Reading incomprehension.
Cathleen Kaveny’s column “The Long Goodbye: Why Some Devout Catholics Are Leaving the Church” caught the attention of several writers, making it one of the most-read columns on our Web site. One commentator even made a video about it.
Fr. Robert Barron teaches theology at the University of St. Mary of the Lake/Mundelein Seminary, and is a gifted evangelist. He has written well on a wide range of subjects, including a helpful piece on celibacy for Commonweal. Often, even when I disagree with Fr. Barron’s conclusions, I find his analyses interesting and his arguments careful. This isn’t one of those times.
In his video response, Fr. Barron identifies Kaveny’s column as the “latest in a disturbing trend…in the Catholic commentariat, namely to treat the church in a kind of cavalier manner, as though it’s one voluntary organization among many.” Throughout the video, he gives the impression that Kaveny doesn’t really care that these people are leaving the church. According to Barron, Kaveny
argues that many Catholics are leaving the church, and that is true–the numbers are rather disturbing. But she says that many are doing it in good conscience…for good reasons. They’re angry at the church for various reasons, and they have left. And the bishops, she says, should be concerned about this not because it’s putting these people in spiritual danger but rather because the bishops should now reconsider a number of church teachings–about gay marriage or about artificial contraception or whatever–that would then bring these people back.
Not quite. This is what Kaveny wrote: “Like many Catholics, they have long doubted the wisdom of elements of church teaching on matters of sexual morality (contraception and gay marriage, for example) or gender roles (the all-male priesthood).” She does not write that bishops shouldn’t worry about such people because leaving the church carries no spiritual consequences, or that bishops should change certain church teachings in order to bring back defectors. That Barron suggests otherwise strikes me as bizarre, but it’s typical of the way he misreads the rest of this short piece. Kaveny is describing the decisions of devout Catholics to worship in other Christian churches. She is not endorsing those decisions.
Barron goes on to highlight ”a disturbing sort of hinge to Kaveny’s argument–namely that the church is relatively dispensable. She would say that people can leave a church really for good reason, and they’re doing it much more easily than their parents or grandparents because they’ve accepted the teaching that God’s grace is available everywhere and not simply within the Catholic Church.” This reminds him of Martin Luther, “who conceived the church as kind of a voluntary organization. What really matters is you’re justified by grace and faith, your relationship with Jesus, and then if you find the right church that helps you and so on, that’s fine. But it’s more or less a matter of indifference what church you belong to.”
Perhaps Kaveny “would say” there can be good reasons to leave the church, but she doesn’t quite say that in the column. (Never mind that Martin Luther was anything but religiously indifferent, and that Anabaptists, Protestants, and Catholics believed they were involved in a life-and-death struggle over religious truth as embodied in particular forms and communities of worship.) Nor does she say that leaving the church is “a matter of peripheral concern,” as Fr. Barron puts it.
Much of Kaveny’s column describes the way such Catholics have responded to the sexual-abuse scandal. Fr. Barron acknowledges the damaging effects of the crisis.
Have there been awfully bad responses to the sex-scandal? Yes. Where there some priests who did terrible things in the sex-abuse scandal? Yes. Was the recent Vatican statement [seeming to equate sexual abuse with women's ordination] impossibly bad public relations? Yes. Are any of these good reasons for leaving the Catholic Church? No…. Can we recognize problems, insufficiencies, fallings away from the ideal–yes, yes, yes. We can see all that in the Catholic Church, but it’s never a good reason to leave the church. We can’t treat it as one voluntary organization among many. “Yeah, that works for you, it doesn’t work for me. Yeah, it worked for me for a time, now it doesn’t.”
To close, Fr. Barron recounts an exchange between Hans Kung and Henri de Lubac during Vatican II. As the two theologians were walking to a council session, Kung shared his frustrations with the institutional church. They approached the steps of St. Peter’s, de Lubac turned to Kung and said, “But she is still our mother.” Barron concludes: “We can’t treat her as ‘take it or leave it’…. No, the church is the place where we find the fullness of life, and that always has to be emphasized.”
Yet it is precisely because these Catholics share de Lubac’s view that they are in such pain. They don’t deny that the church is their mother. They feel betrayed by her. Fr. Barron has no reason to believe their decision to leave the church was “a matter of peripheral concern.”
If we are going to call the sexual-abuse crisis a “scandal,” then we’re going to have to come to terms with what makes it a scandal. Fr. Barron doesn’t need me to instruct him on the theological import of that term. At the heart of the abuse crisis is a tragic fact: men who were ordained to nourish their people’s faith have been responsible for destroying it. It is one thing for Kung and de Lubac to debate a theological point on the steps of St. Peter’s. It is quite another for victims to figure out how to continue worshiping in a faith community that enabled their abuse. Victims’ friends and family–and many Catholics who have thought deeply about the scandal–face a similar challenge. They find it hard to grasp how such a church can provide “the fullness of life.” They worry that their kids aren’t safe. It’s not that they’re working from an attitude of ecclesial indifference. They haven’t been shown why staying matters.
The importance of making that case is something both Kaveny and Barron can agree on.
The block paragraph on whether one should ever leave the Church is worth discussing.
“Can we recognize problems, insufficiencies, fallings away from the ideal–yes, yes, yes. We can see all that in the Catholic Church, but it’s never a good reason to leave the church. We can’t treat it as one voluntary organization among many.”
For many people baptism into the Church was not voluntary, but in coming to a mature faith must there not be a moment when one chooses to be Catholic? If one indeed can choose to be Catholic, as many do who come in by way of the RCIA, then one can choose not to be Catholic, as the statistics show regarding the number who leave within one year of their initiation as adults.
It is true that once you are a Catholic you are always at some level a Catholic, which then raises the interesting point of whether there is anything the institutional Church can do that would prompt one to leave the institution and yet personally and existentially remain Catholic.
I find Barron’s point that there is never a good reason for leaving the Church to be a bit incomprehensible in the present age. It seems that many Catholics who have left the Church disagree with Barron on this point. Why is their reasoning more defective than his?
“They haven’t been shown why staying matters.
The importance of making that case is something both Kaveny and Barron can agree on.”
Yes, and it is clear that, whether one agrees with him or not, Fr. Barron is at least trying to make that case. Shan’t we join him in that endeavor?
I second the motion.
Barron’s argument is a soft-boiled “extra ecclesiam nulla salus.” He believes that there is some idealized objective standard that at some point, a person may say,”I just don’t believe this anymore …” and find themselves ad extra. The phenomena of “leaving,” as the various studies point out, is much more complex than that for most and springs from various experiences. Christ’s intention may subsist in the Roman expression of church, but it is total hubris to think that it is defined only in this way.
As with almost any priest, Fr.Barron has little credibility critiquing the laity about their difficulty in staying connected to Mother Church. It’s a mess but I’m not leaving… maybe he should address his concerns to the 25 thousand US priests who left.. and almost all were prior to the 2002 abuse cover up. Europe, the British isles and Ireland are covered with abandoned monasteries and chuches so we all know about how bad times have continuously bashed the Church throughout history… and not any of bad times I know about were instigated by the laity.
I recently came across a posting in which the writer, a young man it seems, was wondering why there seems to be a general view that everyone must love their parents. He talked about how his parents were drug/ alcohol addicts, abused him etc. And somehow he managed to get an education and a good job and now tries to keep as far away from them as possible. There were several comments on the post sympathising and agreeing with him.
Fr.Barron basically seems to say that we owe it to stay with the Church since she is our mother. I loved my mother who certainly had her faults as a human being but was the best of mothers [to me :-)] and to me personally the Church is also something like that. But the Church has been anything but motherly to the victims of abuse and many others. Fr Barron does not seem to understand that.
Mark, the truth is that many of us have been involved in the endeavor long before Fr Barron ever gave a thought to setting his Word on fire. He still has a few years to catch up with me and others in the ministry department.
I do admire him as an author, as a creative thinker, as one who constructively challenges faith, and as an evangelist. I also find he’s gummed up this one. Maybe he’s been reading too much Archbishop Sheehan, who also pulled a howler in his misreading of Peter Steinfels.
It seems that too many “faithful” Catholics have to prove (somehow) their bona fides by making the usual argument against people who want a sexual free-for-all. Thing is, I can read as casually as Fr Barron when I (don’t) put my mind to it, and I just don’t see it.
I’d rather see Fr Barron put his intellect to task on those within the clerical culture who are, by word and action, preaching the antigospel. Or doesn’t he see it?
Re: joining Fr. Barron in the endeavor of showing one’s fellow Catholics why staying in the church matters:
Surely what counts above all here is action. How we behave as brothers and sisters. How we demonstrate welcome and love.
Preach always, and when necessary, use words.
I suspect many Catholics might think twice about the importance of continuing an association with the church if their brothers and sisters lived the welcome about which they speak freely–lived it in a more sacramentally effective way than often seems to be the case these days.
It’s well and good to say that the Church is the spotless bride of Christ, without peer among other Christian communities, but for those whose confusion or hurt is bound up in their association with the Church or its doctrines, it’s simply too much to ask them to focus on the Platonic ideal of Church when that ideal is rarely personified in the here and now by those who claim the mantle of the Church’s authority.
William Lindsey hits the jackpot, I think.
At the risk of waxing lugubrious, I think testimony of the faith of the laity–who are also “the Church”–needs to be out front more.
The Catholics who shaped my young life and led me to RCIA eventually were not priests and hierarchs, but neighbors and friends–the neighbors who gave us food and shelter when our house burned up when I was a child, and the first people through the door at the funeral home when Dad died this spring; my lifelong college roommate who skipped class to take care of me when I had the flu and who, the week before she died, wrote me a thank you note for helping her when she had leukemia; another neighbor who made a game of teaching kids sign language so they could play with her son who was born deaf; the strength of a friend whose only children both have schizophrenia. And, of course, there are many on this list who have sent words of encouragement and friendship over the years, conservative, liberal, and “other.”
I didn’t seek the Church because I loved its rules; I sought it because I loved its people.
My connection to the Church is tenuous; I no longer receive in good conscience (though I’m still on the “call” list for funeral lunches and altar society meetings) because of some of the rules (but by no means all of them). But while I have left the table physically I would not in any way underplay the influence the Church still has on those who have “left.”
I’m one of the RCIA drop-outs. But I’m still here after a fashion. I’m still listening. I still have hope that my faith will gel enough for me to come back.
Todd—
I do not doubt you and many others have been at the party long before Fr. Barron showed up, and may be there long after he leaves (and I agree wholeheartedly with William Lindsay’s comments). Nevertheless, the more the merrier. I don’t see the point in taking Fr. Barron to task for what he didn’t say—you can’t address every evangelical obstacle in a seven minute video. I had never heard of him before, but found that his talk provided a necessary boundary, in an engaging and pastoral manner. From other comments here, I gather he is not considered a right-wing nut, so he may be uniquely qualified to speak to and be heard by many people who are tempted to leave the Church.
One of the subtexts I think he was responding to was a caste of mind that could allow the following sentence, which I found jarring:
“Perhaps Kaveny ‘would say’ there can be good reasons to leave the church…”
Perhaps there are understandable reasons why someone would leave the church. Perhaps there are forgivable reasons. Perhaps there can be good reasons why someone might leave their confessor, or their parish. But for a Catholic enterprise to espouse the view that there can be good reasons for someone leaving the church is, well, damnable, isn’t it?
“But for a Catholic enterprise to espouse the view that there can be good reasons for someone leaving the church is, well, damnable, isn’t it?”
Define “leaving the Church.” There are some who continue to attend Mass but no longer receive. There are others who continue to receive, but break “the rules.” Which of these people have truly “left”?
And if the answer is “all of ‘em,” my understanding is that the Church will take them back when they get themselves sorted out.
Define “damnable.” Bound for hell? The Church doesn’t teach that anybody is in hell.
Damnable? No, I don’t think so. Not in this context.
The reasons for leaving are understandable, even if I and others personally find them non-substantial. I’ve certainly had no lack of Catholics, usually of the orthotoxic variety, suggest I would be better off outside the Church not bothering their lazy sense of entitlement.
I’m not sure that Prof. Kaveny and others are suggesting these are good reasons for leaving the institution so much as they have listened to the reasons some have given and have nodded in sympathy, rather than congruence. Fr Barron and others seem to be taking aim at the messenger. Time to put the gun down, I think.
For the strategy of roping back the inactives and those alienated, we’re going to have to get serious about the effort. And it might be that in preliminary discussions, some clerical egos will get bruised. Let’s be clear that bruising egos isn’t quite the same thing as setting oneself up against the mission of the Gospel. Some people, it would seem, need that timely reminder.
The way I see it, we finally have some recognition in some official circles that there’s a heck of a lot of work to be done. A more constructive approach might be for Fr Barron to invite Prof Caveny to collaborate with him on Word on Fire. Clearly, she has a bead on a phenomenon he seems to have missed. Or misread. And it’s not that Commonweal hasn’t, in turn, invited the man to be part of their project.
I will add my affirmation to Mr Lindsey’s post. A strong local sense of the Church will always–always–trump the excesses and sins of the institution and its antigospel.
At the end of The Day, we cannot transform The Truth of Love, He transforms us. The mission of Word on Fire is to proclaim His Word, not ours. If we no longer believe in The Word of Love, then we create love in our own image. When we no longer believe in The Truth of Love, anything can become permissible.
-As a seminary professor, I would think Fr. Barron ould try to put forward a best case on celibacy.
In a few weeks, w’ll be strating up the evangelization drive.
But telling folks to come to catholicism -warts and all, while others leave and drift doesn’t seem like making Good News credible or attractive.
I think Cathy’s piece should be read in conjunction wit hPeter and margaet Steinfels’ pieces in 10/22 and 12/3 Comonweal – as well as Bishop Sheehan’s letter to the editor in the latter and Peter’s response.
If grace builds on nature, the “transformation” is not only hindered but undermined by the intransigence of non engagement.
It’s just not the Olmsteads or Morlinos or many more whose individual high handced actions chafe.
The burning issue of the role of women is just one of several that drive many into drift or away.Our own divisions and how rigidly we cling to our answers make Ms. Steinfels conclusion apropos – we have met the enemy and he is us.
It is certainly wrong to compare the church to any other voluntary organization, as Fr. Barron notes. What other large voluntary organization in Western Civilization has routinely practiced such widespread facilitation and concealment of heinous crimes over modern decades? The tradition of priestly sexual abuse is often attributed to a few bad apples and the commonality of the practice elsewhere. No seasoned mother would accept such flimsy excuses from her child. Dismissing Vatican statements as “PR gaffes” ignores the probability that they in fact reflect the perceptions of those in positions of authority.
The Pope declares homosexuality incompatible with the priesthood. Pictures of cavorting gay priests in Rome and monsignori in Brazil are minor reinforcements of what is already well known – the Pope may speak his theory, but it has little to do with the church for which he and the bishops are responsible, including selecting and training the celibates.
As for being voluntary, Infants are customarily incorporated when they know nothing more than hungry, sleepy, wet, and happy. Years later, they are told they are therefore subject to eternal damnation unless they follow the rules that happen to be in place. As Alan Mitchell suggests above, rational adults are the people being discussed and should be recognized as such.
Reported rationales for “leaving” seem to fall into three categories which demand different consideration – single-issue conviction (e.g., on birth control), cultural convictions (e.g., on misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia), and institutional hypocrisy (e.g., between the “preaching” and the words as referred to by William Lindsey above). The existence of good neighbors nearby says little about the Catholic situation. Thankfully, they can be found of many faiths. Is the Catholic Church unique in being the only recognizable large organization or institution in which the leaders and authorities are free of responsibility for its troubled condition and the followers have to fix it? Perhaps. History will tell.
To add to Jack’s list of rationales, how about thwarted or abused vocations? People called to institutional leadership but not authorized to lead…this I find very sad, when good people are ground up by clumsy, indifferent or actively hostile leaders. We send some excellent ministers to other churches, often at a cost of great personal pain to them. (And of course, other churches are far from perfect. See, e.g., Sarah Sentilles “A Church of Her Own” for stories of bad news for women on the other side of the Tiber. But still…)
“But for a Catholic enterprise to espouse the view that there can be good reasons for someone leaving the church is, well, damnable, isn’t it?”
Professor Kaveny did not, in fact, say that there can be good reasons for someone to leave the Church. Perhaps Father Barron would say that there are good reasons to misrepresent another theologian’s writing. The desire to curry favor with well-funded TV networks, perhaps, or the hope that the meme would be thoughtlessly picked up, maliciously promulgated and used to undermine somebody else’s credibility.
Felapton, the question is, how can one be a “Devout” Catholic if one does not believe the teaching of The Catholic Church regarding, for example, the use of contraception and engaging in homosexual sexual acts and homosexual sexual relationships?
Nancy, I don’t want to fight about sexual morality. Can I ask you something else?
You said: “When we no longer believe in The Truth of Love, anything can become permissible.” and Pope Benedict said something similar when he was being interviewed by Peter Seewald.
Is this an allusion to something I don’t recognize, or is it an allusion to “The Brothers Karamazov”? Smerdyakov makes this statement, which he attributes to Ivan. But I think the point is that Ivan never meant anything of the sort and only a murderous, illiterate peasant like Smerdyakov could have thought so. We all know perfectly ethical atheists, don’t we?
Felapton, it is an allusion to He Who is The Truth of Love, The Word of Love Made Flesh.
“Love one another as I Have Loved you.”-Christ
I am sure Christ meant what He said, for in Him, there is no lie.
How about the “anything is permitted” part?
If there is no Truth of Love, then the definition of Love becomes a matter of one’s opinion.
Father Barron has misread the column, which tries to call attention to a problem the church is experiencing and asks readers to consider what to do about it in this concluding paragraph:
“The challenge to Commonweal Catholics, then, is coming now from two sides. We have long been in conversation with other Catholics in the pews. But what do we say to Catholics who have abandoned the pews as a matter of conscience?”
Cathleen Kaveney has asked Commonweal’s readers to consider carefully how to work with Catholics who have left the church. Father Barron is telling his viewers to ignore the problem.
Real engagement in the issues of evangelization will require a sharper focus than Nancy or Fr Barron have given us. I appreciate the need to demonstrate the bona fides of virtue and institutional loyalty. Yet I think they are called to something deeper.
However, this thread is about Fr Barron’s misreading of Prof. Kaveny. And if Fr Barron shows himself inept with listening and understanding what a sister believer is saying, then what hope does he have when he casts into the serious deeps for unsympathetic non-believers?
“What other large voluntary organization in Western Civilization has routinely practiced such widespread facilitation and concealment of heinous crimes over modern decades?”
Governments, armies, organized crime …
“It is certainly wrong to compare the church to any other voluntary organization, as Fr. Barron notes.”
And that’s exactly the point. Yet our bishops and their sycophants in orthotoxy persist in comparing us to school teachers, coaches, Scouts, or parents, asif being “no worse” is some sort of virtue.
Our witness of the Christian life should be so obviously radical in its faith, hope, and love, that people are drawn to curiosity to our “strangest” way. Nancy is right about living the virtues of a healthy sexuality. But sexuality is only a piece of the Christian picture. More basic is the willingness to listen, and to listen carefully, and to have the ability to retell another’s position without lying, false witnessing, or otherwise mucking it up.
In the case of Fr Barron, he could have simply written or said, “You put things in a way differently than I would, and I don’t understand what you are saying. Please enlighten me.” But he didn’t. He misrepresented another person, and projected negative arguments he dredged from somewhere that weren’t even present in her writings.
If anyone is looking for a distraction –
In an effort to resolve the Hans Kung – Henri de Lubac debate mentioned by Fr. Barron I’ve looked at 5.2 million books containing 500 billion words – with help from Google’s new NGram viewer. The viewer gives a frequency count of words occuring in books. One can choose any word and the results are graphed and shown by year of publicaton.
I see that de Lubac is the clear winner over Kung and shows sustained strength in the ongoing horse race. And not just in the English language. Kung obviously peaked too early, around 1984.
http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=Hans+Kung%2CHenri+de+Lubac&year_start=1965&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
Of course all the de Lubac references may be negative and the Kung ones positive, so some may want to continue the debate.
Here’s another comparison of theologians:
http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=Hans+Kung%2CKarl+Rahner%2CJoseph+Ratzinger%2CBenedict+XVI%2C+Avery+Dulles&year_start=1965&year_end=2008&corpus=5&smoothing=3
The NYT describes the tool:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/books/17words.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
“ — roping back the inactives and those alienated,” Now what exactly would they be coming back to?
Way-too-large parishes? Parishes being closed at a rapid pace without any regard to the opinions and feelings of those most affected? An aging priesthood that can’t really handle what it has to minister to already? Increasing intransigence against even TALKING about married priesthood (unless you are smart enough to be a Protestant minister who decides that the grass is greener on the Roman side of the Tiber) and women priests – or deacons? A willingness of the entrenched clerical power structures to settle for communion services rather than Eucharist in order to preserve the man-made discipline of mandatory priestly celibacy? A polarizing and polarized church? An increasingly irrelevant church in the lives of so many people? A church where women do virtually all of the work, but subject to the whims of male clerics?
This man put it succinctly: “It’s easier to stay out than to get out.” Mark Twain
I can think of one very good reason for some people to leave the church: if continued membership therein is dangerous to the salvation of one’s soul. It is for many and they are better off “out” than staying “in” for some untoward reason.
“There are many people which the church has but God does not have; and there are many people which God has which the Church does not have.”
St. Augustine (paraphrased) ca 4th century.
Why leave when you can just leave your wallet at home?
” if continued membership therein is dangerous to the salvation of one’s soul. It is for many and they are better off “out” than staying “in” for some untoward reason.”
Don’t respond if I am being too personal, but Jimmy Mac, are you in or out?
According to Cathleen, in the past, there were two reasons why devout Catholics were content to wait, praying and hoping for change. Neither of these reasons included the belief that the fullness of Truth, The Deposit of Faith, resides within The Catholic Church.
Why be there in body if you are not there in The Spirit?
OK, Nancy, let’s not fight about that either. Here’s another question (albeit off-topic.)
What do you have in your creche right now? I have the ox, the ass, the manger and a kind of lost looking sheep. (Standing in for all the people described in Professor Kaveny’s article.) What d’you think? Should the shepherd show up this early with his other sheep? I figure the BVM and St. Joseph should appear on Christmas Eve, the Holy Infant, obviously, at midnight, and the Three Magi on Epiphany.
Fr. Robert Barron ends his video talk with an anecdote about Henri de Lubac and Hans Küng that gives, to me at least, the impression that de Lubac was somehow comforting a troubled Küng by pointing out that with all her faults, the church is still our mother. But this is how Küng relates what happened in Christianity: Essence, History, Future. I am assuming Küng is the source of the story, and we do not have a de Lubac version. If so, it seems to me Fr. Barron has misremembered the anecdote, elaborated on it, and almost turned it on its head:
De Lubac’s remark is a rebuke, and a rebuke that Küng completely rejects. Also, Küng and de Lubac weren’t walking around Rome chatting. De Lubac was reacting to Küng’s lecture “Truthfulness in the Church” and saying, “You can’t talk like that!” Now, of course, one might side with de Lubac if one read Küng’s lecture and agreed with de Lubac, but the way Küng tells the story — unlike the way Fr. Barron tells it — de Lubac doesn’t get the last word, and he is quoted because Küng thinks he’s wrong, not because he has made a wise closing remark to a conversation friendly conversation.
So I think Fr. Barron is distorting Hans Küng along with Cathy Kaveny.
Patrick, thanks for reminding me of the new Google wonder. De lubac, Ratzinger, Von Balthasar are already forgotten while Kung’s work will last. Kung taught us things that most Catholics now take for granted while other theologians succumbed to the comfort of orthodoxy. He may not be perfect but he showed that one can remain inside the church while not condoning the substantial faults and errors of the clergy. His “On Being a Christian” is a readable masterpiece which not 20th or 21st century theologian comes close to. He is not laisses fair person. He preaches responsibility. He has taught Christians that they can pursue the freedom of the children of God of which St Paul speaks while unveiling those who teach too much untruth under the guise of the magisterium.
Kung remains in the church and Catholic are the better for it.
Bill Mazzella:
One can certainly disagree with some of what DeLubac said, but my impression is that he hasn’t been forgotten – and that it’s good that he hasn’t been forgotten. Have you read his “The Drama of Atheist Humanism?” For me, that was a very important book (I’m reminded of it by Felapton’s comment earlier on this thread, “We all know perfectly ethical atheists, don’t we?”)
What sort of evangelization can there be when, as Jimmy Mac points out, priests are not even allowed to TALK about the problems people find with Church teaching?
This “New Evangelization” is going to work about as well as “The Year of the Priest” did. People won’t be convinced by the self-described “orthodox” because those “orthodox” do not really believe that one must follow one’s conscience above all, and because those “orthodox” cannot conceive that *they* can be wrong.
“…the church is still our mother.”
I know people who have rightfully separated form their abusive dictatorial and addicted mothers.
Bad analogy. Try again. I suggest re-reading Cathy Kaveny’s article a little more carefully.
According to Cathleen, she has concern for catholics who “have long doubted the wisdom of elements of Church teaching on matters of sexual morality”. Cathleen believes that it is “needless to say their faith in Church leadership has been badly shaken by the sexual-abuse crisis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay_Report which the Pope largly views as a problem of individual sinfulness, not of broader flaws in church teaching and practices. Since it is obvious that those rogue priests who committed these crimes had a disordered sexual inclination towards engaging in coercive sexual acts with young boys (according to the John Jay Report 51%were between the ages of 11 to 14, 27% between the ages of 15 to 17), my question to Cathleen is, what exactly do these “devout” Catholics wish to see the Catholic Church change regarding sexual ethics in Light of The Truth of Love?
Nancy, you left out the closing quotation marks after “teaching and practices.” Obviously, nobody who knows you would think you did it intentionally, but there are individuals in the Catholic blogosphere who might have.
Probably these devout Catholics do not want the Church to change any doctrines; they’d just like them to try living them.
The problem of highly-educated Catholic professionals intellectualizing themselves out of the Church is not to be dismissed. But it is not really responsible for the big drop in numbers.
Nancy, most Catholics are far more alarmed about the mismanagement of sex predators than the “rogue priests” we’ve known about for decades.
I don’t think there’s anything immoral about lay review boards overseeing accused predators and their treatment, a tighter lay review of seminary candidates, or the disciplining of misbehaving bishops. Do you?
And, David N., I think some tiny measure of skepticism should be permitted in reading his description of this conversation. Absolute fidelity in representing the arguments of his (dead) opponents is not necessarily one of Professor Küng’s many talents.
Felapton,
As far as I can determine (and I have done a very thorough search), there are not two versions of the story, Küng’s and de Lubac’s. The story comes from Küng, and I have reproduced his retelling of it above. If you listen to Fr. Barron, he has added little details (walking to a session of the Council, reaching the steps of St. Peter’s, de Lubac turning to speak) and changed the remark from sharp criticism of Küng’s lecture Truthfulness in the Church (“One doesn’t talk like that about the Church”) to a conversational remark that almost amounts, in Fr. Barron’s retelling, to something like, “There, there, Hans. Of course there are problems, but you must remember the Church is still our mother.”
It is not a faithful retelling of what Küng says. It’s not an outrageous and total misrepresentation, but it’s all weighted to make you agree with de Lubac, when Küng’s point is that he rejects de Lubac’s criticism. And it’s a bit ironic that Fr. Barron distorts what was a remark about Truthfulness in the Church!
Here’s my solution: I started going to a Melkite church. And I must say a great deal of the anger, frustration and pain I was feeling about being Catholic has dissipated. Their approach to things is different (and richer, in my experience) and they don’t have the same issues with their leadership that Latin Riters do. They see themselves as with Rome, not under them. Should I be counted as one who has “left the Catholic Church?”
David, what on earth are you talking about?
Felapton,
What is your question?
Fr. Barron took something written by Hans Küng and made it into an anecdote (inventing colorful little details) in which de Lubac gets the last word and appears to best Küng . I suppose we must grant a certain poetic license to priests giving little video talks, but I think the conclusion is inescapable that Fr. Barron distorted Hans Küng’s account of his disagreement with de Lubak.
I have no interest in either Hans Küng nor de Lubac.
I have no interest in either Hans Küng nor de Lubac.
Felapton,
One needn’t have an interest in either of them to acknowledge that Fr. Barron invented his own version of what happened between them.
But why should I acknowledge what I have never denied?
Felapton,
Did I say you should?
I’m so confused. Are you sure you have the right thread?
Felapton, let me try to rephrase that question correctly. According to Cathleen, she has concern for the many Catholics who “have long doubted the wisdom of elements of church teaching on matters of sexual morality (contraception and gay marriage for example) or gender roles (the all-male priesthood)”. Cathleen believes it is needless to say, “their faith in Church leadership has been badly shaken by the sexual-abuse crisis” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay_Report, which she believes “the Pope largely views as a problem of individual sinfulness, not of broader flaws in church teaching and practices”.
Since it is obvious that the rogue priests who committed these crimes had a disordered sexual inclination towards engaging in coercive sexual acts with young boys, (according to the John Jay Report, 51% of the victims were between the ages of 11 to 14, 27%of the victims were between the ages of 15 to 17) my question to Cathleen is what exactly do those who doubt the wisdom of the Church teaching on matters of sexual morality wish to see the Church change in regards to sexual ethics in Light of The Truth of Love?
The reasons for Catholics lapsing or no longer practicing or leaving are manifold and complex. Aridity is one reason. Another reason is a weakening of a sense of authority, not only in the Church, but as a steady result of the process of democratization. Many, many people say that the are spiritual but not religious and Emily Dickinson writes:
What will get people “back” is what has always inspired people – namely saints and prophets who emerge within the Church.
And there is the not insignificant ecclesiological point concerning whether the model of Roman Church is, in fact, what Christ is calling his Church to. Towards the end of his life in the Nazi concentration camp, Dietirch Bonhoeffer, reflected on the concept of a “religionless” Christianity. There may be something to his reflections.
Nancy, I neither agree nor disagree with you about rogue priests. But I have read Professor Kaveny’s article at least twice, and I can’t see why you think she thinks they think the Church should change any doctrine.
Doubting the wisdom of elements of a doctrine does not imply thinking the doctrine should be changed. I myself have some doubts about the completeness of the theory of evolution, but I certainly don’t think we should change the way we teach it.
“Every Emily Dickinson poem can be sung to the tune of ‘The Yellow Rose of Texas’.”
- More inspired wisdom from Babylon t
“Many, many people say that the are spiritual but not religious …”
I have yet to fathom why this is necessarily a bad thing. Both are adjectives, and one is connected to God while the other is connected to the outward practices of religion. Clearly, some people have perceived that in the human sphere, one can have the outward appearance of being connected to God through human rituals and interactions. Some call such folks pharisees. And others can strive for God, or the Holy Spirit if you will, through a combination of outward and inner participation in the relationship with God. To borrow from a tussle in the liturgy wars, can we safely say that religious Christians are like those who emphasize outward participation at the expense of inner, and that spiritual Christians are like those who value interior involvement even if it appears at times they are sleeping?
Ideally, Christians show both forms as ordinary parts of their lives, right?
Felapton, if it is true that those who doubt the wisdom of the Church teaching on matters of sexual morality do not think the Church teaching should change, why would they not stay and be part of the One Body, One Spirit In Love that Christ desires for His Church?
http://www.usccb.org/hab/bible/john/john17.htm (see17:21)
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john17.htm (see 17:21)
Nancy, I don’t know. As far as I know, Professor Kaveny does not attempt to answer that question in the article.
Felapton, Nancy: Uncle!
Felapton, you are mistaken. According to Cathleen, there are those who have long doubted the wisdom of Church teaching on matters of sexual morality but “they were content to wait, praying and hoping for change”. If it is true that those who have long doubted the wisdom of the Church teaching on matters of sexual morality do not think the Church teaching should change, then why would they be praying and hoping for change?
If it is true that those who have long doubted the wisdom of the Church teaching on matters of sexual morality do not think the Church teaching should change, then why would they be praying and hoping for change?
Nancy,
As Prof Kaveny says in her article: “Like many Catholics, they have long doubted the wisdom of elements of church teaching on matters of sexual morality (contraception and gay marriage, for example) or gender roles (the all-male priesthood)” [emphasis added]. Why are you hectoring Felapton when what you want to know is in the article you quote from and so have apparently read?
David, I wasn’t hectoring Felapton, just trying to help him with his reading comprehension:-)
David and Nancy, really everybody should feel free to hector me as much as they like today because I won’t even notice. I am busy being hectored by two of my esteemed colleagues. It seems the End of the World will come if their journal article is not resubmitted by the time they fly out on Thursday. I was not aware the situation was so dire, having been misled by the fact that neither of them have looked at the thing for at least four months. However, I notice that the computer cluster has already begun to shut itself down in anticipation of the Final Judgment, so time must be short.
I’ll talk to both of you guys next year, if I get the journal article out. If not, we’ll just have to discuss it in the Beatific Vision. After all, how beatific could any vision be without threads like this one?
Merry Christmas to you both.
They have been taught and believe that God’s saving grace is everywhere, not merely within the structure of the Roman Catholic Church. They emphasize the generosity of a loving God, who would not refuse anyone whose knee bends at the name of his Son.
.
.
.
Like many Catholics, they have long doubted the wisdom of elements of church teaching on matters of sexual morality (contraception and gay marriage, for example) or gender roles (the all-male priesthood). But for two reasons they were content to wait, praying and hoping for change.
These passages beg a few questions:
1) A loving God who woud not refuse anyone what? What is it He would not refuse? He would not refuse someone to marry his dog, for example?
2) It is not the wisdom these souls doubt, but the truth, is it not so? If they doubt the truth of the teachings, then they were already “out” of the Church anyway. Again, is it not so?
He would not refuse someone to marry his dog, for example?
Bob,
To what other Christian denomination do Catholics go when the Church refuses to let them marry dogs?
Bob talks a lot about people who want to marry their dogs.
I googled, “I want to marry my dog,” and the vast majority of these returns were discussions about what will happen if gay marriage/civil unions are legalized. Along with the “I want to marry my dog” argument are such things as:
I want to marry my computer so I can have a $1 M life insurance policy on it.
What if I want to marry my dog? Or the Brooklyn Bridge?
Now that homos can marry each other and marriage no longer means union between a man and a woman I was thinking, I really love my dog, …
I want to marry my dog too, we can adopt puppies and claim them as exemptions on our taxes at the end of every year.
I want to marry my dog so he can have free vet benefits from my company.
ooops, and I hit the “submit” button before I made the point that there’s also a Facebook page, “I want to marry my dog” because “The religious right, says it is next after full marriage equality, lol.”
Mostly this argument is either conservative hype or a mockery of conservative hype (though there do seem to be a few folks out there who really do want to marrry their dogs …).
Maybe we could stick to the issue at hand, which is why people leave the Church and whether Fr. Barron accurately read Cathleen’s discussion of why people leave the Church. Or maybe it is relevant. How many people want to belong to a church that’s full of people who equate gay civil unions with bestiality?
Felapton –
I’ve always thought that Emily Dickinson wrote the best jingles in the English language. Too bad she didn’t have the wisdom to go with her jingling ability. Unfortunately, she is an entrenched part of liberal education these days, along with Walt Whitman (now *there* was a talent) and Emerson.
I think that one reason so many are drifting from the Church is because Emerson’s notion of the primacy of individuality/freedom has become pervasive in the American culture. In the 60s the young people, having been exposed to Emerson’s ideas and those of Nietzsche who was influenced by him in colleges across the country, became convinced that a good life is anti-convention and anti-conformity,that the old guys’ books are valueless, that all one needs have a good life is to follow one’s own feelings. “Do your own thing” and “Never trust anyone over thirty” became their battle cries. (Emerson actually said that books count for naught.)
He was contemptuous of authority, and this has become a hallmark of American democracy in many ways. Given his influence, the Church authorities start off at a disadvantage even with Catholics, and, in my opinion, until the official Church develops a rational justification for its own authority the teachings of the Church will never be accepted so easily as 100 years ago. Yes, it will become a cult in the WEst.
“Maybe we could stick to the issue at hand, which is why people leave the Church and whether Fr. Barron accurately read Cathleen’s discussion of why people leave the Church.”
Jean, that would be excellent. But some of our esteemed commentators would have to give up the shell game they favor. Still waiting from an answer from Nancy on bishops rather than rogue priests. Personally, I don’t think there is an answer that will play to the dog marriage meme. But it’s a lot more stimulating cocktail conversation to ridicule people who love differently than it might be to consider that such people share our aspirations to affection, protection, permanency, friendship, and even a godly love.
So, Nancy … what percentage of bishops have shopped a sex predator? What percentage of sitting popes have bumbled a personnel decision with a “rogue?” Why do you think those percentages are higher than sexual “rogues,” and why don’t you have an answer for what’s really bothering most Catholics on this front? There’s no trick to the question, and you can use as many Capitalized Words as you wish.
This is a jingle:
This is a poem:
Don’t get them mixed up.
This is what the pope said when asked on his trip to Britain about “rogue priests” and how to restore trust among the faithful following the sex abuse scandals:
So the “rogue priests” had no free will, and their “punishment” is to protect them from themselves and make sure they don’t have access to children. If they acted without free will, why would we want to lock them up? Also, if they acted without free will, all the more reason why the bishops who moved them from parish to parish are the guilty, although the pope doesn’t seem to think of them as such.
Why in the world there was no major outcry when the pope declared sexually abusive priests to be suffering from an illness and acting without free will I am still trying to figure out.
Ross Douthat at the NYT talks about the weakening of Christianity in the U.S.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/opinion/20douthat.html?_r=1&ref=global-
George —
OK, so that one has a few strong lines. But this is a jingle:
In the Garden
A bird came down the walk:
He did not know I saw;
He bit an angle-worm in halves
And ate the fellow, raw.
And then he drank a dew
From a convenient grass,
And then hopped sidewise to the wall
To let a beetle pass.
He glanced with rapid eyes
That hurried all abroad,–
They looked like frightened beads, I thought;
He stirred his velvet head
Like one in danger; cautious,
I offered him a crumb,
And he unrolled his feathers
And rowed him softer home
Than oars divide the ocean,
Too silver for a seam,
Or butterflies, off banks of noon,
Leap, plashless, as they swim.
Oops — sorry. Make that David.
Ann, do you think Emerson was contemptuous of authority, or had a healthy skepticism about it? Having been raised a Unitarian whose patron saint is Emerson, I think I’d say the latter.
Remember, we Boomers grew up at a time when prevailing political authority pursued a policy of mutually assured destruction and taught us that we could avoid being incinerated by the Bomb by ducking and covering. We also grew up when standing up to authority took down Jim Crow.
Do you really think that Nietszche was a big factor among Boomers? I’d say Tolkien and Hermann Hesse, both of whom wrote about spiritual and moral quests, probably had as much or more effect. Certainly, their works were more easily accessible and palatable, being in novel form.
Moreover, we Boomers did grow up somewhat and gain a BIT of wisdom in the past 40 years. Perhaps your brush is a bit broad?
The original Kaveny article claims that “in the end, most people are what some ethicists call evidence-based virtue theorists. They think that if you cannot get the answer to a basic moral problem right, your advice on more complicated issues will not be reliable… the conjoining of women’s ordination and sexual abuse showed that the hierarchy was not merely bumbling in its approach to these issues, but twisted in its ultimate presuppositions about what the real threats facing the church today are.”
Or couldn’t one reason this way: If an institution over a span of centuries formulates policies on complicated issues that are reliable then recent failures might well be viewed as anomalies to be corrected in the light of the tradition. Thus if I admire Islamic civilizations and their contributions to world culture but then find that there are contemporary extremists who endorse terrorism and seem bent on eliminating Christians from their land I don’t automatically assume that the Muslim religion will then be incapable of offering reliable advice on complicated issues. Or if I admire the Democratic party but find their stand on abortion to be deeply flawed I might be inclined to view it as not representative of the party’s overall impact. The Catholic Church deserves the same presumption that is accorded to Islam or the Democratic party.
Shouldn’t the evidence that evidence-based virtue theorists consider be drawn from a long span and cover a wide range of issues and not make a breathtaking leap of judgment and hasty condemnation of the institution from the fact that a Vatican document combines issues of women’s ordination and sexual abuse on a single page? What would Mohammed do?
Oy, if we have to talk about Whitman, I’m going back to the thread about baking with lard.
“Don’t respond if I am being too personal, but Jimmy Mac, are you in or out?”
I remain “in” to the point that I am a member of a local parish. That’s the extent of my Roman Catholicism. If it goes away (and there is always that danger because we continue to step on the Archbishop’s toes) then so do I.
I have enjoyed reading this interchange and admit to almost spitting my mouthful of coffee out with I read the reference to “the spotless bride of Christ.” That’s about the funniest thing I have read in years! Believe THAT and I have a piece of a new bridge being built across the San Francisco Bay that I’ll sell you very cheaply.
Shouldn’t the evidence that evidence-based virtue theorists consider be drawn from a long span and cover a wide range of issues and not make a breathtaking leap of judgment and hasty condemnation of the institution from the fact that a Vatican document combines issues of women’s ordination and sexual abuse on a single page?
Patrick,
Do you mean to imply the the position of women in the Church has not always –setting aside some evidence of of positive roles during New Testament times and shortly thereafter — been one of secondary importance at best? Where has the Church been on a whole host of issues like religious freedom, sexual morality, the position of Jews in the world, slavery, and civil rights? Looking at all of Church history, it is an open question for me what conclusion an evidence-based virtue theorist would arrive at.
Todd, why would a man with a disordered sexual inclination towards engaging in coercive sexual acts enter the priesthood? Certainly any Bishop who was aware of sexual abuse and ignored it is guilty of enabling abuse.
Patrick, you have an argument, or at least, a rejoinder, but to the extent the “leaving” is thoughtful, one might have a more profound set of doubts: One of the agonies of falling out of love is to look back and year by year start doubting that you were ever “really” in love, or even worse, loved. So it is with those leaving a church — once the questions start, they might never end. And so, the things you once accepted without doubt can start to seem highly questionable. It’s true for ex-Catholics, ex-Muslims and ex-Democrats and so on. The mantle of authority accreted over centuries. Things tend to fall apart a lot more quickly than they can be built or rebuilt.
Patrick,
One other thing. Looking at the issue of the Church, Benedict, and condoms, I have to say to myself, “Is this the same Church that claims not just authority but infallibility on matters of faith and morals?” Scarcely in my entire life have I seen any major organization act in a nuttier manner, with experts of all stripes trying to tell us what the pope meant. Why doesn’t the pope tell us what he meant? Why can’t the Church say, one way or another, if discordant married couples can use condoms to prevent HIV/AIDS transmission. Why can’t the Church say, “Public health officials have said the ABC method works best in HIV/AIDS prevention, and we say the use of condoms in public health programs is (or is not) permissible”?
How difficult is it for the Vatican, in the midst of a public health disaster — to come up with a policy on condoms? And if it is indeed true that the Church has actually reached the conclusion that use of condoms by a discordant married couple is licit, but they won’t announce it because they fear it would cause “confusion,” what kind of moral authority do they have a right to claim?
Ann,
That is not a jingle either. Your point seems to be that your Dickinson poem is not metaphysical or vatic enough to count as real poety. It’s just about a bird. But a poem, a good poem, can be just about a bird.
It is no doubt possible to draw a long and crooked line between the Sixties counterculture and Emerson and Nietzsche. But it seems doubtful that either Emerson or Nietzsche would have recognized self-indulgent Baby Boomers as the fulfillment of their philosophies. Neither man’s philosophy can be adequately summarized as “Do your own thing.” Nietzsche’s Last Men also do their own thing. The worthiness of the thing one does mattered at least as much to Nietzsche as the fact that it was one’s own. Read Emerson on Carlyle — hell, read Emerson on almost anything — and you will see that he had no time for the sort of proud anti-intellectual vagueness the hippies tried to turn into a virtue. For him, discrimination was a cardinal virtue. He thought Carlyle’s genius was all about definition and distinction.
“Walt Whitman (now *there* was a talent)”–I’m not sure whether this was a parenthetical compliment or parenthetical sarcasm. If the former, do you prefer him to Dickinson because he never rhymed about birds and always had a Big Point to make? If the latter, please do us and Uncle Walt a favor and tell us why you think so little of him.
Jean Raber:
I believe that you are barking up the wrong tree. :]]
It is important to note that the precedent for Sexual Love was set from The Beginning. The individual sinfulness of members of the Church cannot change The Truth of Love.
Todd, re Nancy: it’s truly a wasted effort. Spare yourself and your poor tired fingers.
David–
I agree the phrase “free will cannot function where a disease exists” is something of an eye opener. It appears the quote is from an interview, or press conference, not from an official document. My reading is that the Pope meant cannot function “properly”, or “fully”. And I hardly find trying to protect people from themselves a form of punishment. I don’t think the Pope meant it this way. Let’s give the guy the same break we’d want to be given.
Likewise, I thought your parsing of Fr. Barron’s recollection a bit rough–if anything it seems his recounting of the anecdote placed Kung in a more favourable light than he deserved–hardly a hanging offense. I think Fr. Barron was saying that the “after all, the Church is still our Mother” is the way he (Fr. Barron) thinks we should look at things. Whether or not de Lubac precisely felt that way is so tangential as to be not worth your time doing thorough research on.
Don’t mean to single you out, as there were other comments on this thread that I found even more unfair towards Fr. Barron. And they’ve not helped advance the discussion. Barron took pains to point out the legitimacy of some of the things Kaveny noted. However, he was afraid they might be misinterpreted, and he tried to guide his sheep away from harmful conclusions that the flock might draw. The depth of the defensiveness his irenic words have produced in some (apparently not including Kaveny) is revealing in its own way.
Jimmy–
Actually, I do believe THAT, so what’s your price, and will you take a personal check?
Who is this video for?
I agree with those who have said he misreads Kaveny to say it’s a matter of indifference whether or not one belongs to the church. She doesn’t say that, much less that “the church is a voluntary organization” which he claims repeatedly is the issue.
So it seems to me he is projecting his own anxieties onto Kaveny’s article, and creating a set of questions for which he has “answers” and ignoring all the real questions which he can’t answer at all — or at least doesn’t care to answer here. Such as, what are people to do who are dismayed, suffocated, angry, not ministered-to, not listened-to, and hungry for genuine spiritual solace?
Yet I am still perplexed about this video. For whose benefit did he make this? Is this his try-out tape for being appointed to higher ecclesiastical office? Is this how he attempts to influence public opinion? Is he thus part of the “Catholic commentariat” or what?
I don’t think the Pope meant it this way. Let’s give the guy the same break we’d want to be given.
Mark,
The pope made the remarks to reporters on the plane from Rome on his recent trip to the UK, and the questions were supplied in advance and chosen by the pope’s aides. You can’t say he was caught off guard.
If you quoted the pope, and I said, “Oh, I don’t think that’s really what the pope meant,” I can only imagine what your reaction would be!
Whether or not de Lubac precisely felt that way is so tangential as to be not worth your time doing thorough research on.
I thought Fr. Barron making it into an anecdote, complete with physical details that no one knows, misrepresented Küng’s account. If anything, de Lubac’s statement was stronger than Fr. Barron made it out to be. As I said, perhaps it’s poetic license in an informal video talk, but if he had written that for a print, I would consider it playing fast and loose with facts.
Barron took pains to point out the legitimacy of some of the things Kaveny noted.
I only recall him agreeing that people have been leaving the Church, which would be hard to dispute. I think his explication of Cathy Kaveny’s column was about as careful as his use of the de Lubac-Küng encounter, which is why I took the trouble to look up what had really happened.
Mark: the steel is what we shipped to China for remanufacturing and then they sell it back to California at an inflated price. I’ll find out what the spread is and let you know. Sorry, only cashier’s checks accepted.
Au contraire, Bob. I think your appeal to the “domino effect” is just poor argumentation.
People said that legalizing abortion would pave the way for infanticide, and, after 40 years of Roe, this has not happened. In fact, there has been a tendency to pull back from partial birth abortions, abortion after viability, and wholesale abortion on demand in many states. Not good enough, perhaps, but certainly the direction is not going in the direction some feared.
Frankly, I think people are on firmer ground if they argue that gay unions are immoral and they don’t believe the law should overlook immorality. Though I would hope that those same people are working hard to outlaw adultery, premarital sex, masturbation, divorce, and other activities deemed sinful by the Church.
Barbara,
I agree that the process of leaving the Church involves reconsiderations, second thoughts, painful and agonizing choices. I’d quickly add that many thoughtful people experience similar processes when they join, or rejoin, the Church. A William James version of the “will to believe” can also reveal new possibilties not open to the non-believer.
My concern is that people not make myopic decisions based on the belief that present-day concerns are the most important of all time and that circumstances and are now entirely different and reformers are so pure of heart that basic moral choices are only now being confronted in an authentic manner.
The article explains that current day cradle Catholics have a view of
God as more generous and forgiving than that of their parents. It sounds as though there’s a lot of happy talk in their theology which I don’t recognize as a clear advance. Like Barack Obama, that profound Niebuhrian, I find quite a few of these people to be excessively sanctimonious.
I have other doubts about the thoughtfulness behind many decisions to leave the Church. Generally, as the number making the same move increases (or is believed to increase) the easier it is to do so oneself. Forgive the example but just as it’s hard to litter on a pristine beach it’s hard not to litter when it’s covered with trash. So it’s now easy to think “How could all those other people who are leaving be wrong – aren’t we all thoughful?” I’m reminded of the phrase “a herd of independent minds” describing intellectuals all of whom see themselves as fiercely independent dissenters when they are only being inducted into a conforming and constraining adversary culture that is already past its point of relevance.
And I think the question of ecclesiology is important. Grant G seems to imply that Fr. Barron is ignorant of the fact that “Martin Luther was anything but religiously indifferent, and that Anabaptists, Protestants, and Catholics believed they were involved in a life-and-death struggle over religious truth as embodied in particular forms and communities of worship.” I believe that Fr. Barron was arguing a different point, correctly in my view, that Luther was relatively indifferent, certainly compared to Calvin and even the Anglicans, regarding church structure. He can more than adequately defend himself but I see nothing in the views of this new generation as described in the Kaveny article that reveals any thoughtful advances over traditional ecclesiology. Certainly nothing to contradict the belief that they side more with Luther than Calvin and make no fundamental distinctions among mainline non-Catholic churches.
David,
I agree that there are many horrible things in the history of the Catholic church, though I think it would take the two of us a long time to agree if we were to review specific incidents. And I don’t doubt your ability to uncover a multitude of such horrors. Some Catholics, like Acton, are better than anti-Catholics like Gibbon or Voltaire, in exposing these crimes. But the evidence isn’t all one-sided. The more evidence the better is my plea. It seemed to me quite possible that the subjects of the article, who were treated quite sympathetically, may have reviewed only part of the evidence. They should be encouraged to adopt a more comprehensive view.
“Is this his try-out tape for being appointed to higher ecclesiastical office?”
Sigh. Logically, wouldn’t that sad outlook lead one to wonder whether anyone who criticized the hierarchy is only doing so to curry favor with, say, Commonweal, for publication purposes? Is it not possible that an umbrella is just an umbrella, and he’s simply trying to help people to get to heaven? Or am I just being naive?
But the evidence isn’t all one-sided. The more evidence the better is my plea.
Patrick,
I don’t think many would argue the evidence is one-sided. But there are definitely two (or more) sides, and I don’t think it can be maintained that leaving the Church is always done out of ignorance, or without sufficient thought, or as an act of self-deception. Talk of a “smaller but purer” Church is practically an invitation for people to leave.
“Ann, do you think Emerson was contemptuous of authority, or had a healthy skepticism about it?”
Jean –
Consider this from the beginning of Self-Reliance:
“Familiar as the voice of the mind is to each, the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is, that they set at naught books and traditions, and spoke not what men but what they thought. A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages.”
What he is saying is not to trust the bards and sages — except when they say don’t trust the sages, which is about as conceited as you can get, and it implies a thoroughly negative view of the rest of humanity, even the wisest. However, I grant you: he is not consistent, because he then sets up Moses, Plato and Milton as beacons of light. But the *practice* of his attitude is all on the side of rejecting all authority.
Re-read the beginning — his hubris is to me astonishing:
http://www.emersoncentral.com/selfreliance.htmhttp://www.emersoncentral.com/selfreliance.html
According to Harold Bloom his influence in the U.S. has always been very strong and it continues very strong. I don’t doubt that his rejection of “the sages” expressed above is in large part responsible for the anti-intellectualism of this country. His works are the clearest articulation of the notion that one ought to trust only oneself.
I don’t think that the 60′s generation was directly influenced by Emerison, it’s just that his influence has been endemic in academe for such a long long time. It’s what America academics breathe without thinking of it — it’s just around everywhere. I mean the notion that one’s own opinion is always superior to that of others. This is such a wildly contradictory notion that I can’t see how anyone ever took it seriously. It’s even wilder than the saying in Lale Webegon that the kids there are all above average.
Nietzsche was a direct influence on many Boomers because he was part of many college curricula. One of my former students, who was one of the young people who was regularly beaten by Mississippi sheriffs for helping people register to vote (he’s now in a wheelchair), loved Nietzsche in the 60s and tells me still does, even though he is now a pious practicing Catholic. Go figure.
I find it difficult to put all the Boomers in the same box. I’d say that most were certainly not self-indulgent when it came to civil rights of all sorts. But in sexual matters an awful lot of them were and are. When it comes to sex, the battle cry “Do your own thing” still prevails.
No doubt Tolkein and Hesse were more directly influential, but (sorry about this) I can’t help thinking that Tolkein for the Boomers is just juvenalia masking as something profound. I’m not saying that Tolkein’s message isn’t *important*, but it is neither profound nor even new. (I really shouldn’t be talking about Tolkein because I’ve only *tried* to read him. Just can’t get into the little ones.)
“vHow difficult is it for the Vatican, in the midst of a public health disaster — to come up with a policy on condoms? ”
David N. –
It would be humongously difficult. Rome would have to admit it was out and out wrong, and that implies that it does not have the degree of authority/certitude it claims in moral issues. In other words, it would have to revise its whole conception of what the Church is.
Fascinating discussion.
A priest of 30 sat in our Liturgy Committee meeting a few month ago. He commented that there was a severe shortage of priests and warned us sternly that ‘If there are no more priests, there will be no more church”.
WRONG
The people ARE the church, and the clergy are the servants of the church. If that was impressed on seminarians before Diaconal Ordination, instead of Arrogance 101 and 102,
perhaps the hierarchy would learn some humility. As it stands, they fall way at the bottom of the humility curve.
The truth is that if there were no more clergy, the church would quickly revert to early Catholicism and, hopefully, a new class of leaders wanting to be ordained WOULD NOT arise as they would not be needed. Christ empowered the Apostles to empower the people. To feed them on the Good News until they were ready to have a direct relationship with God in Christ. Beyond that, the church is and should be obsolete.
Christianity was started as a grass root organization and I cannot in my wildest imagination begin to guess what Jesus thought when the first act of reorganization of those newly freed from the impossible yoke of Old Covenant oppression was to rebuild to temple hierarchy.
I do not need an ordained priest, bishop, cardinal or pope for me to be Catholic.
I do not need the whole of the Canon of Law for me to be moral.
I do not need sermons to talk me into giving to the poor and needy.
I do not need to live as a monk with daily confession to attain heaven.
I only need my belief in Christ Jesus, and my trust in his word.
All else is just trappings, decorations, and useless edicts, because in the end,
I’m not going to heaven because I am good, I am going because God is good.
Let’s face it, I change needs to happen in the church, we cannot and should not rely on the hierarchy to make it – especially if it in some way diminishes their power. Only the Church can fix itself, and the Church is the people – the priesthood of all believers.
So, with all of the comments about bringing back the displaced, the displeased, the disbelievers, one we laity can accomplish that. And, only we laity can keep them once they are back.
I have seen small country parishes where you can honestly see, borne out in the parishioners corporate live in the church – - – ‘You will know my followers by the love that they have for each other.’
WE have to bring that about.
Ann,
Only your misreading of the Emerson passage makes it inconsistent. To recommend that one trust x more than y is not to recommend that one not trust y. Emerson believed in the greatness of bards and sages, and spent much of his career explaining their greatness — thus the reference to Moses, Milton, and Plato (who was also suspicious of those who put their trust in the written word) — but Emerson also believed that one must finally trust one’s own judgment, and that learning was no replacement for thinking. Such beliefs are not so different, after all, from the belief in the primacy of conscience. One’s conscience may be well or ill formed, one’s critical judgment good or bad, but, as one must not violate one’s own conscience, so one must not contradict one’s real judgment, such as it is, simply because it doesn’t correspond to the judgments of the great. That, I take it, is Emerson’s argument. You may dispute it, but you shouldn’t convert it into an absurdity the easier to dismiss it. I am not an Emersonian, and I agree that his influence on America’s intellectual culture hasn’t been entirely salutary. But no one gets to decide which parts of his writings will have the most influence, just as no one can keep his admirers or (as in this case) detractors from misreading him.
“Your point seems to be that your Dickinson poem never becomes metaphysical or sibylline. It’s just about a bird. A poem, a good poem, can be about a bird.”
Matthew –
No, my point is not that the poem is “just about a bird”. My point is that it’s a *bad* poem about a bird.
As to my saying of Whitman, “now there was a talent”, why are you so suspicious of this old woman that it would occur to you that I didn’t mean what I said? In fact, I meant it quite literally. Are Whitman and Dickinson so bundled in your mind that you can’t conceive of disliking one and admiring the other?
NEither did I say that Emerson’s and Nietzsche’s philosophies can be summarized by “Do your own thing”. I said that those philosophies influenced the Boomer generation mightily. One can be influenced by *part* of a philosophy, and strongly so.
You also say: ““Walt Whitman (now *there* was a talent)”–I’m not sure whether this was a parenthetical compliment or parenthetical sarcasm. If the former, do you prefer him to Dickinson because he never rhymed about birds and always had a Big Point to make? If the latter, please do us and Uncle Walt a favor and tell us why you think so little of him.”
I reply: I admire Whitman’s ability to say what he has to say memorably, and it has nothing to do with rhyming whatsoever. But I think his themes — the value of the individual, the value of democracy, his pan-en-henic mania, his joyful acceptance of contradiction are not profound — but he obviously wants us to think that they are. In other words, he has bitten off more than he can chew. But I must admit that his rolling cadences, sure as the sea, are greatly appealing, given his themes. Great talent.
I don’t doubt that what you say about Emerson’s estimation of the Boomers is right. However, given his inconsistencies (and surely you must have noticed that I’m far from the only one to have noticed them), you can get anything you want out of him. As to Nietzsche, well, I just think that, like most adolescents, his criticisms are often on target, but his writings don’t show a truly wide view of what is real and why it’s often valuable.
why would a man with a disordered sexual inclination towards engaging in coercive sexual acts enter the priesthood? Certainly any Bishop who was aware of sexual abuse and ignored it is guilty of enabling abuse.
Because he is looking for a place where he will be supported in his fight against his disordered inclinations?
Because he does not recognize that he has those inclinations?
What do you think “a man with a disordered sexual inclination…” should do? Indulge those inclinations? Deny them/himself?
Matthew –
One contradicts oneself when one says one thing in one place and its opposite in another, or when one implies opposites in one statement (self-contradictions). It follows that a contradictory author can be found to support opposing views.
You seem to think that if there are some statements in Emerson that are not contradictory this shows his true opinion. Not so. All you are asserting is that Emerson has said X. You have not shown that he has not said non-X, when in fact he *has* asserted non-X also.
When a writer is regularly and blatantly contradictory “true opinion” becomes meaningless.
“Todd,re Nancy; it’s truly a wasted effort. Spare yourself and your poor tired fingers.
Barbara, if you believe that the individual sinfulness of sinners or sinners as a whole can change The Truth of Love, why not share your thoughts with us?
Ann,
You still haven’t shown an inconsistency, much less a logical contradiction, in anything Emerson said or wrote. It’s certainly not in the passage where you pretend to to find it. You write, “When a writer is regularly and blatantly contradictory ‘true opinion’ becomes meaningless.” Perhaps, but saying someone is blatantly contradictory doesn’t make him so, just as typing out a poem one doesn’t like doesn’t prove it’s bad. Of course, it’s impossible for me to prove to you that it’s not bad; I could only tell you what I appreciate about that poet and her poem. De gustibus…. But when you quote a passage of prose and then proceed to paraphrase it in a way that traduces its clear meaning, you leave me to wonder how carefully you read the things you’ve decided not to like.
Jonathan,
Wonderful post throughout.
Ann, I could hardly get through Tolkien, as Mr. William Collier knows, and you may be right in calling it juvenalia.
Yes, Emerson can sound insufferable. He’s an iconoclast (the link to the page you sent is broken, though, but I have my volume of Emerson somewhere close by, and I’ll look it up later).
Re Emerson in the context of Unitarianism (i.e., the way I understand him), the individual soul reserves the right to question and examine received tradition and wisdom–but the soul must also be open to the insights that tradition and wisdom might confer. The idea is that God will lead the unfettered soul to the truth. That’s great as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go very far before, practically speaking, everybody’s holding up his own truth as The Truth–or saying there is no Truth but many truths.
Anyway, it’s not my purpose to exol Emerson. And I rejected Unitarianism because all it led to was a lot of unproductive arguing, though I continue to know and love many Unitarians for their honesty.
I believe that Catholicism is the WAY to The Truth. But I do not believe that every tittle and jot in the CCC represent God’s unadulterated views because the Spirit must work through the very imperfect medium of human beings. I feel many Catholics nowadays are extremely legalistic in their views of the faith; you have a checklist of stuff you have to do or can’t do, there are no extenuating circumstances, no gray areas, and anyone who questions it is trying to accommodate The Truth to his own will.
I’ve never been able to understand Nietszche.
Re the notion that “if it feels good, do it” still prevails in the sexual mores of the Boomers. Well, maybe, but even those of us still immature enough to yearn for those wanton days of long ago are now in our 50s and 60s, and a good many of us have been forced into better behavior by lower back pain and heart medication. The Lord works in mysterious ways!
Matthew –
HEre’s the quote from the beginning of Self-Reliance again:
““Familiar as the voice of the mind is to each, the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is, that they set at naught books and traditions, and spoke not what men but what they thought. A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages.””
Emerson is saying here: don’t trust books and traditions, but trust the books that say don’t trust books and traditions. Trust and do not trust. That’s a contradiction.
As to others finding contradictions in Emerson, if you are familiar with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (online) you’ll have noticed that first a philosopher’s views are presented, then criticisms of his views are presented. He is the *very first* criticism of Emerson:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emerson/
“3.1 Consistency
“Emerson routinely invites charges of inconsistency. He says the world is fundamentally a process and fundamentally a unity; that it resists the imposition of our will and that it flows with the power of our imagination; that travel is good for us, since it adds to our experience, and that it does us no good, since we wake up in the new place only to find the same “ sad self” we thought we had left behind (CW2: 46).”
See — an expert on Emerson says that E. “routinely invites charges of inconsistency”. Face it, Matthew, some of the things he says might have some value, but he is notably inconsistent.
(No, I’m not defending all the rest of that paragraph.)
Jonathan, thank you!
Scripture and church history are on your side here.
As for why anybody would seriously consider leaving “Holy Mother Church”, we need to rephrase the name of this entity, to wit, “Holy Soiled & Dysfunctional Mother Church”. Unless or until we get a pope and curia willing to support Vatican II’s trajectory of renewal, we shall continue to witness the s.o.s.
Dropping shekels into parish collection plates = de facto endorsing the regressive direction being pushed by B16 and his lackey bishops.
Endorsing = Vote of Confidence in B16 et al.
“I believe that Catholicism is the WAY to The Truth. But I do not believe that every tittle and jot in the CCC represent God’s unadulterated views because the Spirit must work through the very imperfect medium of human beings. ”
Jean –
I agree, except that I think that God has revealed some truths to us that are absolutely true. I think that the RCC is right to insist on seeking what is truly true, not just opinion. But the problem is, as you say, that those statements (or poems?) of God have to be interpreted, and we can make mistakes — even the popes and bishops, as history has shown. As I keep telling Nancy, Jesus promised only that the Holy Spirit would remain with us to *guide* us. He did not say we would get all our answers as quickly or as surely we would like.
I think that the Church has not been clear about this. As I understand it, the popes have not claimed infallibility from the very beginning. This is why we desperately need a theology of interpretation that faces this problem squarely, so we can figure out the limits of the Church’s claims to truth. Yes, the true remains true — but sometimes only God knows exactly what those statements mean.
“Dropping shekels into parish collection plates = de facto endorsing the regressive direction being pushed by B16 and his lackey bishops.”
Joseph J. –
No, dropping shekels into the collection plates supports the decent pastors and other parish employees, the schools, and the diocesan charities. That some of the money might go to Rome makes this a case of double effect. It might be bad to support awful hierarchs, but it is good to pay ones debts and support the poor, and the latter should take precedence.
Ann, Jesus promised that The Holy Spirit would remain within His Church to guide us in Truth, so that we may be able to discern and “declare the tree good or declare the tree rotten.” The Catholic Church has been clear about the Deposit of Faith.
Jonathan D,
If I may be so bold. If that is your attitude about the church what the heck are you doing on a liturgy committe in a Catholic parish? (Of course, liturgy committes are the scourge of most parishes anyway.)
What you have described exists – it’s called Congregationalism.
I have stayed out of this discussion because, beside being repetitive, it’s depressing. The attitude and beliefs you have described, I admit, are shared by some Catholics, but where do the rest of us go if you have your way? If you think the priest is an unnecessary appendage – no, in fact, a harmful presence – how do you in good faith assist with the liturgy in which he is vital?
Are the sacraments mere trappings?
Ann,
Emerson is saying don’t trust books and traditions more than you trust your truest self. That’s a slippery piece of advice, granted, because the self itself is slippery — and becomes more so when it stands alone. But it’s clear, to me at least, that Emerson isn’t urging his readers to stop reading books or to reject all tradition. He writes, “the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is, that they set at naught books and traditions…” I take this to be rhetorical overstatement; you will find a lot of that in Emerson. He knew as well as you and I know that Milton, for example, did not set books at naught: Milton was famously one of the most literate men in England. Milton did reject conventional wisdom, no matter how many books had endorsed it and no matter how traditional, when his own mind — well stocked and deeply conversant with literary, philosophical, and theological tradition — rejected it. More generally, I think it is a mistake to cherrypick conflicting lines from Emerson’s writing. He was a philosophical essayist, not an analytic philosopher. You could easily dredge up a similar set of contradictions in the essays of Montaigne or Samuel Johnson, but to what end? Will anyone who admires Emerson’s work stop reading him because she discovers that here Emerson recommends travel for one reason, while there he discourages it for another. Most days I like Manhattan, and on those days I could tell you why. There are other days when I don’t, and then too I could produce a list of reasons for my periodic disaffection. And there might be truth in both my reasons for liking Manhattan and my reasons for not liking it when I don’t; nor need the reasons contradict each other, though they support contradictory dispostions.
Should Emerson have refrained from writing until he could be sure that he would never again change his mind or mood? Should I stop admiring Wittgenstein — both the early and the late Wittgentstein — because not all of his later work is compatible with his earlier work?
“The Catholic Church has been clear about the Deposit of Faith”
Nancy –
No, it has not. Many people like you think so, but that’s because they accept certain teachings of certain popes and bishops. The history of the Church is not one long math lesson with everything coming out perfectly clear and logical.
What you have yet to learn is that when you put words in Jesus’ mouth they do not thereby become true; and, in fact, saying that He said or implied things when He didn’t is, well, not telling the truth. If you really respected THE TRUTH you wouldn’t do that.
What Sean said.
This thread has veered dramatically from my post. If any of you would like to discuss Kaveny’s column and Barron’s response to it, by all means, carry on. But those of you who want to discuss the nature of the clergy’s relationship to the church or, say, Emerson, please take it offline. You have each other’s e-mail addresses.
“Emerson is saying don’t trust books and traditions more than one trusts one’s truest self.”
Matthew –
No, what he is *saying* is don’t trust anyone except yourself AND he is ALSO saying one should trust some writers sometimes. This is contradictory.
You seem to assume that Emerson holds consistency in high regard, but remember his perhaps most famous saying “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”. This implies that non-foolish inconsistencies can be OK, as if inconsistency doesn’t matter at times. This is not surprising from someone who held the religious teachings of the Hindus in high regard. The didn’t care a whit for it.
Face it, Matthew, some people don’t value consistency very highly. They don’t see it as a failure in thinking, as a sign that one is wrong about something, and that one needs to criticize one’s own thought.
You say, ” I think it is a mistake to cherrypick conflicting lines from Emerson’s writing. He ”
I say: I’m not cherry-picking. His contradictions are all over his writings. You say the statements “conflict”. That is a euphemism for “contradict”. Yes, there is such a thing as a “rhetorical overstatement”, but there is so much contradiction in Emerson, and because he defends it, I don’t see how you can think that he doesn’t intend them. If he saw contradictions as imperfections wouldn’t he admit that what he says is contradictory and go on to say, ‘Sorry, but I don’t know how to revise either of these statements — they both seem true”.
No, you shouldn’t stop admiring Wittgenstein for the good in his works. I join you enthusiastically in doing so — he’s far and away my favorite 20th century philosopher. But there is evidence that he was a little mad, so swallowing everything he said whole makes no sense. Did you know that Brian McGuinness, one of the most respected Witt. scholars and one of Witt.’s literary executor’s, analysed the Tractatus in the light of R. C, Zaehner’s theory of mystical experience, and concluded that there is much evidence in it that Witt. was a mystic of the somewhat schizophrenic type — the kind that blandly accepts contradictions (and some even relish them)? McGuiness’ article appeared in the Journal of Philosophy, but, amazingly, I’ve never seen it cited or seen it appear in single Witt. bibliography. It has essentially been ignored by the Witt. scholars. This is what happens when disciples turn into idolizers. Philosophy is much the poorer for it.
Philosophy has problems enough without denying that the contradictions are there. And that goes for Emerson too.
Really wasn’t kidding. Please focus on the subject of this post. Basta!
Thanks, Grant – I’d be bemused by the thread if the topic was not so difficult and sad.
Somewhere back in the thread, it was noted that the problem is complex with many isues – a view I share.
This week, BXVI focused on the sex abuse scandal and his somewhat dashed hopes for the year of the priest.
His take (see John Allen) tended to be philosophical and hence limited.
I thought of Martin Marty’s recent coments on Andrew Greeley and how much research in the behavioral scieince scares decision makers in the Church.
Cathy’s issue needs lots more in depth study, not the pious generalizations or broad abstractions to confront the problem.
In defense of Father Barron, if one was to simply describe the reason Catholics who have long doubted the wisdom of elements of The Catholic Church’s teaching on matters of sexual morality justify their decision to worship in another Christian Church without giving a justification for the wisdom of The Catholic Church’s teaching on sexual morality, one should not be surprised that it may appear to the reader that the author of the article either cannot justify The Catholic Church’s position on matters of sexual morality because they have not been properly catechized or does not believe the Catholic Church’s position on sexual morality.
Jean Raber:
It is not a “slippery slope” argument; it is a “She who says A must say B” argument. I have decided to work it all out formally in MS Word and deploy it when this kind of issue comes up again (and it will).
Ann, parishioners can support “the decent pastors and other parish employees, the schools, and the diocesan charities” by setting up separate parish accounts that cannot be touched by their hierarchs.
There is absolutely no legitimate need to consider the principle of double effect.
To go along as we’ve always done is, in effect, to enable continued ecclesial dysfunction. Continuing the status quo merely gives a bishop the one thing he really needs to remain on his episcopal throne — MONEY!
Feed the parish’s coffers to continue doing good.
Starve the episcopal beast.
Yikes, Grant’s talkin’ Italian, so I guess he means business! Please don’t get out the shoe or the wooden spoon!
Bob, if you can’t distinguish between an adult homosexual and a dog, I’ll let you get back to your John Wayne movie and bourbon.
Certainly, as Nancy has noted previously, people may leave the church because of their failure to grasp such basic concepts as this: “In defense of Father Barron, if one was to simply describe the reason Catholics who have long doubted the wisdom of elements of The Catholic Church’s teaching on matters of sexual morality justify their decision to worship in another Christian Church without giving a justification for the wisdom of The Catholic Church’s teaching on sexual morality, one should not be surprised that it may appear to the reader that the author of the article either cannot justify The Catholic Church’s position on matters of sexual morality because they have not been properly catechized or does not believe the Catholic Church’s position on sexual morality.”
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, everyone. I’m off to the extended family insanity with my scones made with lard, and did they turn out great!
Sean, what Jonathan has described is primitive Christianity, i.e., the understanding of “church” as practiced by those baptized followers closest in time and place to the Lord’s immediate disciples. There is nothing genuinely unorthodox in Jonathan’s comments.
As for the role of the “priest” (please note my use of quotation marks) in the sacred liturgy, fact is the earliest liturgical presiders were unordained persons whose role/service/function at liturgy was based on their community leadership. Every Christian man and woman was a priest by virtue of his or her baptism. Thus, the liturgical presider — also baptized — was their lead priest at the sacred liturgy.
What was valid “back in the day”, so to speak, cannot be invalid today. Even without an ordained presbyter or bishop (please note my use of terminology), a Roman Catholic parish — or any other Catholic parish — can have a valid liturgy by identifying one or more community leaders capable of liturgical presidency.
Although I’ve used the word ‘valid’ here, I cannot fathom the Father ignoring or not accepting a community’s act of eucharistic thanksgiving mediated by Jesus the High Priest. A sacred liturgy without an ordained minister “works” just as much as one presided by a presbyter or bishop.
Scripture and church history fully support Jonathan’s comments.
Jean, regarding your quoting our fellow blogger’s lengthy and circuitous comments, I can only manage “Whew!”.
“‘If there are no more priests, there will be no more church”. WRONG…”
He would have been more precise to say ‘If there are no more priests, there will be no more sacraments.”
No priest, no Eucharist. If you want a taste of that lack of the fullness of the Christian faith, go to the local megachurch. There is Christian fellowship, yes, and God bless them. But a discernible emptiness that the sacraments were instituted by Jesus Christ to fill. A Catholic Church without an ordained priest would be no different than an evangelical megachurch in regard to the fullness of the faith.
No priest, no Eucharist.
I suggest to Nancy – and others – that they read “Illicit Celibacy and the Deposit of Faith” by Edgar Davie to get a more real perspective on what the Deposit of Faith is and how it has been used to justify almost anything by any ecclesiastic throughout the church’s storied history.
Joseph,
We have experienced the whole, “You have strayed from the genuine Church of the early Christians and corrupted it” notion.
It was a little thing called the Reformation.
As Flanagan say, the priesthood is a necessary element in the sacramental economy. That’s what the Church teaches, that’s what I believe. You are welcome to disagree. You are welcome to criticize. But please, don’t blow sunshine up our skirts and call what Jonathan said “orthodox.”
Grant,
Getting back to the original point – I don’t think Father’s comments were at all unfair.
I think it is time to remind all of us of this:
“When Pius X died, the conclave of 1914 elected Benedict XV, who immediately issued an encyclical calling on Catholics ‘to appease dissension and strife” so that “no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith.’
‘There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism,’ he concluded. ‘It is quite enough for each one to proclaim ‘Christian is my name and Catholic my surname’ “
David Gibson, “Who Is a Real Catholic?” The Washington Post, Sunday, May 17, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051501390.html?sid=ST2009051503626
But, Jimmy Mac…the Benedict XV document you cited is part of the Deposit of Faith! And you know how the Deposit of Faith has been used to justify almost anything by any ecclesiastic throughout the church’s storied history!
P Flanagan, you wrote, “No priest. No Eucharist.”
Presuming that by your use of the word ‘priest’ you are referring to the ordained ministry also known as the presbyterate, I must contend that, historically speaking, you are in error, and “facts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine” (Joseph Ratzinger, THEOLOGICAL HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 16; reprinted 2010). Fact is that ordination to Christan/Catholic ministry was a historical development not at all part of primitive Christian practice and belief.
Now, if our primitive ancestors in the faith had eucharistic liturgies (“masses”, if you will) led by unordained presiders, would you therefore contend they did not receive the body and blood of Christ at communion?????
Sean, would you likewise believe that these primitive Christians did not receive the body and blood of Christ in their communal worship?
For more information on Christian ordination, etc., please see my comments posted August 2 and 5 at http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=3876.
Sean, no one is blowing sunshine up your skirt. On the other hand, Rome has done quite well over the years in giving all of us a “snowjob” on church and liturgical history. In his article on women’s ordination, Robert Egan noted Bernard Lonergan’s observation that “the meaning of Vatican II was the acknowledgement of history.”
Even a future pope acknowledged 40+ years ago that historical fact trumps church doctrine, even “pure doctrine”.
If anybody today has “sunshine” (or something else) up their skirts, it would be B16 and his papal lackeys, aka “teachers”.
But is the BXV statement part of the Deposit of Faith? I submit that it is a pastoral response to Pius X’s campaign against “Modernism”. Was Pius X’s inveighing against virtually anything that he didn’t like also part of the Deposit of Faith? If both are, then the DoF is a meaningless concept for anything not directly linked to before the death of the last witness to the words and actions of Christ. Is ca 100 CE the dividing line?
Good shepherds don’t need fences; poor ones erect them.
P Flanagan,
I would argue forcefully that in the early church communities, the Agape meal was not necessarily presided over by a person ‘ordained’ to that task.
While Paul and other evangelists of the time usually left a person or persons in charge of the growing Christian community, they were not necessarily people for whom the ‘apostolic succession’ was in evidence. In other words, the ‘communion’ meal that they celebrated AS A COMMUNITY would not have been ‘licit’ by today’s Church’s standards. Whether or not God considered those gatherings and sharing of the bread and wine to be ‘licit’ is quite another story.
I’m sticking with God.
“I’m sticking with God.”
And Martin Luther.
In his FROM APOSTLES TO BISHOPS: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EPISCOPACY IN THE EARLY CHURCH (2001), Francis Sullivan writes: “We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man as bishop for each of the churches they had founded. The only person in the New Testament whose role resembles that of a bishop is James the ‘brother of the Lord,’ who was most likely designated for his position of leadership in the Jerusalem church by his relationship with Jesus and the special appearance with which he was favored by the risen Jesus. It seems extremely unlikely that he was ‘ordained’ as bishop of Jerusalem by St. Peter. Nor does the New Testament evidence support the idea that Peter, Paul or any other apostle became bishop of any one local church or ordained one man as bishop of any local church. One looks in vain to the New Testament for a basis for the idea of ‘an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today.”
P Flanagan, the notion of “apostolic succession” does not mean that Jesus ordained the Twelve, who in turn ordained other “bishops”, who in turn ordained still others, etc., etc., etc.
To the extent that Martin Luther relied on actual history for his ideas, I’m with him. Even Ratzinger acknowledged that “facts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine.” If theology is faith seeking understanding, then one source of our understanding is history.
Faith AND reason. Not one or the other.
God forbid that Catholics should EVER admit that some of the reformers actually had some correct ideas.
Prof. Kaveny’s article is outstanding in describing the inner landscape of so many in the Church who have left or are on the verge of doing so. It resonates as pitch perfect.
I became aware of Fr. Barron from his op-ed in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune, citing Benedict’s Christmas message on the sex abuse scandal as “wise.” Frankly, I found it another example of why survivor advocates like me are so frustrated with the clerical mindset — and commented bluntly to that effect.
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_theseeker/2010/12/pope-shares-wise-words-about-clergy-sex-abuse.html
I also took occasion to reread my comments in the thread linked by Grant about the documentary, The Hand of God. A good reminder of hierarchical corruption.
Interesting that in commenting on Kaveny and Kung, Barron is not above some distortions of his own that only reinforce my disaffection (mild word) with clergy leaders. His website certainly gives the impression he is on the rise, marketing DVD’s on EWTN, using media widely to advance his work. http://www.wordonfire.org/About-US.aspx
Bright moves, but there is only stone there for me, not bread. For those who relate, fine, but spare me the implied judgments in his interpretations.
Kaveny gives voice to the cri de coeur issuing from those hungry for meaning, and drained of patience with the administrations of JPII and Benedict. I am grateful. The energy it takes to drown out the insults to one’s being is hard to overcome. So, finding a niche where one can breathe and refresh is vital.
Ann Olivier, Jimmy Mac, Joseph Jaglowicz, Bob Nunz, Ed Gleason, Bill Mazzella, David Nickol, and many others help provide that space. Is there space in the official church for cafeterias of all sorts or not? I believe Kaveny hopes so, as do I.
At any rate, I am too stubborn and too old to leave, and figure the Jesus I encounter in the Eucharist is what really matters. The rest can go pound sand.
Footnote: Great news in the sentencing today of Douglas Perlitz, 40, to almost 20 years in prison for his decade of sexual abuse and rank intimidation of Haitian street children. He is a Fairfield Univ grad who says he had a relationship with the Jesuit chaplain there, and the two of them ran the Haiti programs that gave access to vulnerable victims.
http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Perlitz-apologizes-to-victims-acknowledges-912830.php#page-2
Sometimes, but only sometimes, justice works. CNN’s Anderson Cooper will have a program about the case.
Fairfield, the Order of Malta and the Jesuit province all abandoned the victims once they reported abuse. They were left in the streets again.
Carolyn:
Many thanks for including me in the ranks of those you believe help provide breathing space in this church. Rather than a space in the “spotless bride of Christ” (a dream that I don’t believe exists) I am happy to be counted in the “poor banished children of Eve …. mourining and weeping in this vale of tears.”
Many years ago I was (re)introduced to Jesus in a non-denominational church after having been a “Catholic in exile” for many years.
One of the hymn refrains that has always stuck with me from those days, and which has been a beam of hope when things appear particularly bleak (like now —) is this:
“I know that my redeemer lives
And now I stand on what He did
My Saviour, my Saviour lives
Every day a brand new chance to say
‘Jesus, You are the only way’
My Saviour, my Saviour lives.”
As Jonathan Davis said @ 12/20/2010 – 8:59 pm”
“I do not need an ordained priest, bishop, cardinal or pope for me to be Catholic.
I do not need the whole of the Canon of Law for me to be moral.
I do not need sermons to talk me into giving to the poor and needy.
I do not need to live as a monk with daily confession to attain heaven.
I only need my belief in Christ Jesus, and my trust in his word.
All else is just trappings, decorations, and useless edicts, because in the end,
I’m not going to heaven because I am good, I am going because God is good.”
Amen and Amen.
(Once exposed to evangelicalism, always touched by evangelicalism)
‘At any rate, I am too stubborn and too old to leave, and figure the Jesus I encounter in the Eucharist is what really matters. The rest can go pound sand.”
I’m with you, Carolyn :-)
Jonathan,
First, I honestly want to thank you for being direct about what you think and believe.
That being said, I reiterate my question and ask why are you participating in a Catholic parish?
There are two reasons I ask this. First, is just pure curiousity. I don’t get it. You basically reject many key Catholic doctrines, beliefs, and practices, and you frankly seem to have what can only be described as contempt for the clergy. Prof Kaveny’s piece describes why some people leave the Church. I think they are wrong, but I understand why they did.
Secondly, and more importantly, I can’t wrap my head around the idea that you believe that your beliefs are remotely Catholic. I grew up in Colorado Springs – ground zero for what people here call fundies. Your post could have been written word for word by the fundamentalist pentacostals I grew up with. The kinds of people who stood on street corners passing out Jack Chick tracts. How is someone like me who believes in the role of the priesthood in the sacramental economy, the power and necessity of the sacrament of reconcilliation, etc. supposed to react to you? Deal with you? What do you expect from me? You advocate the destruction of something I love and believe in. Am I supposed to stand by and watch you do it because you’re right and I’m wrong? Isn’t that just as arrogant as you accuse the clergy of being.
Fianally, you say – “The truth is that if there were no more clergy, the church would quickly revert to early Catholicism and, hopefully, a new class of leaders wanting to be ordained WOULD NOT arise as they would not be needed. ”
So did -
The Lutherans
The Calvinists
The Anabaptists
The Methodists
The Congregationaists
The Pentacostals
On down to the guy who starts a church in the abandoned Dollar Tree in a strip mall in Talahassee.
There are over 30,000 groups and demoninations worldwide who think exactly this.
I hope you will forgive me if I would rather rely on the flawed Catholic hierarchy than on the good intentions of Catholics who want to remake the Church.
“I’m not going to heaven because I am good, I am going because God is good.”
Unconditional Love.
No strings or preconditions attached.
The pimp who died unrepentant will have his little carpet cloud and pair of wings right alongside the martyrs and all the rest of us ordinary folk in heaven.
God takes the initiative to bring us home.
Luke 15.
And *that*, indeed, is Good News!
Sean, you asked Jonathan why he is participating in a Catholic parish. I might ask, Why are you?
What has one’s rejection of many key Catholic (non-infallible) doctrines, beliefs, and practices to do with the Catholic faith? Church and faith are not the same.
What is wrong with advocating a return to primitive Christian/Catholic belief and practice within the Church of Rome today? Vatican II’s key theme was renewal, i.e., to make new again, and this theme was supported by the majority of the world’s Catholic bishops at the time, all of them, btw, products of the “old school”. What did these bishops see that you apparently do not see?
Again, I repeat historical fact that our primitive ancestors in the Christian/Catholic faith did not have ordained ministry. No bishops. Every Christian man and woman was a priest by virtue of his or her baptism. The Christian/Catholic community, led by its presider, offered sacrifice to God the Father through Jesus the High Priest.
Seriously, Sean, your obvious love for the status quo suggests an attraction to a museum-type of religion.
I should add: If we progressives are trying (in your words) to “remake the Church,” let’s remember that Constantine’s legalization of Christianity was the beginning of a grand remaking of the church with all the ecclesial power, pomp, perks, and privilege that have come to be associated with the Traditionalist/Triumphalist/Tridentine culture that both promoted and sustained the dysfunctional elevation of the ordained and subordination of the laity.
And we’ve seen the “fruits” of this culture in recent times.
Sean and Joseph, I am going to stake out a middle ground — there is no doubt that by the time the hierarchy began to develop as an accpeted part of the Roman world, the church was still highly influenced by lay members of the Church who were highly educated and, largely, highly placed within Roman society.
The Church did not become a source of civil authority without regard to the opinions of its members until the fall of the Western Empire, when by and large persons of influence stopped being influential as a result of their education and ability to speak as equals to prelates, and started being influential by their ability to fight off marauding invaders or pesky neighbors and subordinates, and may or may not have been literate in any sense. So the Church became a repository of learning and increased in education relative not just to the lowest of its members, but even the highest.
What we see today is a Church that more or less clings to that model of authority even though, once more, many of its members are at least as well if not better educated as priests and bishops, even in subjects like theology that are the traditional province of priests and bishops. At the very least, that fact should engender humility. Instead it appears that for some it simply makes them proclaim their (emphasis on THEIR) authority even more loudly.
Sean Hannaway,
despite what you may believe, I love the church. I have an old friend in Rhode Island (84) who once told her mother, “I am a Catholic in spite of the church”.
I am a cradle Catholic with a strictly Catholic Education until college.
When I was Confirmed, I took the confirmation name “Thomas”, because it was my nature to question everything, and to accept nothing that was taught to me just because it was ‘Church Teaching’, which was wise, because at the time, a lot of what I was being taught was not church teaching. Then, I had the good (mis?)fortune to attend a brand new Jesuit HS. This particalar school opened the year I entered and was a way-station for Jesuits (scholastics and priests) who were questioning the church, their vocation, and whether or not they wanted to be Jesuits. For someone who doubts, who questions, it was the perfect environment.
Over the years since college, I have worked primarily in the Catholic church, although I have served congregations of American Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and once, in college, a Swedenborg parish.
I can safely say that I have heard just about every sermon possible in 45 years of working for the church. In fact, three or four times in the 6 years I served a Methodist church, the pastor took ill on Sunday morning and asked me to conduct the service and preach. With sometimes less than 10 minutes to prepare, (most of which time was spent carefully reading over the scripture passage selected by him for that day) I gave what I am told were superlative sermons.
Now, after saying all of this, you can guess that I look at ANY church critically. Are they practicing what they preach? Are they caring for the people of the church? Are the clergy living lives of service not only to their Church, but to their congregations? Is their Theology Christocentric? Are their assemblies open, caring, loving persons who nurture the very presence of Christ in each other? Do they preach the Good News of Jesus Christ? From the clergy to the sexton, from the chairman of a finance board to a choir member, do they ‘Live’ Christ?
Sometimes I think that Rome is out of touch with reality. Sorry. But historically, Rome has always tended to pay short schrift to ‘reality’ while demanding obedience. One person who made an enormous difference in the Catholic church (if only by default or reaction) was indeed a lowly Augustinian Canon named, Martin Luther. More good was brought about in the Catholic Church by him personally than by any other human person.
No Martin Luther = No Reformation.
No Reformation = No Counter-Reformation.
No Counter-Reformation = a church which still sells sacraments (simony) and indulgences, and from which just about anything could be purchased…
And, while I am at it, if the Pope in Rome had not been relying on the protection of the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry VIII would have easily had his divorce and there would have been no break with Rome and no ‘Church of England’.
I’ve mentioned before that the Church has in former times been In Error. This is indisputable. I question whether the last 30 years of turning away from Progressivism to Conservatism is the working of the Spirit, or the reaction of European Prelates who in the turmoil after Vatican II LOST THEIR CONGREGATIONS, and are trying to shut the barn door ‘after’ the horses have all escaped.
I truly do not have an answer, but I am still questioning.
I am blessed with a wonderful Pastor who not only a good person, but is one of most incredibly well-educated people I know. He can sit after lunch, dig into his vast store of teaching about church history, the magisterium of the church, the writings of early church fathers, theology, history… and right off the cuff can practically mesmerize you with his extraordinary faith and knowledge. It would be hard to get up from that mean untouched!
I am blessed with a new Bishop who is honest, hard-working, very experienced and intelligent. Plus, he’s a genuinely good guy.
I am blessed with colleagues on the church staff who run the gamut from ultra-conservative latinists to progressive ‘seekers’ like myself.
I am blessed with a congregation who are truly ‘mission’ and ‘outreach’ oriented, but most of all, are grounded in the Eucharist.
Finally, I am blessed by God with the grace to love His church, and enough cynicism to not be snookered into accepting every edict that comes down the Pike as ‘divinely inspired’.
I suspect that, on a lot of issues, you and I would be sitting on opposite sides from each other, but more importantly, you and I clearly love God, love His Son, love His Holy Spirit, and love our Church. So, despite what would seem to be differences, we are the same in loving this ‘Universal’ Church, with all her faults, with all her blessings, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and with the Love of God in Christ as our inheritance through Baptism.
To paraphrase a comment I made earlier, if You and I get to heaven, it will ultimately not be because we are good, but because God is good!
Thanks for your post, I appreciate your comments and sincerely thank you for your questions. Like most Catholics, I grow and learn every day. God bless!
Joseph Jaglowicz
Thanks for your comments. I especially liked reading again about Constantine. Though my recollection may be faulty, I seem to remember that the centralization of the Church in Rome was based, at least in part, on a document called ‘The Donation of Constantine’ which was actually a fraud. So sometimes in History, big changes happen because of bad actions…
In some ways, I admire the Orthodox Church. After the schism, they remained true to their roots in early Catholicism. Rome may have eclipsed them in terms of size, wealth, control and power, but they are still there, worshipping Christ and trying to live as he told us to live.
One of the biggest scandals of our church is in omitting the talents of 50% of the population: Women. All professions have been “integrated” so to speak, save one; the clergy in the church. The sexual abuse scandal may never have ocurred if priests were allowed to marry, and women were also allowed to lead. When will the church realize that change can be a good thing—before it’s too late and most of our membership has gone on to what they perceive as greener pastures, according to their consciencese. The solutions to half of our problems would be solved with this proclamation. The shortage of priests would no longer apply.
Jonathan
Thanks. But I am still confused. Everything you said seems to boil down to fellowship, with the exception of the Eucharist. And as to that, your beliefs vis-a-vis the priesthood make me think even that is not something that you need the Catholic Church for. It just seems to me that the things you say you love about the Church could apply to any denomination.
Having been in this position, I would say I would be a Catholic even if I had a pastor I didn’t like who couldn’t preach, and a lazy, disagreeable bishop. And I don’t think I can judge whether the movement of the Church from Progressivism to Conservatism or vice versa is the work of the Holy Spirit or not. You can’t judge the movement of the Spirit based on what agrees with your personal predelictions. I just know that Christ said the Spirit would be with the Church and I believe Him.
Joseph says I love the status quo. I find that laughable for two reasons. First, because there are A LOT of things I would like to see change in the Church. They just aren’t the things you and he would like to see change. Second, is the thing that I again can’t understand. Why do people who seem to despise many – even most – of the teachings of the Church, who maintain an individual and private idea of what it means to be Catholic, stay in the Church? Talk about the status quo. I cannot imagine the inertia it takes to do this.
Joseph, I stay in the Church because Christ says it is His Church. I stay for the grace of the sacraments – all of them. I stay because I believe that it is where the fullness of Truth resides. I stay, in short, because it is the surest way to Christ, because He said so.
Denise,
The facts don’t support this assertion. Just look at the public school system. A system in which women are not just integrated, but where they are dominant. Public school children are statistically more likely to be abused by an employee of that system than they ever were be a priest. I prosecuted many abuse cases, and in almost every one there was a woman who knew or suspected what was happening and did nothing. One’s sex does not matter. We are all weak.
As for the shortage, you may be right. We could go the route of the Episcopal Church and solve our priest shortage. But we might end up with the opposite problem – as they have – and end up with a parishioner shortage.
Carolyn – nice to see you back commenting. Hope your ministry and life is going well. Your insights and comments to the Chicago article are well made. Barron is a typical mover and shaker in terms of the clericalism and ambition that some show. He has changed forever the theological and liturgical excellence of Mundelein as if he has a vendetta against all that Cardinal Bernadin stood for.
Rita’s comments and questions above deserve an answer from those who interact and know Barron. His lack of analysis of the Pope’s comments; his ready defensiveness a la EWTN (you would think he was a clone for Arroyo or Sirico); etc. reveal the shallowness of his thinking. He is all about the bells and whistles – PR – catchy videos. Not difficult; critical; and tiring scholarly research that can lead the church to deep theological and liturgical insights.
Some of us have run into Barron’s participation in the introduction of the “new” MR3. What you see there is a repeat – he is no liturgical expert; no linguists; no scripture scholar and yet – he frames everything as if this MR3 is the next best thing to sliced bread. He ignores the authoritarianism, power grabbing, and naked aggression of small curial groups such as Vox Clara, etc. And he dares to tell the folks in the pew that this is just wonderful…notice a pattern here. He tells victims that B16′s words are just wonderful – compare and contrast his Chicago column to Doyle’s analysis of the pope’s speech.
Good to have you back.
Sean said: “I stay in the Church because Christ says it is His Church.”
Whether or not Christ meant that the Roman Catholic Church was to be His church is most certainly debatable.
This might be a good time to recommend a thorough reading of Philip Jenkins’ fascinating “The Lost History of Christianity.” In it you’ll find, among other things, that Latin Rite (i.e., European or “Roman”) Catholicism is better described as the largest survivor of the original Churches as opposed to being “the original.” A virtually total purge of Christianity by mostly Islam, most particularly in Asia, left Europe as the geographical heart of the Christian faith. Whole areas were made devoid of Christian communities and believers elsewhere were reduced to a tiny fraction of the population.
To quote Jenkin’s work (page 25): “The uprooting (of the Asian Churches between 1200 & 1500 by Islam) created the Christianity that we commonly think of today as the true historical norm, but which, in reality was the product of the elimination of alternative realities. Christianity did indeed become ‘European’, but about a millennium later than most people think.”
Is this survival of what is now called Roman Catholicism proof that it is “Christ’s church?” I think it more an accident of history as opposed to any Divine Imprimatur.
Sean, there is really nothing to be confused about. Saint Paul teaches us to ‘test everything in the spirit, and you will know the true spirit by its fruits’.
Perhaps in 20 years or so, people who are satisfied to sit in the pew and accept (without action or debate) what is currently happening and will continue to happen if left unchecked) will certainly know by then whether or not, by Paul’s standards, whether the direction of things in the church now bear good fruit.
I, however, am not content to sit quietly and take every spoonful that is fed to me.
There was a time when the Church was happy to rule, its people ignorant and powerless. I do not believe that Catholics, at least in America, are willing to let go of the sense of empowerment that they were given by Vatican II.
And, if you read in my statements earlier that I’d be in favor of eradicating the ordained Clergy, then you misread what I wrote.
Similarly, if you read in my statements earlier that I think that sacraments are unnecessary, you misread what I wrote.
My point was an answer to a ridiculous and fellacious statement made by a 30-year-old ordained convert to Catholicism. His statement was not only inappropriate, but doctrinally incorrect.
I apologise if you believe that I don’t belong in your Catholic church. However, I have no intent of leaving it.
I’m sorry that you cannot fathom that someone with my questioning attitude could even consider remaining a Catholic. I will remind you, however, that the Apostle Thomas did not shy away from touching the wounds in Christ’s side, hands and feet. And, indeed, Christ said ‘blessed are you who have seen and believe…” The fact that I am still seeking, questioning, does not disqualify me.
I do want to thank you for prosecuting ANYONE who molests a child. I know that it is difficult for a Catholic to take a stance in law against ‘The Church’, and commend you for acting on behalf of the victims.
Follow up to my comments of 12/23 at 5:11PM – here is the latest John Allen comparison of B16 to Thomas Doyle (references with permission Doyle’s private memo to Allen) – it says it all and reflects poorly on Barron and his off hand remarks.
http://www.ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/benedict-xvi-and-tom-doyle-crisis
In Re: B16. Latest gaffe seems to relate to porn being normal.
I’m sure that somewhere in the translation, that may not be what B16 was actually saying, but again, the ‘Spin Fathers’ at the Vatican will have another task of cleaning up after a Papal faux pas.
Sure makes the news interesting.
Thanks to Bill D. for pointing up Tom Doyle’s comments on the sex abuse crisis – a must read (icluding a defense of attorney Jeff Anderson.)
What struck me was his comment that he never experienced a bishop who when told of abuse though tof the victims first.
In reading again through the Olmstead thread above, I kept being struck by those right to life men proudly telling women they can consider martyrdom.
The encapsulated world of the Defenders of the fFaith will continue long good byes and no pious words or philosophical apologetics will stop it.
Tom Doyle was spot on when he criticized hierarchical cheerleaders.
Today’s Austen Ivereigh piece at America that BXVI made Christmas with his short address is of that piece.
I wonder again in the darkness coming tonight how Christ wil lbe reborn to us in this world.
Sean, thank you for your reply.
To clarify from where I am coming: I support Catholic ordination and the three orders of bishop, presbyter, and deacon. (As you likely know, I also support women’s ordination, but that’s an issue beyond my concerns in this thread.)
What I do not support — on the basis of the Christian churches’ (including RCC) own history — is the idea that the ordained are necessarily set apart from the rest of us or that ordination is to any kind of ‘priesthood’. Historically speaking, ordination is to either the presbyterate or episcopate, and each Christian man and woman becomes a genuine ‘priest’ by virtue of his or her baptism. If we remain true to our roots, there is only one priesthood that is common to all of us, ordained or unordained alike.
I believe the Church of Rome has taken on too much historical baggage (for reasons that may or may not have been necessary at any point in history) in both practice and belief. I am not contradicting or challenging infallible doctrines (and we should recall that Rome has never enumerated what constitute such teachings). Most doctrines, in fact, are non-infallible and, thus, subject to revision based on new human experience in all its variety.
Vatican II set the Catholic Church (especially, perhaps, the Church of Rome?) on a trajectory of renewal. Such a course would necessarly entail examining from whence we came, so to speak. JPII began the rollback, and B16 has continued this reversal.
Anyway, FWIMBW.
Joseph
Thank you for your comments, and I completely support what you write.
Insofar as Papal Infallibility, I seem to remember that it has been invoked only twice in history. Both times, it was to promulgate Marian Doctrine, namely, the Doctrine of the
Assumption (we must remember here that most other Catholic Churches teach that Mary had a natural death and that, indeed, her tomb is just under the Mount of Olives) and the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
I am not aware of any other time when Papal Infallibility was invoked.
I am also under the impression that for Infallibility to be invoked, the Pope in Rome must be speaking in concert with the Bishops of the Church – and, in THAT unity, Infallibility is possible.
Anyway, I hope you have a wonderful Christ Mass and a blessed New Year.
Jonathan,
I didn’t say you don’t belong in the Church. As far as I am concerned everyone belongs in the Church. What I said is I don’t understand why you do. You say you are seeking. I hope so, but I also hope you are not seeking and destroying. Perhaps this is a sore spot with me because for years volunteering in the Church and working with very dear friends who work for the Church I have witnessed people who basically reject many, if not most, of the Church’s teachings working within it and causing all kinds of mischief. There is nothing more frustrating than to work as a catechist and have others who ostensibly represent the Church tell young people most of what they are being taught is nonsense.
I experienced this myself as a young person and it caused me to leave the Church for a time. Prof Kaveny writes about progressives who leave the Church because of her teachings. I venture just as many or more have left over the years because of their experiences with progressive Catholics inposing their personal views whether they comport with the teachings of the Church or not.
Jonathan
FYI – My work as a prosecutor had nothing to do with the Church. This is one of the things that bothers me about dissenting Catholics – the equation of child molestation with the Church. It may surprise you but all but one of the cases I had involved the child’s family. That is a far more dangerous place for them than the Church.
Sean, thanks for that last.
I am certainly aware (as a victim) the the vast majority of child molestation cases do not happen with a clergy person. Of course, since they are the ones the media sensationalizes, the impression is that the problem exists to a far greater extent within the church than without it.
I also worked twice for Parishes that had abusing priests, and on one of my jobs in Maine, an elderly Brother made an attempt to molest me during a concert I was accompanying. I was 22 at the time and, except for it bringing up memories of earlier times, it really not bother me in a traumatic way, since by then I had a clearer understanding of the illness that causes people to molest or abuse as a way of exerting control and power over someone weaker- nor did I report the incident.
Most of the people I counsel over the years through my church work suffer from abusive parents or siblings or others who take advantage of their vulnerability.
So, I doubly applaud you for standing up for all who have been abused in any way…
While I cannot totally hide my feelings when working with my professional colleagues at church, they know that liturgically I have made an 180 degree turn from the High Anglican form of worship to a more subdued and honest worship. I am self-categorized among them as ‘the Iconoclast’. In the committee I have to work with these types: ‘no change is good’, and ‘I’m a convert so I know more about the church than you’, to the far extreme like “but in Virginia, there was an entire ‘environment committee’ within the Liturgy committee’, and “I like things as simple as possible”. There are proponents of the Tridentine Mass, the Novus Ordo in Latin, Mass, the Hootnanny (let’s sing stupid music for Jesus) people, and a very broard range of opinions. Fortunately the Chair of the Committee is a very liked and respected Sister and I am only the moderator of the meetings – making sure that we don’t become too tangential as 3 of the 5 deacons are bored silly and point at their watches.
So, I’d guess that in a lot of ways our parish is like many others. I can assure you, however, that I have control of my cynicism enough that I can be an effective moderator. My only questions would relate to ‘why’ are we doing this… ‘what’ is the symbolism, and ‘are we mixing so many symbols together that they all lose their efficacy.
As moderator, it is not my job to ‘direct’ things to my way of thinking, but to make sure that all parties are HEARD and that everyone then makes an informed decision. I’m proud of the things we have accomplished and though some folk are frustrated that we do not do more, we are working with a Pastor that doesn’t appreciate too many ‘frills’ added to mass.
THough I am occasionally working with children in the Mass setting, my seeking, questioning, asking, doubting is reserved only for those people who can understand what I am getting at and can teach me by their responses, as indeed, you have taught me by yours. I say or teach nothing that strays from our curriculum.
I will work harder at being less confrontative and ascerbic. But I will always be asking, and seeking…
Thank you, Sean
Bonne Annee Nouveau!
People aren’t leaving the Catholic Church when they leave the Vatican II counterfeit Church. The present non-catholics who have usurped the church and you people call Catholics are anything but Catholics. The Vatican II sect are just a bunch of liars. They have taken the only valid mass, the Roman Rite and put in its place an invalid mass; they have destroyed marriage with their millions of false annulments (sorry Vatican II Catholics, you need to go back to your first spouse and stop committing adultery), they have introduced altar girls, how quaint and totally sinful ( women be subject to your husbands is the true teaching and the anti-pope JPII said the opposite), made nice with all false religions (sorry, their is only one true church, the traditional Catholic religion, they have told the Jews they don’t need to become Catholic and are leading them straight to hell, they meet with schismatics and Protestants and make them think they are still Christians, they are not, they say that the U.N. is the great hope of mankind, sorry Jesus Christ is, they let the homosexual priest run rampant and act like it was a mistake in judgment instead of the perpetrated plan that it was by these usurping masons.
Please, leave the Vatican II false sect and become Catholic. Stop using the excuse that the Vatican II church isn’t liberal enough. You who think that aren’t Catholics and have been fed a lie, the operation of error. Everything the Vatican II sect has done has been liberal and gross mortal sin. Get out of her my people and become traditional Catholics or you shall be partakers of her sins and end up in hell. Paul