The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionHans Kung papal criticism draws Vatican ire
Theologian's statements draw Vatican criticism
Feb. 26, 2009
Kung (CNS photo)
VATICAN CITY
The dissident theologian Father Hans Kung has criticized Pope Benedict XVI as isolated and unable to take creative steps to deal with a series of internal church questions, including priestly celibacy and birth control.
Father Kung said the pope's recent lifting of the excommunications of four traditionalist bishops illustrated the pontiff's desire for a smaller and purer church, and his inability to make necessary reforms.
"The church risks becoming a sect. Many Catholics no longer expect anything from this pope. It's very sad," Father Kung said in an interview published by the French newspaper Le Monde Feb. 24.
His remarks drew a sharp comment from the dean of the College of Cardinals, Italian Cardinal Angelo Sodano, who told Vatican Radio he felt "wounded" when he read the interview.
"Fraternal criticism has always been possible in the church, from the times of Sts. Peter and Paul. Bitter criticism, on the other hand, especially when it's so broad, does not contribute to the unity of the church, for which Pope Benedict is working so hard," Cardinal Sodano said.
Father Kung, who has taught in Germany for decades, has frequently challenged official church positions on papal infallibility, birth control, priestly celibacy and the all-male priesthood. In 1979 the Vatican withdrew permission for him to teach as a Catholic theologian, although it did not restrict his ministry as a Catholic priest.
Father Kung has known Pope Benedict for some 50 years, and the two met in 2005 for what the Vatican described as a "friendly" encounter.
In the interview with Le Monde, Father Kung noted that one of the four traditionalist bishops whose excommunication was lifted by the pope has minimized the Holocaust, provoking widespread criticism. The pope's misjudgment on such an important issue, Father Kung said, reflected his own isolation.
"Benedict XVI has always lived in an ecclesial environment. He has not traveled much. He's always remained closed in the Vatican -- which is quite similar to how the Kremlin was at one time -- where he is safe from criticism," Father Kung said.
In any case, he said, the lifting of the excommunications was not a mistake in communications or tactics, but an error in church governance. He said it was "scandalous" that on the 50th anniversary of the convening of the Second Vatican Council Pope Benedict moved to reintegrate people who were opposed to the council's teachings.
NCR: February 17-March 1, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- Conscience Roundup
Hear what theologians, commentators, and our editors have to say about the contraception mandate
- Special Section: Religious Life
Work of missioners, past and future; African meetings; and more
- Tribute to a Peacemaker
New York's Pax Christi fetes Daniel Berrigan
Father Kung said that in his nearly four years in office the pope has shown a lack of pastoral courage and a lack of awareness of the "profound crisis" in the church. He suggested that the pope could make several important gestures:
-- Allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion in some circumstances.
-- Take steps to "correct" the 1968 encyclical "Humanae Vitae" and allow use of birth control in some cases.
-- Abolish the rule of priestly celibacy in the Latin-rite church.
-- Institute a new way of electing bishops with the involvement of local Catholics.
Father Kung said it would be helpful to call a third Vatican council to deal with these and other issues.
Why is it that once you
Why is it that once you scratch the shining thin surface of LOVE in many Jesuit Houses in the northern hemisphere that one finds strident reactionaries such as Kung (I say this because I am a baby boomer and know only Vatican II). Fro the little amount of research on the subject that I have been able to obtain. It appears that when the major male Catholic Orders, dropped the "Chapter of Faults" there was no effective way of group self-criticism creating a large power imbalance. Consequently personal Holiness was equated with Education and the ability to write. Sadly too little emphasis on personal sacrifice, humility = HANS KUNGesque behaviors. Its actually very sad. Fortunately there are still many obedient servants in the Houses of Religious. Grace and Peace with prayers always...
to the best of my knowledge
to the best of my knowledge hans kung has never been a member of any religious order. He did study at the Greg but that does not make one a member of the Society of Jesus.
And by what possible
And by what possible definition could he be called a 'reactionary?'
The term "reactionary" would
The term "reactionary" would have a different meaning if your frame of reference starts post Vatican II. If all one has experienced is post Vatican II - i.e. "Spirit of Vatican II" conduct its legit to call the formerly dominant 60's ecclesial crowd reactionaries. Their day has come and gone - and the old ones prefer their old 60's wine to today's the new wine. Thus reactionaries. As the scripture says, one cannot put new wine in to old wineskins. Life moves on - young Turks given time become the reactionaries. After all we are talking half a century in time.
reactionary "Characterized by
reactionary "Characterized by political reaction, esp. opposition to progress or liberalism; extrememly conservative." [American Heritage College Dictionary, Third Edition]
Yes, life moves on. But I believe a reactionary today would still be one who rejects Vatican II, who prefers pre-Vatican II old wine. And you don't put old wine in news skins either -- or, if you do, it still won't taste like new.
Young Turks sometimes become old Turks. Passage of time is not the paramount or determinative factor here. Yesterday's liberals do not automatically become today's conservatives, especially when what they have been calling for has yet to come to pass.
If you did a straw pole among
If you did a straw pole among age 40 and below at a typical Catholic Parish, you would be surprised to note that Hans Kung is perceived to be a conservative. Defined as "a priest" that my priest, sister, parent spoke so favorably about and often quoted years ago, John Paul II is more current to them - ZEITGEIST!
A straw poll at today's
A straw poll at today's parishes would produce this comment "Who is he - never heard of him??? He is not perceived to be a conservative. He is perceived to be UNKNOWN!! Where is The Holy Spirit in all of this? We don't even get together in our parishes to discuss topics of church matters. Most of us attend Mass and go home, barely saying 'hello' to anyone. I am a catechist of six years and very involved in religious education but still never discuss church topics.
The ignorance of Catholics
The ignorance of Catholics under 40 does not surprise me at all. Words do have meanings, and, sorry, just because someone is no longer current does not make him a conservative. Most people acknowledge that the Church has grown more conservative. Indeed, aren't many Catholics under 40 proud to call themselves conservative?
Its unfair to say this and
Its unfair to say this and folks them just because they are Catholics, this can be (uncharitably) said about the wider populace across many subjects. If you can read French I would highly recommend the writings of Professor Jocelyn Letourneau, Member of the Royal Society of Canada, Trudeau Foundation Prize winner for his outstanding contribution to the social sciences and Canada Research Chair in Contemporary Political History and Economy at Laval University. His work on contemporary Quebec Society is absolutely groundbreaking. Sadly, only one of his books has been translated in to the English language.
Blind obedience is what the
Blind obedience is what the leadership in our church seems to be demanding, yet it is an authoritarian way of thinking and does not add to Episcopal authority or even believability. It is the questioning mind that leads to the type of growth and development that is ready to hear and accept what the Holy Spirit says in each age. If only the Episcopacy could have more faith and listen more carefully to the erudite scholars in science, philosophy and theology that got their education in and our of Catholic Universities, we would have a more authoritative leadership. This idea that we should follow Bishops with thin resumes like blind sheep only hurts Roman Catholicism by separating it from reality.
Peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Dr. Porch: Nobody is
Dr. Porch: Nobody is demanding blind obedience, you know that, I know that and we all know that. Please check/research your subject before you make public claims about it. (I hope you do the when helping your patients.) The question is whether you believe that the Church (the Universal Church, not only your Local Churchis or parish) is a place where one has a chance to be formed in the image and likeness of God, into a Christ-like person. If not, there is no reason to be in the church. If yes, than one has to be open to such formation (by the Universal Chruch - in space and time). This fundamental openness is called Christian Obedience.
If you are not prepared to exercise this Christian obedience, and allow to be formed into a Christ-like person by the Church, you will experience only frustration and you will frustrate people around you, because what you really would like to do is form the Church into your own image and likeness. Where does that leave the rest of us?
The church hierarchy does
The church hierarchy does seem to demand blind obedience. It runs by edict, not dialogue these days. It appears to have lost the message of Christ to Love one another and focuses too much on the "keys" left to Peter.
Well, I think that pretty soon, Jesus is going to ask for those keys back. We are suffocating the Grace that Jesus sent His Spirit to give us by the choke-hold the Church puts on questioning and theological reflection.
Anonymus writes: "Fro the
Anonymus writes: "Fro the little amount of research on the subject that I have been able to obtain." Please, do more research before you write. Judging from what you have written, you need it. While knowledge (education) can be a source of arrogance, it can also help personal holiness, just as ignorance can be a source of pride: Kung is a diocesan priest and never was a Jesuit.
While you do not explicitly
While you do not explicitly say you favor bringing back the "Chapter of Faults," I am guessing it was dropped for very good reasons. Were these public sessions where faults were discussed? If so, I can imagine the potential for abuse.
But why limit your generalizations (based on that "little amount of research" you did) to the northern hemisphere? (A little sarcasm there.)
While I don't doubt there are some selfish communities and maybe personal holiness is lacking in some cases -- maybe even very many -- surely, there is also some humility and personal sacrificing -- and joyful service -- to be found in some Jesuit Houses, even in North America (based on MY very little research).
Excellent Reforms
Excellent Reforms Indeed
However, these are but the long-overdue first steps the pope should take.
They do not address the vital issues of women's ordination and the acceptance of visible gays in the church and clergy nor the pressing problem of child and teen sex-abusing priests and their protecting bishops.
Only an extremely isolated and self-sufficient pontiff would consider lifting the excommunication of the Vatican II Council-denying schismatics a more important and urgent matter.
Again Professor Kung speaks
Again Professor Kung speaks truth to authoritarian rule. How different and how much more pleasing to God would our Church be had it sought to live the teachings of Vatican II rather than surrender control to a small number of powerful curial figures who have fearfully fought it for the past fifty years. Our Church now is loosing all its spiritual seekers and is headed toward a small ghetto with confused and fearful leadership. As I hummed the sounds of Tantum ergo, I thought of my youth and the wonderful teachers that sought truth and would question the harmful parts of doctrine. When a theologian attempts to do this today, he is told he or she is no longer a "Catholic" theologian. Most of my confidence in the leadership of our church has vanished in this day of doctrinaire religious reactionary bishops.
So I ask, where can I go? It certainly was not heresy when the Lutherans pointed out that we cannot purchase our salvation, yet they were excommunicated for their descent. In fact we as Catholics would have been better off had we made Martin Luther pope. We certainly would be better off today had a person like Kung been elected rather than JP II. Maybe this did happen with JP I. It makes me wonder why the church was so secretive about his death. No, I don't really care which church buries me anymore! I think it is time for us that are the People of God to call out the hypocrisy of our leadership.
Peace to the people of God and I pray for a new church enlightenment one that focuses on the reality that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter because we as humans are imperfect in our thoughts and actions. Let those without sin cast the first stone!
R. Dennis Porch, MD
"It certainly was not heresy
"It certainly was not heresy when the Lutherans pointed out that we cannot purchase our salvation, yet they were excommunicated for their descent. In fact we as Catholics would have been better off had we made Martin Luther pope."
- Doctor, I no longer believe that you ever studied theology. Anyone with even a PASSING knowledge of the issues surrounding Martin Luther knows that he was NOT excommunicated for protesting the abuse of indulgences. Nor was has the Church EVER taught that we can 'purchase our salvation' (ie. Pelagianism). The Bull of Excommunication of 1520 listed the following false teachings of Luther and his followers as reason:
1. The Bible is the only source of faith; it contains the plenary inspiration of God; its reading is invested with a quasi-sacramental character.
2. Human nature has been totally corrupted by original sin, and man, accordingly, is deprived of free will. Whatever he does, be it good or bad, is not his own work, but God's.
Faith alone can work justification, and man is saved by confidently believing that God will pardon him. This faith not only includes a full pardon of sin, but also an unconditional release from its penalties.
3. The hierarchy and priesthood are not Divinely instituted or necessary, and ceremonial or exterior worship is not essential or useful. Ecclesiastical vestments, pilgrimages, mortifications, monastic vows, prayers for the dead, intercession of saints, avail the soul nothing.
4. All sacraments, with the exception of baptism, Holy Eucharist, and penance, are rejected, but their absence may be supplied by faith.
5. The priesthood is universal; every Christian may assume it. A body of specially trained and ordained men to dispense the mysteries of God is needless and a usurpation.
6. There is no visible Church or one specially established by God whereby men may work out their salvation.
That's who you would like to have had pope?
Please, PLEASE stick with your medical profession. You are totally unqualified to speak on theological matters.
Dear Mike in KC Yet the
Dear Mike in KC
Yet the Catholic Church has agreed in recent times to all of the Luther's theses. Theology is not the study of history, yet I am sure that I have studied even more church History than you. You might start by reading Kung who is an expert in theology and church history. I certainly can not agree with indoctrination as a pillar of truth no matter who professes.
Peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
If you are refering to the
If you are refering to the reason he wrote the 95 Theses, ie, some abuses that had come about regarding indulgences, than yes, he had legitimate complaints and concern for the Faithful. If you are sticking just to that only, than yes, the Church has reformed the practice of indulgences, but has not removed them, of course.
Luther was later to spiral down to total denial of many of the Church doctrines. It is strange that you would want him as Pope.
As far as Kung goes, I have read some of his stuff. However I am not going to continue wasting my time when he keeps tossing out heresy, just like I woudn't spend more time than necessary trying to learn from the ideas of Arius, Pelagius or the like.
When some teaching is contrary to the doctrine of the Church, they are in the wrong.
Yet in 1999 our Church
Yet in 1999 our Church accepted with some small modification about 99% of the 95 Thesis of Luther! When someone questions doctrine that they think may not be correct, they are not wrong to question it and in many cases particularly in that of Father Kung, they are more likely right than wrong!
Let us remember that I am not making theological statements but just mentioning history. History which you may understand differently than, but that does not negate my many years of study of both theology and church history prior to becoming a physician.
Peace and more understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
But what the Church adopted
But what the Church adopted from the 95 Theses DID NOT CHANGE ESTABLISH DOCTRINE ONE SINGLE IOTA!
Yes there were abuses, and many at the time, aside from Luther, were demanding action against them.
Luther later ENTIRELY rejected the idea of indulgences, and other tenants of the Faith. The Church DID NOT adopt his positions.
Dear Mike From KC, Would you
Dear Mike From KC,
Would you read Einstein or Freud? Would you read about string theory or dark matter and dark energy? Seems to me you lack the curiosity of a good mind! Too bad because our Church leadership is in a crisis, one that requires it to use more than authoritarianism that leads it to a doctrinaire approach. I think it time that we as a Church rid ourselves of the fear to go (in our minds) where no one has gone before. I think that the revelations of the Holy Spirit demand that of us. For to refuse to listen to what She reveals weather it be science or theology is certainly a grave mistake. This is the main cause of the Episcopal crisis that we are only beginning to see the tip of the iceberg through the sexual scandals and financial debacles. Yet we do have hope and it comes from the Spirit. When will the leadership of our church get over its fear to listen? Then and only then can they lead the People of God toward spirituality. Now they act more like Bushops leading us toward fear and disaster.
Peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Doctor, Actually, one of my
Doctor,
Actually, one of my favorite topics is Astronomy (and Cosmology). I know little in the scope of things, but do enjoy reading it when I can.
I do read a LOT of theology and Church history as well. Because of this I simply reject Kung's cliches out of hand. Why? Because I'm closed minded? Because I won't entertain new ideas? Because I think I have all the answers?
No.
I reject his heretical teachings because THEY ARE NOT NEW. Just because he is speaking in a modern time does not mean his ideas are modern. The fact is, he keeps rehashing things again and again that have been settled already.
Think of a modern Pelagian who would write how we CAN earn our own salvation. His disciples would likewise be upset if I were simply to say: "You're wrong, the Church has already reviewed your claims and shown them to be false." He would probably, as you do, say I am closed minded and accuse the Church of being afraid of new ideas. She isn't. HE simply won't accept that what he's saying has been said before and disproved.
As a man of science, how would you treat a scientist who comes to you and said his theory is that the Earth rides on the back of a giant turtle? Would you seriously entertain him? I doubt it. And yet he would probably react as you have: "Why aren't you open to new ideas? What are you afriad of?" Your answer would be: "Your ideas have been shown to be false, and they AREN'T new."
You have obviously read Kung. I invite you to read the theologians and the Church writers who have ALREADY responded to his theology.
Considering how the Church is growing, I don't see a 'crises' in our leadership. Modernist Catholics, particularly the American variety, see a crises, mainly because they see themselves losing their influence to those who are more Orthodox.
"I think it time that we as a Church rid ourselves of the fear to go (in our minds) where no one has gone before."
- We've gone there before, Capt. Kirk. And the ideas have been disproved. What you are advocating is the very definition of insanity: doing it again, and again, and again until, somehow, we aer suppossed to get a different result.
Mike, I think we should refer
Mike, I think we should refer to these old heresies in modern terms. That is why I think we should refer to them as "recycled" heresies.
Dear Mike in
Dear Mike in KC,
congratulations I am glad that you have a wider interest of new discoveries than I gave you credit. However, the use of the word heresy when people don't agree is what is really getting us in trouble. I used Luther as an example precisely because most of what he personally did was to point out the true heresy that salvation can not be purchased. There are many ways of looking at what Kung has written. He is certainly one of the most prolific writers of theology and church history over the past several hundred years. He has been extremely well considered both in his own academic setting and in Europe and in the academic centers of the United States. Fifteen years ago, I had attended no less than 15 lectures in the United States by this man- all in Catholic centers, mostly Universities. The idea that Kung’s theology and church historical writings have been proven wrong is not congruent with reality, just as the idea that Luther was the original heretic is also wrong as it was Luther who pointed out wrong conceptions.
The Church is not growing in a real sense particularly in the United States. There are far too many cradle catholics that just can not go along with the current weak leadership. It is only appears to be growing because of the immigration of under educated immigrants. As these people get their education, they are becoming just as discouraged as are other seekers. The Church certainly is not growing in Europe which has been so historically important for Catholicism. Again the sexual scandals are but the tip of the iceberg of this authoritarian leadership. Authoritarian actions has nothing to do with legitimate authority and authoritative behavior.
It seems that you and anonymous continue to equate Catholicism to a set of instructions in the Catholic Catechism. The Catechism is nothing more than the standard of belief that is being promoted at the time it is written. If that were not true there would have been no reason for the constant reprinting of different editions. My argument is not with the Catechism because it is what it is. My argument is that theology is a philosophy of thinking about God and far surpasses what can be learned in a simple catechism. For those Bishops and others who keep returning to the Catechism as the end all rule and regulation of the Church that must be adhered to by theologians (and others), they are degrading the continued inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Bishops that insist promoting Universities as Cathecatical Centers make the teaching and the writing about theology impossible and are degrading Catholic Universities and education. It is another example of a poor leadership when Bishops fails to listen to the Church’s own scholars- the tenured professors that rise to leadership such as the head of the American Catholic Theological Association.
Mike, we see issues in very different ways. That doesn’t make me always right and you always wrong or vice versa, but it does mean for a coherent conversation to take place, we must be able to respect each others different thoughts.
Peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
“However, the use of the word
“However, the use of the word heresy when people don't agree is what is really getting us in trouble.”
- This is not my definition of heresy. I do not call someone a heretic if they prefer French Fries when I prefer onion rings. St. Augustine, I think it was, even proposed the idea that there was a gradual ‘evolution’ (although he didn’t use that exact word or explore it a lot) of life in the world, while St. Thomas rejected this idea. Neither would believe the other to be a heretic. Further, not EVERYTHING Kung says is heretical. I do not wish others to think that is what I mean. For example “Abolish the rule of priestly celibacy in the Latin-rite church” this is not doctrine it is a discipline. I think, and many through the Church’s history agree, that to do so would be unwise. But to advocate doing so is not heresy. However, when one were to, say, deny the physical Resurrection of Christ, we must, as Catholics, label that heresy. It is part of the deposit of Faith. Like the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, etc.
“I used Luther as an example precisely because most of what he personally did was to point out the true heresy that salvation can not be purchased.”
The was pointed out LONG before Luther. This was the whole point of the Pelagian heresy. The Church has NEVER taught that you could purchase your salvation. What Luther did, starting out, was to draw needed attention to the abuse of indulgences. The abuses were eventually taken care of, but the Church kept indulgences. Luther went on to throw out Sacred Tradition and a host of other articles of Faith.
“The idea that Kung’s theology and church historical writings have been proven wrong is not congruent with reality”
Where he has put forth heretical ideas, like about the Resurrection, he has been shown to have faulty and incorrect theology. Like I said above, not EVERYTHING he writes is heretical.
“just as the idea that Luther was the original heretic is also wrong as it was Luther who pointed out wrong conceptions.”
- I don’t see how anybody could consider Luther to be original. If one were to point to an ‘original heretic’ you would have to go all the way back to Simon who tried to ‘buy’ the ability to cure from the apostles. Luther attacked many tenants of the Faith, and they weren’t WRONG conceptions. He tried, to his great credit, to remedy the abuses of the time.
“There are far too many cradle catholics that just can not go along with the current weak leadership.”
- You’re giving them too much credit, doctor. I’ve talked to many people, in person, in the several parishes I’ve been in during my life, and many, many more online. What they usually (and I stress USUALLY) have in common is an almost total lack of any knowledge or understanding of the Faith they profess. You ask simple, EASY things like “What is the Eucharist?” and “What do we mean when we say that ‘outside the Church there is no salvation’?” This is GRADE SCHOOL level stuff here, and they don’t know it. I’m meeting Protestants in my conversations that know more than cradle Catholics do. Remember the survey that came out back in ’98 I think it was, where only 30% of Catholics even knew what the Eucharist was? I have a hard time taking any of them seriously.
“As these people get their education, they are becoming just as discouraged as are other seekers.”
- What you are seeing here, is NOT a causal relationship.
“It seems that you and anonymous continue to equate Catholicism to a set of instructions in the Catholic Catechism.”
- No, that’s not quite it, just like your medical profession is more than a list of places NOT to cut. I use the Catechism a lot here as it lists the doctrines of Faith that we MUST believe as Catholics. It is not exhaustive in reasons why, those are written elsewhere. I use the Catechism when talking with Catholics because what is in the Catechism is to be accepted by all those who call themselves Catholic. I don’t use it when discussing things with Protestants.
“My argument is that theology is a philosophy of thinking about God and far surpasses what can be learned in a simple catechism.”
- I totally agree with you. You don’t hand a child of 10 the Summa of Thomas Aquinas and the collected writings of Augustine and say ‘learn your Faith’. You teach them the Catechism first. Just like a small child about to put his hand on an electric burner, you say “NO! That’s HOT!” You don’t try to explain to him the relation between the speed of molecules and atoms and heat, or try to describe the reasons why the element creates heat by resisting the flow of electricity. You tell them the why of things and you give them more as they progress further. The Catechism was not written in a vacuum. Behind each paragraph is a large amount of thought and theology.
“The Bishops that insist promoting Universities as Cathecatical Centers make the teaching and the writing about theology impossible and are degrading Catholic Universities and education.”
- There is GREAT freedom in the study of theology in the Church. However, one can’t question articles of Revealed Truth or those items that have been declared infallibly. Is it ‘freedom’ for a Catholic theologian to say that Christ was mistaken when He told us that He was God, for example? If, say, a doctor today was denied his practice because he worked with the belief that any mental ailment was only the result of a demonic attack, would you complain about a lack of openness in the medical community?
Mike, I don't think Bishop
Mike,
I don't think Bishop Falley would agree with you about a growing Church as the quote below is his when he again stated that he was unwilling to recognize Vatican II,
"The fruits of the council have been to empty seminaries, novitiates and churches. Thousands of priests have abandoned the priesthood and millions of faithful have ceased to practice the faith or have turned to the sects. The religious belief of the faithful has been distorted. Truly, these are peculiar fruits," he said.
I don't agree with his reason that people are leaving because I think it is because the curia was too fearful to impalement Vatican II in a meaningful way, but I do agree that the faithful are leaving and I see it in my own family. It is because of the rather inflexible approach the Church has in accepting current reality.
I want to make one further comment about your presentations on this board for you indeed are an impassioned man. Just because you insist on making the last comment does not mean your views are correct. I think you might learn to appreciate that there will be many views with both good and bad points. The Lord knows you have both good and bad points! By the way when do you have time to earn a living?
Who decides when dogma is
Who decides when dogma is dogma?
Who is included in this decision-making process and who is excluded from it? And by what process is it decided - by a mojority of 1: two thirds: uno voce?
Has that which is now dogma always been such?
If everything 'has been' and 'will be' remains static, what were the councils for?
If dogma is open to change, how can the authoritarians commit to something which historically has been fluid and demand obedience (christian or otherwise) to that which will inevitably go towards change? And by extension demand that the whole world do the same while condemning those who do not?
Two characteristics of the institutional church: judgemental and controlling.
So many questions: so much deafness.
No, it did not. I am sorry to
No, it did not. I am sorry to point out to you Dr.Proch, but history of theology id not your forte. Please check it out before you wtite on an issue that is not your field.
Dear Anonymous, Who are you?
Dear Anonymous,
Who are you? Seems like you make a lot of righteous statements without even the benefit of your name. I for several not very good reasons just use George M, the doctor gives his name. Who is Mike from KC? He seems to relate only to the catechism and I assure you there is a lot more to spirituality than the latest version of the printed catechism. Peace to you and Mike but you two really just throw stones believing you KNOW all the answers.
There is more than one
There is more than one 'Anonymous' writing here. Of this I am certain.
"Mike from KC" - I used to
"Mike from KC"
- I used to post my full name to web discussions. I stopped it when someone off of one of the boards I used to be one used my name to track down my phone number and made tons of harassing calls at all hours of the night. Now I just use my first name.
"He seems to relate only to the catechism"
The Catechism is a handy way to reference what the official teaching of the Catholic Church is. I use it when I speak with Catholics. Were I debating or discussing religion with Protestants or non-believers, I would not be using it except to clarify a mistaken belief ABOUT the Church.
The Catechism holds the teachings that we, as Catholics, MUST believe and accept. Therefore it is a good tool to use when pointing out errors in theology, particularly like when the original author of the article trys to distort it to support her position on abortion.
"I assure you there is a lot more to spirituality than the latest version of the printed catechism."
- Very true. However, if a Catholic's beliefs are in direct opposition to what is taught in the Catechism, their spirituality is very shallow indeed.
"The Catechism holds the
"The Catechism holds the teachings that we, as Catholics, MUST believe and accept. Therefore it is a good tool to use when pointing out errors in theology, particularly like when the original author of the article trys to distort it to support her position on abortion."
- Meh, this is what happens when I try to post to two different threads at once. Sorry for the confusion.
Replace abortion with the contraception and some of the other errors Fr. Kung favors in the previous paragraph.
Why did the Catholic Church
Why did the Catholic Church send Jan Hus and Wycliffe and Girolamo Savornolla to die at the stake, literally burnt to death ? It was not only these men that risked their lives to speak, but thousands of Anabaptists were persecuted by the Catholics and Calvinists, let us not forget the Waldenses, followers of northern Italian preacher.
"-- Allow divorced and
"-- Allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion in some circumstances."
- The statement from the Vatican on this would be helpful to read:
"With respect to the aforementioned new pastoral proposals, this congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the doctrine and discipline of the church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ, the church affirms that a new union cannot be recognized as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive holy communion as long as this situation persists.
This norm is not at all a punishment or a discrimination against the divorced and remarried, but rather expresses an objective situation that of itself renders impossible the reception of holy communion."
Pretty clear, I think. Sorry Fr. Kung, it's not going to change.
"-- Take steps to "correct" the 1968 encyclical "Humanae Vitae" and allow use of birth control in some cases. "
- This is old hat, Kung. You are totally wrong here. Contraception will always be grave sin. No amount of misinformation or attempting to cloud the subject will change that.
"-- Institute a new way of electing bishops with the involvement of local Catholics."
- This isn't American Idol. This is the Church of Christ. The Church is NOT a democracy.
Think about it - A recent survey showed that only 30% of Catholics polled even knew what the Eucharist WAS! And THESE are the people that are supposed to be able to choose a bishop?
Thankfully, the influence of this heretical narcissist, who also taught that the Resurection of Jesus is optional, is slowly fading away. Hearing him whine now is like listening to the death rattle of the Modernist theology.
And that is a WONDERFUL thing!
To Mike in KC. I can only
To Mike in KC. I can only echo your sound post with a resounding AMEN! There are plenty of ecclesial communities out there for those who find it too difficult to conform to the Church's discipline. No one is forcing people to stay if they disagree that strongly with Church teaching. It is up to us to bring our thinking into conformity with the Church, not the other way around.
Wow - a lot of hostility
Wow - a lot of hostility there!
The divorced have to play games with the Tribunals to obtain annulments. I'm glad that Mike in KC has not had to endure a failed marriage but to have to say that one of you was not in aware of the committment being made on a wedding day in most cases is a lie. People can be fully aware and yet fail to live up to the vows, they can be abusive and irresponsible but those are not valid grounds for an annulment! A murderer can be forgiven by a parish priest but a divorced Catholic has to prostrate themselves in humiliation to get a marriage gone wrong annulled. That is wrong and it is purely the law of man that dictates that level of penury not the law of God. Just as the Bible does not talk about birth control or celibate priesthood or excluding women from the diaconate or at least allowing the ordained priests and deacons to have some say in the selection of a bishop.
Fr. Kung may be strident on some issues but he is not without merit.
Actually, your presumption is
Actually, your presumption is wrong. A member of my family has gone through an abusive, failed marriage. She has suffered greatly and we do all we can to support her. She has remained single.
"A murderer can be forgiven by a parish priest but a divorced Catholic has to prostrate themselves in humiliation to get a marriage gone wrong annulled."
- Unlike murder, a marriage is a SACRAMENT that leaves a PERMANENT mark on the soul. A marriage CAN NOT be undone.
An annulment takes a long time as they must be totally sure that there was no real marriage to begin with.
"That is wrong and it is purely the law of man that dictates that level of penury not the law of God."
- False. Matrimony is a Sacrament instituted by God. It is not in man's power to destroy what God has brough together. That is why an annullment takes a long time.
"just as the Bible does not talk about birth control......"
- Actually, the Bible does talk about contraception. Perhaps you should read it. And are you arguing from the faulty position of Sola Scriptura? If that's so, find in Scripture where it says "Purgatory" or "Trinity". Since those are not mentioned in the Bible, they must not be true either, right?
"Fr. Kung may be strident on some issues but he is not without merit."
- Father Kung's theology is worthy of scorn and little else.
Where is the wrong
Where is the wrong presumption? The post speculated that you (personally) had not had to endure a failed marriage, and you bring up your sister?
I would venture to guess that
I would venture to guess that you probably haven't then. It's something that affects the entire family.
No doubt the whole family is
No doubt the whole family is affected, perhaps even deeply, but even you have to admit it is not the same thing as enduring a failed marriage personally. You called the other poster 'wrong' but in fact his speculation was right.
Great minds like Hans Kung,
Great minds like Hans Kung, Charlie Curran, and Peter Phan have been tried to be silenced or censured by the CDF - because they dare to question. Questioning, not quoting the Catechism, is what I believe in my experience helps develop faith and spirituality. The Catholic Church appears to be moving in the direction of a cult!!!
I can't believe you actually believe in permanent marks on the soul!!! I think death is a lot more permanent than marriage. WOW!!!!
(The names may change - but I recognize the author!! The Cafe Lives!!)
"Questioning, not quoting the
"Questioning, not quoting the Catechism, is what I believe in my experience helps develop faith and spirituality."
- Raw scepticism, which I think is what you are promoting here, never advanced anything.
"I can't believe you actually believe in permanent marks on the soul!!"
- What, exactly, do you think Baptism does? Rinse off your acne medication?
'Questioning' the Catholic Faith is something you are actually incapable of. You have to demonstrate some knowledge of the thing you're attacking first.
Questioning doesn't equate to
Questioning doesn't equate to scepticism. Questioning is a way to acquire knowledge. Theology has been described as faith seeking understanding. Great minds seek answers to questions they have. It would leads to inventions, theories, and yes, even theology. If I am correct, considering I have no knowledge about what I am "attacking," I believe St. Thomas Aquinas, the so-called father of natural law, wrote his summa theologia in the form of questions and answers. I guess he was a skectic and attacker.
If permanent marks are your theology of sacraments, no wonder your ecclesiology is so ridiculoulsy authoritative and void.
I think the Pharisees wanted Jesus dead because he questioned their practices. The ecclesiology of the Pharisees is prevalent in the RC Church today. We still try to kill prophets.
I guess the Nazi's thought that Jews and homosexuals had permanent marks on them, that is how come they had to be eliminated. But I'm sorry, I know you follow the Bishops who don't believe the holocaust ever happened.
BTW: I have a graduate degree from the Catholic University of America PONTIFICAL degree. I think that objectively qualifies me of having knowledge. Professors like Avery Dulles, and John Tracey Ellis.
Don't Assume to know that much about me, u know what they say about assumptions!!!
"I believe St. Thomas
"I believe St. Thomas Aquinas, the so-called father of natural law, wrote his summa theologia in the form of questions and answers. I guess he was a skectic and attacker."
- The Summa of St. Thomas was in question/answer format, but he never attacked established Church doctrine as you seem to be emplying. Did you even read it?
"If permanent marks are your theology of sacraments, no wonder your ecclesiology is so ridiculoulsy authoritative and void."
- So you believe that Baptism doesn't permanetly remove original sin and mark one as a Catholic? You say you got your degree in this? Again, what is it that baptism does, in yor opinion?
"I guess the Nazi's thought that Jews and homosexuals had permanent marks on them, that is how come they had to be eliminated. But I'm sorry, I know you follow the Bishops who don't believe the holocaust ever happened."
- I don't see how your assumption follows. Perhaps your wisdom and discernment are so mighty that those like me below you can easily mistake it for the equivilent of a juvenile "neener! neener!". You should know better than to cast your pearls of inspired wisdom before swine such as myself.
"I have a graduate degree from the Catholic University of America PONTIFICAL degree. I think that objectively qualifies me of having knowledge. Professors like Avery Dulles, and John Tracey Ellis."
- It objectivly qualifies you to demand your money back. I think you've been cheated. You weren't even taught the basics of the Sacraments that children are taught in beginning Catechism classes.
"Don't Assume to know that much about me"
- I don't have to assume anything.
"u know what they say about assumptions!!!"
I guess you never heard what they say about how it is better to remain silent and have people think you a fool rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
WOW, you actually have
WOW, you actually have nothing substantial in your response. Nothing original, nothing thought provoking. You just see things the way you want to and insists that you are right and everyone else is wrong. You like to tear down people and have no sense of trying to understand anyone or anything that you don't agree with. You have no sense of Church History or Sacramental Theology past that of a child in Catechism class.
BTW, if I didn't read the Summa (or at least parts of it!), how would I have remembered it was in the form of questions and answers? I think my theological library is a bit more in depth and varied than yours. Which is probably why it is a waste of time to try to explain anything to you. You are right about the pearls, though!!!
"have no sense of trying to
"have no sense of trying to understand anyone"
- I have enough understanding to determine that you have no idea what you're talking about when you say that none of the sacraments impart a permanent mark on the soul.
"BTW, if I didn't read the Summa (or at least parts of it!), how would I have remembered it was in the form of questions and answers?"
- I knew that before I read it. It's a pretty famous work and its layout isn't exactly a secret.
I think you're just very hurt and offended that I didn't bow down at once when you trumpeted that you have a degree. I don't think you're used to that.
But again to the sacraments, dear teacher. I beg of you to cast at least a final, beautiful, gleaming pearl before my snout. Pray tell me: what is it that Sacramental Baptism does?
OK, but only one pearl, lest
OK, but only one pearl, lest you be expecting more!!
In James Carroll's book, "Toward a New Catholic Church," he quotes the novelist Joyce Carol Oates, who once commented,"Homo sapiens is the species that invents symbols in which to invest passion and authority . . . then forgets that symbols are inventions."
My first reaction to your question, "What is it that Sacramental Baptism does?" was, "Why does it have to 'do' anything." After reading this quote in the book by Carroll (BTW - big time fan of Hans Kung) I reflected that good symbols become what they symbolize. In the celebration of the Sacrament of Baptism, which I have celebrated as a minister over 1000 times, the symbol of water is only a part of the Sacrament. There is also oil, chrism, blessings of the senses, and most importantly, the welcoming of the person into a community of believers.
The Sacrament of Baptism is the first of the Sacraments of Initiation. So, to answer your question of what it does, is it welcomes one into the community, into the Church. As with all the Sacraments, it is a gift to us of God's grace. Through baptism, one is not so much as saved as they are introduced to a way of life in which we may gain our salvation. It doesn't "wipe away" our "original sin," but rather confirms that we are in need of God's grace and dependent on God (the sin of Adam was to believe that he can become independent from the God and His equal).
The notion of "the spot on the soul" was one introduced in the Early Church mainly by Augustine with his notion of the sinfulness of the body (a desire to relieved of his own sex and love addictions). If sacraments are "outward" signs of God's grace, I do not see a point to them physically effecting change in something that is not physical. I also do not believe in the ontological change at ordination. Sacraments are thing humans do for humans, not for God. They are rich signs and symbols of how we believe God touches our lives and our response to that invitation.
You toss out this piece of
You toss out this piece of wilted cabbage and call it a pearl? You deny that Baptism removes Original Sin? I assume you deny the entire concept of Original Sin as well?
I show you the 2000 year teaching of the Church on Baptism, rooted in Scripture and Tradition, and as a refutation, you spout off a quote from a novelist and your personal reflection on said quote?
*sigh* Again. Demand your money back. You've been cheated. Get yourself an education worth bragging about.
The fact that Baptism changes the soul and removes sin is not from Augustine. It goes back to the beginning. Here are some earlier mentions (I know these arn't modern novelists or quotes from Hans Kung, but try to stay with me here):
Justin Martyr
"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, 'Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven' [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).
Tertullian
"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life ... [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism—which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and asps ... themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes—by taking them away from the water!" (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).
Hippolytus
"[P]erhaps someone will ask, 'What does it conduce unto piety to be baptized?' In the first place, that you may do what has seemed good to God; in the next place, being born again by water unto God so that you change your first birth, which was from concupiscence, and are able to attain salvation, which would otherwise be impossible. For thus the [prophet] has sworn to us: 'Amen, I say to you, unless you are born again with living water, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' Therefore, fly to the water, for this alone can extinguish the fire. He who will not come to the water still carries around with him the spirit of insanity for the sake of which he will not come to the living water for his own salvation" (Homilies 11:26 [A.D. 217]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who even without water will receive the kingdom.
... For the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism, saying, 'Can you drink the cup which I drink and be baptized with the baptism with which I am to be baptized [Mark 10:38]?' Indeed, the martyrs too confess, by being made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men [1 Cor. 4:9]" (Catechetical Lectures 3:10 [A.D. 350]).
St. Thomas Aquinas, whom you CLAIM to have studied, had this to say:
"Question 68, First Article
It is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Again it is stated in "De Eccl. Dogmat." xli, that we believe the way of salvation to be open to those only who are baptized.
I answer that, Men are bound to that without which they cannot obtain salvation but through Christ: wherefore the Apostle says (Rom. v. 18): "As by the offense of one unto all men unto condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men unto justification of life." But for this end is Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member: wherefore it is written (Gal. iii. 27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ."
Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized:
and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men."
YOU say
"It doesn't 'wipe away' our 'original sin,'"
- We are by nature children of wrath. Original sin is real. It is not something the Catholic Church invented. We are born of the flesh, not of the Spirit. We are not born in a state of holiness. We are born in a state of original sin.
The Christian belief that baptism is necessary for salvation is so unshakable that even the Protestant Martin Luther affirmed the necessity of baptism. He wrote: "Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted"
Christians have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, "Baptism ... now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).
I know you won't accept any of these, as they are orthodox teachings. I Tell you what: I'll see if I can find some random quote from a novelist since you seem to hold them in higher regard than the teachings of Christ.
Wow Mike, how all knowing you
Wow Mike, how all knowing you make yourself. When I hear the words something will always be this or that, I begin to see a philosophy that idealized perfection. Too bad we are human and are just trying to understand what an infinite being is saying. Then I hear the words heretical narcissist, wow, seems like you like to throw stones. I hear you tell a doctor to stick to medicine, seems like even when he did this in other posts to him you questioned his medical ability. Mike you like so many in the current Episcopacy lack charity and creditability.
"Too bad we are human and are
"Too bad we are human and are just trying to understand what an infinite being is saying."
- Your mistake here is, I think, that you see the Church the same way others see the Democrat or Republican parties, ie just a bunch of people in a group espousing a set of ideas or ideals. That is NOT what the Church is.
There is much good debate to be had on many things in the Church. However, there are certain items, doctrines, infallible teachings, that MUST be held and accepted. When those doctrines are questioned, Holy Mother Church sets forth what is true and explains why.
"I hear you tell a doctor to stick to medicine, seems like even when he did this in other posts to him you questioned his medical ability."
- Think you either left early or missed the entire point of that thread, if it's the same one I'm thinking of.
I see a church that believes
I see a church that believes itself to be in an expanded state of infallibility. In fact so many Bishops seem to believe that they are the teacher of their diocese yet most are not professors of Theology. This state of expanding infallibility is only nonsense and it makes Kung's book that questions infallibility all the more plausible. Kung does state that the Church over time is indefectible, but that certainly does not make the teaching of so many doctrinaire Bishops infallible and it does not recognize most of papal teaching as infallible. No, these teachings are now ignored and recognized as what the doctor has called them- megalomaniac thought.
"Bishops seem to believe that
"Bishops seem to believe that they are the teacher of their diocese"
- You do know that's what a bishop IS, right?
"questions infallibility", "teaching as infallible"
- You need to read the actual definition of infallibility and what is required to teach infallibly.
It's the Democratic Party.
It's the Democratic Party. You just showed your true colors, Rush.
I am registered to neither
I am registered to neither party. I'm not sure what you mean by your post.
Once again Mike, you make
Once again Mike, you make yourself out to be RIGHT in all the discussions that you enter. When the doctor discussed the science of embryology from a neuroscientists point of view, I would of thought you were an embryologist by the way you answered him. If I am right this man spent many years in a seminary before leaving to become a physician. Your lack of respect for his opinion and your way of directing others to believe that he knows nothing is indicative of a fear that you do not know enough!
If you're talking about the
If you're talking about the thread I think you are, my point is that scientific data on embryology does NOT change the fact that abortion is immoral. Is that the thread you were talking about?
To Mike in KC: A serious
To Mike in KC:
A serious question: If someone disagrees with the church's moral teaching prohibiting pre-marital sex, should that person receive Holy Communion, or be excommunicated? I ask because I recall reading in TIME magazine the comments of an enthusiatic conservative supporter of Pope Benedict XVI who said during the pope's visit to New York that he would not be teaching his children that pre-marital sex is wrong.
As for contraception always being wrong, might not one ask: "Was man (humankind) made for sex, or was sex made for man?"
On the question of divorced Catholics receiving Holy Communion, the rules cited are all well and good, but we have all read about the rich and famous who routinely have their seemingly very valid marriages annulled at the drop of a hat, while in the meantime we all know relatives and friends who were abandoned and abused and suffered failed marriages through no fault of their own, but who, very sadly, nonetheless have not been able to get their marriages anulled and have been excluded for years from receiving communion in the Roman Catholic Church, no matter how much they might wish to do so.
"If someone disagrees with
"If someone disagrees with the church's moral teaching prohibiting pre-marital sex, should that person receive Holy Communion, or be excommunicated? I ask because I recall reading in TIME magazine the comments of an enthusiatic conservative supporter of Pope Benedict XVI who said during the pope's visit to New York that he would not be teaching his children that pre-marital sex is wrong."
- That I'm not entirely sure of that. If, you know your soul to be in the state of Mortal Sin, in no way should you receive the Body and Blood of Christ until you have been to confession. I don't think that answers your question, though.
"As for contraception always being wrong, might not one ask: 'Was man (humankind) made for sex, or was sex made for man?'"
- Man was made for God. Sex is a gift from God and, like every other gift from God, is not to be used in a way that violates God's will. Read what the Catechism says about this.
I'm not sure what you're talking about in your last paragraph. How would someone be seperated from Communion if say, her husband abused her and then left her? How exactly is that a sin on her part?
I think it is up to the
I think it is up to the conscience of the individual not up to you. You can teach that it is a serious wrong but if the individual is unable to understand and or agree to your admonition, then it is up to God not you certainly not some Priest or Bishop.
"I think it is up to the
"I think it is up to the conscience of the individual"
- Is personal conscience the final word on if an action is objectivly good or evil?
To put it another way, is an evil action evil objectivly, or is it only evil for the person who's conscience decides it is evil?
Are some things always Evil regardless of what anyone thinks of them, or does thinking make them so?
About the last part, if a
About the last part, if a woman fails to get an annulment even though her husband never intended to be in a faithful marriage, cheating on her from day one and ultimately abandoning her and their children after a couple of years, and she decides in good concience that this is not a just decision and decides to remarry for her sake and the sake of her children, she is not allowed to receive Communion, correct?
I read what the Catechism said about masturbation, mortal sin and the "consensus of the faithful," and I wondered how many of the faithful -- not to mention physicians and psychologists (whose authority and expertise we are taught elsewhere by the Church should inform our consciences and decisions) -- would agree with the Catechism on its statement. (I am sure some would agree.)
And I wondered how the Catechism could just simply ignore all of those years (centuries?) of Church teaching about masturbation and mortal sin and Hell and damnation, and wondered how such teaching might have affected that same so-called "consensus of the faithful." (And I found it very cute and clever of the Catechism to make the matter one of consensus rather than authority, unlike, say, its teachings on artificial birth control or pre-marital sex -- or divorce and re-marriage for that matter.)
About the first part, if I understand correctly, you are saying that someone who knowingly disgrees with the teaching of the pope (and therefore the Church) on matters of faith and morals, including the prohibition against pre-marital sex, should refrain from receiving Communion absent confession and repentance of such views. But have you ever heard any priest or bishop ever say that? What percentage of church-going Catholics do you think disagrees with the Church on these matters?
If an annulment is not
If an annulment is not granted to a valid marriage, that the Catholic can NOT validly contract a NEW marriage. Marriage is a Sacrament that permanetly puts a mark on your soul, like Baptism and Holy Orders. In this case, if you were to go to a priest to get married again, you couldn't get married in the Church. Ask a priest about this.
"consensus of the faithful"
- I think you misunderstood this. The Church is not a democracy.
For example, here is what the Church has said about masturbation in Persona Humana:
"The traditional Catholic doctrine that masturbation constitutes a grave moral disorder is often called into doubt or expressly denied today. It is said that psychology and sociology show that it is a normal phenomenon of sexual development, especially among the young. It is stated that there is real and serious fault only in the measure that the subject deliberately indulges in solitary pleasure closed in on self ("ipsation"), because in this case the act would indeed be radically opposed to the loving communion between persons of different sex which some hold is what is principally sought in the use of the sexual faculty.
This opinion is contradictory to the teaching and pastoral practice of the Catholic Church. Whatever the force of certain arguments of a biological and philosophical nature, which have sometimes been used by theologians, in fact both the Magisterium of the Church - in the course of a constant tradition - and the moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act.[19]"
"About the first part, if I understand correctly, you are saying that someone who knowingly disgrees with the teaching of the pope (and therefore the Church) on matters of faith and morals, including the prohibition against pre-marital sex, should refrain from receiving Communion absent confession and repentance of such views."
- What I am saying is that if you know yourself to be in the state of Mortal Sin, in now way should you receive Communion. 'He shall be guilty of the Body and the Blood of the Lord.' A sacramental confession must be made first.
"What percentage of church-going Catholics do you think disagrees with the Church on these matters?"
- If, at some point in the future, 50.01% of Catholics agree that we should have mandatory euthanization of the elderly when they reach the age of 65 in order to keep them from burdening us, does the fact that the majority believe that NOT make that action murder?
Do you think the moral teachings of the Church are based on a popularity contest? In case you've had little experience with human nature, the moral teachings of the Church have NEVER been popular in culture filled with fallen man.
I believe the question is who
I believe the question is who gets to decide if a marriage was valid, if not, within reason, the participants themselves? To be fully candid, the events I recounted occurred when I was very young, and upon further reflection, I cannot say for certain that the woman tried to get an annullment. (Often, the pain is too great.) She may have, but I am not sure.
I did mean "sense of the faithful," not consensus. Maybe the Holy See is right about the "sense of the faithful," but I do recall Pope Benedict XVI himself saying in recent years something about the importance of being open to scientific advances and heeding professional advice. I wish I recalled the exact context. I think his remarks referenced the formation of conscience, but I could be mistaken on that as well.
The early church (including women and slaves) apparently did elect its bishops. Indeed, Thomas Cahill says the very word 'church' comes from the Greek word for the assembly of people who elected their civil representatives in Athens. And of course Vatican II did refer to the Church as the "People of God." And then, too, I believe there is something in the tradition about "vox populi."
Your example is ridiculously extreme, of course. The Catechism itself made the reference to "the sense of the faithful." I never came close to calling for the church to become a complete and total democracy. The Church has been wrong before, you know.
Has the Church, even some of
Has the Church, even some of her popes, acted wrongly? Yes.
Has the Church been wrong about doctrine ever? No.
Are you sure about that? In
Are you sure about that? In any event, part of my questioning has had of course to do with context. Even a correct doctrine can be taught poorly or in a way that is harmful and contrary to the Holy Spirit, to the Jesus we find in the Gospels.
In my experience, Humanae Vitae has hardly been taught at all. When I was growing up, one Sunday a year presumably one of the few couples in the parish practicing the rhythm method would deliver some remarks in place of the priest's weekly homily. And that was it.
"Are you sure about that?" -
"Are you sure about that?"
- Yes.
"In any event, part of my questioning has had of course to do with context. Even a correct doctrine can be taught poorly or in a way that is harmful and contrary to the Holy Spirit, to the Jesus we find in the Gospels."
- You are totally correct. A prime example of this is the tragic history of Martin Luther. Had the Church acted more prudently when She was correcting him, perhaps the entire issue could have been diffused.
"In my experience, Humanae Vitae has hardly been taught at all. When I was growing up, one Sunday a year presumably one of the few couples in the parish practicing the rhythm method would deliver some remarks in place of the priest's weekly homily. And that was it."
- Again, you are correct. Nobody really wanted to teach it, and they still don't, as it's unpopular.
Was not usury once condemned
Was not usury once condemned by Church doctrine, in accord with Biblical teaching and long-established tradition? Perhaps even with very severe penalties prescribed for its practioners? And I doubt if that is the only change in Church doctrine over the centuries.
Or, if that teaching does not qualify as Church doctrine (we never defined our terms, did we?) what about one of the key changes brought about by Vatican II? For a long time error was said to have no rights. People who argued otherwise were condemned. Then, these views of the formerly condemned were adopted as official Church teaching!
BTW, I believe St. Thomas Aquinas himself was condemned by the Vatican in his day for challenging Church teaching, perhaps even Church doctrine. I am fuzzy on the details, unfortunately.
The Church has been speaking
The Church has been speaking out against usury. It never said 'usury is ok', nor does it say this now. I'm not sure what you're implying here. For a good rundown on what the Church teaches on usury, read "Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor" by Pope Leo XIII.
You are totally correct. We should define out terms. Here is a good definition of 'Doctrine'.
Doctrine:
Any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the natural law (as the sinfulness of contraception). In any case, what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed. This teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or ordinarily in the perennial exercise of the Church's magisterium or teaching authority. Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God. (Etym. Latin doctrina, teaching.)
For further reading, here is a good article on doctrine.
As for what you said about with regards to the Second Vatican Council, I honestly have no idea what you are referring to. Can you be more specific?
I'm also not sure what instance you are talking about with regard to St. Thomas. Again, can you post an example?
It's astounding to read the 4
It's astounding to read the 4 "important gestures" suggested by Fr. Kung
for the pope and think that these would be considered outrageous by the Church. I think growing up within the Catholic church often makes it difficult to comprehend just how silly and non-Christ-like some of our teachings can be. Anyone outside the Catholic veil must look at us and shake their heads, and rightfully so.
I would be genuinely interested to know how many Catholics honestly believe or
follow these sorts of teachings. Not many I suspect. A third Vatican council is necessary to return the Church to its senses, and to return it to
the people.
Post new comment