First Things First

Be it Ronald Reagan or Neuhaus, it is the ex-liberals that always are the most effective at creating divison favoring conservatives.  After all, they know the other team's playbook.  They are also less burdened by the baggage life long conservatives carry like W.F. Buckley's support for segregation.

A truly diabolical proposal here:  "Now, we need liberal Catholics to do likewise and leave the Catholic Church and join a denomination more in tune with their modernist, secular, political, personal, emotional, and other attachments.  Both sides will be better off once liberal Catholics acknowledge their loyalty is to liberalism first and Catholicism second."

The interesting thing is that people who urge others to quit the church (with considerable unholy success it must be said) often leave the church themselves when they have finished their diabolical work.

"he is attacking loyal and conservative Catholics, like we're the problem in the Church" -- yes, he did say that Catholic fundamentalism is a mental illness.

"In the Catholic church we have some -- many -- who believe they possess the absolute truth and they go on sullying others through slander and defamation and this is wrong. Religious fundamentalism must be combated. It is not religious, God is lacking, it is idolatrous."

Great article!  I agree with you 100%.

Can someone remind us of the policy regarding comments; I think there is some kind of rule about being more or less respectful and avoiding name calling?  This thread seems to have been hijacked. 

When I subscribed to First Things, I found Neuhaus' commentary to be long on ad hominem and short on anything else, theological or otherwise.  It seems that if Neuhaus was offended by someone, that, in itself, was proof they were wrong.  I think Peter Berger, a frequent contributor in the early days, eventually had had enough.  For my part, I dumped my prescription when Mammonist Neuhaus wrote an apologetic for Christmas commercialization.

I'm not sure at all that progressive Catholics fully acknowledge Jesus Christ's divinity. Most of those I know simply don't "need" that part of our faith.

Nelson, My experience is the opposite of yours. I find Catholics in all camps -- and I have friends in all camps (mainly because most of them don't know there are camps) -- seem to struggle more with the humanity of Jesus. Well, since it can't be one or the other but has to be both, it is hard. But if you leave the humanity of Jesus aside, you not only turn Easter into a Noh drama but you may find yourself running around fumigating, eliminating, exorcising and excommunicating people who are actualy struggling with the hard part.

I think we should apply Unitatis redintegratio within Catholicism: 

many [Catholic groups] present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided. Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature. But the Lord of Ages wisely and patiently follows out the plan of grace on our behalf, sinners that we are. In recent times more than ever before, He has been rousing divided [Catholics] to remorse over their divisions and to a longing for unity. ... Before offering Himself up as a spotless victim upon the altar, Christ prayed to His Father for all who believe in Him: "that they all may be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us, so that the world may believe that thou has sent me". ... It is thus, under the action of the Holy Spirit, that Christ wills His people to increase, and He perfects His people's fellowship in unity: in their confessing the one faith, celebrating divine worship in common, and keeping the fraternal harmony of the family of God. ... Today, in many parts of the world, under the inspiring grace of the Holy Spirit, many efforts are being made in prayer, word and action to attain that fullness of unity which Jesus Christ desires. The Sacred Council exhorts all the Catholic faithful to recognize the signs of the times and to take an active and intelligent part in the work of ecumenism. ... activities planned and undertaken, according to the various needs of the Church and as opportunities offer, to promote [Catholic] unity. These are: first, every effort to avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our [brethren] with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult; then, "dialogue" between competent experts from different [Catholic groups]. At these meetings, which are organized in a religious spirit, each explains [his understanding]  in greater depth and brings out clearly its distinctive features. In such dialogue, everyone gains a truer knowledge and more just appreciation of the teaching and religious life of both [groups]. In addition, [...] there is prayer in common.... All in the Church must preserve unity in essentials. But let all, according to the gifts they have received enjoy a proper freedom, ... even in their theological elaborations of revealed truth. In all things let charity prevail. If they are true to this course of action, they will be giving ever better expression to the authentic catholicity and apostolicity of the Church.

Etc. The whole text can be seen as an exhortation to dialogue also between the various factions within Catholicism.

Wonderful use of Unitatis reintegration Claire! I pray that this Year of Mercy will help all of us (Progressives, Traditionalists, and those who don't really understand what's going on in the culture war) become more sympathetic to one another's needs, challenges, and desires. Pope Francis' words and actions towards Lutherans, Orthodox, and Lutherans in recent months has impressed me. Yes Lord, may they all be one.

Those who imagine that Pope Francis is allowing sin, have yet to read his Exhortation or his Encyclical, both of which are extremely orthodox and condemn liberal thinking.

Franki, go away. Mahony, Hunthausen, Clark, etc., weren't promosted for their apostasies and heresies. Because they didn't have any. Stop trying to outthink the Holy Spirit. You don't have it in you.

Franki, well said. 

Joseph, I agree with Farnki, the Episcopalians are waiting for you!  What *I* mean by that is, I have never understood those CIN'ers (Catholic in Name only, pun intended) who support sodomy, abortion, etc yet refuse to leave the Catholic Church like a petulant child insisting that their way is correct.  Joseph I put you firmly in this group, you are willing to ignore 2000 years of Church teachings and scripture itself; but, you will cling to anything Francis says to confirm your desired reality.  The difference between us is I feel pitty for you, you feel anger and outrage for me, that should tell you something about what side of the line you stand on.

Tom, you my friend best describe the current state of the Church and most people who call themselves Catholic, seeking, struggling, on most issues, not just Jesus' humanity.  And you are correct we should not be trying to "fumigating, eliminating, exorcising and excommunicating people who are actually struggling with the hard part"s, because that struggle is the journey of fair, of our will to dictate against accepting the Grace of God with or without understanding.  However (you expected a however;-), this struggle is exacerbated and extended to the point of heretical error in many cases by the hesitation of the Church, the priest, the religious and lay-people to speak the Truth, the full teaching.  While Jesus loves you and died for your sins, you are responsible for your choices that rebel against his teachings, regardless of your rationalization.  Jesus did not say to the sinner, hey believe in me an you are OK, I'll see you in Heaven....No, he said, go and sin no more.  I understand Jesus didn't mean we could become actually sinless but we must resist sin and when we fall return to him.  In not correcting the luke warm, the struggling and helping to lead them to the Truth is our sin, the Churches sin for which I fear the coming judgement.

To the author, Cathleen Kaveny, when you stated "But a culture isn’t reducible to a political party. And building a culture of life required far more than opposition to abortion—it also required care for the vulnerable. No American political party is the party of saints."  Here you whitewash a multitude of sins with the classic "who am I to judge" stance.  Given today's political parties no Catholic can vote for a democrat, because their platform is fundamentally anti-catholic on every level.  While you are correct there is no party of saints, when we use good judgement (sorry to judge here) as Catholics the Republican party is much more aligned Catholic teaching and open to being influenced by Catholic thought.  Some will say lesser of two evils, I say better then the greater of two until we can gain more voice.  Also where did the idea come from that those opposed to abortion are not equally concerned for the care of the vulnerable?  Though I think you may be employing political speak here as we don't know what you mean by vulnerable.  Perhaps you mean caring for the vulnerable by forcing Catholic adoption agencies to close for not bowing to sinful policies?  I am sorry but your academic position immediately brings into question your ideology, in these troubled times we must be clear and speak clearly else we allow our words to lead others into heresy, one of the chief complaints with Pope Francis. 

Fariba, "more sympathetic to one another's needs, challenges, and desires. Pope Francis' words and actions towards Lutherans, Orthodox, and Lutherans in recent months has impressed me."  This is very troubling to me.  Later this year Pope Francis is going to join the Lutherans in celebrating the 500th anniversary of the reformation...  How is this not confusing to the faithful and poorly catechized?  It send the message that Catholic, Lutheran, it does not matter, very protestant of the Pope!  There is only ONE Truth as handed down and decreed by Jesus Christ, I know I am not going to convince any of you, but at the day of judgement you can't profess ignorance either.  According to Catholic teaching "To participate in a heretical worship service and especially a communion service can be sinful for a Catholic because such an act is an affirmation of what we believe to be untrue."  Think about it rationally, if you tell your kids not to do drugs yet they see you smoking a joint, could this not lead to confusion?

Remember Jesus didn't preach or tell the Apostles to go and tell the world to co-exist!  He said (I paraphrase) to go and spread the word, and where they won't hear it, shake the dust of that place off your cloak and move on...

I will stop there, scourge me if you need to do so to comfort yourself in your shame and sin.

It’s hard for me to believe that Cathleen Kaveny wrote this sentence with a straight face: “And building a culture of life required far more than opposition to abortion—it also required care for the vulnerable.”  Who does Ms. Kaveny think the most vulnerable people are if not the ones it’s legal for us to slaughter?

  She’s right here though: “No American political party is the party of saints.”  But there sure is one that’s the party of sinners and it’s the Democrat she belongs to.”

  One more thing.  I can’t deny that Fr. Neuhaus’s First Things depended on Jewish (Neocon) money to stay alive but to suggest that therefore he was blind to the differences between us and them is farfetched.  Among other things, Fr. Neuhaus was the first one I heard say that Catholics are really The Chosen People.

It is obvious that the Pope has either not contemplated on or is rejecting the belief of the The Four Marks of the Church  a term describing four specific adjectives — one, holy, catholic and apostolic" when he speaks of decentralization and participates in and with church services with other religious beliefs and practices. There would no longer be a Catholic Church but a whole host of churches claiming the mantle of Catholic.
In the beginning the followers of Jesus Christ used a fish as a symbol of Jesus. The Italians have a saying "un pesce marcisce dalla testa"(a fish rots from the head) and the Head of the Church's decentralization plan and showing equality of other religions including Islam is the beginning of the end of the One,Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church.

"In England, the Church of England is a shell of its former self with less than one million attendees at Sunday service. The CofE has latched onto every liberal belief and action, which has not stemmed the loss or increased membership, and has attempted to maintain its clergy by accepting women and gays. On the other hand, fundamentalist Baptists and followers of the strict tenants of Islam are attracting adherents in the UK.

Is sensei one of the minor orders?

No American political party is the party of saints."

If someone says that, you can hardly accuse her of taking a "who am I to judge" stance. You have to be straining, or just throwing bumper stickers at a pulpit to see which ones will stick, to get from what Dr. Kaveny said to what Pope Francis said in an entirely different context.

EPM, There is a difference between four marks and four straitjackets, but I wouldn't expect someone looking for something to censure to notice the difference.

"Pope Francis isn’t trying to drive conservative Catholics out of the church. But he has decisively put a stop to their efforts to eject everyone else."

Amen! Preach it, sister.

Professor Kaveny looks down on those of us who would like the Church to remain loyal to the traditions handed down by the Apostles as given to them by Jesus. We do not want to go the way of the Episcopal Church - changing to meet whatever "Progressives" demand of it and finding our Churches ever more empty and ever more secular.

The notion that you can pretty much believe whatever warms your heart and soul and still be Cathollic is false. The notion that holds: Well no one really understand anything about God and so we really ought not to be dogmatic about anything - is false. 

The misinterpretations of what the Council was seeking to do in Vatican II have lead to much of the troubles in the Catholic Church. Distortions, popular or not, by self-styled Progressives, of what the Council taught has led to hymns that are neither sacred nor memorable but rather trite. The lack of understanding of what occurs during Eucharist and what the Eucharist means arose from terrible catechesis driven by shallow thinking and some sort of quasi-Protestant lack of understanding of the "Lord's Meal".

If Progressives were correct in their 'advanced beliefs' then why aren't the children of this most secular age flocking to their churches ? Because those Churches ask nothing more of their congregations then that they be "nice" to each other and have "positive" thoughts...

The undue optimism of Vatican II that if we just rid the Mass of its "Medieval 'nick-nacks' and say that the Church "subsits" in the fullness of Salvation - that Protestants would come back to the Catholic Faith has been proven to be incorrect.

Jesus Christ was not crucified by mistake. The Romans did seek to execute him as a mere troublemaker, Jesus was handed over as the very Lamb of God by the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem - Jesus died a horrible death because of our sinfulness and it is only through His blood - shed for us that we may be saved. If that is not the teaching of your Church then your Church is not Christian and it is not Catholic - no matter what some Post-Modern Theologians may say.

There must be an alert out on some conservative site for everyone to come over here and issue bulls and interdict. Or do they still use parchment and quills for their alerts?

I think they probably have whistles out on some other blog whenever Cathleen publishes something as sensible and hard-hitting as this. Thank you Cathy, for a brilliant, simple, yet eye-opening commentary! 

This goes back to at least Neuhaus's NeoCon predecessor Buckley. One might argue that American Catholic dissent has its roots in Catholic conservatism rather than, as is widely believed (mostly by conservatives), it being rooted in Catholic liberalism:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/cosmostheinlost/2015/06/23/conservatives-no...

 Thanks, Prof, Kaveny - you might want to join your other dotcommonweal posters and delete the useless comments of the TROLL, Franki B.

Thank you, Cathleen Kaveny for sharing your reasonable and faith-filled reflection.  

Too bad about the nasty, rude comments.  Makes it hard to have a relevant exchange in this space.

The truly sad part when conservative and liberal Catholics go at each other is that neither side acts in a charitable Christian manner.  Perhaps both extremes have missed the message of Jesus.

"EPM, There is a difference between four marks and four straitjackets"

Straitjackets, are you serious? So now the Creed recited at every Mass is not a statement of Catholic beliefs but a listing of straitjackets that conflict with and hinders your own subjective conscience? Perhaps you could explain the diffence(s) and the reasoninfg that justifies your "straitjackets" comparison.

Some commentors who believe that others should leave the Church because of their ... supposed ... heterodoxy are, ironically, themselves edging close to heresy.  Specifically, the early Church heresy known as Donatism.  This heresy held that the Church was only for the saintly and pure, not for sinners.  The problem with this is that we are all sinners.  Jesus came to call sinners, not the self-righteous.  It is un-Christ-like to want others to leave the Body of  Christ.

EP, Kevin Davis seems to have already indirectly answered the misdirection you attempted on my earlier comment. Mote and beam, EP.

Mr Blackburn,"Jesus came to call sinners, not the self-righteous. "

Assume you are referring to Mr.Davis's remark and if it is an indirect answer it is not obvious as I agree  that Jesus called everyone sinners, self-righteous and holy ones alike, however, Jesus's call to sinners came with the admonition to "sin no more"  and to the self-rightous to humble themselves.  Also you failed to offer an answer to the question of how One, Holy  Catholic, Apostolic became straitjackets to the faithful and now why is the question a misdirection.

 Franki B - in the words of Francis, you are the perfect example of a self-absorbed promethean neo-pelagian who sees the catholic church as meeting a set of rules and acts as if it is an exclusive country club.  Never figuring that Jesus Christ is the center - only your rigid legalisms.  You and Fr. Z will just keep getting disappointed.

If the snarling Cons posting here would have their way in the Catholic church , the right to openly carry a weapon would be their  eighth sacrament. I'M So glad they have no hope of ever winning any ground.

Two things come to mind after reading this. The first is that I do not think that Prof.Kaveny is being fair to Nehaus when she simply writes off his characterization of "orthodox" Catholics as being closer to evangelicals and Orthodox Jews as an outcome motivated by shared political positions. She is either being misleading or reductionistic. What brings these groups closer to one another for Nehaus, especially in comparison to Catholic progressives, are similar beliefs concerning history, human nature, the importance of tradition and its claims upon us, and the more strict interpretations of sacred texts. Fleshed out in this way, Nehaus' point makes much more sense, and Kaveny's argument would have to attack a more serious position. The second thing that comes to mind when reading is a point others have made. Pope Francis has been very orthodox in his teachings and has not undoe any of the church's capital T teachings. On these points, he is very conservative, and I have thought for a long time that it is as if some progressive Catholics only read news articles about him, and do not read his speeches or writings in their entirety. He is not an American  "conservative", but he is not an American progressive by any stretch of the imagination.

One of the key distinctions that has to be kept in mind, which I do not think that Dr. Kaveny does here in this article, is the practical difference between "faith on paper" and "lived faith." She emphasizes the former as a way to critique Neuhaus, while in most of his writings Neuhaus was talking in the language of the latter. Certainly on paper Catholics, of a liberal or conservative variety, share certain commitments that by the fact of them being Catholic differentiate them from Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc. But, in practice, and in a contemporary context, the lived of faith of Catholics does not point to this shared commonality except in an abstract sense. Dr. Kaveny points to Neuhaus as exploiting these differences to establish and further a political movement, and I think that a case can be made that he was trying to do something of that sort. Nevertheless, it is not something that he created but a trend that had begun decades earlier.

At least two years before First Things came into existence (1990?, 1991?), the sociologist of religion Robert Wuthnow wrote a book titled The Restructuring of American Religion (1988) - it is great book. One of the key trends that he highlighted was the decline of the importance of denominational identity as a marker of religious identity in American life, and the emergence of political ideology as an increasingly fundamental marker of identity for religious believers. The emergence of political ideology as a marker of identity means (in short) that in practice, conservative Catholics have more in common with conservative Protestants than they do with their liberal Catholic counterparts. And vice versa. This is a trend that is decades old and not one that emerged with either Neuhaus or with Pope Francis. To blame it on either of them is to misunderstand the difference between lived faith and faith on paper. I am not commending Neuhaus for exacerbating these difference, but it is a mistake to blame him for creating them in the first place.

What a disappointing essay to stumble upon. I feel I have to offer a testimony on behalf of Fr. Neuhaus who is not here to defend himself. After graduating college in the early 90s, I experienced a long and profound crisis of faith -- the proverbial "dark night." I considered myself a Catholic in the mold of Thomas Merton, but often found myself at odds with the Church over various teachings (or at least over my understanding of those teachings). I recall the disdain liberals (both secular ans religious) had for Pope John Paul II at that time, by the way. In darkness and doubt, liberal sources -- including Commonweal -- offered little light or hope, fixated as they were on matters of "social justice" in a way that differed little from the secular humanist approach. After drifting for most of my 20s, a friend who worked protecting the rights and lives of the mentally and physically disabled showed me what "social justice" means from an authentically Catholic viewpoint, and also introduced me to First Things and Fr. Neuhaus. Fr. N offered a witness and wisdom that was both comforting and challenging. His book "Death on a Friday Afternoon" is a spiritual classic that I know has made a profound and positive difference in my journey of faith. Because of Fr. Neuhaus' witness I was able to move beyond doubt and darkness toward light and a deeper faith. Because of Fr N's wit, wisdom, and witness, I am able to all the more understand the witness of John Paul II, Thomas Merton, Rabbi Heschel, MLK, Dorothy Day, Pope Francis and countless others in the Communion of Saints. This present essay (which is filled with distortions and erroneous assumptions) says so much more about its author than it does about Father Neuhaus or Pope Francis -- which is why it is so disappointing and, I think, deeply uncharitable. It is more cursing of the darkness instead of lighting a candle. God bless you and thank you, Father Richard John Neuhaus!

What an unfortunately compilation of off-the-mark commentary. Really, there is a great deal of misrepresentation here, apparently fueled by severe theological and political disagreement. How embarrassing. Unfortunately, the venom is so thick I doubt its poison can easily be dissipated.

My comments of course aren't divisive or even debatable, while yours clearly divide the family and are opinions only fools would espouse. My saying so is not divisive, either. It's fulfilling a mission. Your comments, on the other hand, can only spring from the pit of hell.

Meanwhile I thank God I'm not like those Pharisees. I'm glad I am not divisive like evil Richard Neuhaus, who dared to articulate his point of view when it happened to differ from establishment Progressivism.

"First Things First." It is important to note that all Baptised Catholics who deny that God Is The Author of Love and/or Life, and/or Marriage, are no longer in communion with Christ, and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. There Is only One Word of God, Our Savior, Jesus The Christ, thus there can only be One Spirit of Perfect Love Between The Father and The Son, Who Proceeds from both The Father and The Son, In The Ordered, Communion of Perfect Love, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity.

"The Eucharist Is The Source and Summit of our Catholic Faith". The Sacrifice of The Cross, The Sacrament of The Most Holy, The Sacrament of The Divine, Is The Sacrifice of The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, "...for God so Loved us, that He Sent His Only Son...".

What profound foolishness, irony, and ignorance to characterize Neuhaus as exposing a "functionalist" theology while remaining oblivious to the profound evil of skull crushing pro-abortion "progressive Catholics" premising their depravity on a functional and utilitarian interpretation of life.  

What profound foolishness and ignorance to characterize Neuhaus as espousing a "functionalist" theology while remaining oblivious to the profound evil of skull crushing pro-abortion "progressive Catholics" premising their depravity on a functional and utilitarian interpretation of life.  Should we forget the days when Commonweal, in order to prove how "enlightened" they were, permitted an article by Daniel Maguire boasting of his visit to an abortion mill, which he found joyous while actually viewing an abortion and knowing the Magisterial Authority of the Church could not stop him? 

This piece peaked with the headline.   It was all downhill from there.

This article is way over the top.  Fr Neuhaus actually worked with Jews and Protestants, and First Things continues to do so-- shocking!  Cardinal Ottaviani (a guardian of orthodoxy before Vatican II) would never have approves of that.  But I thought Pope Francis and most of his predecessors did.

And this:  "But in Catholic circles debates about abortion are usually about when a human life comes into being biologically..."  Biologically,wouldn't that be when the biological entity, the human fetus, begins-- at conception?  Only members of "Catholics for a Free Choice" would claim there's a debate about that.

One can know through both Faith and reason, that speciation occurs at conception, that a human person can only conceive a human person, that every son or daughter of a human person, can only be a human person, that only a man and woman can exist in relationship as husband and wife, and that marriage cannot be and not be existing in relationship as husband and wife, simultaneously.

This does not change the fact that the purpose of ecumenism is to bring others to The Christ, and thus to His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no Salvation.

"No one can come to My Father, except through Me." - Jesus The Christ

Catholics do not debate The Word of God; Catholics assent to that which a Catholic must believe with Divine and Catholic Faith. (see Catholic Canon 750)

Editoribus cave!

Tic, Toc.

The comments section is being invaded by Crux-style trash-talkers.

The end result, unless curtailed NOW, will be the disappearance of the quality of commentary that has existed up until now.

Editoribus cave!

When I returned to the Catholic Church in 2007, after three decades as an Evangelical Protestant, this is what Fr. Richard John Neuhaus wrote to me: 

"Dear Frank Beckwith,

 As you will appreciate, the metaphor is inescapable: Welcome back home.

Do such decisions complicate our conversations with evangelicals? No 
doubt. Complicate and enrich. Your decision and the admirable way in 
which you have explained it will be welcomed also by evangelicals who 
understand that we are all called to exemplify fidelity and courage as 
we conscientiously discern the course of fidelity and courage.

The intentions of you and your family will be remembered at the altar.

Yours in Christ and his Church,

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus"

This is what Cathy Kaveny wrote at Commonweal: 

"Another important question is, how are they changing the Church? My impression is that Beckwith's a `cutlure warrior.' By that I don't meant that he's conservative -- you can be conservative without being a culture warrior --I mean that he frames his contributions to the pbulic debate in prophetic way -- rather thanm the more casuistic way typical of catholic moral theology after the council of treant. (To get the difference in rhetorical style read Richard John Neuhaus on abortion --then read John Ford and Gerald Kelly's manual in moral theology--or even Germain Grisez, though he has more room for the prophetic, which in my judgment, entered into prominence in American Cahtolic life after Vatican II.)I think you get a lot of `culture of life v. culture of death' language from evangelical converts. It's a type of prophetic rhetoric that's long been at home in American Protestantism (and Protestantism more generally). (See Bacivitch, The American Jeremiad). Pope John Paul's culture of life v. culture of death language marked a real development of Cahtolic casuistry--it looked at abortion and euthanasia as social problems, rather than exclusively as individual sins to be confessed. It knitted together the social justic teaching and the life teaching, From a rhetorical perspective, however, it also provided a rhetorical place for evangelical protestants to latch on to the Catholic tradition.It will be an interesting chapter of American Catholic history, to write, one day."

A "welcome home" would have sufficied. 

Ms. Kaveny: Did you ever get to know RJN while he was alive? I had the opportunity to spend four or five meals each week with him for more than 20 years during his annual summer vacations in the Ottawa Valley as our cottages were close to each other. The person you are describing in this article bears almost no resemblance to the brother priest I ate, drank, mused, and debated with. If there were two elements of his personality/theology that stood out among others, it was his commitment to convivium and his belief in the breadth and depth of what constituted authentic Catholicism. He was a man who both supported and worked for presidential candidates as diverse as Eugene McCarthy and G.W. Bush. He marched in the streets with Martin Luther King and was arrested during the street demonstrations during the 1968 Chicago Democratic convention. He cherished, promoted, and appreciated Catholic voices that were equally as diverse as his political affiliations. He constantly reminded me that 'Catholic' meant universal - and that the limits of authentic Catholic expression were far broader than most people really comprehended.

No. RJN was not the person you characterize in this column. I am 100% certain that his conviction and commitment to the initiatives of Pope Francis would have been as substantial and resolute as were his support of the pontificates of JPII and B16. It's really too bad you didn't have the opportunity to really get to know him. I believe you would, like me, have enjoyed calling him a friend and fellow sojourner in the faith.

Fr. Tim Moyle

Diocese of Pembroke

Holy Moly, Miss Kaveny!!!  You have certainly riled the extreeeeme right!  Their self-righteous indignation and pseudo pius posing makes for fabulous theatre! I am still shaking my head from comments I have just read!  Bravo!

Too bad they cannot put all that energy into something concrete like - - - oh, I don't know - - - putting the four Gospels into practice, and perhaps worrying a little less about their vision of 'church' whose time, like the venerable old VW Beetle, has come AND gone.

Since they must all be Latin scholars, perhaps they who castigate everyone who is a Roman Catholic but who is perhaps not as far to the right as Atilla the Hun (which they clearly are) should spend a full 10-day silent retreat focused on Christ's words 'Ut Unum Sint' (John 17:21).

What a pity that they use all that energy to tear down...

Why am I reminded of  the Pharisees at the time of Christ...

More to the point, what would Christ say to them? (Or is it already in the aforementioned 'Gospels'?)

PS - Thank you for your article which (Fr. Moyle's comment accepted) was very informative and provoking!

Why are those, who self-indentify as "Progressive Catholics" notice they almost never say "Progressive Roman Catholics", so mean spirited with those who disagree with them ?

Why do they call Traditionalist, who question why they remain in the "Roman Catholic Faith" when the Episcopalians offer everything they are demanding from the Church, "Pharisees" when they are more pharisiacal than any of the Traditionalists ?

We can disagree and we can dissagree politely, can't we...

Jonathan, The Eucharit Prayer?

[21] That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. [22] And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: [23] I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me. [24] Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me may be with me; that they may see my glory which thou hast given me, because thou hast loved me before the creation of the world. [25] Just Father, the world hath not known thee; but I have known thee: and these have known that thou hast sent me.

[26] And I have made known thy name to them, and will make it known; that the love wherewith thou hast loved me, may be in them, and I in them.

That should read, Jonathan, The Eucharist Prayer?

[21] "That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. [22] And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: [23] I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me. [24] Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me may be with me; that they may see my glory which thou hast given me, because thou hast loved me before the creation of the world. [25] Just Father, the world hath not known thee; but I have known thee: and these have known that thou hast sent me.

[26] And I have made known thy name to them, and will make it known; that the love wherewith thou hast loved me, may be in them, and I in them."

Thanks, Nancy.  What a most wonderful quote from John!  And I hope we are reading it the same way. THe part I wanted to emphasize given the tenor of my post was ''they also may be one IN us'' (THEY implying all Christian souls who believe in God.)

What I read from the extremists is not a message of love and unity...  what I hear is that it is 'their way or the highway'...   no attempt is made to practice the Gospel message - they are only concerned with trying to return the church to a time that they are probably not old enough to understand - and certainly not old enough to remember well.  

It seems to me that Catholics have a far greater responsibility then to sit around and wish for an earlier time...  WE have a responsibility to 'love' 'respect' 'accept' 'share' 'believe' 'teach' 'pray' 'feed' 'be compassionate' 'visit' 'care'...  I do not read anything in the New Testament that calls us to 'rigid, unbending, dogmatic' - Jesus put down the Temple hierarchy for being bound by silly, archaic and useless rules' (ie: stating "the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath)... in fact the only time Jesus exhibits anger was at the rigidity of the Pharisees, and at the corruption in the Temple which was, after all 'My Father's House'.

I simply find it difficult to justify the attitudes of many of the commentators in light of the Gospels; in light of what we are commanded to do in order to 'follow HIM' who is the source of all light and of all love - him on whose shoulders our salvation was wrought - him who washed (as a servant) the feet of his disciples, telling them that unless they were willing to do the same, they'd have no part in HIM.

So, I continue to be aghast when they 'butt in' to a discussion among learned, prayerful, thoughtful seekers-after-truth in these forums.  They seek to derail the process of learning, of growing in the faith, of understanding the deeper call to service that is given to us by Christ - while they try to impose through their arguments some erroneous notion that only by rigid adherance to 'rules and dogma' are we being TRUE Followers of Christ's WAY.  In a sense, they are becoming latter-day Pharisees themselves.  Don't they see that?

It is that feeling that prompts me to fire back at them and to let them know that not everyone feels a call to that type of throwback to authoritarian (and irrelevant) rule in a church where (despite the reigns of Saint John Paul II and Pope-Emeritus Benedict XVI) the doors and windows flung open by Saint John XXIII and Vatican II will never be closed again.  Most Catholics who believe, know that there is no going back.  Fortunately, though their presence on this and other moderate blogs seems omnipresent, there are really very few of them in balance with the whole rest of the church.

As long as you and I, as well as the other moderate Catholics continue to battle and/or ignore them by, in our own small ways, keeping the light bright on the issues that face our church now, they will never succeed.  Evil cannot flourish in the Light of Christ.

Bless you for understanding!

http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2009/03/he-threw-it-all-away

Jonathan, why do you claim to wear the "Mantle of Righteousness" and thus

denounce, well let us be honest, condemn those who oppose you ? The Pharisees 

were more concerned about making money off the faithful than they were living the faith

handed down to them. 

If it were the case that the Episcopal Churches were full and if it were the case that

"Liberal Christians" stood up for the faith through voting against Abortion, Same Gender

Marriages...then Traditionalists would not be asking them: "What sort of Christiainty

do you belive in ?" You could respond: Compassionate Christianity, but is it

compassionate to mislead your fellow Christians into believing what Christ never taught,

cultural norms that have been condemned by the Holy Scriptures ?

The Sin of Humanism is to think that humans can judge God and His Holy Scriptures

and so "Progressive Christians" will always be seeking to change doctrines/interpretations

to make them seem less and less offensive to the World.

But the world cares little for God our Creator and ends up worshipping the Creation 

rather than the Creator by seeking only hedonistic pleasures.

The 21st Century Humanist would crucify Jesus all over again if it could for His

termerity to warn them that it is God, not they, who decides what is True and Good.

The "tolerance" that Progressives so cherish, how they take every opportunity to remind 

us that they have it in "Spades", is rarely demonstrated to Traditionalists who disagree 

with them. Read over the comments and tell me who use the most vituperative language

and who quickly and readily dismissed any views that oppose them.

Is it not  the Progressives who have been far more uncharitable than the Traditionalists ?

I left the Roman Catholic Church at age 15 over a matter I took to be theological and precipitated by an incident and how my parish addressed it.  I encountered dotCommonweal a couple of years ago, via Andrew Sullivan.  This exchange causes me to give thanks for the 50 years that intervened without any of this discussion.

Mark L.

Well, Henry George, what can I say?

Forgive Me!

Mr Davis,
"the doors and windows flung open by Saint John XXIII and Vatican II will never be closed again."

I lived and worked in Holland/Belgium from 1962 to 1971 and lived through the economic contraction and  the Vatican II liberalization of the Catholic Church there. Churches were closed and the property sold for office buildings or apartments.  Catholic schools and Convents were closed, religious dress was discarded, the living quarters at the seminaries were closed and young seminarians lived on the local economy so they could, as the Bishop put it, learn about life, including the sexual, before taking vows. Hippy masses were conducted by priests, usually married or living with someone or ex-priests, in living rooms. By the 1980s the Catholic Church in the Holland/Belgium had liberalized itself into virtual non-existence. The Catholic Church's presence in the  rest of Europe is not much better although there are reports from friends in Paris  that since the two terrorist attacks attendance at Sunday Mass has increased.

So what has the "flung open doors and windows" accomplished?
For one thing:
Washington

The number of Catholic marriages in the United States is at its lowest point since 1965.(after Vatican II EPM)

Georgetown University's Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate keeps records of Catholic church statistics going back to 1965, tracking such things as the total number of priests, the Catholic population of the United States, and the number of baptisms and marriages per year.

The statistics show that while there were over 420,000 Catholic marriages in 1970, that number has dwindled to just over 154,000 for the year 2014.

http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/despite-low-catholic-marriage-num...

"As long as you and I, as well as the other moderate Catholics continue to battle and/or ignore them"
Perhaps you would be kind enough to provide a list of the beliefs of a "moderate"  Catholic today compared to the beliefs of the martyred Apostles, the hundreds of thousands of martyred Christians by the various Roman emperors and how a "moderate ' believer might have survived by succumbing to the liberal demands of the Romans.

"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same."

"Apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith."

In summary, it is only logical to assume that a Faithful Catholic will have more in common with a heretic, than someone who denies that God Is The Author of Love, and/or Life, and/or Marriage.

In proclaiming that God Is The Author of Love, of Life, and of Marriage why say this:

Page 117, of the pope's book, On Heaven and Earth, in regards to same-sex unions
“If there is a union of a PRIVATE NATURE, THERE IS NEITHER A THIRD PARTY NOR IS SOCIETY AFFECTED. Now, if this union is given the category of marriage and they are given adoption rights, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and female mother that can help them shape their identity. - Jorge Mario Bergoglio
Approval of same-sex sexual unions is approval of same-sex sexual acts. 

Why not tell those men and woman, who have developed a same-sex sexual attraction the truth? It is because we Love you, and respect your Dignity as a beloved son or daughter, that we cannot condone the engaging in or affirmation of any act, including any sexual act that demeans your inherent Dignity as a beloved son or daughter.The desire to engage in a demeaning act of any nature, does not change the nature of the act. We Love you, and because we Love you, we desire that you will always be treated with, and will always treat others with Dignity and respect in private as well as in public. We will not tolerate the engaging in or condoning of sexual behavior that does not reflect the upmost respect for any of our beloved sons and daughters, because we Love you.

Jonathan Davis,

As EPatrick Mosman made clear, the "Progressive Agenda" has only accomplished

one thing: They emptying of the Churches.

You, as a Catholic, have the duty to live and hand down the faith to future generations.

Tying your faith to the everychanging secular world is hardly helpful.

Once you stop demanding that your "Progressive Agenda" become the Agenda of 

the Church, we can talk about "forgiveness for the error of your Progressive Ways."

I appreciate your comments, though I disagree.

The only responsibility that I have as a Roman Catholic is, in my own imperfect way,  to follow the teachings of Christ as found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and to always attempt to be true to what Christ would have me do.  I have no 'agenda' outside of that.

And you, my friend, if you have understood Christ, would have freely forgiven without conditions.

I feel sorry that in your defense of your ultra-conservative agenda you have lost sight of the Seat of Our Faith, Jesus.  

Be well! Be forgiven! Be faithful!

It's disturbing to see so many comments expressing the self-righteous notion  "If you don't think like me, you should leave the Church." One might inquire who died and made you pope, but that would be uncharitable.

Instead, think of last weeks Gospel reading, where Jesus is nearly thrown off a cliff for citing a syrian and some other non Jewish person as the best pius examples. It was the conservative legalists that wanted to toss him off a cliff because his examples didn't meet their "purity" test.  

What's weird about the more conservative commenters, and many on Catholic radio, is that sound much more like evangelical protestants, perhaps recently converted, than the Catholics I grew up with. I'm thrilled evangelicals are converting, but by all means convert. Catholicism has little, culturally or religiously, in common with American evangelical thought. True Catholics don't go "church shopping" because they don't believe in the legitimacy of any other Christian churches. It's ironic that folks echoing conservative protestant thought are barking at Catholics to go become protestants. 

What's weird about the more conservative commenters, and many on Catholic radio, is that sound much more like evangelical protestants, perhaps recently converted, than the Catholics I grew up with.....Catholicism has little, culturally or religiously, in common with American evangelical thought. True Catholics don't go "church shopping".... It's ironic that folks echoing conservative protestant thought are barking at Catholics to go become protestants. 

I've noticed the same thing. Many of those who want to push the "dissenting" Catholics, who are usually cradle Catholics, out of the church seem to be converts from evangelical protestantism. They may have embraced Rome but they haven't left protestantism really it seems.

I am curious about Franki B and Francis Beckwith?  Alter egos?

Franki B: "Now, we need liberal Catholics to do likewise and leave the Catholic Church and join a denomination more in tune with their modernist, secular, political, personal, emotional, and other attachments."

You went on in your other posts to cite actions within the Church that do not conform to your views on who should be promoted/demoted, thrown out, etc.  You blame the Pope for adding to the problem.  You seem to be quite unhappy with the RCC's leadership.  My question is, why don't you leave?  I'm not suggesting that you should, but couldn't the same question be asked of you?  Couldn't you leave a join a denomination more in line with all your attachments?  Rod Dreher did.  If your answer is that the Church holds core beliefs that you cannot find in other denominations, it seems that is why you and liberals do not leave.  Maybe liberals do not share all the same beliefs, and that depends on the "liberal" just as it does on the "traditionalist," but probably you and probably they share what I would believe are the most important.  Who are the "liberals" anyway?  Depending on what you read, most Catholics are using a birth control method other than NFP.  Are they all liberals?  

>>George Marshall, I completely agree with everything you wrote.

I have noticed, in the last year, an increasing number of diatribes and attacks by people that some who comment on this Commonweal blog refer to as ‘trolls’.  Perhaps this parallels the discontent of Americans with both the inability of government to actually pass any meaningful legislation, and the invective and outright lies about political candidates paid for by private PACS, interest groups, etc…  Perhaps it is also in reaction to a Pope who preaches against the self-interest of governments and corporations which are not only ruining the ‘middle class’ but adding to the ever growing size of people at or near the poverty level.

The arguments that are presented are, as you know, hardly in communion with the Gospels and, indeed, at least in responses to posts I have made, are comprised of wishes and demands based pretty much on the slant of far-right organs and splinter groups from within the Catholic family.

I do not believe that the ‘Universal’ church has room for only one type of person and the idealogues on both ends of the spectrum would have us believe that one or another ‘extreme’ should find themselves another church.  What nonsense.  Certainly not consonant with Christ’s words.

It would be wonderful - ?charitable? - ?christian? -  if comments adhered to some modicum of civility. But given the anger that I read in a lot of the posts, I suppose that we will not see that happen.  More’s the pity…    A forum for discussion, sharing of opinions, learning new ways of approaching faith, church, theology and humanity was what attracted me to Commonweal to begin with, since I viewed it as a ‘centrist’ forum.  I believe the contributors, both lay persons and clergy, write pertinent and well-balanced articles and represent a pool of knowledge and understanding which is both enlightening and provocative. I am afraid, however, that some of the posts from people mentioned above spur me to answer – and fear that I may become (have already become?) as disruptive as they can sometimes be.

Therefore, I've decided to refrain from answering the most absurd posts. One cannot have a meaningful and productive 'conversation' with a stone wall.  It would be mutually beneficial, through dialogue, to mend old bridges and build new ones, but it is clear that ‘they who must be obeyed’ have no intention of participating in dialogue. Though ignoring them won’t end their posts, it will at least help to keep from getting involved in useless and uncharitable arguments. 

Thanks for your post! 

It is not the Faithful who are responsible for the heinous abuse crisis in The Catholic Church; the Faithful assent to Christ's teaching on sexual morality. 

I just ran across an article from Commonweal for the first time.  Originally writtin in the early 60's - discussing the 'liberal vs conservative' issue in religion.  I must say, I really loved the article.  I cannot find a current direct link to it on the website, so I do not know if Commonweal has recently brought it out of the archives or if I bumped into it by accident - perhaps you all may have seen it - if not, it is certainly worth the time to read, as it elucidates not only polar positions, but offers perhaps a new way of looking at them, and perhaps a better way of framing the discussion.  It features a debate between one of my favorite authors, Mr. William F. Buckley, Jr. & Mr. William Clancy.  

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/catholic-modern-view-conservative-vs-...

Franki B

You'll one day have to answer to someone.  But not to me.  

VSS

I approve of abortion when it's necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman (based on the doctrine of self-defense).  

I support the ordination of women to the presbyterate and episcopate (Rome has given excuses, not reasons, to date for denying ordination to women).  

I deny that Catholic ordinands are ordained to any kind of "priesthood" different from the baptismal priesthood (Jesus, after all, was never a priest; he claimed to be a "prophet", was a Jew, never a Christian).  

I embrace the doctrine that the consecrated bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ but also remain bread and wine (to deny the consecrated elements are also bread and wine is to deny our God-given senses of perception and, therefore, is an affront to God; Jesus never denied the physical reality of the bread and wine he blessed at the last supper).  

I embrace the ancient doctrine/practice of ecclesial reception (if the baptized do not receive a doctrine, perhaps it needs more time and/or better articulation for eventual reception, or perhaps the teaching was never valid or infallible in the first place).  

I endorse artificial birth control (Jesus never condemned it, and there is no Gospel teaching that even remotely warrants ABC's condemnation).  

I thank God for the New Rite of the sacred liturgy (I think the Tridentine rite elevates the so-called "priest" at the religious expense of the laity).

I condemn Rome's imposing transliteration on the English celebration of the New Rite (this transliteration is an abomination, and I encourage RC liturgical presiders to jettison its use).  

I propose elimination of auricular confession and the return to a genuinely communal rite of reconciliation modified for parish use today (consistent with Jesus' teaching, it is the community, i.e., all members, who are expected to forgive others' sins; the cleric --- presbyter or bishop --- would merely preside at the service and no longer hear individual confessions).  

I support local selection of bishops (we need to base liturgical presidership on a person's community leadership, not on ministerial ordination).

No doubt there are other reform and renewal initiatives that don't come to mind right now, and I, of course, would likely support them, as well.

Signed,

A Progressive Catholic Raised in the Pre-Vatican II Church

Joseph... bold and wonderful-to-hear statements!  You will get a lot of pushback from the angry right who believe the church only belongs to them.  But know that there is a lot of support among the rest of Catholics who grew up bathed in the Vatican II era of openness and love!

Bravo!!!

So bold, in fact, that I decided to Subscribe to Commonweal.  There is too much good on this website to let myself be disuaded any longer by those who would like nothing better than to disenfranchise the (often) silent majority of Roman Catholics who have ne desire to be dragged back to the dark ages.

Thank you for pushing me over the edge with your post!  Sincerely, thanks!

"Orthodox Jews do not—indeed, must not—treat Jesus as the Messiah foretold in the Book of Isaiah. It would be blasphemous for them to do so."

They're wrong and need to face reality and say so explicitly.

Reading this essay, I wonder how much time the church has left. I think that very few young people can even begin to relate to a theology built upon there being a Fall and Jesus being our savior from the effects of that (nonexistent) Fall.

Reading this essay, the church looks to me like a house of cards, falling in slow motion.

My solution? Reinterpreting the deposit of faith (http://graceinawintryseason.com). 

Love is ordered to the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the persons existing in a relationship of Love. Every act of Love will serve to complement and thus enhance the fullness of Love. Being Catholic, is not a matter of degree; one cannot be with Christ and anti Christ, simultaneously. 

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/dominus-iesus-liberal-or-conservative

The smug recommendations of self-appointed arbiters make me think of comments made by my teenaged children.  The self-certainty, the chutzpa to tell me how things really are.  That I just don't understand whatever it is they're expressing.  It's astounding.  At first I'm on my heels, enraged.  As if.  Then I just bite my tongue and hope I'm around the day their head comes out. 

Additional comments from this Progressive Catholic:

I support same-sex marriage (Jesus never addressed same-sex relationships, but he did use references to Sodom and Gomorrah to criticize folks who would refuse hospitality to his disciples on mission).

Contrary to the assertions of some self-professed "orthodox/traditionalist" Catholics, official church doctrine CAN CHANGE (slavery, which Holy Mother Church justified for nearly two thousand years by appeals, inter alia, to Jesus' approval of the practice in his parables, was finally condemned in December 1965 at Vatican II; his teaching was influenced by cultural factors just like church teaching would be affected by culture years later).

I endorse communion for the divorced and remarried (Jesus initiated contact with sinners; he did not behave in a manner like that of Raymond Burke and ilk who effectively mock the Lord's approach to less than perfect human beings).

I believe it is God, not sinners, who makes repentance possible in the first place and that the penitent has already been forgiven by God *before* entering the confessional or reconciliation room (Jesus instructed his listeners to initiate unlimited forgiveness; what God asks of us, God --- not being hypocritical --- will also do).

I deny that God sent His Only Begotten Son to die for us on the cross to effect our salvation (what an ugly portrayal of the Father who never required Abraham to sacrifice Isaac; Jesus' sacrifice was self-sacrifice).

I deny that the eucharistic liturgy --- aka, "the Mass" --- is a sacrifice in the cultic sense of the word (it is a sacrifice only insofar as one must get out of bed in the morning to get to church on time, or one must delay or cancel a desirable activity to make it to church in the first place).

I believe in universal salvation because God is Love and Jesus is Love Incarnate (based on the Gospel, God will not condemn sinners to hell, and God will not allow sinners to condemn themselves to hell; I think Pope Boniface VIII, who declared that both spiritual and temporal power were under the pope's jurisdiction, and that kings were subordinate to the power of the Roman pontiff, was the kind of "Satan" that Jesus had in mind when he castigated Peter [Mt 16:23]).  

I'm convinced that self-described "orthodox/traditionalist" Catholics are "Cafeteria Catholics" like many of the folks they criticize for the same reason, and I'm also convinced these "Holier than Jesus" types are, at root, governed by FEAR of a vengeful God (it is impossible to love whom one FEARS, and, if God is omniscient, God knows their hypocrisy motivated by FEAR).

Signed,

A Progressive Catholic Raised in the Pre-Vatican II Church

>>Joe Jaglowicz - You're singing my song!  

Why should any Catholic be worried about being termed 'progressives' - the opposite of that (as is clearly evident lately) is 'regressives'.

Pope Francis, at the end of a Mass outside of St Peter's a couple of years ago, stated to the crowds who asked about the 'old ways' that we should always move forward (progress) and never backward (regress) - he has also said that there should not be a 'reform of the reform'.

I have been 'warned' that there is a 'day of reckoning coming' and implied is that I will somehow not pass muster.   Poppycock!

My place (and yours as well) in Heaven was assured me at the moment of my baptism, and I have not repudiated God so I have no worries on that score.  But you are, of course, correct that there is nothing in the Gospel that implies otherwise.

Thanks for your posts!

Franki B: I never suggested that you leave nor do I suggest you stop posting here.  I disagree with you, probably about a lot of things.  You say that liberals reject the "core" of Catholic teachings.  I suppose that depends on what you define as the core.  The current Pope has placed an emphasis on "social justice" issues and even environmental issues and seems to think those are part of Catholic teaching.  All those Catholic social justice agencies you decry were formed by individuals who believed they were responding to Catholic teachings.  I think your statement that liberal Catholics share as many core beliefs as you and an atheist is obviously not true.  I do not understand your distinction between Catholic liberals and liberal Catholics.  In terms of my citing HV, you say that you're not talking about people who do not live up to the church's moral code.  I am not either.  I was talking about people who disagree with that moral code.  I presume you know priests who disagree with HV.  Is Kaspar a liberal out to destroy the Church?  Some traditional Catholics think that if his proposal had been accepted it would have.  Is Pope Francis?  He has not changed any dogma, but thinks we should be open to change.  

Jonathon Davis:  And thank you for your comment.  Glad to see you decided to become a subscriber.  In terms of your comments about posts.  I look at things a little differently.  I find it helpful to discuss things with individuals who have views different than my own, even radically different.  It helps me examine my own beliefs.  It requires me to think about them and consider them in ways I never thought of.  I am forced to research things in preparing responses.  I'm not sure I expect to change the opinion of someone who disagrees with me by responding, but who knows, maybe they'll examine their beliefs.  It is not just that person who reads the response, however.  Your repsonses to individuals helps me because you may raise an argument I never thought of.  Trolls are mythical creatures.  I don't believe in them.  We are called to see Christ in everyone.  There was something I read once by Thomas Merton and I wish I could find it again.  He said something like, "The Pope can afford to be a Good Samaritan.  You and I are just fellow travellers along the road, fallen among thieves, trying to help each other up out of the ditch."  Everyone here loves God.  Everyone here is called to Him.  Your posts are certainly not disruptive, at least not to me.  LOL.  Maybe I'm not very sensitive to insults, but if you've ever visited a sports blog, you'd find that this site is pretty tame.  I'll look forward to your future posts.  

Franki B: You won't find Catholic dissenters on the trading floor of a Wall Street brokerage firm. 

How in the wide, wide world of sports would you know that?  Is that a little like the old saying that there are no atheists in fox holes?  I presume this exaggeration is to make a larger point, but I've missed it.

>>George Marshal:

Thanks for your followup.  I have enjoyed adding my 1.5 cents in 'debates' on this blog.  When the Jesuits taught us debating, and when my logic teacher followed up on the same subject, it was clear that a debate (by definition) was a two-sided affair, however,  point of an official debate is to win.  In these posts the give and take tends to be lopsided since there are some who wish to learn and others who wish to dictate.

My own faith has been strengthened of late as I find myself defending, not so much the 'church' as the four Gospels which are the pillars of the church.  

There are, regrettably, a few who seem to think that people who do not fit their narrowly-defined view of the church should become Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc... Since I have a great many friends among the Episcopal clergy around the US, I find those suggestions laughable.  

I am quite comfortable being a Catholic.  It was my church when I was baptized and will be my church when I die.  And my church is not as dogmatic as others would try to have me believe.  

To find myself, at this point in my life, defending the church, as it exists now and will in the future, against those arguments is not surprising.  What is surprising to me is how vituperative and downright un-christian their attitudes are. I find myself adding them to my prayer list every night - not praying that they will change, but rather that they will perhaps one day lose their unreasonable anger.

Be well!  Thank you!

Joseph J., 

4
* b He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’
5
c 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’?
6
So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”

Jonathan, the first rule of logic is that one cannot in essence be and not be simultaneously. One cannot be a disciple of The Christ if one does not desire to abide in The Word of God as He Has Revealed Himself to His Church in the trinitarian relationship of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and The Teaching of the Magisterium, The Deposit of Faith. How can one claim that it is unreasonable to remain in The Truth of Love, as we follow The Christ? In fact, it Is Christ Himself Who Revealed we cannot be His disciples if we do not abide in His Word.

Dear "Franki B", I likely know more about Roman Catholic theology, etc. than you may ever know, and I'm a layman!!!  That said, I do know one thing about you:  You are arrogant.  On the other hand, there is one thing I don't know about you, to wit, your sex!  Are you male or female???

Dear "Nancy D", do you never give up harping about sexual orientation, including that, if I remember, of a relative of yours???  I mean, seriously.

"Franki B" likes to remind us ordinary Catholics that "Jesus...told [sinners] to 'go and sin no more.'  Your approach is to contact them and then tell them to keep on sinning."

Um, no, sir (or is it m'am?).  I do not encourage people to sin, but I do remind arrogant types --- the self-described, chest-thumping "orthodox" --- that Jesus instructed his listeners to initiate forgiveness --- and to do so without ceasing!  I also remind these "holier than Jesus" folks that, except for one gospel passage if I recall, Jesus does not expect sinners to repent first.  

I encourage "Franki B" and likeminded ilk to learn about the Christian faith and the Roman Catholic tradition/expression of said faith.  God knows, such types need to do so.

To Franki B,

We recognize the nature of the seed from tree, the tree by its fruit, and the fruit by the taste on the tongue.  In this remarkable sequence of comments, those who do not agree with you are dishonest, stupid, badly (or at least inappropriately) educated, suffer from mental issues and so on.  The taste on the tongue is bitter and brings no nourishment. 

I would say the nature of the seed is anger, or perhaps yet stronger: rage.  I hope you can heal, for, as Homer already knew, the costs of rage are death.

FWIW, I left the Catholic Church more than 50 years ago over an act of betrayal that to this day I struggle to forgive.  I moved quickly to the Congregational Church (now UCC),where I have remained.  We believe that God is still moving in the world, and that we must act, including change, in accordance with how we understand that ongoing revelation.

Mark L.

Joseph, I have stated that identifying oneself or someone else, according to sexual desire/inclination/orientation, which sexually objectifies the human person and thus denies the inherent Dignity of the human person as a beloved son or daughter, is a violation of God's Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery. 

This does not change the fact that it is not Loving or Merciful to desire that we remain in our sins, thus it is not Loving or Merciful to deny that sin is sin. Certainly we should never condone sin as our call to Holiness is a call to desire to overcome our disordered inclinations, and become transformed through Salvational Love, God's Gift of Grace and Mercy.

Mark L, after reading the first several comments, and skimming later ones,(reading them all was not only too time-consuming,  the content was predictable after the first few) by Mr. or Ms. B, I came to the same conclusion you did about the anger.

When coming across that kind of anger it is reasonable to wonder what is truly underneath it, why so much anger, so much rage?  It goes far beyond disagreement about some points of Catholic teaching.  There are others who regularly comment here, who take issue with the views and understandings of the "progressives" who write here, and who comment here. But the discussion remains rational, without  excessive anger.

Nancy, unlike you, I do not think identifying someone by his or her sexual orientation violates God's teaching on lust and adultery.  If somebody else identifies me as a heterosexual (or if I self-identify as same), there is no sin.  It's no different that if I were to identify myself as Democrat, Independent, Republican, or other political affiliation --- or if I were to self-identify as Catholic, Buddhist, etc.  No objectification is involved.  Homosexuality, by the way, is not a "disorder" or "inclination", anymore than heterosexuality or asexuality is a "disorder" or "inclination".

Sandi, I think good old-fashioned FEAR is at the root of toxic behavior displayed, for instance, by the likes of "Franki B" and likeminded.  It is FEAR, in other words, that motivates their concrete behavior including blog commenting.  One can only pity such folks' image of a vengeful god (lower case).  The expression "God is Love", set in this context, suggests a warped notion of both divine and human love for such people.  Whoever coined the term 'orthotoxy' has my gratitude.  His Enemance Raymond Cardinal Burke, I think, epitomizes the FEARful person in the church.  The irony here is that the FEARful-minded look up to other FEARful Catholics in positions of formal leadership like Burke.  Perhaps what is particularly disconcerting for such folks is that, for the first time since the death of John XXIII, a pope does not display FEAR but hope.  Such a leader must drive FEARful people literally "nuts".  There are several places in the Gospel where Jesus tells his listeners not to be FEARful (worry, anxiety, etc.), and there are several other passages in the Bible where Old and New Testament writers deliver the same divine encouragement.

Did anyone keep a count of how many real individual Catholics "Franki B" slandered on this string by dragging them in out of nowhere to be examples of the bogeymen and bogeywomen with whom he has populated his dystopia?

Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio 
AD TUENDAM FIDEM, 
by which certain norms are inserted 
into the Code of Canon Law 
and into the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches 

TO PROTECT THE FAITH of the Catholic Church against errors arising from certain members of the Christian faithful, especially from among those dedicated to the various disciplines of sacred theology, we, whose principal duty is to confirm the brethren in the faith (Lk 22:32), consider it absolutely necessary to add to the existing texts of the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, new norms which expressly impose the obligation of upholding truths proposed in a definitive way by the Magisterium of the Church, and which also establish related canonical sanctions.

1.From the first centuries to the present day, the Church has professed the truths of her faith in Christ and the mystery of his redemption. These truths were subsequently gathered into the Symbols of the faith, today known and proclaimed in common by the faithful in the solemn and festive celebration of Mass as the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

This same Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is contained in the Profession of faith developed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,(1) which must be made by specific members of the faithful when they receive an office, that is directly or indirectly related to deeper investigation into the truths of faith and morals, or is united to a particular power in the governance of the Church.(2)

2. The Profession of faith, which appropriately begins with the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, contains three propositions or paragraphs intended to describe the truths of the Catholic faith, which the Church, in the course of time and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit “who will teach the whole truth” (Jn 16:13), has ever more deeply explored and will continue to explore.(3)

The first paragraph states: “With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.”(4) This paragraph appropriately confirms and is provided for in the Church’s universal legislation, in canon 750 of the Code of Canon Law(5) and canon 598 of the Code of the Canons of the Eastern Churches.(6)

The third paragraph states: “Moreover I adhere with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.”(7) This paragraph has its corresponding legislative expression in canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law(8) and canon 599 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.(9)

3. The second paragraph, however, which states “I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals,”(10) has no corresponding canon in the Codes of the Catholic Church. This second paragraph of the Profession of faith is of utmost importance since it refers to truths that are necessarily connected to divine revelation. These truths, in the investigation of Catholic doctrine, illustrate the Divine Spirit’s particular inspiration for the Church’s deeper understanding of a truth concerning faith and morals, with which they are connected either for historical reasons or by a logical relationship.

4. Moved therefore by this need, and after careful deliberation, we have decided to overcome this lacuna in the universal law in the following way:

A) Canon 750 of the Code of Canon Law will now consist of two paragraphs; the first will present the text of the existing canon; the second will contain a new text. Thus, canon 750, in its complete form, will read:

Canon 750 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Canon 1371, n. 1 of the Code of Canon Law, consequently, will receive an appropriate reference to canon 750 § 2, so that it will now read:

Canon 1371 – The following are to be punished with a just penalty:

1° a person who, apart from the case mentioned in canon 1364 § 1, teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff, or by an Ecumenical Council, or obstinately rejects the teachings mentioned in canon 750 § 2 or in canon 752 and, when warned by the Apostolic See or by the Ordinary, does not retract;

2° a person who in any other way does not obey the lawful command or prohibition of the Apostolic See or the Ordinary or Superior and, after being warned, persists in disobedience.

B) Canon 598 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches will now have two paragraphs: the first will present the text of the existing canon and the second will contain a new text. Thus canon 598, in its complete form, will read as follows:

Canon 598 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Canon 1436 § 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, consequently, will receive an appropriate reference to canon 598 § 2, so that it will now read:

Canon 1436 – § 1. Whoever denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or who calls into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with a major excommunication; a cleric moreover can be punished with other penalties, not excluding deposition.

§ 2. In addition to these cases, whoever obstinately rejects a teaching that the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising the authentic Magisterium, have set forth to be held definitively, or who affirms what they have condemned as erroneous, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty.

5. We order that everything decreed by us in this Apostolic Letter, given motu proprio, be established and ratified, and we prescribe that the insertions listed above be introduced into the universal legislation of the Catholic Church, that is, into the Code of Canon Law and into the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Given in Rome, at St Peter’s, on 18 May, in the year 1998, the twentieth of our Pontificate.

JOHN PAUL II

>>Joe Jaglowicz:  With the mention above of Burke and his ilk of 'Prelates', I really believe that it is not their fear of the Church becoming riddled with apostasy, but rather their issues with losing the control and power that they vainly sought in their climb for preferement.  I wonder how many 'Princes of the Church' with their glorious Cappa Magnas and their exaggerated ceremonials and pretentions actually really know Christ as an experiential Being rather than as a slogan used to attain their exalted positions.

Similar thought regarding the small groups like Opus Dei, SSPX and others with their strict adherence to Latin (a dead language).  Why does anyone think that God prefers to be addressed and worshipped in Latin?  I know that this is a wasted argument, but to espouse that Latin is the only language suitable to worship is clearly an affectation.  It is no more true than that the Supreme Being can only be addressed in Aramaic or Hebrew (the language of Christ).

Since the prayers that God hears come from our hearts and souls as well as our mouths, I have no doubt that God understands all language - and none is more appropriate in God's ears, except perhaps in that the person(s) praying speak the language and understand the language - else it is just a repetition of sounds... Let's face it, if it were just words, one could easily teach a Parrot to say the Pater Noster - but would that be a prayer 'rising like incense before the throne of God'?

Jesus Christ taught us how to pray, very specifically, and since we don't really know how to pray, St Paul tells us that the Holy Spirit speaks our prayers to God 'in inutterable groanings'.

It is truly sad that those in preferement, who have gained power and control (while possibly losing their beliefs) with their followers,  are working against the Pope to split the People of God.  I cannot believe that this is the work of the Holy Spirit.  As we all know, Saint Paul reminds us to test everything in the Spirit, and that we will know the true Spirit by its fruits.  Anger, Division, False Teaching, Lack of Compassion and Love and Forgiveness - are these the true fruits of the Spirit?

I certainly don't think so.

Jonathan Davis, to clarify, I think the likes of Raymond Burke are people who harbor FEAR within themselves; they have a seriously distorted (read: vengeful) image of God and actually believe God will send them to hell if they die in a state of mortal sin.  I happen to be four months older than Burke, and I suspect he never developed beyond an elementary understanding of God's love.  Like many of my generation, he likely believes in a two-faced god (lower case):  die in grace and go to purgatory or heaven; die in serious sin and burn forever in eternal hell.  I give no credence in this respect to his post-secondary or professional education in theology or canon law.  How he got to this point in his minimal development, God only knows.  Otherwise, I agree with you:  These guys realize they're losing influence among the faithful who pay the bills but are also fed up with "pay-pray-obey".  

If you weren't aware, the Papal Latinist, Reginald Foster, OCD, wrote nine years ago that Latin (as you've noted) is a dead language.  See his "Pope's Latinist pronounces death of a language" at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1540843/Popes-Latinist-pronoun....  Interestingly, it was Pope Damasus I (366-384 AD) who made Latin the official language of his local church because most folks in Rome and environs no longer understood the original liturgical language, koine (read: "common") Greek.  I suspect if he'd prescribed Swahili, self-described "Traditionalists" would be insisting on our using *that* language in our worship today :-)  Pity these types.  A language is dead when it is no longer used in performing the tasks of daily living among the populace.

Nancy D, I embrace the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.  I also embrace the church's acknowledgement of supremacy of conscience in CCC-1776 - 1802.  As the CATECHISM states, church teaching is a "guide" to our moral development and behavior.  As I've stated many times elsewhere, a guide is a resource, not a mandate.  Each of us has a God-given brain, and God expects us to use it.  Most church teaching is not infallible:  It is not immune from error.  Rome has never promulgated a list of dogmatic teaching (even Ludwig Ott's list is not official); theologians differ among themselves as to which teachings are dogmatic in nature.

I refer you to canons 749 and 750 in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.  Basically, all church teaching is *proposed* for ecclesial reception --- or not.  This canonical acknowledgement, approved by JPII himself, stems from LG-12, which states in relevant part: "The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples' supernatural discernment in matters of faith when 'from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful' they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God."  As Vatican I taught in 1870 regarding papal infallibility, it is the church itself, i.e., all the baptized, that is infallible at all times; the pope, on the other hand, teaches infallibly only under the conditions specified in "Pastor aeternus".  Canon 749.3 governs all *proposed* teaching, intended as infallible or not.  

Franki B: Every liberal dissenting bishop in the U.S. was concerned with "social justice" and some like MaPhony had MA's in Social Work.  NONE had BA's in Economics or MBAs in Finance.  If they did, they wouldn't say the asinine and idiotic nonsense they do about the economy, income "inequality", job creation, wealth creation, etc.  The bishops and Vatican have as much knowledge and right to spout off on those topics as they do the latest angioplasty and valve replacement techqniques.

Thanks for your responses.  You argue that by education and experience [trading floor comment] that people are not qualified to spout off on certain topics.  That same argument could be applied to HV.  P VI did not have any experience in a marital relationship or in raising a family.  Should he have not commented on them? Some opposed to HV argue that he shouldn't have for that reason. I don't buy that argument.  You state that not everyone can or does follow HV.  That's not my point.  Any Catholic teaching is going to be followed or not followed.  The difference is that many people who are not following HV are not because they think the teaching is wrong.  And, I'd bet that some of them are traders on Wall Street.  A lot of dissent on Catholic teaching involves its teaching on sex.   The Church does not exist in a vaccuum and today's culture influences people's opinions, but so does experience.  

My impression is that P Francis and others who discuss social justice, income inequality, etc are not discussing methodology so much as goals.  And, that is certainly in their purview inasmuch as Jesus did also.  You put income inequality in quotes as if it didn't exist.  It does.  The income of individuals is a factual.  Whether it's good or bad for us as a country are economic, political and moral questions.  Jesus told the rich young man to give all his belongings to the poor. He said that it was easier for a rich man to get to heaven than to pass through the eye of a needle.  Those are serious moral issues raised by Christ that apply to all of us.  There are disagreements as to how things can/should be done.  But social justice is very Catholic.  I don't know if Krugman is Catholic, but does he have the right to spout off?  

The Catholic church is under attack and probably always has been.  Some of it may be justified and some may not be.  Think sex abuse scandal.  I don't buy that it was a liberal/conservative dynamic.  I think it was incredibly poor judgement by individuals trying to protect the Church, just as it was incredibly poor judgement at Penn State.  You say that dissenters are individuals who are academic, writers, and I've forgotten who else you included.  No kidding.  Who else would they be?  Just as a lot of individuals who are arguing against change are academic, etc.  I am not willing to question the motives of individuals on either side.  You claim Kaspar's motivated by greed.  Are traditionalist bishops/Cardinals motivated by power?  Do they just want to go back to the days when all the sheep in the pews just bleated and did what they were told?  I don't think either is true.  Both sides are motivated by the sincere desire to do God's work.  Lincoln talked about the same thing, although in a different context, during the Civil War.  

"Franki B", you contradict yourself.  On the one hand, you assert you are not governed by FEAR or hate.  On the other hand, you assert that you are motivated by "a willingness to DEFEND the Catholic Church from all enemies, external and internal."  FEAR, which is (so far as I know, anyway) involved in fighting the enemy, has two possible psychological responses, flght or flight.  You fight just like Wojtyla and Ratzinger although on a lower plane of demonstrated knowledge than the two previous pontiffs.  And that's OK.  On the other hand, you've displayed quite a lot of aggressiveness (as opposed to anger) toward fellow bloggers with whom you've disagreed.  Hate?  Leave judgment to the beholder.

I *believe* all the church teaches from the Deposit of Faith, defined as all that God has revealed through Christ for our salvation.  Most church teaching has not been divinely revealed, and most such teaching is not infallible, i.e., not subject to error.

On the other hand, my "laundry list" above is based on history and informed "common sense".  Regarding the so-called "ordained priesthood", for example, it was (in retrospect) a regrettable doctrinal novelty, not part of earliest Christian belief and practice.  As a future pope once acknowledged, "facts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine" (Joseph Ratzinger, THEOLOGICAL HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 16).  In other words, when the pope says one thing and history tells us something else, the latter must prevail.  It's a matter of integrity, and God values honesty.

So you're upset with Pope Francis.  Good!  I was upset with his two predecessors who tried heartily to impose all kinds of crap on the rest of us.  "Shoe's on the other foot", huh?

I engage with folks like you in the same way a cat plays with a mouse.

Go figure.

Franki B:  HATE (caps-lock and bold)

I don't see an hatred.  I do see, as you stated far up the thread, robust disagreement and argument - signs of adult discussion.  [Which I would not have thought calling Dorothy Day a wacko" met as a rhetorical standard.]  Perhaps this is "fraternal correction," or at least is intended as that.  My comment on rage was certainly not offered form hatred, but rather form concern.   But maybe that is a UCC perspective.

Appeals to "common sense" are among the most fruitless ploys possible.  In my experience, "calling for "common sense" is almost always an effort to end discussion, rather thna move it forward.   "Common sense" is the compliment we pay our deepest assumptions, menaning that we shallnot examine them further, but rather treat them as axioms, and insist that all others must do likewise.   Stan K, perhaps a few others here, and I might argue that Fourier transforms are "common sense," though even someone with an MBA in finance might beg to differ.   I always thought that the Gospels lay out the story of a man for whom "common sense" of his day [and ours, too: say efficient market theory, Presidential candifdates proposing to carpet bomb the MNE and reinstitute water-boarding, and so on] was the antithesis of His mission. 

Mark L.

"There's a war going on against Catholics....against the Church...against white, middle-class Catholics.  Some of us are not going to surrender."

     Not sure where the "white" part comes in here, but it does reveal a certain...perpsective. What has race to do at all with Catholicism? The vast majority of Catholics are now from the Great South, i.e. Africa and South America (including the Pope).  Jesus and his disciples were Galilean- brown, Semetic folks. St Augustine was straight up black.  That's the whole point: catholic means "universal" as in "big tent", as in tons of different people from all over the world. If you are fighting some nervous, rearguard white supremacy action, good luck (actually  bad luck). But not even the most crafty casuist could like such thinking to Catholicism. 

Joseph, "You cannot be my disciples if you do not abide in My Word", is not a suggestion from Jesus The Christ, it is a mandate.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm

A Catholic Conscience must be in communion with Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Certainly calling Dorothy Day a "wacko", is disrespectful, but claiming that one can remain a Catholic, while denying that God Is The Author of Love, and/or Life, and/or Marriage is blasphemy.

Nancy D,

All due respect, but I absolutely do not see anyone here "denying that God is the Author of Love, and/or Life, an/or Marriage."  People here (and everywhere) may have differing views about what those enormous generalizations mean, but in a couple years reading here, I have seen no sign of any such denials.  I would point out that three beliefs you cite here are common to every Christian - Protestant and Orrthodox as well as Catholic, as also to Jews and Muslims; given cultural differences as to what one means by "God," so far as I can tell also to those whose beliefs are outside the Abrahamic traditions.

Mark L.

>>Joseph Jaglowicz:  I had the good fortune, several years ago, to work with a priest in a neighboring church who attended Vatican II as a latin translator for his Bishop who, like many bishops in attendance, was sorely amiss in his ability to read, write and translate Latin. 

While working with Fr. L, I had a project I was engaged in for another parish and wanted an English-Latin translation.  (My own 5 years of Latin study ended when I graduated High School many, many years earlier.)

His response to me was, 'why do you want to translate something into Latin? It is a dead language'.  

Two years later, our Diocese started granting indults for the Tridentine Mass...   Huh!?!    Seems we had acquired (because of our severe shortage of priests) some Opus Dei newby's who were gung-ho at showing off their newly acquired skills and they were pressing the Bishop to allow it - nicely wrapped up, as it were, in the sadly correct but misleading title 'extraordinary form'.

Neighboring parishes soon picked up lots of transfers, not necessarily because of the language, but because of the 'put-on airs' and ridiculous vestments and what turned into a sad parody of the 'old' way.  

We are fortunate that our pastor had never had Latin in seminary. I canot imagine the divisiveness it would cause if we were to follow that route, given the wide range of church experiences of our parishioners.  

I personally hope that we leave the Latin to it's well deserved, and permanent, rest.

 "You by your own Lanudry List are not Catholic so that's not surprising.   My problem with PF is that he is emphasizing non-Catholic issues that have nothing to do with core Catholic teachings,"

We disagree, "Franki B".

>> Joseph Laglowicz:  Seems that just about everybody disagrees with "Franki B". But, (s)he'll never 'get it' because the poor person is so mired in error masquerading as truth that (s)he cannot see the error in logic, all (s)he can do is lash out in anger and frustration, born out of his fear that the tenuous hold on faith that (s)he has is slowly eroding since (s)he cannot get anyone to agree with him/her.  And, sadly, (s)he cannot seem to convince anyone to abandon 'His/Her' church so that (s)he can own it all by him/herself. 

I'd hate to be so wrapped up in self-righteousness that I couldn't even take part in a learned discourse toward the end of perhaps becoming enlightened.  Several of you have made the effort at gentle correction.  Perhaps, all that is left is to pray - to pray for the Holy Spirit's Gift of Right Judgement. 

Who needs a smartphone? You can read Frankie B's homilies 24 times on this thread alone. Not to mention the solos by his backup band, the Irreconcilables.

Franki B:

I'm sure you know Kierkegaard's dictum: "Life can only be understood looking backward, but it must be lived forward."  I think this is certainly correct in the sense that he wrote it, but that does not at all mean that every story we construct looking backward is an accurate or fair version on which useful understanding can be based.   But the second clause is where a Christian must focus: a life ahead, lived in hope formed from the Resurrection.

In raising the "oppression" of White ethnic Catholics (why to me, I don't understand, but it is just as well), you present one of the classic threads of the American style of paranoia in politics.   But you have said it to a person who, 52 years ago, stood on the steps of his working-class Catholic Church, heard his father called a f***ing n***r-lover at full voice and directly in front of the pastor and much of the congregation, and then watched that man spit in his father's face.   And no one but our family had any reaction to it.  Not that morning, and never afterward, though we had been members of the parish for 15 years.  Dad died years later, still in faithful communion with the Roman Catholic Church.  I have been inside a Catholic chuch twice for baptisms of the children of friends and once for the installation of a friend as a deacon.  What brought this on?  We had just sold our house to an African-American couple, the first in our town to own a home there.  The husband was a M.D./Ph.D. psychiatrist for the VA, and his wife was a Master's-level social worker, also for the VA.  An adornment and a blessing to any community.

The funny (ironic, not ha-ha) thing is that Dad's politics were the sort of "whack" Leftist stuff that you would associate with Dorothy Day.  [He worked with a Catholic Workers group in much of his "free time.]    He had a narrative that he would have been happy to share with his fellow parishioners about what was happening to them as a result of class - not race.  Understanding life by constructing a narrative looking backward - but a different narrative than you find supportive.

In any event, I hope that you can find a way to look and live forward that is hope-full and brings you peace.

Mark L.

Make that 25 homilies. Having searched the CCC and not found the names of Mahoney or Hunthausen, I can only conclude the Great Ecomomist is talking about the Civilian Conservation Corps.

I'm not a huge football fan, "Franki B", but I do enjoy watching college basketball, especially UofL and UK.

So you know the meaning of the word 'eschew'.  Quelle surprise! ( https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quelle_surprise(https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/quelle_surprise)

Jesus embraced both the secular and the spiritual, both flesh and religion.  If you doubt my assertion, see, for example, Luke 14:1-6, Matthew 12:1-8, and Mark 12:13-17.  Let's not forget also God taking on human flesh in the person of Jesus.  

I must ask again, are you of the male or female sex?  In my neck of the woods, names ending in "i" or "ie" are generally feminine.

Mark Logsdon, thank you for sharing information about your father.  No doubt, he put his faith into action and was not exclusionary-minded like some self-described "orthodox", "holier than Jesus" Roman Catholics.  

Thank you, Joseph.  He did, indeed, in many ways.

My problem was not much to do with the incident, but with the response to it.  The priest never said a word, that morning or ever: not to us (my brothers and I served at the alter, and Father McCarthy saw us every week at Mass) and not by way of a homily.   No one from the congregatrion - some dozens at least watched the entire thing - ever said a thing.  We were frozen out of that community and after a month or so, we started driving some distance to the next parish, where we were strangers.  In the Fall I went off to school and found a new home among the Congregationalists.  Dad left the decisions up to me and eachof my siblings.  52 years later, we all are churched and raised our families in Christianity, but none is a Catholic.

The oppression of White ethnic Catholics in Amercia is not a narrative that chimes for me.

Mark L.

>>Joseph Jaglowicz:  And that last post to you from FB elucidates just about everything important in the man (boy).  Sad, I think, what his life must be like... being so blindly bound by rules that were never meant to be 'absolutes' but guideposts. I wonder what Jesus would say to him (or, are those words perhaps already in scripture)?

>>Franki B:      "I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible...

I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God...

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life..."

I believe Christ's words are in the Four Gospels.

I believe when Christ said,  “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”

I believe that one day I shall see the Face of God - that, as in John 14: Jesus has gone before to prepare a place for me, that where He is, there I will also be. This WILL occur not because I am good, but because God is good.

I believe that 'LOVE' is the most important word in the New Testament - it permeates every parable, every situation, and is the basis of everything that Jesus did, said and taught.

I believe that Jesus castigated the temple hierarchy for NOT having love, for though they had 'rules', their rules did not arise from Love nor did they propagate Love.

I also believe that God's Love for you, Franki, is absolute and that His Love, like Salvation, (purchased on the Cross by His Son, Jesus) is a gift freely given.  I truly hope that you recognize that gift and, in humility, accept it.

I pray that when that day comes (hopefully after a full and fruitful life) you will recognize - through your anger, disappointment, self-righteousness and fear - the Face of God and accept his unwavering and freely offered gift!

I can wish this for you and pray this for you because of the Love of Christ in me... even though I am an imperfect being.

This is what the Catholic Church has taught me, and I am grateful for it.

Franki, why not draw attention to the grave danger of equating the Love of Communism with the Love of Christianity? How is it Loving or Merciful to excuse the heinous crimes of the communists and the suffering that they caused? To Love one another as Christ Loves us, is to desire Salvation not only for ourselves, but also for the other. "Beware the error of those who proclaim Mercy without repentence", for it is not Loving or Merciful to desire that we remain in our sins.

http://www.catholicworker.org/dorothyday/articles/232.html

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/msgr-pope/beware-the-error-of-those-who-p...

So Franki, since you clearly do not believe in Jesus Christ, his words, his actions, and therefore the entire new testament, I guess YOU'D be more happy in a Synagogue or perhaps a Southern Baptist church, as you clearly are neither Catholic nor Christian.

I have many Jewish friends, perhaps they can suggest some Orthodox Temples in your area; they may even have contacts in the Lubavitch and Hasidic communities. Let me know and I'll get you those names and places!  At the very least, they could suggest some Centrist Jewish Blogs for you to haunt...

Ciao, Franki!

26, 27, 28, 29. On and on it goes. It is indefatigable. What I cannot explain is what Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz has to do with the Civilian Conservation Corps. He is not in the Catechism.

Franki B: you are being obtuse in your discussion with me.  Do you seriously want to put forward the notion that because lots of White Ethnic Catholics would have reacted as did the parishioners if St. Patrick's in 1964, it was of no moral significance?   What astonishing moral relativism.  How are we to relate to such identity politics?  Indeed, given the distinctions you drew above over "liberal Catholics" vs "Catholic liberals," what shall we make of the construct "White ethnic Catholics?" 

I believe it was you who said that you know Rod Dreher (in the context of why he left the Roman Catholic Church).  I expect that you will be able to find a BenOp group with like-minded folk.  I hope the Holy Spirit guides you well, and I am sure God's mercy will extend to you, as I believe it does to all of us, even to us heretics.

Mark L.

Score-settling?  And where in the Gospels shall we look for our instruction on score-settling? 

Peace be with you.

Mark L.

I have read the deleted author's comments over on YellowBullet and I agree: the black political establishment is the enemy of the Catholic Church and all Catholics.   They have attacked our institutions, our Church, our neighborhoods, etc.

A race war is coming, and the Catholic Church needs to recognize that white Catholics must destroy the Black Left.

No defeat.  No surrender.