The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionLiberals dying or hiding?
Feb. 18, 2010
The proposition that liberal Catholicism is dying has been offered from time to time, for decades now, often in a way that reminds one of the schoolyard scuffler more interested in the fight than in any point being made.
The extended period over which such assertion has been made, of course, argues against its validity. But one of the most recent forays, by Charlotte Allen, a professional provocateur of sorts in religion-writing circles, is worthy of some consideration not only because of the buzz her Jan. 15 piece has been making around and about the ether, but also because the rather frayed and confused arguments she posits could do with some trimming and straightening.
Allen uses the recent death of theologian Mary Daly, a radical feminist, to launch her assessment that “the flame of Catholic dissent” is dying out. One has to accept a premise that can only be inferred from the piece, that no distinction exists among theologians -- from Daly to Fr. Charles Curran, to Fr. Hans Küng, to Sr. Sandra Schneiders, to the late Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx. Her broad brush is applied to anyone who might have drawn some notice from the Vatican about his or her theology. It doesn’t take much investigation of Catholic intellectual tradition to discover that some of the sainted giants of the past were, in their own time (Thomas Aquinas among them), on the outs with church authority only to be later rehabilitated.
So one period’s dissenters could easily be another period’s great minds. There’s little discussion of substance in her observations.
One further note is necessary. She claims that Schillebeeckx was condemned in 1986 “for holding that there was no biblical support for the ordaining of Catholic priests.” That is simply incorrect. He was never condemned, and her explanation is a mere caricature of his position. But this was, after all, an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal, and we know the difficulty of handling complexity in a small space.
Still, however badly the point is made, there is some truth to her claim that the liberal thinkers, the giants who fashioned the documents of the Second Vatican Council and those who soon took over the mantle of that unusual four-year gathering of the world’s bishops, have left no giants behind. What’s happened?
(In all fairness, she notes, too, that conservative Catholicism is no better off, and she concedes that some of its brightest lights aren’t even theologians. That concession quickly leads one to a question of why the church in any of its manifestations in the developed world would be bleeding not only intellectual life, but enthusiasm and members as well. But that’s a discussion for another day.)
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section:Deacons.Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
It is beyond dispute that the limits of human biology and the relentless march of time will eventually take from the stage all the theological luminaries, conservative and liberal, of the past half century or so. So it’s easy to assert that as they disappear so does the liberal or dissenting project. Those descriptions, by the way, are terribly inadequate, but for lack of better words or for the space to be more precise, and for the sake of argument, they’ll have to do.
We presume from the names she mentions that Allen is referring to a period of Catholicism that would include the modern liturgical reformers and the theological experts from around the world who produced the documents of Vatican II, opening up ministry in a much greater way to laypeople, including women, and deepening the church’s commitment to social justice issues. If the project is now fading, it certainly leaves behind quite a legacy.
It is not overstating the case to say that without such reforms throughout the ecclesial body many places today would not have a functioning church. Without the tens of thousands of lay ministers, for instance, most dioceses would be unable to function or to teach the next generation of Catholics; there would be no music at Mass and no servers and readers. Ministries of outreach to the poor and homeless, to those in prisons, would go wanting. Chaplaincies of every sort would remain unfilled.
No matter how far some would like to push reform of the reforms, the truth is that sooner than later need meets the theology that has already been fashioned. The church goes on, in large measure, because of the reforms initiated by such the figures mentioned in Allen’s piece.
Yet, the question remains: Where are their successors in the academy? Has the project gone sour? Has it run its course?
Perhaps.
However, before embracing that conclusion, one would have to factor in the 25 years of John Paul II’s papacy and the toll it took on theologians. One need only talk to a sampling of theology departments to know that in many places theologians are lying low. Our seminaries will certainly be playing it safe for the foreseeable future. Moral theology of the sort that might raise substantial questions or handle difficult sexual or other life issues is being left to those who regurgitate the party line. There may be nothing at all wrong with the party line, but it’s not going to face much challenge these days from Catholic theologians. More adventuresome and sophisticated theologians are out there, but they’re not going to raise their heads too far above the barricades. Not in an age when an invitation to a sitting president can bring out the sound-bite armies. Our best thinkers have seen what happens to careers when the accepted formulae -- be it in moral theology or Christology or ecumenism -- are challenged.
The chill that has been placed on speculation and thinking of the sort that raises discomfiting questions is probably the greatest cause for the lack of theological enterprise in this era. John Paul, for all of his greatness, dragged the church through a kind of repeat of the anti-modernist campaigns of more than a century ago. And we know that that campaign immeasurably set back Catholic intellectual pursuit.
Meanwhile, if consistent surveys are correct, the young may not be attached to the liberal project and the institution as we of another generation might have been. They might also be casting about for a sense of home and put off by the lack of tolerance of questions and the lack of place for women within the institution, as well as by the scandalous conduct of the hierarchy. But we also know that they are deeply attracted to some of Catholicism’s best traditions of spirituality and to its richly developed social justice teachings.
Catholic culture has changed irrevocably over the course of the past 50 years. The parochial structure we knew as the iconic Catholic presence in U.S. culture is fading and morphing into something else. No one knows exactly what shape it will take. We are the inheritors of both the “liberal” initiatives embodied in Vatican II and the storms of reaction against them.
The theological giants who fashioned those initiatives are certainly aging, but it would be unwise to jump too quickly to conclusions about the fate of what they leave behind.
If liberal Catholicism is
If liberal Catholicism is dying out, how come church reactionaries spend so much time investigating and condemning them?
Steve
gosh, you should see the
gosh, you should see the vicious, repetitive, party-line comments they leave under my too (for them) gentle reviews of old books by the Reverend Father Richard P. McBrien, DD, or by the late Reverend Father Anthony De Mello SJ, etc. over there on amazon . . .
Because it's easier to throw
Because it's easier to throw your weight around than do the heavy lifting God's work requires.
I couldn't agree more with
I couldn't agree more with this editorial. I have long felt that this is a Dark Age in the Church, an age in which intellectual acuity is stifled due to fear. I have long said that any institution that silences its intellectuals is in a pathological moment. When only those who agree with the Church's teachings are allowed 'voice', then you effectively have an institution that is more cultic and ideological than ecclesial and pastoral. It was for this reason that after completing a masters in theology from a pontifical university I did my doctorate in philosophy at a secular university. I don't regret the master's work at the Catholic univeristy for it was there that I learned to think in line with the best of Catholic thinkers. But, in terms of feeling free to think and argue and be about the Gospel, I have to admit that the secular university was much more welcoming and accomodating. My scholarly path has been pursued concurrent with twenty five years of pastoral work. Together, that has made all the difference.
How many good vocations were
How many good vocations were denied and deferred as well based upon a stringent Wojtyla political litmus test?
Since when is lobotomy a grace, a sacrament?
frere charles How many,
frere charles How many, then? The global data (CARA) show a 40% rise in vocations since 1985, ie, since JPII.
Plus, what gives you the right to label others as having had 'lobotomies'? Doesn't sound very Christian; you don't agree w/ them so you make fun of them.
Let's talk about your community; how has it been doing in the vocation department?
According to longitudinal
According to longitudinal studies by Dean Hoge et al, the laity --- both young and old --- are moving in one direction while the "JPII" priests and bishops are moving in another. At some point, we can plan on seeing the "greatest expectation gap" between lay and ordained.
Not a very promising picture.
Joseph Jaglowicz I haven't
Joseph Jaglowicz I haven't seen the longintudinal studies, but that does appear to be unlikely. Vocations would represent a sample of 'intensity'. I'll stipulate that younger diocesan priests are more traditional, and CARA data notes that 2/3 of new women postulants join orders that wear habits. It would appear, then, that 'tradition' has the intensity. It would appear that the Spirit is moving the Church.
See James Davidson & Dean
See James Davidson & Dean Hoge's "Mind the Gap: The Return of the Lay-Clerical Divide" in COMMONWEAL, November 23, 2007, for my info source.
Snide sarcasm that says
Snide sarcasm that says nothing.
I wouldn't consider this
I wouldn't consider this snide sarcasm, but an unintentional testament to the reality that both liberals and conservative minds belong in the church
Dorothy Snyder | Mothers Against Birth Control
Not too charitable for a
Not too charitable for a Benedictine.
Sarcasm that sheds no light.
Then again, it could be
Then again, it could be bitter experience.
I am surprised that NCR of
I am surprised that NCR of all journals would ask such a question. If we look in the right places we will find much theological ferment with many active thinkers and writers. These forward-thrusting spheres of influence include feminists, the Asian churches, and ecology in general. We just have to consult book reviews in NCR and other journals, the booklists of Orbis and other publishers. Vatican II was a time of gathering and approving the accepted wisdom of the century, and benefited from the many synthesizers mentioned in the editorial.
The council also encouraged expansion into uncharted areas of theology, and explorations of their nature are fragmentary. The older generation is far from being forgotten. First, the people cited have left numerous disciples. Charles Curran for one has trained dozens of moral thinkers since his supposed exile to SMU, many of whom are teaching in Catholic institutions and publishing today. Second, it would be masochistic of us to expect everyone to dare to confront the Inquisition openly and lose years of their prime research work to self-appointed watchdogs who have all the time in the world. Neither should we expect them to laboriously devise obfuscating language, as theologians such as Dupuis had to do, in order to get their work past the censors. Soon enough a new generation of generalists will have enough material for their more improved syntheses. And we expect that NCR will be there to celebrate them.
By "playing it safe" you mean
By "playing it safe" you mean actually teaching the faith of the Catholic Church?
No. By "playing it safe" I
No. By "playing it safe" I read "playing it safe."
In any case, in what way does one "teach" Faith?
A question for our Theologians.
Any left out there?
Dear Charles, The best of our
Dear Charles,
The best of our theologians in the US, several if not most of the recent Presidents of the American Catholic Theological society have either been told by the Inquisition that they are no longer Catholic Theologians or that they must recant what they have written. We can go down the example of so many of the great theologians that were told that by Cardinal Ratzinger. We can even see CIA ties to the church trying to get rid of the Liberation Theologians in South America. This shenanigan by our church authorities is the direct reason that we have so many Independent Catholic Churches in South America and has also left room for more honest Protestants to gain favor. It is indeed a dark age for theologians in our Church! It is like a lobotomy when so many theologians are cut away from the Church. It is also very destructive to the University setting of seeking truth when these catechists license theologians.
We have at the head of our Church Power Brokers and Money Changers that lead from a totalitarian mind set, yet Jesus was not of that mind set. These brokers of power ruin the carriers of the truly spiritual and canonize followers of Francisco Franco rather than martyrs like Oscar Romero. They launder money from mafiaorum through the Vatican Bank and as in the time of Galileo are too fearful to look town the microscope of scientific observation. The speak as if they were omniscient beings, yet what can one expect from such an authoritarian group? Well, yes, we get it scandals and cover up, meaningless apologies, but no change that would bring spirituality back to the Church. It is indeed a very dark sinful age caused by fearful sinful leadership.
May the windows of the Church be opened to allow the light of grace to shine in ?
R. Dennis Porch, MD
There is a place for liberals
There is a place for liberals and conservatives in the Catholic Church, though there isn't a place for those who dissent or promote heresy.
Largely the reason why Liberalism is such a spent force is that they have insisted on rejecting their own Catholic identity, history, and intellectual tradition. So why are they then surprised that they haven't left behind anyone to follow them in the studies of Catholic identity, history, and intellectual tradition?
But really, NCR... do you honestly think any young person with a modern education can revere the intellects of Mary Daly, Fr. Charles Curran, Fr. Hans Küng, Sr. Sandra Schneiders, or the late Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx? All I see when I read these authors is intellectual fads, no attempt at logical argument, and no attempt to engage the modern sciences. I also see nothing but blinding pride, a pride that refuses to accept the authority of the magisterium to teach and proclaim doctrine.
You cannot have good academic work without an intellectual authority to maintain standards. This is why all of these thinkers made less and less sense over the course of their lives until they are walking parodies of the movements they hoped to inspire. There was no authority they would accept but their own pride, and thus there was no ability for them to humbly accept correction.
As for no intellectual giants in Catholic theology and philosophy I think that just shows you haven't done much reading lately. Neo-Thomism is back as the second most influential philosophical movement in the world today (after strict empiricism). It is also the most influential theological movement, since it is a theology whose techniques can adapt to modern empiricism as well as it adopted the father of empiricism... Aristotle.
Dear TT0, You write: "But
Dear TT0,
You write: "But really, NCR... do you honestly think any young person with a modern education can revere the intellects of Mary Daly, Fr. Charles Curran, Fr. Hans Küng, Sr. Sandra Schneiders, or the late Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx? All I see when I read these authors is intellectual fads, no attempt at logical argument, and no attempt to engage the modern sciences."
Obviously you never did read them as you here claim, nor when you write with such an apparently if hidden straight face: "This is why all of these thinkers made less and less sense over the course of their lives until they are walking parodies of the movements they hoped to inspire. There was no authority they would accept but their own pride, and thus there was no ability for them to humbly accept correction."
How do you manage to maintain that straight face while typing this, if indeed you have read their long lifetimes of work?
Or how write: "I think that just shows you haven't done much reading lately. Neo-Thomism is back as the second most influential philosophical movement in the world today (after strict empiricism)."
Yeah, sure. NCR's staff hasn't "done much reading lately" . . .
Kindly indicate the philosopher or theologian who interprets the methodology of Saint Thomas Aquinas by the "techniques of modern empiricism." Kindly indicate whom you consider a Neo-Thomist, or modern empiricist. And who rates its influence in this way? Ignatius Press's over-heated sales department? Joe Pearce down at Ave Maria?
Do you consider Aristotle an empiricist for suggesting he knock his big toe against something to prove its reality? Wasn't that Socrates? It has been so very long since First Philosophy, yet it is certainly a strong reference early in the third Episode of James Joyce's Ulysses.
Tell me, TT0: just what for you is empiricism, strict, modern or otherwise?
Because Ted you have not
Because Ted you have not really read them - you just claim that you have. As a young person - with a POST-MODERN education, I have read Mary Daly (I don't agree with her for the most part - but she has helped this young, white, male to broaden his myopic worldview) and Father Charlie Curran -- please (in a word...brilliant) and Hans Kung - are you kidding me????? This man has forgotten more theology than either of us have ever known. Don't forget - Father Kung is who Father Ratzinger chose to have dinner with...ALONE... for HOURS when elected Bishop of Rome. What do you think they were talking about? Kung was a wunderkind of theology, his influence on the Council was extraordinary - his tome on Christianity is still, even in 2010 one of the finest, challenging and indeed ORTHODOX presentations of our tradition EVER written. Schillebeeckx? Seriously... his visionary theology will survive Ratzinger's apologetics long into the future - when humanity catches up with his...wait for it...GENIUS. And Sandra Schneiders? Here you are once again just way off base. This pastoral scripture scholar is one of the holiest people I have ever met. Each of these fine men and this holy woman have dedicated the entirity of their life to Christ and the People of God. How dare you? Again, how dare you!!?
Blind? Are your serious? No attempt to engage modern science? Again - you have not read their works. This is exactly what they are all about.
Don't get me wrong - I too love Aristotle - but I also put his work in context. Ancient Philosophy.
I too also love the Neo-Thomists - especially Gilson.
You need to get...
Alright I'll stop - it is Lent afterall.
Well said Gerard. Dave
Well said Gerard.
Dave
Should I consider myself a
Should I consider myself a heretic or dissenter of the faith if I think a Catholic is someone that:
1. joyfully embraces the spirit of Vatican II
2. continues to search for God in all humankind and creation
3. never exhaust asking questions about his/her faith
4. risks & looks for God beyond established dogma and doctrine and Tradition
5. trusts the God within
6. often ‘misses the mark’
7. believes in a God who does not punish and loves all unconditionally
8. shares the belief that Jesus did not found a church but rather a way of life!
9. is dedicated to his community including gays.
10. believes in equal justice for both women and men in Church leadership
11. believes that spiritual growth requires ‘letting go’ and ‘letting God’.
12. challenges the institution to find our unknowable God in and beyond the traditional understandings
13. recognizes Satan, the devil, etc., not as a separate entity, but as the False-Self or Ego.
14. understands ‘pro-life’ to mean life from the Alpha to the Omega
15. we cannot and must not judge people, especially on such divisive issues as abortion/euthanasia, etc., until we have walked in their shoes.
16. fears change; but realizes that change is necessary if we are to accept God’s ongoing creation and our role in it.
17. none of the world’s religions have the ‘corner on the faith market’, but all have a purpose and contribution to make under God’s plan
18. the Church has not yet learned from the dark periods of religious history and the suffering it brings to humankind.
19. Needs to discard judgment with Christ’s compassion and understanding
20. puts God’s gift of human potential before human failings
21. does not expect everyone to agree with his/her point of view about what is considered a ‘good Catholic’ and believes that diversity is more important than passivity.
We must cannot expect everyone to think alike but we can certainly all love alike to be good Catholics.
The best posting, Exactly my
The best posting, Exactly my thoughts and feeling, beautifully said. Thanks
Great list Bart, and well
Great list Bart, and well worth meditating upon during the seasonal examinations of conscience. But as to your opening question, you may at this sad moment in history be at risk of being lumped into the company of heretics and dissenters, inasmuch as, and only inasmuch as, heresy and dissent are concepts that only exist for the inner circle of the institutional church. They liken themselves to the board of a country club or downtown big-shots' club, who define the rules of membership and decide what to do with the rule-breakers. This of course has nothing to do with Jesus Christ nor with Christianity -- it is not Catholic.
In response, 1. The true
In response,
1. The true mark of faith is joy. And, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI are both about reclaiming the actual teaching of Vatican II from a false understanding fostered over the last few decades.
2. St. Francis of Assisi, and many other saints, would say that is precisely what we all should be doing.
3. As long as you are open to the definitive answers when offered by the Church.
4. The best theologians do this, as long as they are ready, in humility, to accept the Church's judgment and correction in those instances when they stray too far beyond the bounds of the Church's true teachings.
5. There is no "God within", unless you are speaking of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But, here is the key to trusting, the Holy Spirit is not going to contradict Himself. The Holy Spirit guides the Church and when my personal opinions or ideas contradicts the Church's teachings, then I am not listening to the Holy Spirit.
6. Boy, don't we all! Me especially!
7. You're right, God does not punish, we punish ourselves. God does love unconditionally, but we demonstrate our love for Him by following His commands and His teachings. And, yes, Virginia, there is a Hell.
8. You are quite wrong on that, I fear. Jesus specifically spoke about founding a Church when He said to Peter: "On this rock I will build My Church".
9. Helping all people is the way of the Christian. The best way to help them is to present the Church's teaching in all its authenticity and its beauty, even when that teaching is challenging and hard to hear.
10. Equal justice is laudable and praiseworthy. However, there is NO right to leadership in the Church. It is a calling and it is up to the Church to discern who her leaders will be.
11. Amen.
12. God is knowable, but He is also unknowable. Through our Sacred Tradition and Scripture, we can apprehend as much of God as it is possible for human beings to do. In the Church, we find the fullness of Revealed Truth.
13. Satan is a real person, a real being. Scripture is clear on this as is 2000 years of Church teaching, and centuries of Jewish teaching as well. Satan was the archangel Lucifer, the greatest of the angels, until he fell from grace. He is a real being with real power over us, but only if we allow him to exercise that power. The devil's greatest trick was convincing mankind that he does not exist.
14. Amen.
15. We do not judge anyone, that is the purpose of Confession. However, we must NOT fail and not be afraid to call moral evil and atrocity by its name. Would you likewise suggest that it was wrong to condemn Hitler and his atrocities against the Jewish community until we walk in his shoes?
16. Change is necessary to grow, but change must always be based on Christ and authentic teaching, which never change, not on the fads and opinions of the day, which do.
17. Jesus Christ is either the savior and redeemer of ALL mankind, or He is a liar and possibly insane. If we claim that Buddhists and Muslims and Hindus and Shintoists all have direct access to eternal life without the need for the salvific sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, then we say that Christ is a liar and died for nothing. There is no middle ground on this.
18. The Church thinks in centuries, not decades or years. It takes time to process the darkest periods of humanity. But, having said that, I have not heard Pope Benedict XVI announcing a new Crusade or inquisition. And, the worst deeds committed by mankind have been committed in the 20th century by non-Christians and Atheists: Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Hussein...
19. Christ did not condemn the sinner, but neither did He tolerate the sin. He called sin what it was, He called those who sinned "hypocrites" and "white-washed tombs". His love was not unquestioning, do whatever you want, love. It was true and real love: wishing the best for the other and the best for all of us is eternal life.
20. Every time the Church tells people that they are acting in ways that are not in keeping with Church teaching and Christian life, the Church implicitly acknowledges the great potential for human beings to be better than they are. However, how do we know we are making mistakes, if we are falling short of human potential, unless we have a standard to live by? This is what Christ commanded His Church to do: provide the standard. But, all human potential is ultimately meaningless and worthless without the grace of God.
21. There is a core of Church teaching that all Catholics must accept. Beyond that, the Catholic Church is the ultimate "Big Tent". But, one has to be able to accept that core teaching. But not everyone who claims to be Catholic is so, just as Jesus warned that not everyone who "says Lord, Lord" will enter eternal life.
To answer your question, you are not a heretic. I think you are a seeker trying to be the best person you can be, at least based on the little I can discern from your comments. However, there are some areas of confusion in your comments. Unsurprising since we all fall short of perfect understanding, but we do the best we can.
I don't have time or
I don't have time or inclination to challenge the adequacy of many of your comments.
Besides, it's already March 3.
Drat!
No. 17 makes you a heretic.
No. 17 makes you a heretic. The Catholic Church is the one true church established by Christ Himself. All others teach error. And before you or others criticize what I have said, it is not I but official Church teachings that say this.
You would have to clarify your meaning of Nos. 9, 14, and 15, before any judgement could be gleaned as to whether you agree with official Church teaching or not.
And No. 18, c'mon, that's your opinion on world history.
Spoken like a true fanatic.
Spoken like a true fanatic. If you were born Muslim you could belong to the Taliban: everyone who doesn't believe as you do is "in error." Your particular belief system is the one, true and only simply because you think and presume it so. Sheer egoism. God, save us all from such as you.
Yes, I am a fanatic for
Yes, I am a fanatic for Christ and the One True Church He established on Earth. All others are false according to Her teachings. Pick up any copy of the Cathecism and argue with that. Argue with the many many Councils the Church has had over the years, and argue with the Magisterium. I do not say anything about what those who do not believe what the Church teaches. The Church speaks for Herself.
Response to your list from
Response to your list from Catholic teaching.
1. There is no spirit of Vatican II. There are only the findings (Which are valid.) and the Holy Spirit which is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Emotion is not certainty.
2. God is easy to find if you are willing to surrender to him. I do appreciate how we can see in ancient cultures how he was worshiped. Confirming people in false religious practice is not loving them in the name of Christ. Giving witness of Christ in love and truth is.
3. Feel free, the Church and Scripture provide the answers. Going outside of this framework that Jesus himself provided to us, is not trusting God, it is looking for one more to ones liking.
4. Called Gnosticism, Paul identifies in his writings as Anti-Christ. Unless of course you are talking about written Tradition which is scripture.
5. Do you mean the Holy Spirit? Which would lead you to the truth of the Church? By our nature we are flawed. If you are trusting an "The God within" make sure you test it by the revealed truth of Christ.
7. God allows bad things to happen so that good may come of it. We killed and tortured our creator who purchased our redemption by this very humiliation. The Christian God clearly will punish the wicked. Believing otherwise is Heresy.
8. That's clearly a Heresy, always has been. Anyone who has told you different is not giving you the love of Jesus Christ.
9. Is dedicated all mankind period. Everyone has a moral depravity of some sort. Doing homosexual acts is grave sin. Just as other grave sins are now ignored. You do nobody a favor confirming them in their sins.
10. Church clearly teaches this....no idea what you mean.
11. Yes, let God, who became man, suffered died and was buried, on the third rose again in accordance with scriptures.
12. God has provided a way for us to know him. Catholicism.
13. Satan is real and in fact, does not like God and has made war against his offspring, "us".
14. Couldn't agree more. From womb to tomb.
15. The Church judges behavior that is sinful and sin. It does not judge the individual.
16. Not a Heresy to be afraid, though our lord constantly tells us not to be.
17. Without question everything is within God's plan. Anyone who is saved, will be saved by the sacrifice of the cross. And will be saved through relationship with Jesus. Who God decides to include in that relationship is up to God.
18. Human beings incorrectly living out their vocations bring harm to mankind.
19. Again, the Church does not judge individuals. Jesus shared Truth and Love. Jesus understood us so well, that he endured the human experience and redeemed it. Do you pray your rosary?
20. This is pretty much the point of the church.
21. There are no good or bad catholics. Just faithful ones.
Do not make a false idol. Love the Lord on the Lord's terms.
I will pray for you.
Bert,you wrote exactly what I
Bert,you wrote exactly what I think!
Should You consider yourself
Should You consider yourself a heretic or dissenter of the faith if I think a Catholic is someone that:
1. joyfully embraces the spirit of Vatican II - dissentor, now if you said documents instead of spirit ...
2. continues to search for God in all humankind and creation - pantheist
3. never exhaust asking questions about his/her faith - hmm, curious
4. risks & looks for God beyond established dogma and doctrine and Tradition - yes, decidedly heretic
5. trusts the God within - Quaker
6. often ‘misses the mark’ - ahh, humble
7. believes in a God who does not punish and loves all unconditionally - someone who has never read the Scriptures
8. shares the belief that Jesus did not found a church but rather a way of life! - Yep, heretic
9. is dedicated to his community including gays - ah, sweet
10. believes in equal justice for both women and men in Church leadership - dissentor
11. believes that spiritual growth requires ‘letting go’ and ‘letting God’ - someone who reads too many bumper stickers, try scripture instead
12. challenges the institution to find our unknowable God in and beyond the traditional understandings - challenges the Church to look beyond Holy Tradition & Holy Scripture???? Huh???
13. recognizes Satan, the devil, etc., not as a separate entity, but as the False-Self or Ego. - psychoanalist, try something more up to date, perhaps cognitivism
14. understands ‘pro-life’ to mean life from the Alpha to the Omega - Yay, CATHOLIC
15. we cannot and must not judge people, especially on such divisive issues as abortion/euthanasia, etc., until we have walked in their shoes. - again a little bumper stickerish but true
16. fears change; but realizes that change is necessary if we are to accept God’s ongoing creation and our role in it. - okay. but really, see previous
17. none of the world’s religions have the ‘corner on the faith market’, but all have a purpose and contribution to make under God’s plan - full blown apostate & illogical n(P +nP)
18. the Church has not yet learned from the dark periods of religious history and the suffering it brings to humankind. - judgemental, do you really know what other people have and have not learned
19. Needs to discard judgment with Christ’s compassion and understanding - ironic, given previous post
20. puts God’s gift of human potential before human failings - okay, that might make an original bumper sticker (needs some work to be more catchy though)
21. does not expect everyone to agree with his/her point of view about what is considered a ‘good Catholic’ and believes that diversity is more important than passivity. This is a two parter part one: not the Pope, but I could have guesssed that part two: "diversity is more important than passivity" that's not even worthy of a bumper sticker
This is fun; my nominee for most fun post ever!
Most of your points are so
Most of your points are so fluffly that they are hard to pin down as orthodox or not. Most contain some truth. However, #7, #8, #13 & #17 are all heretical.
#7 God clearly punishes the sinner here or hereafter. Yes there is a hell with demons & human souls in it.
#8 Jesus clearly founded a Church not just a way of life. He did found a way of life as well, (the gospel) so you are right on that score at least.
#13 Satan & the demons are actual spiritual persons. They are fallen angels. They haven't lost their higher nature. As such they are most disgusted by human sexual sins since this is so far below their nature. When they tempt humans to sexual sin, they shoot the arrow of temptation & then flee because they are so disgusted by it.
#17 The Catholic Church is clearly the one true Church. All the other religions contain some error. Your statement is not completely incorrect. God does involve himself with the people in the false religions since He desires the salvation of all. Also, the Catholic Church does not reject anything that is true in the false religions.
Yes, you might be a heretic.
Yes, you might be a heretic. Would have to know exactly what you mean by some of these statements. We are all on a journey so I hope you will change you mind at some point.
The Catholic faith is not WHAT you want it to be.
"All I see when I read these
"All I see when I read these authors is intellectual fads, no attempt at logical argument, and no attempt to engage the modern sciences. I also see nothing but blinding pride, a pride that refuses to accept the authority of the magisterium to teach and proclaim doctrine."
In response to this comment I would say: you haven't "seen" much, you haven't understood much. In fact, I definitely doubt that you really read and studied the works of any of these theologians you mention. You could really help this "doubting Thomas" by, for instance, quoting from the massive oeuvre of Edward Schillebeeckx(including from his work that still awaits translation) to make your case, to support your judgment.
And who are those current "intellectual giants" in catholic theology and philosophy of whom you (and any others like......) approve, i.e. the neo-thomists and Aristoteleans?
I am anxiously awaiting your reply.
Henryk Gal I think you are
Henryk Gal I think you are missing the point. Most of us post VII church do not find Curran, or Schillebeekx or Kung or Daley interesting. Their work is like popular music; yes brilliant musicians who are not for the ages. They did hit #1 in a strange time, but their moment has passed. They are like Satre, as one example, passe. Interesting to inform us on that moment, but museum pieces.
For one, many of us do not share their personal quirks. We see a Curran in commercial clothing and assume he has nothing interesting to say as a Catholic priest. And in fact, he doesn't. We see that Mary Daley banned men from her classes at BC; well, not especially catholic (small c intentional). Kung and Schillebeekx do not have influence in what is happening on the ground, where the diocesan church is in fact flowering (see CARA data) on the rebound since JPII.
Here's some theologians to ponder, whose works inform the church as we are doing the hard work of rebuilding. Ratzinger, Wojtyla, Dulles, Johnson, Maritain, Boniecki and even Bokenkotter. Different times require different approaches; these are defensive times.
As they say, love goes out the window when the bills come through the door. Kung, et al enjoyed the charge card period; we are in the bill paying time. Perhaps they would have more influence today if they had been wiser and put more capital aside instead of squandering so much on speculation.
Very well said, Ted. You are
Very well said, Ted. You are exactly correct when you assert that in rejecting its own Catholic identity, so-called "liberal Catholicism" has spent itself.
I would add that another reason is that "liberal Catholicism" does not present any challenge to the modern life. In seeking to "baptize" the secular world in all its good and bad, in seeking to expunge the idea of sin from the Catholic mind and vocabulary, it has left a religion that is empty and void of any substantial challenge to its members. Without challenge, where is the drama of the Christian life? Without challenge, where is the feeling of accomplishment and gratitude when, by God's grace, powerful temptations are overcome and powerful good is done? They have taken St. Augustine's famous statement, "Love God and do as you will" to the extreme, forgetting that in the love of God is implied obedience to His commands.
At the same time, it is important to note that it is not only "liberal Catholicism" that seems to have been spent, but also the mainstream "liberal" Protestant denominations that are in serious decline. In 2008, the annual tally of Church membership showed an increase of nearly 1.5% in the Catholic Church, and increases in membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and the Assemblies of God. Meanwhile, mainline Protestant denominations, those groups that have taken on trappings of modern secularism, have continued their decades-long decline.
It is an interesting trend to note.
NO DISSENT! Are you nuts? You
NO DISSENT! Are you nuts?
You can accept blind obedience if you choose to do so, but do not expect it from any right-thinking people. Without dissent and questions being raised, hundreds of priests around the world would still be abusing children with impunity. Some probably still are. The men, that you put on a pedestal, put those abusers in their positions.
You wonder why some have rejected their Catholic identity, history, and intellectual tradition. The reason is simple. The men, who claim to be intellectually superior, are actually deficient. If they are not sex abusers themselves, they have been responsible for putting the abusers in positions where they would have access to children. Pope Benedict, himself, in his current, and prior position as ‘Defender of the Faith,’ was responsible for putting many of the enablers in their jobs and was responsible for leaving offending priests where they could abuse children. What does that tell you about his intellectual acuity?
You say that you do not revere the “intellects of Mary Daly, Fr. Charles Curran, Fr. Hans Küng, Sr. Sandra Schneiders, or the late Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx.” You see them as “intellectual fads.” But you would have us “accept the authority of the magisterium to teach and proclaim doctrine.”
Really! You would have us follow and respect the same magisterium that has overseen the biggest worldwide sex abuse scandal, ever, and done nothing but cover it up whenever possible, to the detriment of the Catholic people. Really!
Dear TedTylerEzro… seek help!
Well put.
Well put.
Irresponsible February 18 It
Irresponsible
February 18
It is absolutely irresponsible to compare theologians such as Schneiders, Kung, and Curran with St. Thomas Aquinas. This is either puerile sophistry or insidious spin; either way it is wrong. St. Thomas was NEVER "on the outs" with the Church's hierarchy regarding PRINCIPLES OF THE FAITH. To be sure, there were animadversions against the use of Aristotle as an appropriate rational instrument to explore the faith. Rather otherwise, though, the grave problems with the theologians this editorialist mentioned are two that St. Thomas never suffered from: (a) willful dissent and obstinate refusal to consider seriously what the Church proclaims as directive for the theologians intelligent probing of the faith, and the (b) rejection of very fundamental dogmatic tenets of this faith, such as the historicity of the Resurrection, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the objective integrity to acts of moral freedom capable of intrinsic evil, and the like. The very fact that this editorialist speaks in POLITICAL terms of "lying low" shows you what he or she thinks theology is all about: power and opinion. The theological and historical ignorance of many who publish here only weakens the initiative of Catholic who are serious about promoting social justice and development (not personal power).
If it weren't for John Allen there'd be little intelligent left on this site.
NB asserts: 'The very fact
NB asserts: 'The very fact that this editorialist speaks in POLITICAL terms of "lying low" shows you what he or she thinks theology is all about: power and opinion.'
Rather we find the de facto and demonstrable "laying low," as indicated here, a result of the extreme use by Wojtyla through Ratzinger's CDF of "power and opinion" rather than academic methodology to impose a rather superficial and limited theology upon the universal Church.
Please read the Reverend Father Charles Curran's Faithful Dissent and Loyal Dissent, in which he reveals that once Wojtyla forced him out, there was nothing more they could do to him, and he was free to write and to teach. His colleagues left behind, however, were required to lay low and pray for tenure.
To whom precisely to you refer in writing: "(a) willful dissent and obstinate refusal to consider seriously what the Church proclaims as directive for the theologians intelligent probing of the faith, and the (b) rejection of very fundamental dogmatic tenets of this faith, such as the historicity of the Resurrection, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the objective integrity to acts of moral freedom capable of intrinsic evil, and the like."
What are the fundamentals, dogmatic or otherwise, of our Faith?
What if they discovered the bones of Jesus tomorrow? Would you struggle to love your enemy any less? To love those whom you do not love?
To love even the NCR?
What if we found irrefutable references in the Bible to the brothers of Jesus?
Would you therefore fail to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, receive the stranger at the gate, shelter the homeless?
Practice a preferential option for the poor?
I cannot comprehend your intention in this phrase, due to my severely limiting literacy incapacity, and I beg you to spell it out carefully for me please: "the objective integrity to acts of moral freedom capable of intrinsic evil"
frere "all you need is love"
frere "all you need is love" charles, don't I vaguely remember St. Paul talking about preaching Christ crucified? What you seem to be saying is that the foundation of the Church is not as important as peace, love, and understanding. MY hopes are not in vain.
Everything goes in phases.
Everything goes in phases. In a generation the pendulum will be swinging the other way with a foundation of modern interpretations of today. While the VII "theological giants" will pass on in coming years, their works will not. Their open theology which touches on Liberation Theology and similar veins will continue. In this digital age someone will keep their works and find a way to make it more accessible to others. Many of their works will continue to live on in libraries of many Catholic colleges and universities and be used to enlighten college students in their one or two required religion courses and through campus ministries.
I still have copies not only of the late Bishop Raymond Lucker's diocese newspaper articles (still available through the Diocese of New Ulm office) but also a copy of his book "Revelation and the Church" which was denounced by the bishop (now arch-) who followed him. The most important parts of that book were the notes at the end, as due to his health most of the writing was done by others. When I often get discouraged by the insanity at the highest levels in the Church, I can always refer back to those real, down-to-earth teachings to keep my spirituality up so I can continue to live my faith, sometimes in spite of pronouncements from way above.
Thank you very much, Charles,
Thank you very much, Charles, for this reference to Bishop Lucker's book, which was published by Orbis in 2003 and is available favorably at
http://www.amazon.com/Revelation-Church-Vatican-Twenty-First-Century/dp/...
I just want to clarify one
I just want to clarify one thing. The book of pastoral letters is "Prairie Views: Twenty-five Years of Pastoral Letters".
I also remembered my JustFaith books which are also gems to refer back to during times like this. The books keep me going for ground level, get your hands dirty Catholicism. Rome can issue as many insecure pronouncements that they want, but I have found my direction in my personal faith and spirituality.
They're definitely dying.
They're definitely dying. They're contracepting themselves out of existence. God's moral law will have its ultimate vengence on the dissenters.
Contracepting or celibating,
Contracepting or celibating, like the Shakers?
What does "God's moral law" say about such uncharitable comments as this, which delights in the Other's death and dying? Of these who greatly love God?
God's moral law is already
God's moral law is already having its vengence on the so called conservalive "othodox" dissenters. It's called diocesan bankruptcy.
That's ridiculous. Sounds to
That's ridiculous. Sounds to me like you're the one lusting for vengeance. The fact is, the more educated people become, the fewer children they have. This is true worldwide and our planet is the better for it. Likewises, the more educated people become, the more they are able to think critically and question dogma. They actually become better at using the brains the good Lord gave them. Where is the loving God that Jesus came to reveal in a statement like yours?
Excellent reply, Lydia!!!
Excellent reply, Lydia!!! Thank you.
God is into "vengeance?" No,
God is into "vengeance?" No, you are, not God. Last time I looked, the Bible said God was love,
Another change between the
Another change between the beginning of John Paul II's papacy and now is that progressive Catholics are now more willing to make for themselves a separate peace.
Some leave active participation in parish life entirely, effectively
privatizing their Catholicism.
Some move to Protestant denominations that are somewhat similar
(in many cases, if one ignores certain dogmatic details, almost
identical) to Catholicism.
Some move to Evangelical Christianity.
Some broaden their horizons and become Unitarian Univeralists.
Some now have formed alternative Catholic congregations, from
parishes to intentional eucharistic communities and continue
on without Rome's blessing and without feeling the need of it.
In the 70's many progressive Catholics were biding their time,
waiting for changes such as women and married priests, a lessening
of focus on the pelvic matters, and such. To leave was nearly unthinkable.
In Call to Action and VOTF we see many still waiting. But one gets
the sense that more and more of those folks are tired of waiting,
or of banging their heads against the cathedral walls, and are now
willing to entertain moving on and forming communities of like-minded
individuals within their own lifetimes.
What is more, it is these latter individual who refuse to buy into
the "conservative" or "orthodox" types who declare that "you're not
Catholic" or "you can't be Catholic unless you..." and so on.
I think it's more a case of
I think it's more a case of progressive thinkers waiting for the final implosion of the imperial model of Church. The Latin Rite old Roman model that the reactionary elements have tried to resurrect since 1978, is simply in the final stages of decay and implosion. The Church envisioned by Vatican II is a reformation and renewal model of the Church. This model is a work in progress and the Holy Spirit is doing a great job by fostering the best hearts and minds for the coming Church.
Chris Smith wrote: The Latin
Chris Smith wrote: The Latin Rite old Roman model that the reactionary elements have tried to resurrect since 1978, is simply in the final stages of decay and implosion
....
Typical for an NCR devotee, there is no data for this assertion.
From Georgetown CARA data, we know that there has been an explosion in vocations and ordinations in the diocesan clergy since JPII's pontificate.
Using 1985 as a base, CARA shows a 40% increase in seminarians, a 35% increase in ordinations and a 9% increase in priests.
The data do continue to show a decline in religious congregations, both for men and women. Since growth is the only sign of life, that implies that these ways of life are dying. Many religious congregations are 'liberal' (Jesuits come to mind).
However, at least for women religious, the data show that 2 of 3 new entrants join congregations that wear a habit. Perhaps not the best metric for reactionary elements, but good enough to say they aren't liberal.
So what appears to be seen in the data is a rebound in 'traditional catholocism" and an implosion in the liberal brand.
Hint: When you want to make an argument, using buzz words like "JPII" or "Reactionary" fail miserably when compared with data.
Could we know some real
Could we know some real numbers instead of percentages? I mean, 40% of 5 is 2 so an increase of 2 from 5 to 7 would not be so impressive. I respect CARA's research and information, but statistics can be used in a lot of ways.
Dorothy Pedke Sr Could we
Dorothy Pedke Sr Could we get some data: sure. Graduate level seminarians 1985 (1st year of the data series) 43k and 2007 59k. Priestly ordinations 4,00 (1975, down from 4,600 in 1970) to 6.600 2007. These are the global data. The increase in ordinations has taken the number of priests to 272k from 253k low (260k in 1970)
Yes - global data. The
Yes - global data. The greatest increases in all vocations - secular and religious - are taking place in Africa, Asia, India and South America. Many of those priests are being exported to Europe and the U.S. Problems of disregard of celibacy, the abuse of nuns and sisters by male clergy, and various other violations of Catholic teaching are occurring with greater frequency as the numbers grow. The Church seems to be banking on a supply of clerics and religious that are not socialized to Western cultures, and that will eventually (sooner or later) deplete the supply of their own parishes in their own countries. And by the way, the CARA data also showed that entrants to any sort of women's religious community were not staying long enough to make perpetual professions (this may be limited to Europe and the US, I am not certain). Huge efforts have been put into expanding the Catholic faith - and its vocations - in those countries many of whom are at the developmental stages of Europe and the US in the 1800's amd first half of the 1900's. We used to call them "the missions." Now, those nations are everyone's house of formation.
OHthor Yes - global data.
OHthor Yes - global data. Correct. We live in a Universal Church, and outside the spoiled West, things have turned around - at the Diocesan level.
You wrote: "Problems of disregard of celibacy, the abuse of nuns and sisters by male clergy, and various other violations of Catholic teaching are occurring with greater frequency as the numbers grow" Care to share the data, or is that just your anecdotal 'evidence'?
You are right, "the greatest increases in all vocations - secular and religious - are taking place in Africa, Asia, India and South America. Many of those priests are being exported to Europe and the U.S." Not sure what's wrong with that, since 1/4 of all US Catholics are immigrants, and from my experience the intensity and attendance is higher in 'immigrant' than 'American' parishes. Just attend a Mananitas in December 12 at 5AM and see the working class men/women who've assembled b/4 work to sing and pray the Rosary. It's humbling.
"The Church seems to be banking on a supply of clerics and religious that are not socialized to Western cultures, and that will eventually (sooner or later) deplete the supply of their own parishes in their own countries" Again, if there's any evidence of that it would potentially temper my optimism; care to share?
"Huge efforts have been put into expanding the Catholic faith - and its vocations - in those countries many of whom are at the developmental stages of Europe and the US in the 1800's amd first half of the 1900's. We used to call them "the missions." Now, those nations are everyone's house of formation"
Secularized West, countries at the US level of the 1800s; sounds a bit Eurocentric. Why do you assume that these individuals are 'beneath' we spoiled folk in the West?
Facts are stubborn things. The JPII legacy will be the revitalization of the Diocesan Church and clergy. We're quite fortunate that teh boat's been stabilized and has started - but only started - to move ahead.
From Georgetown CARA data, we
From Georgetown CARA data, we know that there has been an explosion in vocations and ordinations in the diocesan clergy since JPII's pontificate.
I guess this is why parishes are closing due to lack of clergy...
And why US priests are
And why US priests are attending to the faithful in 2 or 3 separate churches on a single Sunday morning.
So you are saying the Church
So you are saying the Church envisioned by the Council is one that goes against the words of the Council? Because most of your arguments are either completely ignorant of the Council itself or just completely reject the Fathers of the Council. The supposed vision of the Council is in the documents, not in "interpretations" of the documents that reject the words themselves.
It would of course be
It would of course be unthinkable that you aren't the culmination of history, wouldn't it?
You mean the final implosion
You mean the final implosion of the liberal Catholic Church, gasping its last breath as Vatican II dies on the vine. Your side has paved a road of destruction which is finally coming to an end. As the seminaries and convents fill up with young orthodox/tradtional vocations, the Vatican II crowd is dying out. Deo Gratias
I'd like to see the orthodox
I'd like to see the orthodox crowd have it out on this topic:
Vatican II - good thing or not.
You all seem to be of a divided opinion on the subject.
I believe that the Second
I believe that the Second Vatican Council was an absolutely necessary endeavor. After Vatican Council I's unexpected and sudden conclusion (as a result of the capture of the Papal States by the Italian Army), the rest of the business of the Council was not completed. The Council had intended to speak on the role of bishops in the Church, and to touch on the role of the laity as well.
The Venerable Servant of God, Pope Pius XII had hoped to call a council, but was not able to, due to World War II and other issues (including his health and his naturally reticent personality). Thus, when Blessed Pope John XXIII was elected, he knew that a council to finish the work of Vatican I was a priority. He also recognized, ahead of his time, that the world was changing and the Church, in order to be relevant to that change, needed to update its methodology to confront the modern age.
The work of the Second Vatican Council was primarily planned to complete Vatican I, and to "open a window to the Holy Spirit" in the Church. The two words that would form the heart of conciliar thought were aggiornamento" (bringing up to date) and "resourcement" (a return to the sources of Catholic life). Both were to work in concert, there was to be no aggiornamento, no updating, that did not go hand-in-hand with resourcement. The point was to return to the earlier sources of the faith (the Fathers, the Apostolic tradition, the work of saints like Augustine, etc.), which was necessary since the Church had, in recent centuries, focused much of its teaching attention on the Council of Trent and St. Thomas Aquinas. Both were central events and figures in the life of the Church, Trent and Thomas, but the Council Fathers knew that there was more to the faith than Trent and Thomas. It was the hope of the Council to reclaim those sources, the heritage of the Church, and, in keeping with those sources, to update the Church's presentation of its traditional dogmas and doctrines.
The documents of Vatican II, the actual teaching of the Council, are excellent. They refocus our attention on important issues such as the role of the laity in evangelizing the world; the importance of full, active and conscious participation in the Sacred Liturgy; the focus on dialogue with the Orthodox Church and the Protestant communities, etc. All of these and many more were so important, and so timely, in the life of the Church.
The problems came after the Council was closed in 1965. The aggiornamento that the Council hoped would occur was divorced from resourcement. As a result, the updating was done seemingly outside the context of the traditions of the faith. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Mass. Communion rails were ripped out of churches, churches were whitewashed, statues were removed, High Altars were dismantled, all without explanation, all without any reference to the context of tradition. (Granted, some people said, "this is how eucharist was celebrated in the days of Justin the Martyr". But, these comments were often given with the false understanding that, just because it's old, it must be good. That is not genuine tradition.)
In addition, the role of the laity was reduced from the one the Council intended, a role of evangelizing the world, bringing Christ into the world, to having lots of extraordinary ministers of communion and lectors, etc. Certainly the Council intended that, but it did NOT intend those types of roles to be the primary manner in which laity exercise their proper ministry in the life of the Church. Yet, that is what many people were told and taught to believe.
I could go on with the problems related to the implementation of the Council in the first 20 or so years after the Council's conclusion, but they are reasonably well documented. The Venerable Servant of God Pope John Paul the Great and Pope Benedict XVI, both active at the Council, both knowing exactly what it was the Council Fathers hoped to achieve and intended for the Church, have been working to bring the Council's actual teachings into the light. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (the first universal catechism since Trent), the revised Code of Canon Law, the continued liturgical reform, all are efforts to bring about the authentic teaching of the Council.
It should be noted that the Council of Trent took more than 100 years to reach its fullest impact on the life of the Church, for all its reforms to be fully implemented. That Council, like Vatican II, was full of reforms to nearly every aspect of the life of the Church. The fact that it is taking Vatican II some time to be fully and authentically implemented should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Church history.
So, to recap, Vatican II good, the "Spirit of Vatican II", the inauthentic implementation of the Council's decrees from 1965 until around the mid 80's, not good at all.
Have you noticed that both
Have you noticed that both JP2 and Benedict have consistently said that the church as depicted by Vatican 2 is to be accepted? You only obey the Pope when he agrees with you. So many comments I see in response to articles criticize the bishops and the pope for not being as conservative as the commenters are, the same commenters that condemn us Vatican II liberals for disobeying the teachings of the Church. Hmm, it's a puzzlement.
There may be implosion of
There may be implosion of some sort that you describe actually happening..something that I am sad and concerned about.
But it is a mistake to think that something like a liberal phoenix will rise from these ashes.
Old liberals are dying off and unconvincing to the young about "staying and fighting" for some alternative vision.
The young who stay seek to accept the Church as a home on its terms and make their peace..with a kind of practical orthodoxy..on its own terms.
The young dissenters don't feel attached enought to stay and leave for elsewhere..Episcopal, New Age, Emergent, disinterest. The don't see the point of fighting (part of their liberal heritage) and so switch
I can see some sort of smaller "orthodox" remnant sticking after a few years.
And they will have something to say.
"pratical
"pratical orthodoxy"
Brilliant. I and most of my cousins are young Catholics. This post sums us up to a tee. Most liberals of my generation arre quite secular, e.g. animal rights and food coops, not connected to the Church at all.
Why do you perpetuate the
Why do you perpetuate the myth that Saint Thomas Aquinas was condemned by the Church? A small part of his writings were misinterpreted and, on the basis of the misinterpretation, were condemned by the Bishop of Paris (one bishop, not the Magisterium). After Thomas' actual meaning was clarified, there was no problem with his writings. Thomas was NEVER a "dissenter" as you paint him. And you have the nerve to talk about the difficulty of handling complexity in a small place? Thomas was ever loyal to Christ, ever loyal to the Church. Do not besmirch the Angelic Doctor by attempting to lump him in with "today's dissenters". My gosh.
Shawna, you're looking back
Shawna, you're looking back on Thomas Aquinas (my confirmation patron saint) from the times you live in, where Thomas is accepted as the rock of proper orthodox theology. In his times he persisted in teaching ideas that were NOT taught by "The Church". Now most of those ideas are fundamental tenets in our basic theology studies. Of course he was ever loyal to Christ and ever loyal to the Church, but that didn't mean he automatically bought hook, line and sinker what they wanted him to accept. For years most of "today's dissenters" have all along felt loyal to the Church, which becomes harder and harder as the Church uses non-Christian (but unfortunately Catholic in the sense that it's the teaching of the institution and its hierarchy) to put down thinkers of conscience. It would be easy to leave in despair, but these loyal dissenters keep trying to cling to the Church we love while still seeking truth. Since the Church thinks it already has all truth, they're not interested in looking any more, but that's a mistake, maybe even a heresy. If the Church is honestly seeking God, it will always be open to new truth or new understanding of old truth.
Post new comment