Takebackourchurch.org
Robert Blair Kaiser–Time magazine’s correspondent at Vatican II and author of the recent A Church in Search of Itself: Benedict XVI and the Battle for the Future–has apparently founded a new organization, takebackourchurch.org. According to the mission statment, the organization is “seeking ownership and citizenship in the people’s Church envisioned at Vatican II, attended by accountable, listening servant-bishops.”
Here is an excerpt from the organization’s most recent newsletter:
We use the word “campaign” advisedly. This will be a political battle – in a Church that has gotten us used to the idea that there’s something shady, maybe even something sinful, in trying to overturn the old pyramidal structure. We plead “not guilty” to that charge. But we do plead guilty in our wish to overturn – at least in the United States — what the last pope called “the divinely instituted hierarchical constitution of the Church.” “Divine institution” means it was founded by Christ. But if Jesus founded our Church (most scholars say it was the Holy Spirit at Pentecost who did that, but never mind), he certainly didn’t found the hierarchical Church that we know today. Claiming Jesus did so can have only one purpose: “to keep us in our place.”
By contrast, the Fathers of Vatican II invited us to take ownership of what was, after all, our Church. (They just didn’t tell us how to do it.) In their redefinition of the Church, they reminded us that our baptism made us all, priests and people alike, equal in God’s eyes. Equally Christian. Equally Catholic. Yes, our priests, bishops, and popes had authority, but, according to Luke 22:24-26, it was an authority quite different from the authority of the kings and princes of this world. It was an authority to serve, not to dominate. In that sense, apostolic authority became more like a duty, or a mandate to listen — and act — on behalf of the common good of the Christian family. No longer would the Church be divided in two — “a teaching Church” and “a learning Church.” Vatican II said (in Lumen Gentium 32) that we all have a duty to teach one another.
I have to say that I almost don’t know where to begin with this. Because in its own way this is as one-sided a reading of Vatican II as the view that the Council was in such strict continuity with previous councils that nothing of consequence actually happened. Just for starters, I have to wonder why an essay that quotes Lumen Gentium approvingly is willing to overlook paragraphs 18-19, which reaffirmed in reasonably strong language the divine institution of the episcopacy and the doctrine of papal infallibility. Whatever one thinks of these doctrines, they are certainly not the invention of the previous pope.
I’m all for having a serious discussion of Roman centralism, a problem the Church has been struggling with since at least the Gregorian Reform, if not earlier. But pretending that the Council fathers at Vatican II had the same mindset of the Founding Fathers of the American revolution is just nonsense. It is not supported by either a close reading of the documents or by the history of the Council. Intellectual honesty demands that we be willing to face what David Tracy might call the “ambiguity and plurality” of the Council documents, rather than using them as proof texts for positions arrived at by other means.
on July 6th, 2006 at 6:54 am
Interesting: When I read the title “takebackourchurch.org,” I couldn’t guess whether this group would be coming from the reform or the traditional wing of the church.
Provocative titles like “take back our church” imply the church is the rightful property of just one group that has been stolen by another. Such titles evoke shades of criminality, conspiracy and militancy.
However much I agree or not with various movements in the church, this one seems more likely to entrench Catholics more deeply in their divisions.
on July 6th, 2006 at 10:25 am
Peter,
I think you are doing to some degree what Kaiser–a democrat with an imperial name? render unto Kaiser?–does, reading selectively. I think he makes some good points, but is given to overstatement and misstatement and lacks subtlety. I would be tempted to annotate his manifesto and send it back for rewriting. As Jean points out, his title is actually ambiguous. He needs the help of a council of periti and PR men.
on July 6th, 2006 at 10:43 am
Peter is right on this (being Catholics we know “Peter” is always right lol). Of course someone should tell RBK that his ideas are already implemented and well at work here: http://tinyurl.com/s6rgs
Anyway I have one difference with PN’s post. I agree with those who point out that V2 was in continuity with all previous councils - it actually declares as much in its own documents esp. Vatican I, Trent, and even Florence but I’ve never met anyone who knows about V2’s continuity who then goes on to say V2 was not important.
Who does that?
on July 6th, 2006 at 10:48 am
It’s hard not to feel for the earnestness with which Kaiser addresses some real problems. But what sort of campaign for reform can you found on a case-statement like this? He doesn’t seem to have a clue about the subtleties of the rhetorical situation he is in. Reading it is like listening to a politician—with whom you have some sympathy– making a badly needed case for reform that his opponents can– and will— drive a truck through.
on July 6th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Peter,
Why would you be surprised by someone who quotes Vatican II to prove his point? Practically every document of Vatican II is a result of one side giving to the other so that its own words can get in.
In other words people interpret V2 according to the spirit of that council which each presents as valid.
Kaiser’s book is quite good and a must read because it shows a part of the church which puts Rome in its place. I love the Cardinal of Honduras’ remark that “between Rome and us there is a very big ocean.”
There is one place where women nuns will not even invite priests to their worship. Shocking but hooray for them
Kaiser’s book is a very serious book which should be read for its serious challenges as well as its unique material.
His choice to interview Cardinals and Archbishops was a master stroke of genius, in its reporting and ecclesiology.
To be fair to Kaiser one should read his book.
on July 6th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
I am NOT basing our movement on a close reading of the documents of Vatican II but on a 21st century evaluation of where we are as a Church and what we need to do in order to meet our mission. Those in favor of “the divinely instituted hierararchical constitution of the Church” can, of course, like Talmudic scholarsm, quote paragraphs 18 and 19 of LG (and other grafs) to support a position that simply isn’t working in the context of our times.
FYI, I think it is poor scholarship to quote verses from Vatican II in order to make any kind of case for anything. We have to look at the legislative history of the Council, some of which is written down, and some of which I was personally privvy to because I was there, conducting Sunday night salons and watching the drama of the Council unfold for four sessions. I can attest that phrases like “the divinely instituted hierararchical constitution of the Church” were inserted AFTER the decisions for a people’s Church were already made by huge conciliar majorities. Pope Paul VI agree to their late inclusion for two reasons: 1) to bring the conservative minority into a consensus, and 2) to assuage the fears of Cardinal Ottaviani and others that the Council was giving away the store. Members of the conciliar majority let them get away with it to keep peace in the family after four long, exhausting years. In their minds, the battle had already been won. It wasn’t over, because the Church went back to the same old same old. The clerics in the Roman Curia certainly weren’t going to have a people’s Church, but a clerical Church, and they could keep quoting #18 and #19 of LG.
I am not “pretending” that the Council Fathers have the mindset as the U.S. Founding Fathers. I am saying that all the conciliar speeches on enculturation and especially the Vat II document on the missions should have given Americans leave to create their own enculturated autochthonous Church. But we can now. (BTW, in 1969, a theologian named Ratzinger proposed autochthonous Churches in Africa and Asia.
Joseph Gannon: I am urging that we ALL get involved in taking back our Church. Catholic conservatives are as upset as Catholic liberals about the abuses of absolute rule by absolute rulers (whether they be popes or bishops or their crusty Irish pastors). Which is why I would tell Jean Raber that I rather think this movement will bring American Catholics together.
Finally, for now, I’d be the first to admit that I need all the p.r. help I can get in order to create a proper manifesto. Please, Susan Gannon and Joseph Gannon (not sure if you’re together or just happen to have the same last name), come ahead with your suggestions so opponents won’t be driving trucks through my “badly needed” case for reform.
As for help from periti, I was only able to put my case together BECAUSE I had help from a number of the Church’s best theologians, mostly in Rome, over the past five years. I am making the case because they, fearing frowns from the Vatican or their own pusillanimous superiors, cannot make it themselves.
My email address is
on July 6th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
” I am making the case because they, fearing frowns from the Vatican or their own pusillanimous superiors, cannot make it themselves.”
So much for “the truth shall make you free.” Maybe so, but not within the confines of authoritarian and dictatorial structural Catholicism a la 2006.
on July 7th, 2006 at 7:57 am
Mr. Kaiser,
Before we ALL join your movement, it would be helpful to know where you, as its founder, stand on important doctrinal issues. For example:
What is your position on abortion?
What is your position on the death penalty?
What is your position on same sex marriage?
What is your position on women’s ordination?
What is your position on contraception?
What is your position on euthanasia?
What is your position on divorce and remarriage?
Your answers, or your willingness to give them, would help many orthodox Catholics, like me, to decide whether we are better “taking back” the Church or leaving it where it is.
on July 7th, 2006 at 10:56 am
SeanH –
It seems to me that you are missing the point. You are focusing in specific beliefs rather than on structure. Kaiser’s organization is about redefining structure and not about redefining doctrine.
on July 7th, 2006 at 11:20 am
I checked out the links on this website and most are groups that dissent from Church teachings. This tells me that it is not just structure that they want to be changed but doctrine allso. I am a convert and it’s not pick and choose time on doctrine we then become Ptotestant, I know I lived this. You either take the teachings on faith or you don’t, we do not have the right to change them. The groups that are listed allso tried to say they didn’t want to change the faith but as time went on we see they were not telling the truth! We can be neither right or left, conservative or liberal we need to be Roman Catholic!
on July 7th, 2006 at 11:25 am
Sean H,
I think Mr. Kaiser has made himself pretty clear where he stands vis a vis the Church’s doctrines since he insists on parsing up the texts of VII based on what fits his agenda. He doesn’t seem to realize this yet, but he and those who are part of his movement are becoming more and more irrelevant. Very sad.
on July 7th, 2006 at 11:29 am
I have to say I sympathize with the spirit of Sean H’s post if not the legalistic questions he asks.
I visited takebackourchurch.org. An introductory essay on the home page promises to “cut to the chase,” but it proves to be a real long historical essay about how Pope Gregory instituted a monarchical papacy and has led to the need for servant-bishops today.
As a person with limited time and only moderate intelligence, you have to get to the crux of the biscuit on your home page and tell me this:
How will takebackourchurch.org make me (or build a church that will help me) be a better Christian, Catholic and human being?
I don’t mean to pick on Mr. Kaiser. I see this on Catholic sites a lot–people taking the academic route to advocate for change, a return to tradition, whatever.
That’s fine if you want a lot of academics fine-tuning your assertions or arguing theology with you.
But if you want to build a million-person coalition like it says on your site, you have to get to the “this affects me how?” question right off. In a box. On your home page. In 200 words or fewer.
on July 7th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
It was not my intention to be “legalistic” in my questions. I ask them for several reasons.
First, I am from Boston, and have witnessed first hand much of the turmoil brought on by the abuse crisis. One response, Voice of the Faithful, billed itself much like Mr. Kaiser’s movement. VOTF was all about lay involvement and accountability - no challenge to Church Doctrine. Initially, I was somewhat sympathetic, but still suspicious. My opposition was solidified when many of their members promoted a boycott of Mass one Sunday in September 2003. “We’ll show them, we’ll all sin!” If you visit their web site or listen to their members now, it is clear that VOTF is simply a political platform for dissenting Catholcs. The abuse crisis is just a convenient excuse. I believe Mr. Kaiser’s movement is the same thing. Frankly, I didn’t expect him to answer the questions. It has been my experience that many so-called progessives quickly lose support if they actually tell people what they mean by progess.
Roberta - I get it exactly. My point is that I don’t think Mr. Kaiser’s all that worried about structure either. If the heirarchical Church agreed with his Spirit of Vatican II approach, and people like me were asking for a voice, I doubt he’d be all that worried about my inability to get my voice heard. In other words, it’s all about “specific beliefs.”
One other question I meant to ask - In his web site Mr. Kaiser mentions some American bishops who are models of his “servant bishop.” Who are they? Knowing what he thinks is good will help others decide if they agree.
on July 7th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
At least Mr. Kaiser is trying to get the ball rolling on taking our Church back to its roots before all the organizational fluff was added, and I support this effort 100 percent. If this idea seems radical to some, it’s because our Church’s formal organization needs surgery.
As things stand now, I see Call to Action as being too far to the left to suit most pew-types’ tastes, and I see VOTF as being too timid to bring about any substantive change.
We need an organization that can focus on the organizational changes (structural, political, values, etc.) needed to renew the Church. Vatican II, as I understand it, called for renewal — to make new again — rather than reform. Mr. Kaiser’s thoughts in this area reflect my own. We began as an informal network of basic communities. Unfortunately, as time went on and the leaders adopted an imperial mindset and practices, the laity were left below. Then, of course, there is the gradual development of an elaborate liturgy with a language that the simple folk no longer understood.
We have got to take a “systems” view of our Church regardless of one’s thoughts on abortion, homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, etc. Everyone calls for accountability and transparency, and, yet, existing structures, organizational philosophy, etc. of Church “management” preclude any real move toward accountability and transparency.
If I had the power to do so, I would take the Vatican and bishops’ offices around the world and shake the “hell” out of them! Get rid of the deadwood, turn on the lights, open up the meetings to public scrutiny. We need sunshine, pure and simple.
The existing crap has got to go!
Mr. Kaiser, thank you for responding to a very real need here. You’ve got my support at the outset. We can “fill in the blanks” as we move along. Let’s remember: a lot of the Church’s crap is going on 2000 years old; Vatican II ended only 40 years ago. There’s work to be done, and we can’t count on the “powers that be” for any help here.
on July 7th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Sean H: there’s no question that VOTF has misstepped from time to time, but it takes no doctrinal positions, and has always been explicit about that. But the idea that the sexual-abuse crisis was an “excuse” for its members to organize is a bit extreme.
on July 7th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Please Folks don’t try to pull the wool over my face. I happen to know that VOTF was started because of the sexual abuse crisis. You need to check out the website here in New Jersey: http://www.votfnj.org/ . Yes they are the same people from Catholics For A Free Choice, Future Church, Call to Action etc. Read and listen to every thing you can on this site they hide nothing! The Padovano’s live a mere 40 minute from my home and I tired to correspond with these folks it is very difficult.Yes they want to change the Roman Catholic Church into a Protestant denomination. They are using the crisis for their agenda, check out the history on all these groups it can be done on the net with unbiased sources. They really are sheep in wolves clothing the only thing to remember is Jesus’s Church will prevail!
on July 7th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Reading this thread reminded me of Cardinal Bernardin’s comment that ideas and proposals within the Church are almost immediately met with suspicion and are subjected to “ideological litmus tests,” as listeners try to pigeonhole the ideas or proposals as liberal, conservative, or whatever, and thereby consign them to either the worthwhile or worthless category before hearing the ideas or proposals out and discussing them.
He delivered his comments in 1996, in the context of the “Called to Be Catholic” statement of the Common Ground Initiative, and they seem to be even more relevant today as polarization within the Church has increased.
Some excerpts from the CGI statement:
“For three [now, four] decades the church has been divided by different responses to the Second Vatican Council and to the tumultuous years that followed it. By no means were these tensions always unfruitful; in many cases they were virtually unavoidable.
But even as conditions have changed, party lines have hardened. A mood of suspicion and acrimony hangs over many of those most active in the church’s life; at moments it even seems to have infiltrated the ranks of the bishops. One consequence is that many of us are refusing to acknowledge disquieting realities, perhaps fearing that they may reflect poorly on our past efforts or arm our critics within the church. Candid discussion is inhibited. Across the whole spectrum of views within the church, proposals are subject to ideological litmus tests. Ideas, journals, and leaders are pressed to align themselves with preexisting camps, and are viewed warily when they depart from those expectations.
There is nothing wrong in itself with the prospect that different visions should contend within American Catholicism. That has long been part of the church’s experience in this nation, and indeed differences of opinion are essential to the process of attaining the truth. But the way that struggle is currently proceeding, the entire church may lose. It is now three decades after Vatican II. Social and cultural circumstances have changed.
….
The church’s capacity to respond to these changed conditions may be stymied if constructive debate is supplanted by bickering, disparagement, and stalemate. Rather than forging a consensus that can harness and direct the church’s energies, contending viewpoints are in danger of canceling one another out. Bishops risk being perceived as members of different camps rather than as pastors of the whole church. Unless we examine our situation with fresh eyes, open minds and changed hearts, within a few decades a vital Catholic legacy may be squandered, to the loss of both the church and the nation.”
Wise words from a shepherd who left us much too early.
on July 7th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Oh, honestly, can we have a discussion about facts instead of hunches and beliefs?
While it is not outside the realm of probability that some group somewhere has tried to use the sex abuse crisis as a wedge issue, nobody has offered any evidence that Mr. Kaiser is doing this.
SeanH says only, “I believe Mr. Kaiser’s movement is the same thing. Frankly, I didn’t expect him to answer the questions. It has been my experience that many so-called progessives quickly lose support if they actually tell people what they mean by progess.”
I suspect that if Mr. Kaiser could supply the names of biships acceptable to SeanH and others, and say he supported all Catholic teaching, the response would be, that VOTF said that at first, too. Ergo, Mr. Kaiser will turn out to be just like VOTF. I’m not that bright and even I can see that’s not good logic.
I can, however, believe that it is difficult for Robin to correspond with the Padovanos.
on July 7th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Jean, did you check out who are listed on the links page? Why would groups who are not loyal to the Church Magisterium be listed if there is not an agenda? I need to explain I am neither liberal or conservative I blieve what the Church teaches. I can’t figure out why would groups who are not faithful with the Church teachings every be listed?
on July 7th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Robin, what do you mean by “not loyal” to the teachings of the church?
What proof do you have that these organizations are ‘not loyal” to the teachings of the church?
If you CAN provide proof that these groups are “not loyal” to the teachings of the church, explain how this makes Mr. Kaiser’s group “not loyal” to the teachings of the church.
I have, among my friends, people who tell me my belief in Purgatory is heretical. In fact, my whole family thinks my belief in Purgatory is superstitious or heretical, since none of them is Catholic. I continue to talk with these people because a) I love them and b) we share other points of faith in common.
So until you can show me statements from Mr. Kaiser himself that prove he is “not loyal” to church teaching, I suggest you stop slandering him by association.
on July 7th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Look at the first paragraph of Mr. Kaiser’s post:
I am NOT basing our movement on a close reading of the documents of Vatican II but on a 21st century evaluation of where we are as a Church and what we need to do in order to meet our mission. Those in favor of “the divinely instituted hierararchical constitution of the Church” can, of course, like Talmudic scholarsm, quote paragraphs 18 and 19 of LG (and other grafs) to support a position that simply isn’t working in the context of our times.
It doesn’t get much clearer than that. This isn’t about instituting the vision of the Second Vatican Council. Its about what “we” need to do to institue “our vision”. The “we” and “our” being, evidently, those that don’t share anything resembling a Catholic ecclesiology and who believe that VII was some kind of shell game that now needs to be abandoned. This isn’t about conservative or liberal. Its about someone who doesn’t share our faith attempting to hoist their agenda on those that do. If it was a traditonalist attempting to do this, my reaction would be the same.
on July 7th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Matthew, you haven’t made anything evident . You have only expressed your opinion that, because Mr. Kaiser says his organization is NOT based on a close reading of Vat2 documents, the “our” in “Take Back Our Church” “must refer to those that don’t share anything resembling a Catholic ecclesiology and who believe that VII was some kind of shell game that now needs to be abandoned.”‘
However, I think my original contention that “Take Back Our Church” is a provocative name that will divide Catholics instead of bring them together, has been supported by the responses to this thread.
I would further go out on a limb and contend that the name of the organization and the links to some controversial organizations on the Web site have affected the conclusions some people are drawing about Mr. Kaiser’s intentions.
But neither the name of Mr. Kaiser’s organization nor the links on his Web site prove anything about his loyalty to church teaching.
on July 7th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Jean,
I guess I shouldn’t say Kaiser rejects Vatican II entirely. He seems to accept the parts of it that fit his agenda, which he spells out very clearly: Americans starting an “enculturated autochthonous Church”. Other parts he rejects, those which reiterate the Church’s divinely institued hierachical sturcture, which of course don’t fit his agenda. But thats ok because given that he was there “conducting Sunday night salons” he can impart hidden gnosis to us about which sections of the documents are authoritive and which we must reject because they just put there to “bring a conservative minority into the consensus.” Hello? Anybody else find that somewhat strange? Is how we read conciliar documents?
on July 7th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Sorry for the typos, I’m in a hurry.
on July 7th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Okay here goes…. If any of the views on any Catholic website is not faithful to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church they then are not faithful to the Church and/or Magisterium. I explained I am a convert, we as Catholics do not pick and choose what to believe in as if we were in a candy store. If someone has trouble understanding any teaching you then need to pray for Grace to understand it. I don’t know how I can be any clearer about this. We cease to be Catholic and then become Protestant, Protestant churches actually vote on what their doctrine will be in each different church. The catholic Church is not a democracy as many think. Please read your Catholic Catechism.
on July 7th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Matthew, no, we need to read the Vatican II documents in the correct context, with a Catholic mind and conscience. We need to know our Catechism, tradition etc. We also need to know that Vatican II is just a rewrite of Vatican I as we would understand it in our time.
on July 7th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Notable that Cardinal Law, who repeatedly sent known pedophiles in the way of innocent children, passes Sean’s litmus test with a score of a hundred.
There must , therefore, be something wrong with what the ‘church’ teaches.
on July 7th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
“Notable that Cardinal Law, who repeatedly sent known pedophiles in the way of innocent children, passes Sean’s litmus test with a score of a hundred. ”
Yeah, and that shows, at most, that Cardinal Law is a bad Catholic. Your point?
on July 7th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
Cop out, it is not the Churches’ Teachings it is the person SINNING! One has to know the teachings and live them, it’s called “free will” God does not want a puppet. He wants us to live Holy lives because he loves us! God is perfect as is his Church, it is people who are not.
on July 7th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
I certainly think any Catholic can be sympathetic to Kaiser’s arguments without prearranged litmus tests based on false principles (which leads to some of the uncharitable ad hominem attacks delivered above). Perhaps our most important task is distinguishing between what are legitimate options for our Church and what are impositions of American thought that are not appropriate to a heirarchical Church.
In the most recent issue of The Tablet, David Gibson made an excellent case for the folly of assuming that “our Church” is equivalent with “American Catholicism.” In the case he addresses, misguided Catholic conservatives and traditionalists are trying to build a “City on a Hill” in the hinterlands–an enterprise every American recognizes as uniquely American, and which every American should recognize as doomed from the outset. Our engagement with the larger Church and its existing structures–and our participation in its constant renewal–is far more important than either Kaiser’s proposed democratic Church or Tom Monaghan’s perverse misreading of St. Augustine.
Does Kaiser make excellent points about the failure of accountability in the hierarchy of the contemporary Church around the world? Of course–who would argue otherwise, given the last five years? Given our acceptance of that point, what change is possible, and what change is impossible?
on July 7th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
Matthew, as a former Anglican in which national churches have grown so far apart that they are fraying at the seams, I am leery of “enculturated autochthonous Church.”
But the church in Ireland, whence my ancestors, have a beautiful tradition of servant-bishops as exemplified by many of the bishops of Lindisfarne where they preached the faith. So I am also drawn to some of Mr. Kaiser’s ideas as well.
In any case, until I know more about what Mr. Kaiser is about, I’m not going to freak out or condemn him for the ideas I THINK he might have.
Robin, you are clearly sincere in your wish to defend the faith, but doesn’t that faith call us to extend a fair hearing to people before we accuse them of not being faithful?
And if the Holy Spirit is guiding the church, as I believe it is, then how can Mr. Kaiser or anyone else destroy it with a few links on a Web site even assuming that was his aim?
OK, time for my penance of silence now. I don’t think I can add anything more to this thread.
on July 7th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
Jean, the reason I need to let the truth be known about the Roman Catholic Church is because even though the Holy Spirit guides our Church when people speak untruthes of the faith it then leads many away and others then question and because of this they can lose thier souls. For some reason on this site too many don’t want to hear the truth instead we complain about all the things that are wrong in the Church instead of inproving ourselves. We all need to live a life as Holy as we can, so it can be like the pebble in the puddle and the ripples go out into the world. I tell my confirmation class we need to be like St. Francis of Asisi, preach the Gospel where ever we go if need be use words. I think it is time for me to keep my mouth shut because unfortunatley most in these times don’t want to hear the truth. I will live my life quietly and just offer it up for all people who are unbelievers or doubting. After awhile you just let Jesus do it . To me it is so sad all the lost souls!
on July 7th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
A rew points -
Robin is correct when she says this is not about conservative or liberal, but about believing revealed Truth as the Church proposes It for our belief. That is the essence of being Catholic. That is faith.
As for VOTF, I did not say it was not a response to the abuse crisis. I said it was and is being used by many of its members to promote other agendas as well. Indeed, I believe they are promoting other agendas at the expense of addressing sexual abuse. A case in point - if you go to their web site you will find posted articles highly critical of the Church’s recent direction on seminarian formation and homosexuality. I direct your attention to the John Jay report on the sex abuse crisis and you will find that over 80% of the victims were boys, and that the single largest group of abused children were post-pubescent teenage boys. These abusers were not “pedophiles” but sexual predators (I know because I used to prosecute them) - and as to this group of victims - homosexual predators. Was this the whole problem? Absolutely not, but it was obviously a big part of it. Many VOTF ignore this at the possible expense of young victims because it doesn’t align with their political agendas.
My point in comparing Mr. Kaiser’s movement is the same. He says it’s about a more democratic American Church, but what he means is a Church that agrees with him. That’s why I want to know what he believes. If we all got to vote on everything tomorrow and the results didn’t suit him, I’m sure we’d have a takebackourchurchagain.org the very next day.
Finally, I have no “litmus test” unless it is that a bishop, or any member of the priesthood, ought to hold and teach the Faith as the Church proposes it - period. As for Cardinal Law, I don’t know how he made it in to the discussion, but I always find it interesting that the abuse crisis is blamed on the ancient heirarchical Church with its orthodox bishops. The truth is that Cardinal Law - like Cardinal Mahoney who is still covering things up - was never considered “conservative,” and that many of the supposed “conservative” bishops have not had nearly the number of problems. Moreover, isn’t it interesting that the vast majority of the abuse cases involved priests ordained between 1955 and 1980 when the “Spirit of V II” was all the rage and that the numbers dropped precipitously during the reign of JPII - look it up. Paul Shanley was all about building a people’s Church and making the Church “relevant” to youth - all the while abusing them.
I am not saying there is a connection of the abuse crisis to liberal or conservative wings, but that the abuse had nothing to do with Church doctrine, or any particular bishop’s adherence to it, but it is being used by many as a reason to attack that doctrine.
on July 7th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
To Fr Keane,
“I certainly think any Catholic can be sympathetic to Kaiser’s arguments without prearranged litmus tests based on false principles”
SeanH’s post wasn’t being unsympathetic. He was simply stating that if he was going to join this movement, he wanted to make sure that it was rooted in the fullness of Catholic teaching- a teaching which is in opposition to the social evils mentioned in his list, evils which are incommesurable with the Church’s teaching on the dignity of the human person.
I have absolutely no beef with you second paragraph, I’m with you 100% in being suspicious of ‘americanizing’ the Catholic Church. And I’m not at all unfavorable to Kaiser’s thesis that we need “servant-bishops”. Christ made it plain that ‘hierarchy’ should be rooted in service- Those who would be first should become the servant of all. I DO disagree with Kaiser’s hermeneutic with regard to the documents of the Second Vatican Council- such that we can ignore wide swaths that are inconvenient to our aims- because they were just put in their to arrive at a conservative consensus. Don’t you also disagree with this? Doesn’t this betray a certain lack of faith regarding how the Spirit works through the Councils of the Church?
Jean,
I hope I’m not freaking out because of what I think Kaiser thinks. As I said earlier, he makes it pretty clear in his article and post what he thinks, and I find what he thinks somewhat troubling given that he is trying to start a significant movement within the Church I love.
on July 7th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
At least thats what I think…I think.
on July 8th, 2006 at 7:07 am
No one questions that the church should always be reforming itself–”Ecclesia semper reformandi.”
It may sound attractive to attack bishop bashing but the facts are that the bishops are not being pressured enough to do the right thing.
Just follow the bishops from the turn of the 20th century to now and you will see bishops replete with empire building and little spirituality.
Unless we realize that the bishops are the problem we will get nowhere. Unless you think that ecclesia semper reformandi does not apply to them.
on July 8th, 2006 at 10:44 am
SeanH,
Here’s what you wrote: “If you visit their web site or listen to their members now, it is clear that VOTF is simply a political platform for dissenting Catholcs. The abuse crisis is just a convenient excuse.” If your considered position is that certain members dissent from some doctrines, then who would disagree? In any Catholic group of that size, you’ll find a range of opinions. The question is whether those opinions (the ones you oppose) form the reason for organizing, and whether they animate its purpose.
No one should be fooled by your radical simplification of the John Jay Study data. I’m always amazed by how successful Dioegenes and others have been at advancing this line of argument. But we’ve been over this before:
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/index.php/?id=305
on July 8th, 2006 at 11:15 am
I have some sympathy for Kaiser’s proposal. I also believe the the episcopacy was divinely instituted. I do not find any inconsistency between these two positions. All governance, so afar as it is legitimate, must serve those governed. This implies that moral accountability is part of governance. Certainly those who have governed badly should not be rewarded with further positions of power. And those who are governed should have some say in the choice of those who are to govern. As I recall, neither Ambrose nor Augustine became bishops by a process resembling the one we now have.
on July 8th, 2006 at 11:21 am
Grant,
I direct your attention to the 2004 study by Dr. William D’Antonio and Dr. Anthony Pogorelc outlining the demographics of the VOTF membership. You will find that they do not represent a “range of opinions.” The group is overwhelmingly white, wealthy, and liberal. In fact, I have met people who initially went to VOTF meetings because of their outrage and were turned off by the virulently anti-Church attitudes they encountered.
As to the JJ study - even if I grant your premise that ONLY 27.6% of the victims were truly post-pubescent - that’s still a pretty big problem. Also, if you take a close look at the stats, the older the victim the more likely the victim is male - and among perpetrators, the most likely commited male on male offenses, followed by male on both male and female, followed by male on female, followed by female perpetrators.
on July 8th, 2006 at 11:22 am
BTW - I’m still waiting for my answers.
on July 8th, 2006 at 11:23 am
Thanks Bill Mazzella for the suggestion that we read Robert Kaiser’s book to get a better handle on what he has to say. Will do. That sounds fair and reasonable.
And I love Fr. Keane’s comment that given the failure of accountability in the hierarchy of the contemporary church, we need to ask “what change is possible, and what change is impossible”? Other respondents have put this question on the table in their own fashion by volunteering strong concerns about the Church’s not being true to itself if it changes in certain ways. Several have said, in one way or another, that they didn’t like the idea of the Catholic Church becoming more “Protestant.” The Maid of Kent’s wry comment that Kaiser can find his ideas implemented on a certain website– which turns out to be that of the Episcopal Church– led me to poke around a bit on that site and find a speech by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury that speaks to the question that Fr. Keane raises.
I had been struck by an earlier speech in which Williams dealt with the divisive challenges within the Anglican Communion with great patience and tact, suggesting that there might be various ways of handling dissent on various issues with the resilience that is part of their tradition. But the address to the Church of England General Synod on July 11 faces up to the really daunting realities of maintaining the essential unity of his institution in the face of increasing division and a certain fragility in local structures. He stresses a need to make an articulate case for the core of the Anglican tradition that is to be maintained as a source of unity, but his comments on how to proceed in the face of the personal divisions that can make it impossible for us to hear each other sometimes are not unlike the counsel of Cardinal Bernardin, cited so helpfully above by Bill Collier. Archbishop Williams says:
“a concern for unity - for unity. . . as a means to living in the truth - is not about placing the survival of an institution above the demands of conscience. God forbid. But it is a question of how we work out, faithfully, attentively, obediently what we need to do and say in order to remain within sight and sound of each other in the fellowship to which Christ has called us. It has never been easy and it isn’t now. But it is the call that matters, and that sustains us together in the task.”
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_76553_ENG_HTM.htm?menu=undefined
on July 8th, 2006 at 11:25 am
“And those who are governed should have some say in the choice of those who are to govern.”
Is there anyway that this could happen without episcopal selection becoming a political spectacle (a la the recent ECUSA General Convention)?
on July 8th, 2006 at 11:57 am
SeanH:
I’ve read the study. It has no bearing on my criticism of your statement that the scandal was an “excuse” to organize VOTF. (I don’t know what “virulently anti-church” means.)
You must have missed the part in my post where I said I’m not suggesting that homosexuality had nothing to do with the abuse crisis. (And data are not premises–you obviously “grant” them, since you were happy to cite your 81 percent figure.)
on July 8th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Matthew:
Check out religious orders of men and women for a start.
There is quite a history within the European church of electing bishops. But that was cut loose a long time ago because, dontcha know, “the Church ain’t no flipping democracy.”
Note that the current method of episcopal imposition from across the Tiber hasn’t exactly resulted in a vibrant, lively, growing European church, either.
on July 8th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Jimmy,
I belong to a religious order which runs on a democratic model. I cannot see it working at the level of the local Church. Though I’m proud of the democratic heritige of my Order, I admit that their are times when I yearn for Jesuit efficiency. :)
on July 8th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Matthew:
“And those who are governed should have some say in the choice of those who are to govern.”
Is there anyway that this could happen without episcopal selection becoming a political spectacle (a la the recent ECUSA General Convention)?
The simple answer is yes.
on July 8th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Joseph,
I admire your optimism, though I admit I don’t share it. I’m not saying it is not possible or desirable- I just can’t see it happening in the current mileu.
on July 8th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Joseph,
…I should add that not only do I think its not currently possible, but also that it is not currently desirable- for the time being. One of my chief reasons is that I think there is too much focus right now (particularily amongst the laity) on ad intra affairs to the neglect of the primary mission of the Church to the world. I think a democratic model would only serve to exacerbate this. Moreover, I fear that such a model would only make the bitter divisions in the Church greater. My two cents…
on July 8th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Yes, VOTF used the abuse crisis to try and change the Church, check out Goal # 3. Also I have asked people to check out this website: http://www.votfnj.org/ read every thing on it it allso has podcasts to listen to some of thier meetings, yes they want to change the Church into just a Protestant (take the word apart) denomination. I you don’t check it out then stop belly aching. If we change the Church we then cease being Catholic and become Protestant. If people are that unhappy and dislike the Catholic Church so much you need to pray for Grace to understand. No has the right and I mean no one to change the Roman Catholic Church just so they can be “happy” It is not about us, me, myself or I, it is about JESUS!
on July 8th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Matthew:
I said nothing about democracy. To call for “some say” is not to call for democracy. And I in no way mean to suggest that the authority of a bishop comes from the people of the diocese. But the present system only goes back to the 19th century and it leaves too much to the personal inclinations and limited knowledge of the Bishops of Rome, who have not always chosen wisely, and perhaps tend to think that those who they appoint, with a minimum of input, are their repesentatives rather than their colleagues in the episcopacy.
on July 8th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Robin, you state: “We also need to know that Vatican II is just a rewrite of Vatican I as we would understand it in our time.” I strongly disagree with this statement. Perhaps you could clarify.
on July 8th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
As my former pastor used to say, we’ve had fierce disagreements within the Christian fold since the beginning. To me, this phenomenon is a sign of health and vitality, not a danger to be avoided. God watches over all of us, and we will be OK — even if we continue to poke at one another’s arguments.
I’m trying as time allows to study the history of the Christian/Catholic Church. I attach special importance to the primitive Church because these folks were closest to Christ’s message, so to speak. If one looks at the timespan of Catholic Church history, one sees more formal, imperialistic forces at work — governance, liturgy, liturgical language, etc. — that would gradually but surely relegate the laity to subservience to the hierarchy. These developments did greatly influence the creation and maintenance of a clerical culture that would, inter alia, be characterized by arrogance toward the laity on the part of church leaders and the resulting lack of transparency and accountability (and I’m not limiting these comments to the sexual abuse scandals).
Forget the Catechism. Forget the various pious extra-liturgical devotions that were developed to make the laity feel more in tune with their Lord since they could not understand what would become the Trindentine Mass.
Go back to the gospels and the earliest Christian communities. That’s where we must begin. To renew.
on July 8th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Robin: as a “newbie” you need to learn the difference between what the Church of the bad old days called Creed, Code and Cult. Or, in these times, the hierarchy of truths.
Not everything about the church is an article of faith. For instance, celibacy is a DISCIPLINE not a dogma. It could be changed by the wave of a papal hand.
When I was a kid a good friend whose mother was a Lutheran was told by the parish priest during catechism when the subject of “outside the church there is no salvation” was being explained, that his mother would not be in heaven with him and his father!
Usury was once forbidden as sinful. Slavery was justified by theology and practiced by religious orders. And on and on.
Obviously not everything the church preached or preaches has the same value to one’s salvation journey. To ignore the ridiculous is to retain one’s sanity and faith.
You go ahead and believe every jot and tittle that rolls from the lips and pens of anyone who is above a lowly laysheep. Some of us got away from that long, long ago, and our faith is all the stronger by doing so.
on July 8th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
To Jimmy Mac’s comments, I would only add that those who ignore the lessons of history are bound to repeat them. Those of us in our 50s and above have the advantage of first-hand experience. We know the spirit of Vatican II (a pastoral, not prescriptive, event) and its challenge to the Church at large to forge ahead for sake of renewal. We shake our heads in sadness (and not a little disgust at times) when other members of our generation talk of “reforming the reform.” Vatican II was not about reform. It was about “making new again,” restoring life — health and vitality — to a Church that needed to change course. The old ways were not working.
My former pastor used to tell us how he saw JPII and like-minded trying to apply scotchtape to a rotting old egg that contained new life just itching to burst forth. Benedict is apparently trying to do the same. As we all know, however, life with its promise of change will not be constrained. Not at all! Others see the institutional Church as a crusty, smelly old container holding the precious jewel of faith. It’s the jewel, in the final analysis, that counts, not the Church’s man-made trappings.
Our generation gained the above insights from experience. Unfortunately, too many younger Catholics today (those still in the Church, that is) cling to the trappings, forgetting they are far apart from the jewel. They would follow two elderly popes who likewise confused the jewel with the container and unwittingly, perhaps, made it more difficult for new life to emerge from an old egg.
Heed the lessons of history!
on July 8th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
First of all, I’m not that young, I happen to be 47. Any way the way most of you speak about the Roman Catholic Church is much different than the one I know, if I go with your way of thinking I might as well go back to the church of pick and choose. I allso happen to teach history so stop assuming (take the word apart) you know me! I can’t fathom why you don’t want to live with the teachings of the Magisterium, Catechism, etc. is beyond me About your generation sir, well at least during the reformation people that didn’t agree with the Church left instead of thinking every thing should be “thier” way. But that is how your generation is never listening to authority! I really am tired of the geration that never grew up and having to pick up the pieces you haver made a mess of things. I will pray for you all, I pray you don’t lose your soul this!
on July 8th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
Sorry for the typos the sentence should read as: I really am tired of the generation that never grew up and mine having to pick up the pieces when they make a mess of things.
on July 8th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
Joseph,
Ok, maybe I am just lacking in imagination. Can you flesh out some alternatives?
Joe,
I agree that robust disagreement can be a good thing, but this presupposes a foundational agreement on the authoritative sources from which our arguments stem- Scripture, Tradition, Magesterium. Moreover, we cannot argue from one source in order to undercut the authority of another source (ie. trying to argue from scripture and tradition in order to undercut Magesterial teaching.) We can understand individual statements within these sources only in light of the others, and previous understanding can be revised based on the aquisition of novel perspectives that history provides.
Jimmy Mac,
The hierarchy of truths doesn’t mean we are only bound to the upper-crust dogmas, and that we can believe or disbelieve the others willy nilly.
on July 8th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
Grant,
What do I mean by anti-Church?
If you support abortion “rights” you are anti-Church.
If you support the ordination of women you are anti-Church.
If you deny the True Presence you are anti-Church.
If you believe homosexual sex is not sinful you are anti-Church.
Please explain to me how people that hold these beliefs are not against the Church.
Finally, and again, I never said that the abuse crisis was an excuse to form VOTF, but that members of the VOTF have used it as an excuse to promote other agendas.
on July 8th, 2006 at 7:40 pm
SeanH,
I’m uncertain how you mean to use the word “church.” Your list of ifs didn’t help.
Again, here’s what you wrote: “If you visit their web site or listen to their members now, it is clear that VOTF is simply a political platform for dissenting Catholcs. The abuse crisis is just a convenient excuse.” You defined VOTF as “simply a political platform,” then explained that the “abuse crisis is just a convenient excuse.” Am I correct in thinking that you now say that the abuse crisis has been an excuse for some members of VOTF “promote other agendas”?
This, I’m sure you would agree, is true of many Catholics, not simply members of VOTF.
on July 8th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
I don’t understand what you are saying Grant, Sean gave you a list of iteams against Church teachings. Are you insinuating that we can just decide for ourselves what we can believe like being our own Pope or God?
on July 8th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
I am encouraged by all the discussion. I want people to think about the possibilities, although I am not sure my most severe critics, those who question my orthodoxy, have actually read the TBOC website, or my most recent book A Church in Search of Itself, or my memoir of Vatican II, Clerical Error, or my Rome Diary, written over the past six years. (You can see that at my journal of religion and culture in cyberspace:
If they did, I don't think they'd have to wonder whether I am a good Catholic, They would know that I am, even if I do not feel it necessary (as Sean H suggests) to pass a litmus test on a number of moral (not faith) issues, not necessary or even useful because that would distract from my main message, that, by giving everyone a voice and a vote, we can work out some moral issues together, and better locally and by consensus than by relying on some nameless Curial official in Rome to tell us what and how to think about legitimately disputed questions in the Church.
I want to thank all of you (and Peter Nixon) for opening up this discussion. You all have interesting things to say. I found a quote today that may be relevant here:
"Daring ideas are like chessmen moved forward. They may be beaten, but they may start a winning game." -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
At TBOC, we have some daring ideas. If they stand up, or if they only start a winning game, then we may want to conclude, in time, that the Holy Spirit is with us.
Robin: we "link" as many groups as we can on our web site, not because we necessarily agree with them, but because if we link with them, they will link with us, and thereby give their members a chance to come and see what we have in mind.
Jim Keane SJ: You talk about "the need for engagement with the larger Church." Yes, I agree, and we must never forget that. But the originality of TBOC's proposal is this, that we are focused on our U.S. Church, and that it is entirely legitimate for Americans to invent our own governance structures, as, for example, Bishop John England did when he was bishop of Charleston, SC, from 1820-1840. He sought the help of laymen, who helped him, a recent emigre from Ireland, write a constitution for his vast diocese based on the U.S. Constitution. His fellow bishops might have followed his example, but they were always jealous of his great gifts and his eloquence, and they rather preferred the absolute rule they enjoyed (accountable only to the pope, which made them, pratically speaking, accountable to no one) to the kind of consultative rule that England established in North and South Carolina and Georgia.
Joseph Gannon: I agree, that there's no inconsistency between a "divinely instituted Church" and the TBOC proposal for an autochthonous American Church. Divinely instiuted yes. But not necessarily "hierarchical" Church as we have come to know it. If it wasn't always a hierarchical Church, that means that we can adjust the governance structure depending on the concrete circumstances of time and place. In a note today, a lawyer friend, Paul Kelly of Maine, and also a former Jesuit, put it better than I could:
QUOTE: In a trial before a judge without jury, I got wound up and poured out my heart in support of our search for fundamental fairness, until the judge, the decider and sole authority in the room, asked, “Brother, do you have any authority at all for what you are asking this Court to do, any citations of law even from other jurisdictions, or is all this based solely on your own /Ipse Dixit/?”
The only response I could give was, “No, your Honor, we have not located any precedents from our own or other jurisdictions, but our position is far more than mere /Ipse dixit, /based as it on common sense, the dignity of our client, and a fair resolution of this dispute. It is not necessary to base our arguments on precedents, because the Common Law is not a stagnant pond but a flowing stream. This case will become a precedent.”
So, too, the Catholic Church, managed and operated by a very tiny group of clerics in a hierarchy numbering approximately four thousand eighty hundred fifty (4, 850) Due mainly to politics, not sacraments, those few men maintain absolute power over the lives of the remaining members of the Church in the world, the people-people, numbering approximately one billion, two hundred million (1,200,000,000) They are responsible for the current and most major crisis the Church has ever experienced.
Take Back Our Church sees a way in which to break the chains of autocratic power limited to the very few, all of whom must be celibate males and trained as priests, by beginning in America where our own culture is best summed up in one word “freedom.” As Americans, we also respect authority and law and customs and mores, in such a way that no person is above the law, not even a Cardinal or a Bishop of the Roman Church. And that is the crux of the matter:ENDQUOTE
Matthew: you're part of a democratic religious community, and you express some envy for "Jesuit efficiency." If you only knew. I was a Jesuit for ten years, and I must repeat a common, jocose description of the Society that I knew: "An absolute monarchy attenuated by the insubordination of its subjects, and the stupidity of its superiors." The common image of Ignatius Loyola's Jesuits as "a military order in which everyone took orders from the top" was blasted several years ago by Joseph Conwell, SJ, in a book called Impelling Spirit. Also by Chris Lowney in his book Heroic Leadership: Best Practices from a 450-year-old Company that Changed the World.
Jean Raber: you asked me to boil down the message in 200 words. How about this:
A thousand years after Pope Gregory VII set up a class system in the Church -- priests on one side with all the say-so, and the people on the other with none -- the Fathers of Vatican II wrote a charter to give the people a sense of ownership and a sense of citizenship in their Church.
Then we sat back and waited for our priests and bishops in the United States to implement that charter – to give us, perhaps, a voice and a vote, American-style. They didn’t really do that. But then, it was not very realistic, was it, to expect they would? Few lords willingly become servants.
It is realistic, however, to come up with our own plan, if only a starting point – to give American Catholics a voice and a vote. We are not calling for a schism nor are we challenging the faith we hold and the beliefs we express at Mass in the Apostles Creed. We are challenging the way our Church is governed – unaccountably, top down in a bottom up kind of world.
In 1978, Pope John Paul II told millions of Poles, “You can take back your country if you demand it.” We’re saying the same thing. “We can take back our Church if we demand it.”
Please visit our website, www.takebackourchurch.org, read and understand our strategy, sign on to the cause, and tell your friends. If we have a million signatures — no, a million voices — our bishops will start listening.
Robert Blair Kaiser
rbkaiser@justgoodcompany.com
on July 8th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Matthew:
There is no doubt that there have been alternatives, and this should suffice to show that there could be again.
on July 8th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
I belong to the Roman Catholic Church not the American Catholic Church. I see a split coming as some see a more Protestant and democratic Catholic Church and others see the Church that Jesus started the Roman Catholic Church, upon this rock I will build my Church Jesus said as he handes the keys of the Church to Peter, our first Bishop. I believe our lives are not are own but God’s and we have the freedom to do what we ought and not what we want. We all need to live as a Holy life as we each can and not for our selves but to serve, know and love God. Mr. Kaiser every link on your site is from a dissedent group, we do not pick and choose what we believe in. We do have the teachings of the Church which if any one has trouble with them they need to pray for Grace to understand them, when you do it is beautiful. You will then have true freedom!
on July 9th, 2006 at 7:32 am
As I expected, Mr Kaiser refused to answer even the most simple questions regarding central issues. How can you ask people to follow you if they have no idea where you are leading them? If you won’t answer my questions - which I believe you won’t because many would stop listening to you if you did - at least explain why you won’t.
You dismiss my questions as matters of morals, and not faith. What kind of nonsense is that? If my morals are not grounded in my faith they are simply my opinions.
On the one hand you are appealing to the “charter” of the Fathers of Vatican II, and then you say “I am NOT basing our movement on a close reading of the documents of Vatican II but on a 21st century evaluation of where we are as a Church and what we need to do in order to meet our mission.”
Which is it??
If your vision leads to a pro-abortion church or a church with women priests or any one of a number of other changes in doctrine, why should Catholics follow you?
What you want is not a renewed Catholic Church, but a Church according to Kaiser. Why are you any different from Martin Luther or John Calvin?
on July 9th, 2006 at 11:36 am
SeanH, doesn’t Mr. Kaiser answer your questions collectively when he says:
“We are not calling for a schism nor are we challenging the faith we hold and the beliefs we express at Mass in the Apostles Creed. ”
Just wondering why this answer isn’t good enough. It seems to answer “yes” to your list as well as everything else in Catholic teaching.
As Robin has rightly pointed out, we’re not supposed to be Cafeteria Catholics. So I’m interested in why you selected the items in your list and not things like “Do you believe in the Trinity?” “Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the incarnate son of God?” “Do you believe in the assumption of the Blessed Virgin?” “Do you believe in Purgatory?”
And, assuming Mr. Kaiser is still a Catholic in good standing in his parish, and his priest and bishop find his faith sufficient to sit at the Lord’s Table, why should his beliefs be an issue at all?
on July 9th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
To the ultramontanists who are posting here, please keep this in mind:
Omnia videre, multa dissumulare, pauca corriegere = See all, keep a lot to yourself and correct a few things. Motto of Pope Gregory the Great.
Notice everything. Overlook much. Improve a little. John XXIII
And Robin: NEVER equate the pope with God!
on July 9th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
JIMMY MAC, I now understand what we are to do, shut up if we do not agree with you. Read and learn your Catechism, please. Jesus did hand the keys to the Church to Peter and said upon this rock I will build my Church. Read your BIBLE, Catholic version, the Protestant version doesn’t have the right cannon. I know I was a Presbyterian. I never said the Pope was God, but he is the Vicar of God! Oh being as stupid as I am looked up ultramontanists no such word couldn’t find it in any dictionary! Boy, do today’s readings go with your attitude. I guess you belong to the church of JIMMYMAC. Why would you stay in a church that you hate so much? Just to be able to say I’m Catholic or are you from the great generation of Baby boomers who think they should have “their” way at all times.Why we forty some things are getting really tired of your adolescent attitudes! Please pray for the Grace to understand the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church or please find another because we don’t get are way. It is Your(God) will be done, not JIMMY MAC’S. I was trying to help any that don’t understand but when a person comes back attacking that must mean you don’t want to listen to that small still voice your heart, it happens to be God’s!
on July 9th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Here are some great links:
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
Roman Catholic Bible allso on-line:
http://nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/
on July 9th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Robin: I’ll keep you in my prayers. You are an example of the sad, sick, defensive, disappearing church that needs to simply go away.
I’ll chalk it all up to a newbie’s zeal. I hope you’ll soon discover a more balanced perspective and keep in mind that this church has to be an ecclesia semper reformanda to survive.
on July 9th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Robin, there’s an article about ultramontanism in the Catholic Encyclopedia online:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm
I take exception to your blanket remarks about Baby Boomers. I would urge you to use your link to the Catechism and read the section on calumny before you post again. This bit might be especially helpful to you:
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279
- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
on July 9th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Jean, It amazes me that people insult me tell things as though I’m stupid then I don’t insult any one and then I get told I’m being insulting sorry but I don’t appreciate the double standard. I was told in an earlier post because I wasn’t older over fifty, I happen to be forty seven and because I’m a “newbe” I didn’t what I was talking about. I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings but “every one” should watch their posts as if they were the only ones who knew any thing. I live by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which I decided to do when I converted! I will read the article, thank you. I will not post any more as for some reason I don’t see the discussion as a give and take, for some reason most on thissite just want the Church to reflect only thier views, that is not the Catholic Church it then becomes Protestant. During the Reformation when people didn’t agree they left the Church and formed thier own!
on July 9th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
Robin –
Yesterday I asked if you could explain how Vatican II is “just a rewrite” of Vatican I. Are you going to clarify this point?
on July 9th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Yes, Roberta I will. This is from the Vatican web site;
http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01051997_p-21_en.html
The Pope, therefore elevated the prayer to the Lord, so that in front of the new bubbling of fervor and of works in the Catholic Church, even the separated brothers would feel a new call to unity(10).
The word “pastoral,” in the mind of the Pope, did not restrict itself to something practical, separated from doctrine: it is inconceivable to have pastoral without doctrine, which is the first foundation.
Ignorance, contempt, and disownment of truth are the cause and the root of all evil, which disturbs individuals and populations.
Everyone is called to embrace the doctrine of the Gospel; rejecting it, the very foundations of truth, honesty and civility are in danger. John XXIII exhorts, therefore, to present the truth with diligence and to acquire knowledge which deals with celestial life: “Then, only when we have reached the truth that comes from the Gospel and which must be translated into the practice of life, can our soul relish the tranquil possession of peace and of joy”(11).
Opening the Council, the Pope on October 11, 1962 declared that the main aim of it was to keep and to teach in the most efficient form the sacred consignment of Christian doctrine; and he indicated the lines of this magisterial exercise.
The auspicated renewal of the life and mission of the Church must occur in the faith of the sacred principles, to the immutable doctrine, following the footprints of the ancient tradition: “The Council wants to transmit pure and integral doctrine, without attenuation or distortions.”
This sure and immutable doctrine, faithfully respected, must be deepened and presented in a way that answers the needs of our time. The Pope distinguishes between the substance (entire, precise and immutable doctrine), ” fidele obsequium est praestandum,” and the form (the presentation), (quae cum magisteriom cuius indoles praesertim pastoralis est, magis congruat)”(12).
The pastorality of Vatican II consists in the studding and deepening the doctrine, expressing it in a way in which it can be better understood, accepted and loved.
For some reason I believe it was the times when allot of people just didn’t want to listen to authority and always questioned it. I was born in 1959 so I did lisaten authority or my parents would have punished me so I grew up behind these folks wasn’t easy as every one assumed we were the same. But society was in a mess and it seeped into the Church as Pope PaulVI said the smoke of Satan had entered the Church. People got confused and thought every thing chage dwhen it really hadn’t. That is why the Liturgy is going to be closer to the Latin. I can tell you the Kids my son’s age, 19, are glad they want the correct teachings and language. This group is on fire, my son goes to Seton Hall and is a Catholic Studies major, they want the truth no sugar coating. So, if you get a chance take a look and read this site with an unbiased mind.
on July 9th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Jean,
I picked the questions that I did because I did some research on Mr. Kaiser and found that his positions on these issues are contrary to the teachings of the Church.
What I find so galling is that people like Mr. Kaiser frequently avoid addressing these issues when addressing other Catholics, but only let their hair down, so to speak, when addressing people they know agree with them. I do not think this is the sum total of the Catholic Faith, but they are certainly critical questions in this country and in this age.
As for the Apostle’s Creed - Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and other Protestant faiths include the creed in their liturgy and profess it, but are not Catholic. It is a summary of essential beliefs, it is not the sum total of the Catholic Faith, so saying you believe what it says does not indicate you hold with the teachings of the Church. I am trying to see if Mr. Kaiser is schismatic, his saying he’s not isn’t enough for me, I want to know what he believes.
on July 9th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
SeanH, thanks for clarifying.
Certainly if Mr. Kaiser is misrepresenting himself to be more palatable to a wider audience, we should all be aware of it.
Can you post/cite your research so we’re all on the same page?
on July 9th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
Robin,
It would be interesting to hear the details of your son’s education. Just as interesting will be his position when he graduates.
If he wants the truth without any sugar coating he will do just fine.
on July 9th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
I’m sure he will do fine as he lives by the teachings of the Church. They are allso taught at his school no left or right just truth. The school is under Bishop Meyers and he knows what he is doing.
on July 10th, 2006 at 10:12 am
This is just a reminder to try to refrain from personal attacks (and from trying to bait someone into a personal attack).
on July 10th, 2006 at 11:51 am
Robin- I just want to offer you some support in your position of faithfulness to the Church and the Magisterium. I am a “boomer” but a convert, in 1972-not a newbie therefore. I wouldn’t deny that there are some problems with the hierarchy and the structures in which they operate. From my point of view, this sometimes serves to perpetuate heterodox views in chancery offices, so that this criticism cuts both ways. And of course we know that, like the rest of us, bishops are sinners and can and have at times misused their authority. But that does not undermine Catholic truth.
I just returned from a week at the Toronto Oratory Summer School. The fathers of the Oratory, all brilliant men and scholars, teach a week-long 6 hour a day course in the Catechism. You might enjoy attending it next year. You would find support for your faithfulness. There is also a second week on a different topic each year; this year it is the Church in the early 20th century. Unfortunately I was unable to stay for the 2nd week, but will be back next year. At the Oratory you find a model for “the reform of the reform”-intelligent and learned teaching faithful to the magisterium, dignified liturgies in both Latin and English, priests advocating and available for frequent confession and spiritual direction, devotions like Vespers and Benediction. It is inspiring and encouraging to know that these priests are training in their seminary future priests from all over the US and the world.
So be of good cheer!
Susan Peterson
on July 10th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Jean,
His positions on women’s ordination, contraception, euthanasia, and divorce are pretty clearly addressed in a variety of places including his books, A Church in Search of Itself, Clerical Error, and the Encyclical that Never Was. His opinions on homosexuality is less clear from which I have found but is hinted at in an atricle he wrote with Jon Meacham for Newsweek, Sex and the Church: A Case For Change Newsweek -May 6, 2002. I also direct you to his article for the Catholic New Times, a distinctly heterodox publication, The hierarchical versus the people’s church, and Vatican II at 40: has it been subverted?
In fact, Mr Kaiser doesn’t just advocate a change in the heirarchy, but its elimination - that is the elimination, completely, of the priesthood.
His position on abortion is unclear from what I have found, but I suspect he is “pro-choice.” My reason for this suspicion is based on some quotes from him regarding the last election in which he made the time worn and erroneous argument that it is hypocritical for George Bush take a pro-life position while conducting a war in Iraq. It has been my experience that people who make these kinds of arguments, as well as equating the death penalty with abortion, usually support abortion “rights.” I would actually like to hear what his position is directly, but I doubt I will.
on July 10th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
I’d like to raise my voice in support of Sean H’s very appropriate challenge to Kaiser. The refusal of Mr. Kaiser to level with us about his attitude toward critically important moral issues (and an important doctrinal, perhaps even dogmatic issue - women’s ordination!) is something that requires discernment.
Catholic teaching on homosexuality is solidly based on historical critical exegesis of Scripture (which is why Raymond Brown, despite his reputation as a “progressive”, spends almost three pages in his INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT attacking revisionist exegesis on homosexuality). More importantly, the magisterium’s position - quality pastoral care combined with doctrinal intransigence (lion in the pulpit, lamb in the confession) - passes Cardinal Newman’s criteria for development in continuity with Tradition.
Catholic teaching on abortion is found in the earliest post-canonical literature (the Didache), and there’s a remarkable continuity over two-thousand years, despite the complications of earlier (and erroneous) scientific views about human reproduction. More importantly, John Paul II confirms the judgment of the episcopacy and two thousand years of Catholic tradition. It’s very hard to imagine that Catholic teaching on abortion is not proposed infallibly according to the criteria found in LUMEN GENTIUM.
This foot loose and fancy free approach to important doctrinal issues (yes, there is such a thing as moral doctrine!) is not a good sign.
None of this means that one should support extremist positions on the far right. But support of Catholic teaching on abortion, homosexuality, ordination of women, divorce and remarriage, and euthanasia (for starters) makes one “Catholic”, not conservative.
on July 10th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
I haven’t read all the comments, but I just want to say two things.
First - the name ‘takebackOURchurch.org’. Our Church? Maybe I’m missing something, bit isn’t it God’s church. Anyway, who is included in this mysterious ‘our’. In my experience something like this is all about ‘us and them’.
Second - “We have to look at the legislative history of the Council, some of which is written down, and some of which I was personally privvy to because I was there, conducting Sunday night salons and watching the drama of the Council unfold for four sessions.” This makes my blood boil.
I am sorry, but is the argument here that we are supposed to take your word for what happened in these ’salons’ over the documents of the council?
What does that mean? Last man standing who attended the council can then claim anything at all happened there and we should follow his memories instead of the documents?
I am sorry, but I was raised in a ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ world where there was plenty of ‘we are church’ and Jesus is a warm fuzzy but no actual Catechism. As a result I am now the only one of my childhood catholic friends who now practices. It wasn’t until I was an adult and actually read the documents of the council and found that they didn’t say what I was told they said that I realized just how duped I had been by the ’spirit of Vatican II’ crowd.
This looks like old wine in a new bottle. We have tried the ’spirit of Vatican II’. It lead to empty pews and young people leaving in droves. How about we try something different… like Catholicism?
on July 10th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Clearly readers of First Things, the Wanderer et alii are coming or being sent to this blog.
on July 10th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
This thread is quite depressing to me.
I thought of the eulogy for the late Phil Murnion and his vision of a parish (Church) where the lhen Cardinal Ratzinger and Joan Chitister would comfortably worship together.
This thread also makes me think of the short lived on-line discussion group in our parish where folks on all sides just said”Forget about it.” I think they meant people talking at not with one another.
Catholics surely need a place for on line adult discussio nand Commonweal seemed to offer a great place and topics. This is more like “a people adrift”, or as a friend says. ” a people imploding.”P.S. The VOTF folks I’ve read about are probably among the most prayerful and loyal Catholics I’ve seen; also, VOTF was clearly spurned by the continuing sex abuse crisi (see Cardinal George/Fr/McCormack,. Bishop Walsh/Fr.Ochoa.)
on July 10th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
Hello, Bill Mazzella,
Yes, I’m a reader of the WANDERER and FIRST THINGS. But I’ve been a subscriber to the NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER from day one, and have read COMMONWEAL weekly for forty-seven years! So what does that prove? Nothing. The issues here are issues of Catholic identity and fidelity to the teaching authority established by Jesus in His Church, not liberal-conservative issues. I’m an opponent of the Iraq War, worried about expansion of presidential powers, and favor amnesty for Hispanic immigrants. But equivocaton about abortion and euthanasia is not “liberal”, but complicity with the culture of death.
on July 10th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Another point I think worth making regarding Mr Kaiser’s movement is whether it is needed. So many who who share his views want to “save” the Church. What is ironic to me is that empirically speaking, everything they support. to the extent it has been tried, has been an abyssmal failure.
Purely based on numbers, the more influential “progressive” Spirit of V II (vs. those who base their understanding on what Mr. Kaiser’s disparagingly calls “close reading of the documents of Vatican II”) became and continue to be, the fewer Catholics participate in the life of the Church. Mr. Kaiser holds out Cardinals Mahoney and Murphy-O’Connor as good examples of leadersh