German Theologians Speak Up
PrayTellBlog.com published an open letter from now more than 225 theologians from Austria, Germany and Switzerland calling for structural reform in the Church. They speak of 2011 as a “Year of Departure,” for the Church, a time for renewal in light of the crisis in the Church there and worldwide. The Church does seem to be in free-fall–in the wake of abuse and corruption scandals, more Germans formally ended their connection to the Church in 2010 than in any year since WWII.
NCR’s report understates the case–as of today, PrayTellBlog says, 227 theologians have signed on, along with a handful (so far) from other countries. (The NCR report is sensationally mis-titled “Theologians Confront Hierarchy.” A call for reform from Catholic scholars in light of the greatest crisis in the German Church in modern times is hardly a confrontation.)
A couple interesting points: the document is quoted for its most eye-catching suggestions about church practices, like opening the priesthood to women and married people. But the first thing they ask for is open dialogue on “structures of participation,” then renewal of parish community life and legal structures in the church, and so on. Surely wider participation in Church life and governance is something both the left and the right might agree on, despite the left-leaning bent of many of the specifics the profs ask for. (Heck, if the left is so out of touch with the sensus fidelium, surely greater participation of the laity would reveal and confirm the right wingers’ suspicion. They should welcome this.)
Second, the response of the bishops is enlightening. NCR reports that Fr. Hans Langendörfer, secretary of the German bishops’ conference, says that the bishops welcome the contribution of the theologians, and the bishops will consider the letter at its next meeting. But NCR also reports that Auxiliary Bishop Hans-Jochen Jaschke of Hamburg, Germany “spoke out sharply against any attempt to apply pressure on the Catholic church from outside of its structures.” Are Catholic theologians really “outside” the structure of the Church?
This echoes a lament from across the world heard at the Trento moralists’ conference last summer–bishops and the theologians who also serve the Church are increasingly strangers to each other. The very fact that this document emerges as an open letter rather than an item submitted for the bishops’ meeting agenda to start with shows this distance. A sad situation.
The theologians raise important basic questions–it will be interesting to see how the German magisterium responds.
America coupled this letter with the Irish meetimgs with Cardinal O’Malley -reported in the independendent that he will tell the Pope that in the next decade, the Church there is on the verge of collapse.
IMO there is deep cynicism about both the credibility of the hierachy and also any response they will make to calls for change – at least in the present state of things.
I think this says that the signatories now number 249:
http://www.memorandum-freiheit.de/?page_id=390
Another expiring gasp of the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II” along with the attenuated opposition to the new Roman Missal translation, as noted here:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/02/14/the-attacks-on-the-new-english-missal-are-the-last-expiring-gasp-of-the-spirit-of-vatican-ii/
The answer to weakening of faith in Europe is not to further dilute their traditional Catholicity, but to strengthen it.
It’s not crystal clear that the letter calls for women to be admitted to the priesthood. Anthony Ruff’s translation renders the sentence this way: “The Church also needs married priests and women in church ministry. ”
On the matter of same-sex coupels and divorced and remarried Catholics, it says this: “But this does not require that we exclude people who responsibly live out love, faithfulness, and mutual care in same-sex partnerships or in a remarriage after divorce. ” That formulation pushes the envelope about as far as it can be pushed without crossing the line into advocating for change of what cannot/will not be changed.
To my reading, the letter is both respectful and assertive (and from the heart). I hope it leads to some reflection and engagement that is both serious and fruitful.
(If German (or American) priests were to write such a letter, that would *really* get the ball rolling!)
Issues similar to those of the the German theologians are identified by the Association of Catholic Priests now active in Ireland, with about 400 members. Their objectives are at http://www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/objectives/ and activities are indicated elsewhere on their site. A recent notable one was their meeting with Cardinal O’Malley, in Ireland as a papal investigator of the state of the Irish Catholic Church. http://www.independent.ie/national-news/pope-to-be-told-church-here-on-edge-of-collapse-2538910.html
Could it be that the great example of those courageous and civilized people, the Egyptians, is having its effect in all sorts of hearts? Wouldn’t it be splendid if the theologians of the world united on Facebook to swamp the Vatican with demands for change?
(Sounding a bit Marxist there: Theologians of the world unite!! You have nothing to lose but your chains! Bless the German ones, anyway.)
Jim, I agree, but the German website actually has a link to a page with translations, and the translation in English has “women in ordained ministry” there. That’s a significant difference!
Ann O – The German theologians offer a link to Facebook at
http://www.memorandum-freiheit.de/?page_id=11
Their FB link is
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kirche-braucht-Veränderung/187441657953128
(It is behaving peculiarly at the moment for me) 605 people like it.
A clear enough letter from the German-speaking theologians. I imagine the question facing them is going to be the same many others have: how do you get the church leaders to listen, instead of simply circling the wagons?
What is the effect of this (if any) going to be in the US? I wonder if our leaders are not going to be expected to put all their efforts into sanitizing the latest appalling news from the City of Brotherly Love (about which both NCR and the NYT have reported).
“how do you get the church leaders to listen, instead of simply circling the wagons?”
Money talks! Starve the buggers out.
Tithing or otherwise giving to your local bishop = Enabling continued episcopal and papal dysfunction.
Divert your money!
Jack B. –
Thanks for the Facebook link. It’s acting funny for me too. Wonder who hacked it. (Ha ha)
“I imagine the question facing them is going to be the same many others have: how do you get the church leaders to listen, instead of simply circling the wagons?”
The Old West settlers circled the wagons when they were under attack (or threatened). I’d imagine that the lesson is, if you don’t want the bishops to circle the wagon, then don’t approach them in a threatening manner.
As I say, I found the letter basically respectful.
Claire, I agree that is a significant difference. Perhaps a German speaker here could clarify for us?
Jim, with all due respect, if it were true that the letter was respectful, why would they be insisting that we change elements of The Deposit of Faith that Christ Has entrusted to His Church?
Ann, if the truth of our Faith exists within The Deposit of Faith, why the call for revolution? I agree that “theologians of the world unite” AND dissent, sounds more like Marxism, not Christianity.
Our Lady of Fatima, Pray for us.
Claire, Jim P –
Rather than get tangled up with what may be a secondary translator (awr at PrayTellBlog.com), it’s helpful to look at the German, English, Spanish, and French versions at the source:
http://www.memorandum-freiheit.de/?page_id=435 These should answer the question.
Das kirchliche Amt muss dem Leben der Gemeinden dienen – nicht umgekehrt. Die Kirche braucht auch verheiratete Priester und Frauen im kirchlichen Amt.
Ministry within the Church must serve the life of the communities – not the other way around. The Church also needs married priests and women in ordained ministry.
El ministerio eclesial tiene que servir a la vida de las comunidades, no al revés. La Iglesia necesita también sacerdotes casados y mujeres en el ministerio ordenado.
Le ministère ecclésial doit servir la vie de la paroisse, et pas l’inverse. L’Église a aussi besoin d’hommes mariés et de femmes aux ministères ecclésiaux.
Nancy: “–change elements of The Deposit of Faith that Christ Has entrusted to His Church?”
Please list the elements of the DoF that you feel are being suggested for change.
DoF, not church disciplines, traditions or whatever. DoF, please.
The German theologians may have been reading Commonweal in 1990:
“Celibacy’s continued requirement for priests is today injuring the Body of Christ. A system which forces adult men to remain compliant adolescents into their senescence cannot present to the church-at-large a model of leadership to which normally adjusted males will be attracted. When compulsory celibacy is compounded by compulsive compliancy in the clergy, it ends up attracting men who are comfortable with feeling dependent, disabled, and relieved at the possibility of being sexless agents of spiritual reality. Celibacy with no sense of paradox to keep it honest about itself will always tend to become a self-satisfied, but dishonest, ideology. Those who accept their handicap and deal with it honestly develop creative and vivacious ministries which turn the humdrum of pastoral duties into community building tasks which can change peoples’ lives.
Priests today quietly refuse to involve themselves in the “feel good” promotions which try to entice male children and adolescents into a vocation to the priesthood by pandering to their immature emotional quest for an identity. Neither celibacy nor the priesthood, nor even the two combined as a clerical caste attempts to do, can supply an adequate sense of identity if nature and nurture have not adequately installed it in the personality. Simplistic affirmation of celibacy as a heroic ideal, which requires only the will to accomplish (assisted by grace, of course), cuts a priest off from the wellsprings of redemptive suffering. It teaches self-satisfaction and an arrogance which continually alienates the clergy from the laity whom they are supposed to serve. By their trust that the “gift of celibacy” would always be generously bestowed by God and by their assurance that the “grace of fidelity” to celibacy would never be denied to those who ask, the bishops at Vatican II and since have effectively stanched any serious discernment on the part of the church (laity and clergy) about whether an exclusively celibate and male clergy can continue to serve the Kingdom adequately within the changed conditions of the life of the church on the brink of another millennium.
If being celibate for the sake of the Kingdom stems from the paradox of grace, legislating it as a requirement of priestly service amounts to institutional self-establishment, a refusal to live by the grace which we are confident God bestows.”
Paul E. Dinter, Disabled for The Kingdom (article), “Commonweal, October 12, 1990.
Germans know exactly how many Catholics have “left the Church” because Germans pay a “church tax” to the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church or no church. These “taxes” are then passed on to the Churches. German taxpayers who opt out of this system have ‘left their Church.’
Regarding that translation as “church ministry” vs “ordained ministry”, I’ve posted the question at PrayTell as to which is more accurate. Based on what Jack Barry provided, it does seem that the theologians are calling for women to be ordained. (It seems plausible that they are fluent enough in English to make the distinction between church ministry and ordained ministry). I’d still welcome further comment on the difference in translations.
Nancy, fwiw, my previous comment was based on the translation at the PrayTell blog, which used the phrase “church ministry”. if the theologians’ own website is accurate as we’re surmising, then I agree with you that the theologians have, in a sense, crossed a line. I fear it does not bode well for the letter’s reception in official circles. There is speculation in the PrayTell comments that the German bishops may be open to the notion of women being ordained. Is there any doubt, though, that Rome will intervene if it ever comes to that?
“Ann, if the truth of our Faith exists within The Deposit of Faith, why the call for revolution? I agree that “theologians of the world unite” AND dissent, sounds more like Marxism, not Christianity.”
Nancy –
The reason for revolution or at least loud complaint and call for change is because the culture of the current Catholic hierarchy has shown itself to have little respect for truth. The reason we know that is because of the blatant coverups by so many bishops in the abuse scandal. And the bishops who have not lied themselves have *tolerated* the lies of their brother bishops and are still allowing them to go uncorrected. In other words, those who aren’t liars are sheep, with a few exceptions like Bishop Robinson of Australia.
The very first dissenter in the history of Christianity was named Jesus of Nazareth. He criticized the Pharasees for their behavior (holding on to the letter of the law, for instance, as do the current bishops in so many abuse cases).
Open your eyes, Nancy. The Church desperately needs reform, and, yes, the biggest problem is those who wield the power. If that sounds like Marx, then remember it was Marx who defended the poor against the powerful in 19th century Europe. Or do you think that jesus would not have joined Marx in criticizing those who oppressed the poor? HE criticized them in His own lifetime, why wouldn’t He criticize them in the 19th century — and now?
We have seen these protests before. The first thing the Vatican does is to see how they can discredit or undermine those involved. The best route for the Vatican is to see if they can get the professors fired or harass them enough to force them out of their jobs. The Tubingen professors (a few hundred) who publicly supported Kung withdrew when their jobs were threatened.
Thomas Reese was forced out by the Vatican. This was a huge mistake by America and the Jesuit General. American is still dutifully critical of the Vatican but will not directly challenge Rome the way Reese did. The hierarchy with its army of wealthy Catholics and those they employ win the day when professors are more concerned about their jobs. The ability to sacrifice one’s job still evades theologians. That carisma remains unresponsive with them.
Few are willing to give up their lives for their faith.
I wonder what Charlie Curran is saying now? There are still some courageous theologians today like James Keenan, Joseph Selling, Lisa Stowel Cahill, and Todd Salzman.
I like Ann’s analogy of the Egyptians and the sign of the times. Those that have been living under a dictatorship that never listens to the people are starting to pay the price. Perhaps a different but equally effective response by those in the Church whose voices and needs have been heard but not addressed will cause the dictatorship of the Church Hierrarchy much reflection.
What we don’t need is more condemnation and division.
the document is quoted for its most eye-catching suggestions about church practices . . . But the first thing they ask for is open dialogue
——
The German theologians may have been reading Commonweal in 1990
——
We have seen these protests before.
Yes, we have talked these issues to death. Again and again and again and again and again. The progressive revolutionaries have been shouting for years, not merely 20 years, since 1990, but 40 and 50 years. They’ve made their case loud and clear. The hierarchy has heard them. The parish priests have heard them. The people in the pews have heard them. The modern culture has heard them. Enough already with the calls for dialogue and discussion — it has all be said a million times over.
Their arguments about how everything in the Church is crap have been presented, repeatedly, and considered, repeatedly. And they have been rejected, repeatedly.
The Church, even as viewed as the “People of God,” is what she is presently because that is what the “People of God” want.
I understand Bender that the people of God want the cover up, the crusades, the inquisition, mandatory Latin masses, mandatory celibacy, gilded hierarchy, Father knows best. etc.
Keep pushing your fantasy.
Ann, no doubt, The Catholic Church needs to purge the secret cult of sexual preditors that preyed on mostly young adolescent boys and those who enabled this cult to exist. You, however, claim that The Catholic Church should also deny the inherent complementary nature of male and female endowed to us from God and God’s intention for Sexual Love within a Holy Marriage between a Husband and Wife in communion with Him. The People of God are for Him, not against Him.
Jim, how can one be respectful if one does not respect our inherent complementary nature as male and female that has been endowed to us from God, and one does not respect God’s intention for Sexual Love within a Holy Marriage between a Husband and Wife in communion with Him?
Would it not be better to imagine ways in which theologians and bishops could meet for serious discussion? Over the past few years we had a series of conferences with bishops under the aegis of our Institute for Church Life here at Notre Dame.. I had the honor of reading papers at two of those conferences. The best part of the conferences were the informal conversations. Among the other things that I learned was how hard it is to be a bishop today. We attracted forty plus bishops to these conferences and would like to think that they found the theologians who participated (mainly lay men and women) had the good of the church in mind.
The problem with open letters is that a priori they set up a us vs them mentality. That being said, the open letter did make some extremely critical points not the least of which was the impending crisis in parochial life.
“how hard it is to be a bishop today” – a couple of years ago over lunch my family’s pastor in France said that there is no crowd of volunteers to become a bishop nowadays; that being a bishop comes with heavy administrative duties and various unpleasantness; and that, before long, they’d need to put a classified ad in the newspapers to recruit their bishops!
Lawrence C. –
Are there identifiable public after-effects of the series showing that the conferences were worth holding and indicating what worked? Some good examples might suggest ways to move ahead beyond what seems to be an interactive impasse among Catholic bishops and various lay factions in the US, Germany, Ireland, Vatican, and elsewhere. Public statements like the recent ones of the German-speaking theologians and the Irish Association of Catholic Priests join a long list of such efforts which have had no constructive consequences for the Church. Institutional inertia prevails. Perhaps some of the 40 bishops would respond, if asked, and indicate what differences, if any, the conferences made in their decisions and actions.
I thought Bill M.”s point about the influence of power on one’s position or job to speak up was highly germane.
Somewhere back in the cult discussion, the use of power and control tools to keep people in line came up.
How heavy handed that is on the inside of the Church in the US today is far from clear, but occasional firings of those who won’t say the party line. even if they’re “respecvtful” points to a problem.
In Ireland and Germany, things appear to be going so bad, that many have spoken publicly ( is this really such a horror?) What does one do is one thinks their hierach(y) don’t have “the good of the Church” in mind?
Of course, one can folow the Bender view that any criticism means that “everything in the Church is crap.” That really helps advance the issue of dialogue.
But keeping everything on the quiet has done little and has perhaps been coerced in a number of circumstances (like the poor pastor in Overland Park.)
The problem is IMO not public private but the absence of genuine dialogue across the face of at least American Catholicism.
Jack Barry:
I cannot point to concrete outcomes but I do know that informally a number of us have been asked to participate in various ways with different initiatives in different dioceses. This may not amount to anything spectacular but it does mean that links have been established. Such possibilities are, of course, learning moments for us who dwell perhaps too snugly in the cloistered life of academe.
“The problem with open letters is that a priori they set up a us vs them mentality. That being said, the open letter did make some extremely critical points not the least of which was the impending crisis in parochial life.”
FWIW – The Holy Father’s well-known public misstep at Regensburg has resulted in some hopefully-constructive dialogue with Muslim theologians. It seems that sometimes, a public-statement approach can be an effective strategy. But it is risky.
It seems clear that, in Germany, these theologians perceive that a moment has arrived where a dramatic upsetting of the status quo is called for. Does the letter seize that opportunity? I guess we will need to wait to see what transpires.
“You, however, claim that The Catholic Church should also deny the inherent complementary nature of male and female endowed to us from God and God’s intention for Sexual Love within a Holy Marriage between a Husband and Wife in communion with Him. The People of God are for Him, not against Him.”
Nancy,
I said no such thing. Stop making things up.
Challenging Church Hierarchy and Authority is not new. Christ had the courage to challenge Church Heirarchy because they were neglecting the people of God and God’s message. He even went to his death over it. Martin Luther challenged Church Hierarchy because he believed they were not being true to the word of God and misapplying his message. Martin Luther King challenged authority because the law of the land was not being applied equally to all. The list goes on and on.
One open letter will likely do little in terms of real reform. However, when authority does not listen it forces measures that otherwise would be rejected as inappropriate.
Several open letters from different countries within the same time frame can be a good means to a good end. This is not insurrection and Marxism.
Those who love the Church have a choice.
1. We can blog our way forward and wait another 20-50 years when perhaps a new pope will ursher in real reform.
2. We can work on various initiatives, many of which are not connected, and appeal to authority such as the USCCB or Rome itself for action, or
3. We can write open letters enabling all members of the Church to sign it.
The real issue is authority and how the Church is governed. Rome will not entertain either. Once a pope has spoken, the book is closed to real debate. Debate continues but it is not between authority and theologians and clergy; it is primarily between theologians.
I am sure there are other choices. However, the sign of the times are upon us. Some say this is the work of the Holy Spirit; other are not so certain.
IMO I encourage open letters of the 3rd kind.
For all those who support the departure of the German theologians from the truth of our Faith, including their belief that Sexual Love can be both/and or it can be either/or, let us not forget that we all have heard from The Beginning that “The Creator made them male and female and said ‘For THIS reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh’… ”
I do agree with Dr.Cunningham, that a conference at Notre Dame under The Institute for Church Life that would include all the Bishops is a great way to clearly present the teachings of our Catholic Faith. Why not at our Lady’s University, after all, she is our Mother.
http://actsoftheapostasy.blogspot.com/2011/02/german-seminarian-speaks.html
“…As a counter-measure to their “Memorandum” the German Catholic Blogosphere (which is largely in support of the Church and the Pope) started an online-petition to call for proper Catholic teaching and practice. We want to make this widely known and I simply want to ask you if you’d be willing to write a few lines about this and link to the page. The page is here: Petition Pro Ecclesia
http://petitionproecclesia.wordpress.com/
The Holy Spirit would not deny the inherent complementary nature of male and female that has been endowed to us from God or God’s intention for Sexual Love.
It may be a bad time to be a bishop. But it is far worse to be a bad bishop.
Nancy -
Are you referring to the Dr. Cunningham who commented usefully here at 9:50A and 11:17A? He made no mention of the event you describe.
Where did you find it? Under present-day circumstances, it might be an interesting affair if feasible.
Jack, Dr.Cunningham thought it was a good idea to consider some ways in which theologians and bishops could meet for serious discussion and then mentioned that he had attended some previous conferences with bishops and theologians at Notre Dame that sounded like they were constructive. I just thought that if a conference was held that included all the bishops, it would be even more constructive.
History makes it abundantly clear that conferences attended by some, but not all bishops, are essentially unproductive. The USCCB will never call for a conference to discuss controversial issues, especially established doctrine, Church teachings or reform.
As for Notre Dame, a great university, Rome considers its Theology School a revisionsit institution of higher learning primarily due to many of its past and present theologians who challenge HV and other Church teachings.
I passed the link to this article to a friend of mine who is a priest.
His response was telling…
“Is anyone listening?”
Michael B., to challenge the hierarchy of The Catholic Church with a legitimate complaint about a practice in The Church is not the same as to challenge His Church about an element of truth regarding The Deposit of Faith. It is that difference that makes all the difference.
“Is anyone listening?”
“You will be my people and I will be your God.” -The Blessed Trinity
” – that being a bishop comes with heavy administrative duties and various unpleasantness; -”
Show me a bishop who hasn’t learned to assuage his wounded psyche with good food, nice digs, really swell ecclesiastical frou-frou, a car and drive, outsized obeisance from the slack-jawed pew potatoes, all expense paid trips to Rome and other neat environs (usually in first class travel conditions), etc.
I’m not crying too much for these boyos.
I think the contemporary theologian, George Jones, puts it succinctly:
“So don`t dispair when burdens fall around. You got to bear a cross if you want to wear a crown.— ” ( http://www.lucylyrics.com/if-you-want-to-wear-a-crown-lyrics-george-jones.html)
Nancy D.
Thank you for your thoughts and comment. I agree with you and do not challenge the Deposit of Faith as revealed. These are fundamental truths that will never change because they are the word of God. The Church also has the responsibility to clarify, explain and rule on issues related to the Deposit of Faith. They also are the authority on Faith and Morals. However, not all teachings are based on the Deposit of Faith.
The issue before us is HV, contraception and the teachings of the Church related to this doctrine. There is little justification about taking the pill as an act of fertility regulation in Natural or Divine Law. Natural Law for the longest time was a physicalistic interpretation of the order in nature that God created. However, there is a significant difference between going from what is, to what ought to be.
Natural Law is also practical reaons partiicpating in Divine reason. However, sin often makes it difficult to grasp the truth and the good. The Church guides Catholics to the truth to the best of its ability. However, there are many controversial teachings that have been proclaimed to be a violation of Natural and Divine Law. Many are justified by use of analogy: Christ’s relationship to His Church; Man’s relationship to his wife in marriage, etc. Some are based on a story in the Bible, like the story of Onan. Some are extensions of stories, as the classification of the pill as a contraceptive act. Most are based on tradition.
In the end, we are faced with two extreme schools of thought in the Church today: Classicist and Historicist. The former believes that the truth has already been revealed, taught and proclaimed. It will never change and is universal. The later believes that some truths will never change, but a lot of what we understand as truth is progressive. It is revealed to us over time as humankind uncovers the many mysteries of himself, scripture and the world. There are many degrees of each school of thought. However, the current and recent popes and Church Hierrarchy are closer to Classicists who defend tradtion almost at all costs (IMO). I am in the middle of these extremes in terms of moral philoosphy or theology.
As for practices within the Church, those I highlighed related to the overall teachings on marriage and the ethics of procreation, inclusive of how intrinsically evil acts are handled from a pastoral theological viewpoint. In most cases, if a teaching is not completely true, contradiction and unitelligible rationale are revealed in the application to complex cases. Hence, my point.
If we respectfully challenge ouselves and our Church, it is healthy to our collective efforts to find, recognize and embrace the truth.
Nancy D.
I apologize if I went off-course; I got confused about two different blogs. LOL.
Nevertheless, I think you got my meaning. The biggest issue is Church govenance and sexual ethics. I support more dialogue and a solution based on full communion with all theologians, clergy and representatives of the laity. If an open letter is the only way that can happen, I am all for it. This does not mean I support all types of reform.
Michael, with all due respect, there is nothing confusing about the two schools of thought regarding the truth of our Catholic Faith. Quite simply, there are those in the school who assent to the truth of The Catholic Faith, and those in the school that dissent from the truth of our Catholic Faith. One cannot be “in the middle”, for one cannot be assenting to the truth of our Catholic Faith while dissenting from an element of that truth, simultaneously.
There you haveit, thanks again to Nancy – it’s all black and white.
Perhaps that does undeline the split that exists in the Church though without subtlety and with lots of naivete.
Bob, with all due respect, why would Christ reveal that He Is The Way, The Light/ Life and The Truth, and then leave us in darkness to fend for ourselves with no place to rest our weary heads? Where His Church is, there is The Holy Spirit, illuminating The Way, The Light/Life, and The Truth, through the Light of God’s Grace and His Divine Mercy.
In general, gentleness with one’s interlocutors, even–and perhaps especially–on delicate topics, is a virtue…
Nancy D and Bob N:
Perhaps you both misunderstood my comment. Let me try to explain it with more clarity.
The point I made about being in the middle, was to indicate that I was not on one end of the moral philosophical extreme. It is like politics. There are degress of certain ways of thought. This is not being luke warm. Nor is it being idealistic or naive. It is being realistic and firm about what you believe is the truth. Wheither someone wants to classify my way of thinking one way or another is not important to me, nor to this discussion.
If I left you with the opinion that I pick and choose what I like from the Deposit of Faith, than I apologize. Such a judgment is far from the truth. The fundamental beliefs of the Catholic Church, the Deposit of Faith, are unchangable, universal truths. However, there are different interpretations of scripture and our understanding of morality that do not necessarily contradict or are directly related to a Deposit of Faith. Many of our Doctrines were deduced from a what is, to what ought to be. From a biologically is, to a moral ought.
The division in the Church over certain Doctrines (and a better governance) does not make one side evil and the side good. Nor is one side the victims of invincible ignorance and the other side the beneficiaries of the prophetic truth. You can disagree and remain a faithful Catholic. Some people may not be able to accept this. If so, they are entitled to their opinion. However, it does not move the conversatin forward to condemn someone’s faithful judgment or demean their honest beliefs.
The issues that divide us can only be resolved in Commuio, in a gentle, respectful and friendly exchange of opinion. Thanks Lisa F. for your epigram.
Nancy, I must repeat Jimmy Mac’s request from Feb. 15 @ 4:39 pm:
“Please list the elements of the DOF [Deposit of Faith] that you feel are being suggested for change.”
FYI, the “deposit of faith” can be briefly defined as all that God has revealed through Christ for our salvation.
Please reply to Jimmy Mac as I, too, would be interested in your response.
Thank you.
It’s now March 3 and no answer from Nancy.
But this story lives on – on NPR a lengthy piece on this last night.
George Weigel has already written his rebuttal – what do these guys know, essentially.
More germane, Religious News Service opines that no change in celibacy will occur because the hierarchy and the Pope are committed to “Catholic identity.”
That’s surely true.
Today, March 3, if anyone reads this, John Allen has an interview with the now barred head of Caritas who Allen notes had an issue on “Catholic Identity” Caritas needed to eveangelize more seems to be the issue, just service to the poor was not enough evangelizing.
“Carholic identity”, “distinctive Catholicism” “Muscular Christianity” etc. all seem to be mantra lof the traditionalist approach which continues to rip apart the Church.
It struck me as worthy of another discussion here about where we are and where we’re going, but I guess we need to get through BXVI’s book on the crucifixion and the Jews first.