sick and tired of the attitude that their monarchs had. And it is this very same attitude that our hierarchs in the church have today. Please remember, there is no degree of hierarchy between the Persons of the Divine Trinity. It makes no sense among them. Father, Son and Holy Spirit exist in a beautiful relationship. And that is what our faith is to be about--relationship with God without the overlays of power. That is what Jesus wants for us.
But the hierarchy has become a problem for us. Because once a hierarchy is established, then we need all types of rules to protect and administer it. And then we end up with a chain of command that destroys the relationship rather than promote it. We can rarely, if ever, see or experience relationship under hierarchial power. Hierarchy imposes laws and rules and we end up missing the wonder of the relationship that Jesus intended for us to have.
And Fr. B., please remember that so many of the "fallen men" as you call them (who are imposed upon us as our leaders), aren't just 'fallen'---they are criminals. That is a point that our hierarchy just can't seem to comprehend! Our hierarchs are so preoccupied with their authority--that they insist that obedience to it is THE crucial element for the laity. This authority isn't anything else but the means to make others conform to what the hierarchy wants. And what do they want? The survival of their system of governance. People have been sacrificed to this system. In one form or another, this lies behind every struggle for power, every prejudice, every war, and every abuse of relationship. The 'will to power' that our hierarchs protect, has become so ubiquitous that it is now considered "normal" for our church.
Oh, and Fr. B---don't be so quick to look down your nose at congregational Protestants. If they hadn't come along---our Church would still be mired in much of the medieval muck that it was in---before the Protestants rocked the boat, er, the Barque of Peter a bit. At that time, our Church leaders had lost their ability for the self-criticism that is necessary to keep religion from its natural tendency toward arrogant self-assurance. But the experience of the Reformation---caused them to clean house and become more circumspect.
The Church needs, once again, the ability of self-criticism. We need the ability to self-correct ourselves---but if the hierarchy will not do it----the laity must. After all---we are the Church. We are not just 'pew-sitters' who are admitted to the Church because of the graciousness of those who think that they own it---the hierarchy. And the dominion hierarchy's proclamations are not the very voice of God. This is the Age of the Laity---and it is our ministry to bring about change within as well as without the Church. And it is the task of the hierarchy to learn to become 'servant leaders'.
Yes, what you said about
Yes, what you said about elections corresponds with what I have understood of the early Church: in the early days, sometimes bishops were elected (although they were subsequently ordained). But, as I understand it, sometimes the early Church also gave serious sinners one, and only one, chance at repentance. After that, it was permanent excommunication.
Both doctrine and discipline develop, and we should be glad that they do! Would you like the early Church's standards of penance imposed on you today? If not, then don't be so quick to disregard the developments that have happened since those early days. Most of all, don't feel that you can pick and choose which disciplines of the early Church to embrace at the expense of our current disciplines. Embracing one rule of the early Church that you like and forgetting the other rules of the early Church that you don't like means that what you care about really is not the early Church per se, but rather the imposition of your own point of view on the rest of us!
You left out Deacons.
You left out Deacons.
What democratic
What democratic rubbish...
The Church was not founded as a democracy, rather as a heirarchy,
in the same pattern of the Trinity.
We may not like it but that's the truth...
Expecting that the Church will democratically elect their clergy is
not a possibility, wishful simple thinking at best...
That does not mean that we cannot be vocally critical of wrongful clerical behaviour, (this has always been with us), rather we should and must be critical when this is called for; it's a Catholic requirement from the very start of the Church, as witnessed by Paul's ctriticsm of Peter over the Gentiles....
"The people to take back the church..." what is he thinking?
We ARE the Church...
Gerry Maingot
Your backward-looking view of
Your backward-looking view of the Church as frozen in the time of the early Church (as Rahner has said, the Church of today in fact may still be the "early Church") is certainly thought-provoking. Part of our faith, surely, part of the faith of the early Church (a Church, I might add, that was insistent that women cover their heads and keep quiet at the Eucharist), is that the Holy Spirit remains a guiding force within the Church, and most especially in those who have been sent to teach on behalf of the Church, and that the Holy Spirit will never abandon the Church. To reject this, it seems to me, would not be a rejection of ecclesiastical authority; rather, it would consitute a rejection of the Faith itself, of the Church itself, whether early or otherwise.
What's new? Same old, same
What's new? Same old, same old....Of course, emphasis on the sacraments ensures the continuation of the hierarchy
uh, emphasis on the
uh, emphasis on the sacraments has been the heart of the church since it came to be. at her very heart is the eucharist, the great gift from christ, his very body and blood.
*** Then Jesus said to them:
*** Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.
Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? ***
-- John 6:54-62
Is that too much of an emphasis on the Sacraments?
I hope the 83 or so Bishops
I hope the 83 or so Bishops who objeted to the President speaking and receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame will read, understand and act according to the meaning of this piece. It gies us all a moment of thoughtful reflection about what the Church should be doing. The Pope said it all, now let hear what the Bishops have to say.
“Part of an adult faith, for
“Part of an adult faith, for example, is a commitment to the inviolability of human life from its first moment, radically opposing the principle of violence, precisely in the defense of the most defenseless of human creatures,” the pope said.
I think they have.
Chris
I think they have too Chris.
I think they have too Chris.
Pope Benedict XVI
Pope Benedict XVI specifically highlighted opposition to abortion and gay marriage as part of that package when he talks of an "adult faith."
Benedict says:
“Part of an adult faith, for example, is a commitment to the inviolability of human life from its first moment, radically opposing the principle of violence, precisely in the defense of the most defenseless of human creatures.”
Isn't it too bad that Pope Benedict XVI did not think it important or fitting enough to include in "radically opposing the principle of violence, precisely in the defense of the most defenseless of human creatures,” TRAFFICKING IN INDIVIDUALS FOR PURPOSES OF SEXUAL EXPLOITATION, ESPECIALLY THE MOST DEFENSELESS OF HUMAN CREATURES, CHILDREN.
Look at the pattern, "the principle of violence" that has so laid waste to the bodies and souls of thousands upon thousands of children in the United States, Canada, Australia, Ireland and practically every country in the world where Catholicism has had a significant presence. We now refer to them as the adult "victim/survivors" of sexual abuse at the hands of Roman Catholic Church clergy but let us not forget all those who did not survive that sexual abuse, that horrific violation of soul and body. Let us not forget those who died by their own hands or were even murdered by clergymen who sexually abused them. Let us not forget those who were murdered when they confronted clerical rapists.
Not to mention this grave violation of the spiritural and civil rights of the child in this new social encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, only indicates once again the denial that continues to exist at the highest levels of the Church.
What about the fact that such actions by predatory priests and enabling bishops is a most flagrant violation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child?
It's pathetic.
More "Do as I say not as I do?"
More smoke and mirrors?
More investigations by the Holy Office of the Inquisition?
LITTLE ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY.
What does the current and
What does the current and transitory scandal of sexual abuse have to do with matters of faith and morals that have been part of Catholic teaching since apostolic times? How does the fact that many of the hierarchy was sexually corrupt translate into supporting abortion and homosexuality?
These teaching were not created anew by the current generation of priests, who you seem to think are all corrupt. These teaching go back to apostolic times and get their life from sacred scripture.
If you want proof that abortion and homosexuality are not compatible with the Holy Spirit then look to the Episcopal groups. Places where these things are supported are withering. Places where these things are opposed are growing.
If the pope really believes
If the pope really believes that “The crucified Christ embraces the entire universe in all of its dimensions,” then he has to accept that Christ embraces our GLBT sisters and brothers. It's about time he did, too.
He does preach that. It was
He does preach that. It was through the grace of God and the teaching of the Catholic Church that I came to reject the thirty or so years that I spent chasing the illusion of homosexuality. Homosexuality is a pagan god. It becomes its own religion and replaces the god of life with the god of sexual thrills. Sometimes it's been hard to move past this, but when I ask for God's forgiveness and for his grace I get it.
And remember, the Church cannot change her teaching on homosexual acts. This is not a teaching of Pope Benedict XVI. It is a teaching of the apostolic Church.
MarkF50, 1. The
MarkF50,
1. The homosexuality you speak of - that of sexual thrills - is a very limited understanding of homosexuality. I find the majority of gay people to be well-adjusted (remarkable considering the negativity thrown their way by so-called "Christians"), productive citizens who contribute positively to society. Just b/c you fell in with the wrong crowd, it doesn't mean you should demonize an entire group of God's children.
2. The "teaching" of the Church is the teaching of a group of insular, flawed men. The Church is made up of every stripe of human being. NO ONE person OR group of persons has access to truth & claim to teach it.
3. It sounds to me that you were full of self-loathing & thus acted in ways that were destructive. You let Church brain-washing destroy your ability to be a productive, positive gay man.
God loves all men but cannot
God loves all men but cannot accept what His eternal justice hates; sin and sinful behavior. Not only that, but God is Truth and therefore cannot accept falshood.
Gay, Lesbian and Transgender are false labels to false lifestyles. There are only to sexes; Male and Female. Any other variation is based on a lie, the lie that we can "choose" our sex. For God homosexuality is an abomination. Transgedered people are poor souls who have deformed and mutilated their bodies to impersonate a woman or a man, but they will be man or woman as they were born until they die, there is no choice.
GLBT people are living in sin when they practice their inclinations against the will of God and the teachings of the Church. God loves them but cannot abide by their sin. Theirs is the same rebellion of Satan, beleiving they can be better than God and choose to live the lie of ther "lifestyles".
The Church WILL NEVER ALLOW GAY MARRIAGE, GAY LIFESTYLES AND TRANSGENDERED MUTILATIONS AS ACCEPTABLE, not the One True Church.
What is the gay "lifestyle"?
What is the gay "lifestyle"? There are gay people from EVERY race, ethnicity, religion, profession, political persuasion, etc. Gay people are human beings too, with the same basic needs & wants as every other human being.
Gays are also God's children. They were born that way. You don't realize it, but YOU are claiming God to be in error for making them that way.
Finally, God is truth, but more so, God is LOVE. Sadly, you don't seem to know a thing about love when it comes to your LGBT brothers & sisters.
God bless our Holy Father!
God bless our Holy Father!
Of course, in order to have
Of course, in order to have an adult Faith, we need to read adult publications. It's a pity that National Catholic Reporter (apart from John Allen's articles) so rarely makes the grade.
“Part of an adult faith is
“Part of an adult faith is also recognizing marriage between a man and a woman for life as part of the design of the Creator, newly reestablished by Christ,” he said.
Why is the Church confusing the above, which seems to relate to the sacrament of marriage, with civil marriage, which deals with taxes, health care, inheritance, and the like? The church continually holds that civil divorce is irrelevant to the breakup of a sacramental marriage, why isn't there corralary that civil marriage is really not the process whereby a sacramantal marriage is formed? It seems to me the two relate to separate realities and relationships.
Our civil governments, particularly here in the United States, are not supposed to be in the business of running religion or sacraments. I fear we are blurring that line. The point to shore up in the state and federal constitutions is that no government should ever be able to tell a church group who is eligible for sacramental marriage. Beyond that, the governments by virtue of due process should treat all people equally.
I agree -- same old same
I agree -- same old same old...Dumb us all down. The blind to follow the blind!
"What takes courage is
"What takes courage is adhering to the faith of the church, even if it contradicts the 'scheme' of the contemporary world."
g. k. chesterton once wrote that a dead thing can float along with the flow of a stream. only a living thing can swim against it. i pray that we all gain the daily courage to swim against the culture of relativism we live in.
i am very much looking forward to his writting. i'm wondering, of course, if the social/economic parts will really be THAT much of a surprise. from at least pope leo xiii's rerum novarum on, popes have been slowing expounding more and more on the catholic teaching applied to economics and social life. i wonder if the holy father's writting will be a further development of those ideas...
"On this Rock, I will build
"On this Rock, I will build my Church."
No hierarchy = anarchy.
Why, anonymous, would anyone want that? Just look at the Anglican Church which is in chaos, because there is no definitive authority.
Sorry, but the hierarchy is not going anywhere.
Yeah. Well. Why don't you
Yeah. Well. Why don't you progressive bastards stick your liberal thinking up your ass. Because, well, nobody but you and your circle of friends gives a crap about what you have to say.
Not exactly a response one
Not exactly a response one should expect from a follower of Jesus. Frustration is understandable; anger is understandable. But anger never persuades to charity.
So many aging, liberal,
So many aging, liberal, malcontents...you have a CHOICE..LEAVE and find another denomination. Show some courage and LIVE your convictions!! I have more respect for my atheist friends than I do wishy washy Catholics who whine and whine and whine. The church is not a democracy, get used to it or use the door!
CrusaderRex - Sounds like
CrusaderRex - Sounds like you're the one who is doing all the whining. Whine, whine and more whine and you are drunk in your own whining. You have a choice and that is to hear and listen and try to understand what your elders in the Church have to say. You stop your baby whining and listen for a change and stop blabbering about your atheist friends whom you have more respect for, which says much about your infantile type of spirituality which is just a notch above atheism.
The Pope is calling for a
The Pope is calling for a spiritual renewal of all the faithful, clergy included. We are all sinners. I would recommend a recent article I ran across at Catholic Online entitled "Are you really a Catholic?" A highlight for me was the statement that our church is not a smorgasbord in which we can pick out the things we like, practice those and ignore those we don't. We all need to review the tenets of this wonderful faith and recommit to those. They are Bible and tradition based.
For the GLBT community, the official Catechism of the church states that "we must accept homosexuals with respect, compassion and sensitivity" and "avoid unjust discrimination" but points out that Sacred Scripture presents their acts as ones of grave depravity. The Church is not opposed to granting them the same civil rights the rest of us enjoy. Just don't relativize it and call it marriage.
And electing or selecting our own clergy? Come on! How many of the apostles would have made the cut if you reviewed their pasts as we presently review our government officials? No thank you.
I'm curious. What do you
I'm curious.
What do you think Paul meant when he said "the world cannot be renewed without new human beings,” Benedict said. “Only if there are new human beings will there be a new world, a renewed and better world.”??
I think the new encyclical will foster a LOT of attention, don't you?
Thomas
Yes, it will, but
Yes, it will, but unfortunately not the type that will encourage or strengthen people in their faith as the buzz words are condemnations and not a way for fruitful dialogue to occur.
Post new comment