Graham Greene, Anyone?
Sean Benison
Since someone mentioned him in the "Favorite Books" thread, and I've just
recently read both _The Power and the Glory_ and _The Heart of the
Matter_, [1] I thought I would suggest Graham Greene's works as a
discussion topic. Any Graham Greene fans out there? Any thoughts on these
two books? Anything else by him that you'd recommend?
Sean Benison
ben...@geog.ucsb.edu
[1] Some readers may be able to guess what magazine I read from this. :)
Gerard Bugge
On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, Sean Benison wrote:
> Since someone mentioned him in the "Favorite Books" thread, and I've just
> recently read both _The Power and the Glory_ and _The Heart of the
> Matter_, [1] I thought I would suggest Graham Greene's works as a
> discussion topic. Any Graham Greene fans out there? Any thoughts on these
> two books? Anything else by him that you'd recommend?
> [1] Some readers may be able to guess what magazine I read from this. :)
So you, too, read The New Oxford Review! (Right? Wrong?).
I am no expert on Graham Greene; but I have read some of his
books, and most especially the two you mention, along with The Burnt Out
Case. I loved them all!
But, most especially, The Power and The Glory. I have read it
several times over the years and each time I end it with tears in my eyes!
I love the story itself, the underlying Catholic vision of life,
the interplay of sin and grace, and the ultimate "all things working out
to the good" through the sin, betrayals of us human beings. Grace
triumphs!
And the last scene.....the knock on the door....the appearance of
another to take the whiskey priest's place....what a testimony to the
faithfulness of Christ to His promises that the gates of hell will not
prevail against His Church!
Gerard Serafin
Kathy Hutchins
Sean Benison <ben...@RSRU.GEOG.UCSB.EDU> writes:
> Since someone mentioned him in the "Favorite Books" thread, and I've just
> recently read both _The Power and the Glory_ and _The Heart of the
> Matter_, [1] I thought I would suggest Graham Greene's works as a
> discussion topic. Any Graham Greene fans out there? Any thoughts on these
> two books? Anything else by him that you'd recommend?
I read _The Power and the Glory_ while I was preparing to enter the
Church, and it was like being hit in the solar plexus. Prior to
this, my approach to faith had been largely intellectual; Greene
managed to shake me out of that particular rut.
I have since read a lot of Greene, and I mentioned elsewhere that
_The Third Man_ is one of my favorite films. I just recently
saw a British TV production of another work of Greene's, which
I have never read: _The Tenth Man_, with Anthony Hopkins. The
production values of the movie were not very good, but the story
is haunting and compelling.
Other Greene I have liked: _Our Man in Havana_ (read it long before
my conversion, reread it a few months ago and liked it even
better), _The Human Factor_, and perhaps my very favorite,
_The End of the Affair_, another example of his view that grace
flows to us through some very unlikely channels.
Kathy Hutchins
khut...@vax1.iupui.edu
Ken Dawe
Been awhile since I read it but wasn't The Power and The Glory the book
in which the whiskey priest let villagers be killed instead of
surrendering himself to the Mexican authorities?
Dharma Bum
Gerard Bugge
I don't recall if anyone was actually killed; but at least one
hostage was taken---because the priest would not surrender himself. But
the story goes on and eventually, despite his sinfulness and cowardice,
the "whiskey priest" follows the path of fidelity to his priestly ministry
(going to give "Last Rites" to a dying man--and deep down suspecting it is
a "set-up"). In this act of fidelity, reluctant and fearsome as it is, he
ultimately "surrenders" himself and becomes a reluctant martyr, and
perhaps a reluctant saint.
Graham Greene expresses so powerfully the power and the glory of
the Catholic sacramental vision. Even in the midst of sin and utter
weakness. I suspect that's one reason this book still touches hearts.
Gerard Serafin
Bonnie Granat
Gerard Serafin wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Ken Dawe wrote:
>
> > Been awhile since I read it but wasn't The Power and The Glory the book
> > in which the whiskey priest let villagers be killed instead of
> > surrendering himself to the Mexican authorities?
>
> response to this post.
>
> Sorry!
>
> But it seems your memory is either getting very selective or weak
> if that is how you remember the main thrust of the tale. Did you really
> think a story about a whiskey priest who allows others to be murdered
> (and nothing more) would really be considered a Catholic classic?
>
> If so, you are quite prejudiced---against Catholics!
>
> Gerard Serafin
>
Dear Gerard,
Had you not made your response, I would have probably decided not to
read the book, even though Ken's comment was, shall we say, consistent
with his historical attitude toward Catholicism.
*************************************************************************
| |
Bonnie Granat | Writing, Editing, & Consulting |
Granat Communications | Proposals and Reports |
52 Irving St. | Communications Audits |
Cambridge, MA 02138-3007 | Research Translations |
(617) 354-7084 | Crisis Management Plans |
<bgr...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> | White Papers |
*************************************************************************
Bonnie Granat
Ken wrote:>
> On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Bonnie Granat wrote:
>
> > Had you not made your response, I would have probably decided not to
> > read the book, even though Ken's comment was, shall we say, consistent
> > with his historical attitude toward Catholicism.
>
>
> Is there some particular reason for such a judgmental comment about me?
>
> Dharma Plum
>
Dear Dharma Plum,
If you think I made a judgmental comment about you, please tell me what
it was. In this medium, one cannot be certain of the interpretation
that is made to one's words.
Bonnie
Gerard Bugge
Ken Dawe
> But it seems your memory is either getting very selective or weak
> if that is how you remember the main thrust of the tale. Did you really
> think a story about a whiskey priest who allows others to be murdered
> (and nothing more) would really be considered a Catholic classic?
>
> If so, you are quite prejudiced---against Catholics!
Now, Gerard, don't get yer panties all wadded up. All I asked was if that
was the book in which a Catholic priest was so cowardly that he let
others be killed in his place. You may call that a weak or selective
memory. I'm more inclined to call it a memory that was shocked at the
cowardliness of a priest who would let others be killed in his place.
Rather disgusting I thought.
How could being revolted by the actions of a character in a novel be
construed as being prejudiced against Catholics?
In my opinion the book is far from being a classic. Greene is as
over-rated as Waugh.
Dharma Bum
Gerard Bugge
On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Ken Dawe wrote:
> Now, Gerard, don't get yer panties all wadded up. All I asked was if that
> was the book in which a Catholic priest was so cowardly that he let
> others be killed in his place. You may call that a weak or selective
> memory. I'm more inclined to call it a memory that was shocked at the
> cowardliness of a priest who would let others be killed in his place.
> Rather disgusting I thought.
>
> How could being revolted by the actions of a character in a novel be
> construed as being prejudiced against Catholics?
>
> In my opinion the book is far from being a classic. Greene is as
> over-rated as Waugh.
Dear Dharma,
Surprised at how self-righteous you sound here! Do you also think
David is revolting; and that the Psalms are over-rated too?
Gerard Serafin
Ken Dawe
On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, Bonnie Granat wrote:
> You have communicated very clearly that you do not love the Catholic
> Church, nor Catholicism itself. When I use the word "historical" I am
> referring to my experience of you on this list during the past several
> months.
Blthththththththththththththththththth.
That kind of judgmental crap deserves that kind of a reply.
Dharma Bum
Ken Dawe
On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, Gerard Bugge wrote:
> > In my opinion the book is far from being a classic. Greene is as
> > over-rated as Waugh.
>
> Surprised at how self-righteous you sound here! Do you also think
> David is revolting; and that the Psalms are over-rated too?
I read books and I form opinions just like anyone else. My opinion of
an author or a particular book is as valid as anyone else's. If that's
self-righteous, then everyone's opinion is self-righteous.
There are aspects of David's life that are revolting but then again none
of us are perfect.
As for the Psalms, I like Ernesto Cardenal's version of Psalm 150:
Praise the Lord in his cosmos
Praise him in his sanctuary
Praise him with a radio-signal
100,000 million light years away
Praise him in the stars
in interstellar sapce
Praise him in the galaxies
in intergalactic space
Praise him in atoms
in interatomic space
Praise him in violin and flute
on the saxophone
Praise him with clarinet and horn
with coronet and trombone
on alto sax and trumpet
Praise him with viola and cello
on piano and harpsichord
Praise him with blues and jazz
with an orchestra
Praise him with spirituals
with soul music and Beethoven's fifth
with marimbas and guitars
Praise him with disca and cassettes
with hi-fi systems
and quadrophonic sound.
Let everything that draws breath praise him
Alleluia!
Let all living cells praise the Lord
Alleluia!
Praise the Lord!
Dharma Bum
Ken Dawe
> It is a plain statement of fact (that others on this list know as well
> as I do) that you do not love the Catholic Church -- it's no "judgment"
> in the sense of being some kind of referendum on your whole life, Ken!
You know I don't love the Catholic Church, do you? And others know it
too, do they?
My My!! Isn't God wonderful to have such great multiplicity? How long
have you been laden with such clear knowledge?
I would suggest that you know nothing but judge everything.
> Millions of people feel the same way, maybe even billions. If I am
> wrong, then you are certainly able to correct my misperception and
> that of many others on this list.
Bonnie, go soak your head!! Your judgmentalism is primitive.
> Other people have mentioned that you come across as anti-Catholic, Ken,
> so you should be at least willing to recognize my comment is *not*
> coming out of the blue. Your own words have created this impression.
Let me guess who the other people are, Bonnie. Would it be those who hide
their smug self-righteousness behind the veneer of some pre-Vatican
idealistic world...and who get wadded panties whenever someone questions
their conservative orthodox authoritarian world?
Would it be because I don't bow down to the world of the Wanderer, or
Opus Dei, or hierarchy on a pedestal, or God with a penis, or male only
priesthood or other superior beliefs of a small minority of catholics who
are content to live in the past?
Frankly, what I hear you saying is that if i don't agree with a few
conservative list members' views, then I am anti-Catholic. How simplistic
can you get?
Rituals, practices, observances are great but they aren't the essential
teaching of Jesus. All he ever said we had do to was to love God and love
neighbor. Everything else is extraneous...cute but extraneous.
Your idea of Catholicism is a narrow one in a big Spirit of Christ filled
universe. I wouldn't be so quick to say you know what I am when I speak
for a church filled with the spirit of Vatican II.
It pisses me off big time to see such petty-minded quibbling about where
the tabernacle or what awful things happened to the church with the new mass,
or whether someone is wearing a shirt over her knee. How idiotic and
smal-mineded!!
> Again, if I am wrong, why not correct me? If I am not wrong, why not
> stand up up like a real man and admit it? It's no crime, for goodness'
> sake!
What do you want me to do...become a charter member of the Joe Ratzinger
fan club?
> It's your words, Ken, your words. They reveal what's in your heart.
> And I'm afraid you come across as "slamming the Church" and lacking
> respect for others' orthodoxy. Your comment to Gerard was only one of
> many.
Haha Is that what's bothering you, Bonnie? That the Blessed One
expresses his "this is the way the Church should be and everyone should
be this way"? Sorry but I'll withhold my membership fees for awhile.
> You may fool yourself, Ken, but you don't fool me!
Bonnie, wake up and smell the roses!!
Dharma Bum
Bonnie Granat
Ken Dawe wrote:
> > It is a plain statement of fact (that others on this list know as well
> > as I do) that you do not love the Catholic Church -- it's no "judgment"
> > in the sense of being some kind of referendum on your whole life, Ken!
>
> You know I don't love the Catholic Church, do you? And others know it
> too, do they?
Well, Ken, all I can say is that if you *do* you're
hiding it pretty well. Why don't you ask some others
if they think I'm totally off the wall?
By the way, you just had an opportunity to correct me
if I was wrong, but you didn't take it.
>
> My My!! Isn't God wonderful to have such great multiplicity? How long
> have you been laden with such clear knowledge?
All I know about people here is what they say here.
>
> I would suggest that you know nothing but judge everything.
>
Ken, I told you I am not "judging" you. There are
many fine people in this world that don't love the
Catholic Church or Catholicism. I made a statement
in answer to a question of yours about my perception
of you. It was not a "judgment" of you. It was
a statement of an apparent "fact" which you have yet
to deny.
> > Millions of people feel the same way, maybe even billions. If I am
> > wrong, then you are certainly able to correct my misperception and
> > that of many others on this list.
>
> Bonnie, go soak your head!! Your judgmentalism is primitive.
What a positively brilliant response, Ken! Perhaps you
misunderstood what I meant above. I meant that millions,
maybe even billions, of people do not love the Catholic
Church or Catholicism itself. I didn't mean that all
these people agreed with my perception of you. I think
the figure of non-Catholics in the world is about 2/3 or
so, but I could be wrong. Anyway, the point I was
intending to make seems to have not been expressed
clearly. It's perfectly okay to not love the Catholic
Church if that is the decision of your conscience -- that
is what I'm saying. Millions of people have made the
same decision. But on a Catholic list, somehow I don't
expect to hear the Church slammed and its beliefs and
practices derided the way you do.
>
> > Other people have mentioned that you come across as anti-Catholic, Ken,
> > so you should be at least willing to recognize my comment is *not*
> > coming out of the blue. Your own words have created this impression.
>
> Let me guess who the other people are, Bonnie. Would it be those who hide
> their smug self-righteousness behind the veneer of some pre-Vatican
> idealistic world...and who get wadded panties whenever someone questions
> their conservative orthodox authoritarian world?
Listen to yourself, Ken. I stated a fact -- that you
don't love the Church. That was not a judgment on you,
it was a statement of fact that, again, you have not
denied. And what do you do? You write the above
paragraph.
>
> Would it be because I don't bow down to the world of the Wanderer, or
> Opus Dei, or hierarchy on a pedestal, or God with a penis, or male only
> priesthood or other superior beliefs of a small minority of catholics who
> are content to live in the past?
No, it's mostly your snide, sneering attitude. Disagreeing
about these things can be mutually rewarding if the discussion
is conducted between people of goodwill who are content to
treat one another truly lovingly. You always back away from
meaningful discussions. I have witnessed many attempts to
engage you in conversation, but you reject them all and come
back with some one-liner that is usually hurtful.
>
> Frankly, what I hear you saying is that if i don't agree with a few
> conservative list members' views, then I am anti-Catholic. How simplistic
> can you get?
>
No, Ken, that's not what I'm saying. It's your belligerent
attitude that I mind. Perhaps before I got here there was
hostility towards people with more liberal views, but I don't
see any reason why today liberals and conservatives can't
discuss things without such vitriol.
> Rituals, practices, observances are great but they aren't the essential
> teaching of Jesus. All he ever said we had do to was to love God and love
> neighbor. Everything else is extraneous...cute but extraneous.
>
Perhaps we could talk about what Jesus' teaching means
here and how we are expressing our love for one another
on this list. I certainly have a lot to learn, but how
can I learn from you if you make only disparaging
remarks about my faith?
> Your idea of Catholicism is a narrow one in a big Spirit of Christ filled
> universe. I wouldn't be so quick to say you know what I am when I speak
> for a church filled with the spirit of Vatican II.
My idea of Catholicism does not include those who
bash the faith -- you are quite right. People who
attack the Church in a hit-and-run fashion are
impossible to reconcile with, as they never are
willing to stick around and *talk* -- they just
hurl a poisonous arrow and get some kind of
payoff from that. You obviously say the things
you do to be provocative! Well, you've been
provocative.
>
> It pisses me off big time to see such petty-minded quibbling about where
> the tabernacle or what awful things happened to the church with the new mass,
> or whether someone is wearing a shirt over her knee. How idiotic and
> smal-mineded!!
You are really pissed, I can tell, because you're typing
is shot to hell....
Look, none of those issues are important to *me*. So
don't hit me with a foam-rubber baseball bat, okay?
What you're pissed off about has NOTHING to do with
anything *I've* ever said here.
The tabernacle holds the Real Presence, Ken, and where
it is *is* important to those who wish to visit the
Blessed Sacrament outside of Mass. I think it is
also worth noting that changes in religious practice
can be very difficult. But I don't get personally
worked up about these issues.
>
> > Again, if I am wrong, why not correct me? If I am not wrong, why not
> > stand up up like a real man and admit it? It's no crime, for goodness'
> > sake!
>
> What do you want me to do...become a charter member of the Joe Ratzinger
> fan club?
No. State your opinions without deriding others with
different opinions. Be yourself, but rein in the
natural desires to conquer your perceived "enemy."
>
> > It's your words, Ken, your words. They reveal what's in your heart.
> > And I'm afraid you come across as "slamming the Church" and lacking
> > respect for others' orthodoxy. Your comment to Gerard was only one of
> > many.
>
> Haha Is that what's bothering you, Bonnie? That the Blessed One
> expresses his "this is the way the Church should be and everyone should
> be this way"? Sorry but I'll withhold my membership fees for awhile.
Perhaps you think that your freedom to have your own
opinions is not respected here. I can assure you that
it *is* highly respected. That is not the issue, Ken.
I think you misread the Blessed Serafin when you make
the above "quote" in summary of his statements.
Everyone should follow their conscience; your freedom,
your *duty* in fact, is to do that.
>
> > You may fool yourself, Ken, but you don't fool me!
>
> Bonnie, wake up and smell the roses!!
I'm quite awake, Ken, and I smell the roses. Have
you been saying the Rosary? (I couldn't resist that,
please forgive me.)
Here are some roses for you: Discussions about disagreements
among people of goodwill is a good thing until people start
aiming to hurt instead of enlighten. Sharp arrows cause
people to bleed. We can love one another and make our
points without deriding our opponent. Don't you think
that this is what Christ calls us to?
>
> Dharma Bum
>
Is there an English translation for this name, by the way?
Bonnie Granat
Bonnie Granat
Dear Ken,
It is a plain statement of fact (that others on this list know as well
as I do) that you do not love the Catholic Church -- it's no "judgment"
in the sense of being some kind of referendum on your whole life, Ken!
Millions of people feel the same way, maybe even billions. If I am
wrong, then you are certainly able to correct my misperception and
that of many others on this list.
I do not "judge" you for that or imply anything else when I make the
statement. You asked what was *consistent* in your attitude, and I
answered you.
Other people have mentioned that you come across as anti-Catholic, Ken,
so you should be at least willing to recognize my comment is *not*
coming out of the blue. Your own words have created this impression.
Again, if I am wrong, why not correct me? If I am not wrong, why not
stand up up like a real man and admit it? It's no crime, for goodness'
sake!
It's your words, Ken, your words. They reveal what's in your heart.
And I'm afraid you come across as "slamming the Church" and lacking
respect for others' orthodoxy. Your comment to Gerard was only one of
many.
You may fool yourself, Ken, but you don't fool me!
*************************************************************************
Gerard Bugge
On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, Ken Dawe wrote:
> > It's your words, Ken, your words. They reveal what's in your heart.
> > And I'm afraid you come across as "slamming the Church" and lacking
> > respect for others' orthodoxy. Your comment to Gerard was only one of
> > many.
>
> Haha Is that what's bothering you, Bonnie? That the Blessed One
> expresses his "this is the way the Church should be and everyone should
> be this way"? Sorry but I'll withhold my membership fees for awhile.
Dear Ken,
Am I the Blessed One referred to here?
If you really think my posts convey "this is the way the Church
should be and everyone should be this way" I do think you have a real
problem of stereotyping and prejudging--without actually reading or trying
to understand the words actually written.
I write a fair amount for this List, Ken. (As do you!). I think
I can safely say that your comments do not accurately reflect my thinking.
And even when I, like anyone else, expresses convictions and concerns I
attempt to be open-hearted and gentlemanly about it.
I may fail at times. But I do not think your comments are
justified by the facts.
And I did not say your sounded self-righteous because you
expressed an opinion on Greene's book. But because you seemed to imply
that a priest who might possibly have led to the death of others through
cowardice was "revolting" and "disgusting"....even though he eventually
offered his own life in fidelity to his vocation. *That* came across as
self-righteous sounding to me! I am not telling you in that "that this is
the way the Church should be and you had better shape up".
Ken, I do not think you see how negative you can come across at
times. You can get us laughing as few can! But you can also hurt perhaps
as few do on this list.
Gerard Serafin
Lisa Basarab
Dear brethren in Christ,
Of all the disputes on this list, this is the one that has pained the
most. It involves (so far) four regular posters, all of whom I admire and
like and read faithfully because they have wonderful contributions to
make. One of them is iconoclastically funny and has a great capacity (I
think) to love, one is so bright and knowledgeable and candid and eager to
learn and love the Church, one is the one I go to most regularly on the
list for a calm voice of wit and reason and erudition (and he has provided
it here, again), and one is the person most representative of the joy of
our Lord whom I have ever met, and the one who is generally the most open
and giving to others on the list, reaching out in kindness (almost
invariably). Oh, please reconcile! Dharma Bum, what happened to your good
humor? I miss it! Peace be with all. Let us live in love, even of those
whose posts we don't like!
* * *
* *
@ + + @
'
<v>
O.K., so my character drawing skills need improvement! That's supposed to
be a smile, not a tongue sticking out!
In Him,
Lisa
Ed Faulk
Fiona MARSDEN <st95...@ECHIDNA.STU.COWAN.EDU.AU> writes:
> On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, Pavel Chichikov wrote:
>
> > I must say, Fi, that my impressions coincide with Bonnie's.
> > Anyway, who are we to be disappointed or otherwise with anyone else?
> > Actually though, people go through stages which are not
> > necessarily permanent, so why be in a rush to nail anyone down to a
> > position. OTOH, the Church is not the same as an ashram, nor is Buddhism
> > really remotely anything like Christianity in spirit or intention. This is
> > not to say that it isn't full of charity, maybe more than people who call
> > themselves Christians, though certainly not more than followers of Jesus.
>
> Here I am being gently reprimanded by our beloved Pavel once again for
> expressing my disappointment that Bonnie doesn't see her statements as
> judgemental...and she is usually so well balanced and KIND.
>
> As for Ken Dawe...and Buddhism...there are aspects of Zen that are quite
> compatible with Christianity. Not that this is my prefered form of
> Christianity...but in meeting some eastern Christians I have found them
> to be quite different in expression to what my local congregation
> considers the norm of Christian life. They have taken what is good and
> useful from their culture and Christianised it. The result seems alien
> to us but is still Catholicism.
This morning in the Los Angeles Times there was an interesting article on the
Catholic and Buddhist conference taking place at the Trappist monastery at
Gethsemane, Ky. They have found a lot of common ground, especially in areas of
meditation. One Buddhist monk even likened the cross to a koan (a paradoxical
statement) in which the ultimate triumph of the cross is evidenced by its utter
helplessness. Quite an insight!
> Some Japanese churches have an Altar that resembles the low table used in
> the pagan tea ceremony...does this make their celebration pagan?...there
> are no pews and kneelers in their churches...does this make them less of
> a church?
In a sense, it is pagan for it has no "God". However, Paul teaches us that the
law of God is written in each heart. Thus, all seek after God using whatever
light they are given. We have to respect and honor Truth wherever it is found.
After all, the fullness of Truth, Jesus, is not contained in any one Church or
religion. There are many aspects of Truth that cannot be contained any more
than Jesus can be contained. We find the commonality to provide a basis for
discussing our differences, not the other way around.
> Ken is often attacked for his anti establishment attitudes and seems to
> resent some of the more orthodox posters on this list. Personally I
> don't blame him for his resentment. In the two years I have been on this
> list I have never seen him express his views on his faith without being
> pounced on as unChristian and unCatholic.
We need people on the edge to call us to re-examine who it is we claim to be.
Jesus did that for the Jews. He called them, chided them about how they lost
their focus. I'm not comparing Ken to Jesus, don't misunderstand me, but we
need to see that incredible panorama that is contained in the Catholic Church.
There is a broad spectrum of acceptable thought in this Church -- we do not
march in lock step, each holding to an identical vision or understanding of the
Church's teaching. Rather, we all filter it through our own lived experience.
We cannot help but do that. Thus, each of us finds a particular area that
resonates deeply within us, and that we cling to. In doing this, we
automatically take other areas and lessen their importance to us.
> Are we frightened of what is different that we can't accept that there
> are differing expressions of the Catholic faith...sure Ken is real
> 'different' but he is on his own journey of faith and I'm sure that God
> will lead him were He wills.
There is a great tendency to fear that which is "other." There has been great
fear expressed on this board that the Church will be taken away from us, that
we will lose our great patrimony. Abp. Quinn has noted that many are treating
orthodoxy as fear of error instead of a faith that will get us through.
<snip>
> I guess I am just a little frustrated at the moment...there has been so
> much criticism of people for not conforming to what seems to be the
> accepted style of Catholicism on this list that I am wondering whether I
> really am Catholic.
There is a broad spectrum of acceptable thought and belief within the Catholic
Church. The Catechism talks about unity through diversity (#814) and talks
about the fact that we have one faith which is expressed through this vast
diversity of people, cultures, gifts, and ways of life. Those who require unity
through uniformity have missed the reality of what the Church is. God's gifts
are given to different people in different situations. This results in an
incredible panoply.
> One of the beauties of the Catholic church has always been for me, the
> ability to embrace so many streams of spirituality...but the general
> trend of late on this list seems to be that only certain streams are
> acceptable and orthodox and the rest are somehow less Catholic.
In fact, this is one of the definitions of the Church -- the ability to
enculturate the Gospel. It is in this that we, as Catholics, excel. We do not
attempt to enforce European thought and practice across the world (regardless
of what some *think* we should do), but rather seek to make the Gospel message
relevant regardless of the situation in which it is preached.
> In that way I guess I empathise with Ken cos I feel I am being pushed
> aside and my faith of no account because it doesn't conform with what
> seems to have become the accepted norm on this list.
What "conforms to the list" is irrelevant. What is important is conforming to
Jesus. When we do that, we evidence the Gospel in our lives and, therefore, in
the world. When we fail to do that we give lie to the Gospel and are, thereby,
responsible for hindering the coming of the Kingdom.
BTW, the Kingdom is already and not yet. The Kingdom is here, and we await the
coming of the Kingdom. This is a paradox that needs serious reflection.
Deacon Ed
Ken Dawe
On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Bonnie Granat wrote:
> Ken wrote:>
> > On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Bonnie Granat wrote:
> >
> > > Had you not made your response, I would have probably decided not to
> > > read the book, even though Ken's comment was, shall we say, consistent
> > > with his historical attitude toward Catholicism.
> >
> > Is there some particular reason for such a judgmental comment about me?
>
> Dear Dharma Plum,
>
> If you think I made a judgmental comment about you, please tell me what
> it was. In this medium, one cannot be certain of the interpretation
> that is made to one's words.
What exactly is it about my historical attitude toward Catholicism that is
consistent?
Dharma Bum
Pavel Chichikov
Ken,
Time to be shocked by someone else's cowardice when you receive
your own medal for courage. Ever been in a tight spot that you might have
to die to get out of? If you have, one might expect more understanding
from you. If you haven't that's a clue to keep your peace about it.
Pavel
Lisa K.
There was a time in my life when I thought that I would have to die to get
out of it. (I was a crime victim at the time.) With this certanity, that I
was about to die, I found myself saying things that today, I amazed that I
had the courage to say. However, there is not a doubt in my heart that I
was not the one saying them, God was with me very much that long ago summer
night, which is the only reason that I am here to talk about it today.
Even with this in my past, I could never say a word about just how someone
deals with a situation that is life threatening. It is this experience in
my life, (and several others throughout my mis-spent youth), that makes it
very hard for me to say something about how a person, fictional or not,
deals with such a serious situation. All any of us can do is to pray that
if we are ever faced with such a situation, that we will have the faith to
face it in a manner pleasing to God.
Peace,
Lisa K.
=^..^"
Bonnie Granat
>
> On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, Bonnie Granat wrote:
>
> > >
> > > What exactly is it about my historical attitude toward Catholicism that is
> > > consistent?
> > >
> > > Dharma Bum
> > >
> >
> > Church, nor Catholicism itself. When I use the word "historical" I am
> > referring to my experience of you on this list during the past several
> > months.
> >
That's right, I make no judgment about Ken as a person; I
simply state my perception. I have never heard him utter
a kind word about the Church. I am not condemning Ken, but
I am making a statement of how I perceive his attitude to
the Church. "Judge not, lest ye be judged" has nothing
to do with forming evaluations of where people stand and
what positions they take. I am not stating anything at all
about his relationship to God or his spiritual standing
before the Lord. *That* would be "judgment." I am only
stating my observation and I am willing be corrected if I
am wrog.
>
> Tsk Tsk Bonnie...I'm sure you would be the first to condemn someone for
> criticising your religious beliefs and faith in the Church on the
> evidence of a few posts on FCL.
Now you're beginning to get it, Fiona....
What do you think I'm objecting to?
No one has criticized *his* beliefs, but
he sees fit to do so to others.
>
> It seems that the Catholic Church has been nailed into a box and we all
> must conform...
>
It is YOU who say this, not I. We are each free to form our own
consciences; I think Ken crosses over the line to outright disrespect
and inappropriateness. I don't say we all have to conform; I say pre-
cisely the opposite. We need to respect one another and not treat each
other as the enemy. He takes an antagonistic stance against anyone who
believes differently than him and his sarcasm and derisiveness is
uncalled for.
> Semper Fi $:-]
>
> Who is disappointed her first impressions have not stood the test of time.
>
I am terribly sorry if you don't approve, Fiona, but I
am going to object to Catholic Church-bashing whenever
I feel moved to do so. You are free to criticize my
behavior, but I feel it is right for me to speak.
Perhaps I should have ignored Ken's question, as he was
asking something about a remark I made to someone else.
I did not think my stating what must be perceived by
many here -- that he does not love the Church or Catholicism
itself -- would be so emotionally received. It is more than
interesting to note that this perception of mine has yet to
be corrected. Therefore, I assume it is true, and the
tragedy is doubled, because he can't even admit it. *He's*
the only person who thinks there's a judgment being made;
I just stated a fact -- which, again, he has yet to deny.
Bonnie Granat
Bonnie Granat
>
> On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Bonnie Granat wrote:
>
> > Ken wrote:>
> > > On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Bonnie Granat wrote:
> > >
> > > > Had you not made your response, I would have probably decided not to
> > > > read the book, even though Ken's comment was, shall we say, consistent
> > > > with his historical attitude toward Catholicism.
> > >
> > > Is there some particular reason for such a judgmental comment about me?
> >
> > Dear Dharma Plum,
> >
> > If you think I made a judgmental comment about you, please tell me what
> > it was. In this medium, one cannot be certain of the interpretation
> > that is made to one's words.
>
> consistent?
>
> Dharma Bum
>
You have communicated very clearly that you do not love the Catholic
Church, nor Catholicism itself. When I use the word "historical" I am
referring to my experience of you on this list during the past several
months.
*************************************************************************
Richard van Dijk
Beloved Sisters and Brothers!
I'm completely and totally confused about this thread. I've quit a
back-log of messages to read, and some to answer, but this message
must go first, simply because I'm not sure anymore if this list is
worth my time.
The thread really started when Ken objected to a book because he
didn't like the negative way a priest was pictured in it (from his
perspective, of course!). The next thing that happened was that Ken
got accused of "not loving the church".
This truly amazing leap in logic, made Ken react in a understandable
but at the same time ungentelmanlike way. That was an act of charity
from his side, because he answered weakness with weakness. If someone
had said such a thing to me, *I* would have preached hell and
damnation in a sincere and correct wording. The aim of that would of
course have been to humiliate the attacker, which is a far less
Christian thing to do than just vent anger, as Ken did...
But even more amazing is the debate that follows... I start to
suspect, and in this I seem to concur with Ken, that there are some
people to whom "orthodoxy" has become a goal in itself. This is in
itself a valid point of view, one that I will always respect. And I
will always defend the right of anyone to hold to that view.
But it is my sincere believe, result of much soul-searching and
wrestling in my conscience, that this kind of orthodoxy is
incompatible with what I understand Christianity to be!
Let no one be unsure about it: I don't mean to belittle the necessity
of orthodoxy. But it is a means. Not an end.
I will obey church-doctrine. Not because I *have* to, but because it
is true. That is, most of it.
There have been errors. I don't mean individual misuse of position,
that is, sadly, inevitable. I do mean that there have been errors in
the official teaching of the church.
Does anyone remember that the church has, in the past, enforced its
teachings with violence, rather than with persistence and love?
Does anyone remember Galileo Galilei?
Does anyone remember the revocation of sainthood of a number of
saints?
And now, after centuries of declaring those "traitors-of-the-Church",
those "evil followers" of Luther and Calvin, to be aiming straight for
hell, we are now embracing them in open and active dialog...
In all these cases, and some more, the Church as turned around. If I
see what several Popes said, even in this century, about the "other
christians" and compare the definitive character of those statements
with the statement of the present Pope on the ordination of women,
then I expect to see women in the priesthood within the next 60 years!
Apparently that's the way things can develop in our Church. Or
perhaps I should say, that is the way the Holy Spirit seems to adjust
the direction we take...
I respect the teaching of the Church, I long for it, I love it. Just
as st. Peter himself, the whole church that is built upon him, is at
times insecure and quite human... which is at Christ has meant it to
be...
But there is no way that that teaching can automatically take the
place of my own conscience. At the time that my final reckoning comes,
and I'm asked why I behaved in a certain way, then it just will not do
to say "well, I did that because the Pope said I should do it;
personally I didn't like it, but... you know... the Pope.."
The only way we can at that moment even begin to justify our choices
is to be able to say "I did that because I love YOU!".
Because I love the Church, and that certainly includes He who is the
head to the body that the Church is, I want to see the Church
portrayed as a bastion of strength, as a pillar of love, as a beacon
for the insecure. Not, *not*, NOT as a out-dated institution where
silly old man exist who get a kick out of forbidding all kind of
things. That is not what the Church is about, and any attempt to
portray it as such, by cynics of by the "orthodox" risk a scratch from
my very own, very little flaming sword!
In the mean time people with *REAL* problems stand crying in front of
closed churches. While within magnificent halls learned men, (and some
women) are shouting *Heresy, Heresy* to each other, uncountable
numbers of young people have lost their way. And in stead of trying to
understand their needs they are criticized if the walk in the
direction of "New Age" not because they know what that is, but because
*there* at least people seem to listen...
Ach!
I'm just angry with the lot of you, except of course Deacon Ed, who
sometimes a shining example. But most of what I read in here is words
about words about words. It's just as if I were among Calvinists or
Lutherans. Remember, it was Luther who doubted about keeping the
Letter of James in the bible. Let's NOT walk that way. Let's keep to
the Catholic way, as prescribed by James: DEEDS, NOT WORDS!
Richard
er...@euronet.nl
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I apologize if I have offended anyone through the possibly
incorrect use of a language that really is not my own...
Gerard Bugge
On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, Ken Dawe wrote:
> Let me guess who the other people are, Bonnie. Would it be those who hide
> their smug self-righteousness behind the veneer of some pre-Vatican
> idealistic world...and who get wadded panties whenever someone questions
> their conservative orthodox authoritarian world?
>
> Would it be because I don't bow down to the world of the Wanderer, or
> Opus Dei, or hierarchy on a pedestal, or God with a penis, or male only
> priesthood or other superior beliefs of a small minority of catholics who
> are content to live in the past?
>
> It pisses me off big time to see such petty-minded quibbling about where
> the tabernacle or what awful things happened to the church with the new mass,
> or whether someone is wearing a shirt over her knee. How idiotic and
> smal-mineded!!
Ken,
Unlike those you so harshly criticize, I suppose you consider
yourself open-minded and generous and big. Please reread your own words
here and *listen* to their tone......
Gerard Serafin
Fiona MARSDEN
On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, Bonnie Granat wrote:
> >
> > What exactly is it about my historical attitude toward Catholicism that is
> > consistent?
> >
> > Dharma Bum
> >
>
> You have communicated very clearly that you do not love the Catholic
> Church, nor Catholicism itself. When I use the word "historical" I am
> referring to my experience of you on this list during the past several
> months.
>
And you think that is not judgemental??!?!?!?
Tsk Tsk Bonnie...I'm sure you would be the first to condemn someone for
criticising your religious beliefs and faith in the Church on the
evidence of a few posts on FCL.
It seems that the Catholic Church has been nailed into a box and we all
must conform...
Semper Fi $:-]
Fiona MARSDEN
On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, Pavel Chichikov wrote:
> I must say, Fi, that my impressions coincide with Bonnie's.
> Anyway, who are we to be disappointed or otherwise with anyone else?
> Actually though, people go through stages which are not
> necessarily permanent, so why be in a rush to nail anyone down to a
> position. OTOH, the Church is not the same as an ashram, nor is Buddhism
> really remotely anything like Christianity in spirit or intention. This is
> not to say that it isn't full of charity, maybe more than people who call
> themselves Christians, though certainly not more than followers of Jesus.
Here I am being gently reprimanded by our beloved Pavel once again for
expressing my disappointment that Bonnie doesn't see her statements as
judgemental...and she is usually so well balanced and KIND.
As for Ken Dawe...and Buddhism...there are aspects of Zen that are quite
compatible with Christianity. Not that this is my prefered form of
Christianity...but in meeting some eastern Christians I have found them
to be quite different in expression to what my local congregation
considers the norm of Christian life. They have taken what is good and
useful from their culture and Christianised it. The result seems alien
to us but is still Catholicism.
Some Japanese churches have an Altar that resembles the low table used in
the pagan tea ceremony...does this make their celebration pagan?...there
are no pews and kneelers in their churches...does this make them less of
a church?
Ken is often attacked for his anti establishment attitudes and seems to
resent some of the more orthodox posters on this list. Personally I
don't blame him for his resentment. In the two years I have been on this
list I have never seen him express his views on his faith without being
pounced on as unChristian and unCatholic.
Are we frightened of what is different that we can't accept that there
are differing expressions of the Catholic faith...sure Ken is real
'different' but he is on his own journey of faith and I'm sure that God
will lead him were He wills.
As for Ken's comments on the Graham Greene book...is there a law that
says he HAS to like Graham Greene's books...and esteem a character in the
book simply because he is a Catholic priest. Greene's characterisation
of the priest was most unlikeable even if he did redeem himself in the
end. I thought it a big leap to despising the character in a work of
fiction to 'consistent with Ken's anti-catholic history'.
I guess I am just a little frustrated at the moment...there has been so
much criticism of people for not conforming to what seems to be the
accepted style of Catholicism on this list that I am wondering whether I
really am Catholic.
One of the beauties of the Catholic church has always been for me, the
ability to embrace so many streams of spirituality...but the general
trend of late on this list seems to be that only certain streams are
acceptable and orthodox and the rest are somehow less Catholic.
In that way I guess I empathise with Ken cos I feel I am being pushed
aside and my faith of no account because it doesn't conform with what
seems to have become the accepted norm on this list.
Semper Fi $:-]
Bonnie Granat
Amy wrote:>
> On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, Bonnie Granat wrote:
> > > >
>
> (lots snipped)
> > > > You have communicated very clearly that you do not love the Catholic
> > > > Church, nor Catholicism itself.
>
>
> > He takes an antagonistic stance against anyone who
> > believes differently than him and his sarcasm and derisiveness is
> > uncalled for.
> >
>
> book.
>
> > *He's*
> > the only person who thinks there's a judgment being made;
> > I just stated a fact --
>
> I have to protest this last statement "I just stated a fact". It is not a
> fact; you have already stated that it is your perception.
>
> Amy
>
Dear Amy,
Okay, strictly speaking, I guess you're right. I should have said, "It
is my perception that it is true (or a fact) that you do not love the
Catholic Church." If he loves or does not love the Church, *that* is
a fact. That is what I meant. My perception of that sentiment being a
fact is indeed what I stated, so you make a good point here.
So much for being a writer, huh?
Gerard Bugge
On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Bonnie Granat wrote:
> > As for Ken's comments on the Graham Greene book...is there a law that
> > says he HAS to like Graham Greene's books...and esteem a character in the
> > book simply because he is a Catholic priest. Greene's characterisation
> > of the priest was most unlikeable even if he did redeem himself in the
> > end. I thought it a big leap to despising the character in a work of
> > fiction to 'consistent with Ken's anti-catholic history'.
>
> It's very subtle, Fiona, very, very subtle.
> I don't think it can be explained why that
> remark was objectionable. If you didn't
> *feel* it when you read it, it's not
> possible to explain it. Also, if you
> don't feel slapped in the face by many
> of his remarks about persons with other
> viewpoints, then this would not have
> affected you either.
Dear Bonnie,
If I read you correctly, I suspect you speak here of something
like the "sensum fidelium": the sense of faith that the Holy Spirit
bestows on believing hearts. The Anointing from above that teaches, from
within, as the First Letter of John puts it. It's an inner conviction, a
deep resonation with what glorifies Christ and upbuilds faith: sort of
lover hearing the voice of the beloved. Our Lord says: My sheep hear my
voice. Other voices they do not heed.
I may be wrong, of course! But I think I know what you try to
express here. St Augustine says that only a lover understands the
language of love......
Gerard Serafin
Fiona MARSDEN
On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Bonnie Granat wrote:
> Okay, Fiona, let's say for the sake of argument
> that I *am* being judgemental. Maybe I *was*
> being judgemental, but I made a distinction in
> an earlier post that I don't know if you saw,
> and really feel was true. I was never saying
> anything about Ken's relationship with God or
> his spirituality.
Dear Bonnie
I am sure you didn't mean to be judgemental...it's just that saying Ken
in anti-catholic also suggests that his faith is not compatible with
Catholic teaching. To suggest Ken was anti-heirarchy may have been more
accurate and inferred less about his faith.
> What I was saying in a
> round-about way was that his resentment, as
> you put it, was hurting people here, especially
> me. The Graham Greene comment was only the
> last straw.
>
And what I was trying to say...probably also in a round-about way was
that maybe we should be trying not to give him cause for resentment so he
was less likely to lash out and hurt people. People usually only lash
out when they are hurting themselves.
> The only point I was addressing about Ken was
> his propensity to express very negative evaluations
> and innuendo against the Church and people who
> didn't believe things should be the way he believes
> they should be in the Church.
>
Ken has been on the receiving end of quite a bit of this himself Bonnie.
Funnily enough my mother...a very orthodox sort of catholic who virtually
sleeps with the Docs of VatII under her pillow...was expressing similar
sentiments to Ken just this morning. She was irritated by a major
disagreement in a parish over the position of the organ...so much energy
was put into petitions and even writing to the bishop to complain that
the priest was changing too many things. At the same time there were
needs within the parish...people who were suffering...needing a helping
hand...and there was no-one interested in doing anything about it except a
small handful who were struggling under the load.
>
> My comments had nothing whatsoever to do with the
> particular combination of beliefs he has. I was
> just hurt by his obvious delight in insulting
> the Church. (Here I am telling you how I feel and
> all about my pain when I've just sent off a missive
> expressing how I've learned not to do this again!)
Pain is not so bad...they say suffering is good for the soul ;-]. It is
hurtful when people attack something we love deeply...even when they are
right...or perhaps worse...just a little bit right but not all right.
The church is full of people and it isn't perfect because we are not
perfect. There will always be criticisms of the church...and some of
them will be valid. I think some of Ken's criticisms have some
merit...it's unfortunate that he expresses them with a blow tempered with
barbed wire.
>
> I'll say it again: my comments had *nothing* to do with
> Ken's beliefs. They had to do with his tone...
>
You do disagree with his beliefs regarding the heirarchical nature of the
church and the over emphasis on legalism.
> I recall having asked him about his beliefs and not
> ever getting an answer. I may have disagreed with
> him on occasion, but I do not think I have attacked
> him because of his views. I don't really know what
> they are.
After recent events Bonnie I hesitate to express my beliefs on certain
aspects of the faith because I am afraid of the results. Immediately
before Ken's sojourn to learn dance expression he was attacked almost
universally for expressing his beliefs. I seem to recall gobbledegook or
some such term used to describe his comments. Perhaps the term was only
used frivolously.
>
> He has never said he was Catholic. Incidentally, I
> did not say he was "anti-Catholic". I said he did
> not love the Catholic Church. Ther *is* a difference.
> My atheistic mother does not love the Catholic Church,
> but she is also definitely *not* anti-Catholic. There
> *is* a difference. It is frustrating when my words are
> changed into something other than what I said (and what
> I meant). I repeat -- there's a difference here!
>
> It's very subtle, Fiona, very, very subtle.
> I don't think it can be explained why that
> remark was objectionable. If you didn't
> *feel* it when you read it, it's not
> possible to explain it. Also, if you
> don't feel slapped in the face by many
> of his remarks about persons with other
> viewpoints, then this would not have
> affected you either.
I thought it was typical of Ken and expressed his opinion of the book...I
certainly didn't read a lack of love for the church into it...even
considering Ken's other opinions...rather a disdain for the works of
Graham Greene...certainly not my choice of authors either.
Semper Fi $:-]
Fiona MARSDEN
On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Gerard Bugge wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Bonnie Granat wrote:
>
> > > As for Ken's comments on the Graham Greene book...is there a law that
> > > says he HAS to like Graham Greene's books...and esteem a character in the
> > > book simply because he is a Catholic priest. Greene's characterisation
> > > of the priest was most unlikeable even if he did redeem himself in the
> > > end. I thought it a big leap to despising the character in a work of
> > > fiction to 'consistent with Ken's anti-catholic history'.
> >
> > It's very subtle, Fiona, very, very subtle.
> > I don't think it can be explained why that
> > remark was objectionable. If you didn't
> > *feel* it when you read it, it's not
> > possible to explain it. Also, if you
> > don't feel slapped in the face by many
> > of his remarks about persons with other
> > viewpoints, then this would not have
> > affected you either.
>
> Dear Bonnie,
>
> If I read you correctly, I suspect you speak here of something
> like the "sensum fidelium": the sense of faith that the Holy Spirit
> bestows on believing hearts. The Anointing from above that teaches, from
> within, as the First Letter of John puts it. It's an inner conviction, a
> deep resonation with what glorifies Christ and upbuilds faith: sort of
> lover hearing the voice of the beloved. Our Lord says: My sheep hear my
> voice. Other voices they do not heed.
>
> I may be wrong, of course! But I think I know what you try to
> express here. St Augustine says that only a lover understands the
> language of love......
>
And maybe only someone who does not love Graham Greene's books can
sympathise with another person who dislikes them. I don't like his
books...I don't empathise with his characters...he simply doesn't appeal
to me...does that mean I don't love the church. Is a love of all
Catholic authors a prerequisite for orthodoxy.
Criticism is not always a bad thing...the church is in a transition stage
and I can think of heaps of things that need working on...if I mention
them it doesn't mean I don't love the church...if you love someone you
want them to be the best they can be.
Semper Fi $:-]
John Caughey
> There are other important differences between Buddhism and
Christianity - especially Catholicism.
> I can't think of any two religious views which have less in common.
There is no doubt about the important differences!
Jesus Christ, the One True God and Man, founded the
Church, the Holy, Roman Catholic Church.
Is it true that Buddists do not believe in God?
John
Gerard Bugge
On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
> > This marvellous variety of Catholicism--and I know no Church that
> > is so variegated and catholic--is rooted in the Most Blessed Trinity. But
> > the unity of faith is vital for a real diversity, a symphony and not
> > chaos! Thus the crucial role of the magisterial office of the Church!
>
> While I fully agree with your statement here, I would add that there is much
> variety in the expression and practice of the One Faith. We have simply to
look
> at the various Eastern Churches and the wonderful panoply of rites, vestments,
> and liturgical styles to begin to appreciate the beauty of our wonderful
> Church.
Dear Ed,
Thanks for your response. I always include the rich variety of
rites and local churches from east and west in my understanding of
Catholic unity! I mention this, over and over, in my posts to this List
over the past year (yes, it's been a year since I subscribed!). I include
as well the Orthodox churches in my understanding of Catholic fulness:
despite the wound caused by a lack of the Petrine Office in its fulness.
I think I can safely say I have never limited Catholic unity to either the
Roman Rite or to any kind of rigid uniformity. I rejoice in Catholic
fulness and the variety in unity that reflects the Triunity of God!
> And, yet, dissent plays a role. Many of the deepest truths of our faith were
> clearly defined only because of questions raised by "dissenters." And, of
> course, not all dissent is bad.
Dissent from the Teaching Office instituted by Christ is not good;
it sows dissension and breaks the bond of unity. Dissent from sin in the
Church is good; and to challenge the Church to a deeper fidelity is a call
the Spirit can give. But, always, flowing from a deep love and fidelity.
As von Balthasar says, too, this challenging of the Church to do more
should first of all be: what more can *I* do to make the Church more
vibrant.
> We need to understand that the Church is
> hierarchical and servant, herald and sacrament, Mystical Communion and
> Community of Disciples. As each of us brings his model to bear, others find
> that it doesn't fit their model. I tend, as a deacon, to operate out of the
> servant model. Most of our "conservative" members probably prefer the
> hierarchical model since that was the one stressed from Trent until Vatican
II.
The concept of the models of the Church is quite limited. Even
Father Dulles, whose book made this so popular, has said that there are
essential components of the Church that transcend every "model": the
Church as Mystery, as Body of Christ, as Mother and Teacher. Within the
essentials of the faith in which we confess the Church: One, Holy,
Catholic, and Apostolic there are room for various models and expressions
of the common faith. But Father Dulles warns of the dangers of
emphasising any one model to the detriment of the basics of ecclesiology,
on which all Catholics can agree, and should agree.
> That's not what I said. Since this forum is *not* a Roman Catholic forum, it
is
> quite acceptable to express a range of beliefs, some of which are contrary to
> the teaching of the Catholic Church where I am member and minister. My faith
is
> not affected by that, although when I hear truth I am challenged to integrate
> it into who and what I am, regardless of the source of that challenge. I
> believe the pope has considered the question of the ordination of women and
has
> addressed it within the scope of his role as Vicar of Christ. As a lowly
deacon
> I do not question his authority to lead, nor do I question the Church when she
> teaches. My promise of obedience was given freely and willingly. I abide by
> that. Others are not so constrained. I do not object to their questions, to
> their discussions, or to their desire to seek God in a way that is meaningful
> to them.
My question about the acceptable spectrum of Catholic belief was
meant only for those who claim to be Catholic, in communion with the
Apostolic See of Rome. I should have been clearer here. Even if a
Catholic understood thusly has not taken a formal vow of obedience as you
have, doesn't the baptismal commitment entail a similiar fidelity and
loyalty to what the Church defines and declares as "definitively binding"?
For those outside the obedience of the Apostolic See and the
churches in communion with that See, of course, there are different
expectations. I, too, welcome their comments, questions, discussions. I
am happily involved in an ecumenical society that encourages such dialog.
But what about Catholics? Is it OK, for instance, for a Catholic to
publicly dissent from, criticize, and dismiss what the Church has formally
declared binding? That really is my question to you.
I do not begrudge anyone's right to question anything! But can it
be given the same status as what the Church teaches? Is it part of the
acceptable spectrum of Catholic faith? Or is it "dissent" and therefore a
cause of dissension?
> I understand your approach, and appreciate the clarity of your thinking. I
hope
> my own attempts can be accepted in the same light.
I wish I could say that I "understand" your approach. All I can
say, is that I attempt to understand as best as I may. And if you really
do "understand" my apprach maybe you can help me understand it too...:-)
Thanks again!
Gerard Serafin
Bonnie Granat
>
Dear Gerard,
But God doesn't need *my* defense, and perhaps I do more harm than good.
Bonnie
Lisa Basarab
Dear Deacon Ed,
In a recent post you referred to your promise, as a deacon, of
obedience to the pope. What is the obedience required of lay people? I
would be interested in your comments on our obligations as nonordained
Catholics regarding obedience to the Magisterium.
In Him,
Lisa
Ed Faulk
Lisa Basarab <lbas...@MAIL.BCPL.LIB.MD.US> writes:
> On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
> > We need to understand that the Church is
> > hierarchical and servant, herald and sacrament, Mystical Communion and
> > Community of Disciples. As each of us brings his model to bear, others find
> > that it doesn't fit their model. I tend, as a deacon, to operate out of the
> > servant model. Most of our "conservative" members probably prefer the
> > hierarchical model since that was the one stressed from Trent until
> > VaticanII.
>
> Dear Deacon Ed,
>
> Thank you for your carefully considered discussion of this important
> topic. The Church is both hierarchy and servant, but does there have to be
> a choice between the two? Are they necessarily adversarial? It seems to me
> we can embrace both; in fact, we need to embrace both. The hierarchical
No one model is accurate. Each has shortcomings and limitations. What the
different models do is offer us ways in which we can discuss and describe the
Church. It is actually necessary to embrace all the models of the Church, and
to recognize that the Church is more than any of these.
> attitude you refer to is, I think, prevalent, often fostered by those who
> are, perhaps, too caught up in a sense of power and pride. But if the
I agree. However, I think there are many who believe that the Church from Trent
to Vatican II which stressed only the hierarchical model *is* the Church and
all the other models are some particularly virulent strain of "modernism."
> hierarchical model is adopted within a framework of service, there can be
> a happy marriage, don't you think? Mother Teresa operates within a
> hierarchical framework, but is most definitely a servant.
Actually, I see Mother Teresa operating out of both servant and herald models,
and not at all out of hierarchical.
Deacon Ed
*******************************************************************************
* Ed Faulk | "If ignorance is bliss, *
* SnailMail: Beckman Instruments, Inc. | 'tis folly to be wise." *
* 3300 Birch St. | Phone: (714) 961-3383 *
* Brea, CA 92621 | FAX: (714) 961-3351 *
* Internet: efa...@shelties.dp.beckman.com | CIS: 75500,2726 *
*******************************************************************************
* Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend, *
* Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -G. Marx *
*******************************************************************************
Ed Faulk
Lisa Basarab <lbas...@MAIL.BCPL.LIB.MD.US> writes:
Good question! The lay faithful are obliged to acknowledge the teachings of the
Church and her authority to teaching in the name of Jesus. They must give
"religious assent" to those teachings. All of us are obligated to continue our
education in the teachings of the Church, not so that we will "know it all" but
so that we will be ever ready, as Peter tells us, to give a reason for what we
believe.
Further, the teachings of the Church are to be held as authoritative. If one
finds that one cannot hold a particular teaching, then one is obligated to
research this issue, and to seek appropriate experts so as to properly form
one's conscience. If the individual eventually rejects the teaching there is an
obligation to formulate an alternative teaching.
Gerard Bugge
On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Kevin MacMaster wrote:
> Dear Fiona,
>
> Please, please, don't take this the wrong way. What I find hard to
> understand about your post is this; what is a steam of spirituality? Does
> this mean that some of us who call ourselves Catholic can believe something
> that the Church does not teach? If I think sex before getting married is ok
> if I trully love the girl does not contradict Catholic teaching am I right
> to believe this? I've never really thought about this liberal conservative
> thing much and just want to understand how peoples views can differ so much
> and still be right.
>
> Kevin
> Who respects your opinion
Dear Kevin,
I'm sure Fiona will respond to your question. But I wish to thank
you for raising it and in the form you actually did. Yes, this issue of
orthodoxy vs dissent has many practical implications. It is not only a
theological issue, but a pastoral issue, as well as a spritual issue.
I'm glad you asked. I look forward to Fi's response, as well as
of others. I discuss this topic quite often and am doing so right now
with Deacon Ed. Perhaps you can find some food for thought in our posts
as well.....
Gerard Serafin
Ed Faulk
On 28 Jul 96 at 20:27, Gerard Bugge wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
>
> > Actually, I see Mother Teresa operating out of both servant and
> > herald models, and not at all out of hierarchical.
>
> Dear Ed,
>
> Why not ask Mother what "model" she works out of?
If one reads what she says it becomes clear that she sees herself as
a servant, and that the Church is called to serve. She serves so as
to clearly proclaim the Gospel of Jesus. Her keyword is "love". It
becomes quite apparent that, if one were to look at Dulles' models of
the Church these two are the most obvious.
> Of course, she loves the Church and in her hierarchical
> structure. The very concept of "model of the Church" breaks down at
> the feet of someone like Mother Teresa. And I think Father Dulles,
> who has warned about any such categorization over against the basic
> teachings of the Church on her nature and constitution and
> mission, would be the very first to agree.
I never implied she did not love the Church, or that she had a
problem with the hierarchical model. I said *she* oeprated out of the
servant and herald model. It's not a question of what the Church is,
but of how *she* herself operates.
> The saints make mockery of many au-courant books! Somehow
> I think Mother gets her models directly from the New Testament and
> not from the latest theological update of "The Models of The
> Church".
I would hope that is not the case. Rather, I suspect that the
au-courant books reflect aspects of saintly lives in a context that
may be meaningful for the modern reader. Of course, as with any
attempt to categorize an individual, much is sacrificed in an effort
to present an idea, image or realization.
> Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh. But I think your own
> comment is a bit overmuch, and does point out to the very
> limitations of any "paradigmetic" use of models of the Church
> (which can lead to an individualism unknown to Mother Teresa and
> her Missionaries of Charity).
Harsh? Yes, it does. Models are useful for getting insight into
particular aspects of institutions. Nobody ever said they were
complete, or event that they most accurately reflect the institution.
I do not believe I categorized Mother Teresa in a negative way, but
simply took the traditional models and fitted them as best I could to
the life that Mother Teresa has lived.
If you want a woman who lives out the hierarchical model, look to
Mother Angelica of EWTN. Now compare the two and tell me Mother
Teresa lives out that hierarchical model.
Lisa Basarab
On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
> finds that one cannot hold a particular teaching, then one is obligated to
> research this issue, and to seek appropriate experts so as to properly form
> one's conscience. If the individual eventually rejects the teaching
> there is an obligation to formulate an alternative teaching.
Dear Deacon Ed,
My dictionary defines authority as the right to give commands, to
make final decisions, to enforce obedience. What do you mean by
"authoritative" if the authority can be rejected based on personal
research and independent conclusions? And what is the source of the
authority of the "alternative teaching" I espouse in rejection of the
Church's teaching? And who are the "appropriate experts"? Theologians?
Scientists? Psychologists? Could you elaborate? How does one determine
when one's conscience is properly formed -- by what criteria? Could you
give an example of a current Church teaching that can legitimately be
rejected as a result of the process you delineate?
In Him,
Lisa
Lisa Basarab
On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
> Actually, I see Mother Teresa operating out of both servant and herald models,
> and not at all out of hierarchical.
Dear Deacon Ed,
I suspect we are going by two very different definitions of
hierarchy. In my view hierarchy is an order, a system by which that which
is below reflects that which is above. It is an order by which Jesus's
deference to the Father is echoed. You seem to view hierarchy as
inherently negative, a violation of a sense of egalitarianism. Please
advise if this perception is erroneous. I see Mother Teresa as willingly
and lovingly submitting to and embracing the hierarchy of the Church,
faithfully adhering to the Magisterium and accepting the role of servant
within that framework. Her Missionaries of Charity also have their own
hierarchy of authority and administration. Additionally, there is a
hierarchy within their prayer and work. The formula which was quoted on
this list (I believe) of J - O - Y, Jesus, Others, You, is itself one of
service. I do not see how service in the Lord can be independent of
hierarchy. Our Lord's obedience was rooted in a sense of hierarchy, wasn't
it? And did he not establish a hierarchy of service among His apostles?
Isn't the diaconate itself a component of this hierarchy? Of course, the
abuse of power within a hierarchy is a separate issue.
In Him,
Lisa
Pavel Chichikov
On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
> au-courant books reflect aspects of saintly lives in a context that
> may be meaningful for the modern reader. Of course, as with any
> attempt to categorize an individual, much is sacrificed in an effort
> to present an idea, image or realization.
Deacon Ed,
You write as if you've been infected by these with-it books - a
large dose of sociology administered with a dirty needle.
I think you meant something like:
You can't show all of a person by using abstract ideas to describe
him. But maybe some of these ideas make more sense out of holy lives for
the people around here.
Peace,
Pavel
Ed Faulk
Gerard Bugge <gbu...@MAIL.BCPL.LIB.MD.US> writes:
> On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
>
> > There is a broad spectrum of acceptable thought in this Church -- we do not
> > march in lock step, each holding to an identical vision or understanding of
the
> > Church's teaching. Rather, we all filter it through our own lived
experience.
> > We cannot help but do that. Thus, each of us finds a particular area that
> > resonates deeply within us, and that we cling to. In doing this, we
> > automatically take other areas and lessen their importance to us.
> >
> > There is a broad spectrum of acceptable thought and belief within the
Catholic
> > Church. The Catechism talks about unity through diversity (#814) and talks
> > about the fact that we have one faith which is expressed through this vast
> > diversity of people, cultures, gifts, and ways of life. Those who require
unity
> > through uniformity have missed the reality of what the Church is. God's
gifts
> > are given to different people in different situations. This results in an
> > incredible panoply.
>
> Dear Ed,
>
> As I have quoted often, words of Father de Lubac come to mind
> (from his magnificent praise of the Church in her unity and diversity in
> The Splendor of The Church): "The Church is at one and the same time the
> seamless robe of Christ and Joseph's coat of many colors".
Precisely the image I had in mind -- thanks for reminding me of the source (I
had forgotten who wrote that so did not use the citation since I hate it when I
can't provide the name of the author of such wonderful images).
> This marvellous variety of Catholicism--and I know no Church that
> is so variegated and catholic--is rooted in the Most Blessed Trinity. But
> the unity of faith is vital for a real diversity, a symphony and not
> chaos! Thus the crucial role of the magisterial office of the Church!
While I fully agree with your statement here, I would add that there is much
variety in the expression and practice of the One Faith. We have simply to look
at the various Eastern Churches and the wonderful panoply of rites, vestments,
and liturgical styles to begin to appreciate the beauty of our wonderful
Church.
> There is indeed a wide spectrum of acceptable differences in the
> Catholic Church; but you would not make acceptable what dissents from the
> official teachings of the Church, or from the great doctrines chiselled
> out in Creeds and Councils (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit)?
And, yet, dissent plays a role. Many of the deepest truths of our faith were
clearly defined only because of questions raised by "dissenters." And, of
course, not all dissent is bad. The Laity (and clergy) certainly have an
obligation to the Church to call her to task when she fails to be what she is
called to be. We would not return to the days of the Borgia's, but that is
indeed a warning to us. Each of the models of the Church offers us some insight
into the role of the Church. We need to understand that the Church is
hierarchical and servant, herald and sacrament, Mystical Communion and
Community of Disciples. As each of us brings his model to bear, others find
that it doesn't fit their model. I tend, as a deacon, to operate out of the
servant model. Most of our "conservative" members probably prefer the
hierarchical model since that was the one stressed from Trent until Vatican II.
> I do not think that everyone who upholds the Magisterium seeks for
> a rigid uniformity! I *know* that I do not! I love dearly the diverse
> churches and rites within the Catholic unity: and I try to enrich myself
> from the great streams of faith from these diverse streams of grace. I
> rejoice, too, in the various "schools of spirituality" from our tradition.
While what you say is true, I submit that most seek uniformity within the model
they find most comfortable for them. Perhaps we should each spend time trying
to live with the Church in a different model than the one that most fits our
comfort zone. Perhaps we should allow the Holy Spirit to challenge us to live
out our call as Catholic Christians knowing that it is *supposed* to make us
uncomfortable! It has been my observation that challenges to unity are most
clearly perceived when the personal comfort zone is challenged.
> Orthodoxy is, as Chesterton so brilliantly portrays, quite
> different from what many moderns consider it to be. It is a romance! For
> all who are interested in the "acceptable spectrum" of diversity, a good
> read of Chesterton's Orthodoxy might be helpful and clarifying.
Again, a brilliant insight. It is, indeed, romance. But it is also touchstone
in that it is what calls us back to reality A true reality that offers us a
"sanity" that cannot be found elsewhere.
> Deacon Ed, is it "acceptable" in your view of Catholicism to
> publicly dissent from, and publicly criticize, what the Church has
> officially stated---for example, that the Church has no authority to
> ordain women to the priesthood. Is that opinion within the range of what
> you would consider Catholic diversity? The fact is: quite a few on this
> List has expressed that opinion in one way or another. Is that OK?
That's not what I said. Since this forum is *not* a Roman Catholic forum, it is
quite acceptable to express a range of beliefs, some of which are contrary to
the teaching of the Catholic Church where I am member and minister. My faith is
not affected by that, although when I hear truth I am challenged to integrate
it into who and what I am, regardless of the source of that challenge. I
believe the pope has considered the question of the ordination of women and has
addressed it within the scope of his role as Vicar of Christ. As a lowly deacon
I do not question his authority to lead, nor do I question the Church when she
teaches. My promise of obedience was given freely and willingly. I abide by
that. Others are not so constrained. I do not object to their questions, to
their discussions, or to their desire to seek God in a way that is meaningful
to them.
> Just looking for some clarification here. Agreeing wholeheartedly
> with the Church's diversity and multifaceted beauty; wondering about the
> necessity, though, of fidelity to the Teaching Office of the Church as the
> guardian of unity of faith......
I understand your approach, and appreciate the clarity of your thinking. I hope
my own attempts can be accepted in the same light.
Deacon Ed
Gerard Bugge
On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Lisa Basarab wrote:
> P.S. In recent posts I have had the unpleasant experience of feeling that
> I'm choosing sides among people on the list. I hate this!
Dear Lisa,
You have already shared your favorite books, favorite music,
favorite movies with us---and the top ten you would take on your year's
sabbatical.
Now if you could only take ten posters from the Catholic
List......
Gerard Serafin
Ed Faulk
On 28 Jul 96 at 20:18, Gerard Bugge wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
>
> > I recognize that you do, this was in the broader context of the
> > list itself. While I do see an attempt on your part to be as
> > inclusive as possible within the spectrum of Catholic Churches I
> > also see an underlying current that seems to express a preference
> > for the pre-Vatican II understanding of Catholicism. This may be
> > an error on my part, and I freely admit that. Within that
> > preference, I do see what *I* perceive to be a limiting of the
> > scope of acceptable discussion/debate.
>
> Dear Ed,
>
> Thanks again for your response. I do think you are quite
> wrong in your statement that I prefer a pre-Vatican II
> understanding of the Church. While I think I know the actual
> teachings of Vatican II fairly well, and accept them as an
> authoritative word of the Lord from and to His Church, I believe in
> the Church of all ages, and all the Councils. I resonate deeply
> with the teachings of this Pope: and his mission has been, restated
> over and over, to make the legacy of the Second Vatican Council,
> the overarching theme of his pontificate.
Then I apologize for misunderstanding what you have been posting.
This was, sadly, the conclusion I had drawn, in spite of your
statements of support for this pope. Perhaps it comes form your
comments regarding the Liturgy (which, at least in my area, has never
been a problem!) and other changes in the Church.
> I love the Council's magnificent documents and teachings!
> I am a bit "hurt" that anyone who has read my posts could question
> that I have been nourished deeply by the great restatement of the
> Catholic Tradition at this most recent Council! In fact, I find
> that its teachings are not really all that well known in some
> circles that seem to criticize others as being "pre-Vatican II".
I apologize for the hurt since that was not my intention!
> This does not apply to you; but I do wonder if somehow you don't
> unconsciously share a certain negativism towards those who try to
> see continuity and fidelity to the tradition in this often
> misunderstood Council. And it is not uncommon for those who love
> the Council and her teachings to be so dismissed as
> "pre-conciliar"---as the great shapers of the Council found out
> soon enough, e.g. de Lubac, Danielou, von Balthasar, Bouyer, etc.
> etc.
Actually, I have to admit that I object to people who flatly reject
Vatican II, even if out of misunderstanding. I object to having to
defend the teachings of the Church to Catholics who should know
better. I, too, see Vatican II as a great continuation of the
Tradition of the Church. I see very little "new" here except the
expression of how we, as Church, are called to be in the world today.
this is not so much "new" as "rediscovered."
> > I fully agree that there are flaws in all the models. There is no
> > one model of the Church that is totally accurate for there cannot
> > be. I submit, however, that many have adopted the hierarchical
> > model as the sole model and that many believe this to be totally
> > accurate.
>
> Not if they read the New Testament, the fathers, the
> saints, the Councils, and the Catechism of The Catholic Church. The
> CCC's treatment of the Church is profound and rich. And the
> "hierarchical model" is at least well founded in the Third Chapter
> of Lumen Gentium, The Hierarchical Structure of the Church, and in
> various segments of the Catechism. I know no one who would not see
> the Church as the place of holiness and sanctity, as the Mystical
> Body of Christ. Perhaps again you categorize too harshly.
Perhaps. However, even in Scripture I find that the Church as
described there differs from the reality of the Church we find today.
The early Church was clearly a community of believers, a herald, and
definitely Mystical Body of Christ. Yet I struggle to find the
hierarchical Chrch as we know it in Scripture. Even in the Fathers
there is, at best, rudiments of the hierarchy. And, of course, my own
role in the Church is as servant. It is, therefore, logical that I
would find great resonance in this model.
> > I believe that it is okay for a Catholic to question the teachings
> > of the Church and to enter in to public discussion. I also believe
> > it is acceptable for an individual to identify himself as a
> > Catholic and to state that, on a persona basis, certain teachings
> > of the Church are rejected. I would hope, however, that the person
> > who does this has actually formulated an alternative paradigm and
> > not simply rejected Church teaching because it is inconvenient.
>
> Could you show from what Conciliar or Magisterial sources
> you base this opinion that it is "okay" for a Catholic to question
> and has a right then to formulate an alternative paradigm. You
> often show your sources for what you present as Catholic teaching.
> I would really like to see on what you base this assertion.
Sure -- CCC #1776 - 1802. Specifically #1782 which says each person
must be free to act in accordance with the individual's conscience
and cannot be forced to act contrary to it. #1783 which requires that
one have a "well formed conscience." #1788 which tells us that we
make moral decisions based upon how we "interpret the data of
experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of
prudence, but the advice of competent people, and by the help of the
Holy Spirit and his gifts."
#1789 provides some good touchstones for decision making, some rules
that always apply. We also know that one can form a conscience
differently from the Church's teaching (1790-1794). Finally, 1793
seems to summarize where I am coming from.
That is, we can build an alternate paradigm using whatever research,
advice, experts, prayer, Scripture we want. As long as we remain in
ignorance there is no guilt imputed. As long as this does not deny
the basic tenets of our faith, it is still possible to remain
Catholic, even if it's only a "cultural Catholic" as Andy Greely
calls it.
> Again, I am not questioning anyone's right to anything. I
> am asking if this is acceptable according to the teaching of the
> Catholic Church, in her own self-understanding. I look in vain
> for anything suggesting this in the Second Vatican Council or in
> The Catechism of The Catholic Church. Or in the teachings of the
> saints. Or in the teachings of the Pope. It strikes me as an
> inaccurate reflection of the teaching you as a deacon and we as
> laypersons should be upholding.
Perhaps it is, but it seems to be consistent with the citations I've
presented. In Veritatis Splendor, the pope writes: "The maturity and
responsiblity of these judgements -- and, when all is said and done,
of the individual who is their subject -- are not measured by the
liberation of the conscience from objective truth, in favor of an
alleged autonomy in personal decision, but, on the contrary, byu an
insistent search for truth and by allowing oneself to be guided by
that truth in one's actions." If, in that search, one becomes
convinced that a different path is called for, then one is obligated
to follow one's conscience or sin by not doing so. The pope goes on
to say, "Conscience is not an infallible judgel it can make mistakes.
However, error of conscience can be the result of an invincible
ignorance, and ignorance of which the subject is not aware and which
he is unable to overcome by himself. ... Conscience, as the ultimate
concrete judgement, compromises its dignity when it is culpably
erroneous, that is to say, 'when man shows little concern for seeking
what is true and good, and conscience gradually becomes almost blind
from being accustomed to sin.'"
Finally, the pope writes: "It follows that the authority of the
Church, when she pronounces on moral questions, in no way undermines
the freedom of conscience of Christians. This is so not only because
freedom of conscience in never freedom 'from' the truth but always
freedom 'in' the truth, and also because the Magieterium does not
bring to the Christian conscience truths which are extraneous to it;
rather it brings to light the truths which it ought already to
possess, developing them from the starting point of the primordial
act of faith."
> Of course, we are sinners and need always to reappropriate
> the great gift of faith on ever deeper levels. Dissent is not in
> the same league as this ongoing journey of faith! Our Church has
> confessionals built right into the walls (or used to!)! But the
> one great bond is the faith, which the Catechism rightly describes
> over and over: and always in the context of our humble acceptance
> of God's Word as taught by His Church. We cannot pick and choose!
> Your opinion seems to allow for this, especially for those who
> seem more enlightened than us simpler folk. Who are the "experts"
> we seek out in our questionings.
I'm not suggesting a "pick and choose" attitude at all. What I am
stating is that it is possible for people of good conscience to
disagree on things like the ordination of women, celibacy of priests,
and other issues of this nature. Certainly, the basics of faith fall
into an entirely different category, and I would not suggest that
these are open to interpretation. Nor would I suggest that the basic
issues of morality are open to personal interpretation. If you got
that from what I said, I apologize for that is not at all what I
intended.
> How about the saints?
Um, what about the saints? Aquinas rejected the notion of the
Immacualte Conception, St. Jerome certainly dissented on the issue of
which books should be included in the bible. Yet, in spite of the
areas where they may have disagreed, they are models of how to live
out the call to follow Jesus.
Amy Jerreat
Ed Faulk
Gerard Bugge <gbu...@MAIL.BCPL.LIB.MD.US> writes:
> On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
>
> > > This marvellous variety of Catholicism--and I know no Church that
> > > is so variegated and catholic--is rooted in the Most Blessed Trinity.
But
> > > the unity of faith is vital for a real diversity, a symphony and not
> > > chaos! Thus the crucial role of the magisterial office of the Church!
> >
> > While I fully agree with your statement here, I would add that there is
much
> > variety in the expression and practice of the One Faith. We have simply to
look
> > at the various Eastern Churches and the wonderful panoply of rites,
vestments,
> > and liturgical styles to begin to appreciate the beauty of our wonderful
> > Church.
>
> Dear Ed,
>
> Thanks for your response. I always include the rich variety of
> rites and local churches from east and west in my understanding of
> Catholic unity! I mention this, over and over, in my posts to this List
> over the past year (yes, it's been a year since I subscribed!). I include
> as well the Orthodox churches in my understanding of Catholic fulness:
> despite the wound caused by a lack of the Petrine Office in its fulness.
> I think I can safely say I have never limited Catholic unity to either the
> Roman Rite or to any kind of rigid uniformity. I rejoice in Catholic
> fulness and the variety in unity that reflects the Triunity of God!
I recognize that you do, this was in the broader context of the list itself.
While I do see an attempt on your part to be as inclusive as possible within
the spectrum of Catholic Churches I also see an underlying current that seems
to express a preference for the pre-Vatican II understanding of Catholicism.
This may be an error on my part, and I freely admit that. Within that
preference, I do see what *I* perceive to be a limiting of the scope of
acceptable discussion/debate.
> > And, yet, dissent plays a role. Many of the deepest truths of our faith
were
> > clearly defined only because of questions raised by "dissenters." And, of
> > course, not all dissent is bad.
>
> Dissent from the Teaching Office instituted by Christ is not good;
> it sows dissension and breaks the bond of unity. Dissent from sin in the
> Church is good; and to challenge the Church to a deeper fidelity is a call
> the Spirit can give. But, always, flowing from a deep love and fidelity.
> As von Balthasar says, too, this challenging of the Church to do more
> should first of all be: what more can *I* do to make the Church more
> vibrant.
While Paul clearly includes dissension in the list of serious sins, there needs
to be a discernment between one who, in good conscience, has formed a contrary
opinion to the teaching of the Church. For others, the quest for making the
faith one's own leads to positions that, at times, are contrary to the Church.
Through discussion, through investigation, through prayer one can eventually
resolve most of these disparities. However, when we shut off discussion, when
we cast out those who seek, who doubt, who are not fully in harmony with the
Church we are not being faithful to the Gospel. As a hospital for sinners we
are here to proclaim the Good News, to plant the seed and to water so that God
can provide the growth.
Most of the dissent that I've seen here has not been arbitrary, but has been
from the heart. I also see most of the dissent aimed at bringing an
individual's gifts to the Church, and therefore in line with von Balthasar's
basic approach.
> > We need to understand that the Church is
> > hierarchical and servant, herald and sacrament, Mystical Communion and
> > Community of Disciples. As each of us brings his model to bear, others find
> > that it doesn't fit their model. I tend, as a deacon, to operate out of the
> > servant model. Most of our "conservative" members probably prefer the
> > hierarchical model since that was the one stressed from Trent until Vatican
II.
>
> The concept of the models of the Church is quite limited. Even
> Father Dulles, whose book made this so popular, has said that there are
> essential components of the Church that transcend every "model": the
> Church as Mystery, as Body of Christ, as Mother and Teacher. Within the
> essentials of the faith in which we confess the Church: One, Holy,
> Catholic, and Apostolic there are room for various models and expressions
> of the common faith. But Father Dulles warns of the dangers of
> emphasising any one model to the detriment of the basics of ecclesiology,
> on which all Catholics can agree, and should agree.
I fully agree that there are flaws in all the models. There is no one model of
the Church that is totally accurate for there cannot be. I submit, however,
that many have adopted the hierarchical model as the sole model and that many
believe this to be totally accurate.
> > That's not what I said. Since this forum is *not* a Roman Catholic forum,
it is
> > quite acceptable to express a range of beliefs, some of which are contrary
to
> > the teaching of the Catholic Church where I am member and minister. My
faith is
> > not affected by that, although when I hear truth I am challenged to
integrate
> > it into who and what I am, regardless of the source of that challenge. I
> > believe the pope has considered the question of the ordination of women and
has
> > addressed it within the scope of his role as Vicar of Christ. As a lowly
deacon
> > I do not question his authority to lead, nor do I question the Church when
she
> > teaches. My promise of obedience was given freely and willingly. I abide by
> > that. Others are not so constrained. I do not object to their questions, to
> > their discussions, or to their desire to seek God in a way that is
meaningful
> > to them.
>
> My question about the acceptable spectrum of Catholic belief was
> meant only for those who claim to be Catholic, in communion with the
> Apostolic See of Rome. I should have been clearer here. Even if a
> Catholic understood thusly has not taken a formal vow of obedience as you
> have, doesn't the baptismal commitment entail a similiar fidelity and
> loyalty to what the Church defines and declares as "definitively binding"?
Yes, I believe that it is permissible, within limits, for the faithful to
dissent from Church teachings. In fact, I believe that this very process is
part of what allows us, as individuals, to make the faith our own. I struggled
long and hard with the Church before she became MY Church, before the faith was
really mine and not simply something passed on to me.
> For those outside the obedience of the Apostolic See and the
> churches in communion with that See, of course, there are different
> expectations. I, too, welcome their comments, questions, discussions. I
> am happily involved in an ecumenical society that encourages such dialog.
> But what about Catholics? Is it OK, for instance, for a Catholic to
> publicly dissent from, criticize, and dismiss what the Church has formally
> declared binding? That really is my question to you.
I believe that it is okay for a Catholic to question the teachings of the
Church and to enter in to public discussion. I also believe it is acceptable
for an individual to identify himself as a Catholic and to state that, on a
persona basis, certain teachings of the Church are rejected. I would hope,
however, that the person who does this has actually formulated an alternative
paradigm and not simply rejected Church teaching because it is inconvenient.
> I do not begrudge anyone's right to question anything! But can it
> be given the same status as what the Church teaches? Is it part of the
> acceptable spectrum of Catholic faith? Or is it "dissent" and therefore a
> cause of dissension?
No, what one personally believes, if it is not what the Church teaches, cannot
have the same weight as the Church teachings themselves.
> > I understand your approach, and appreciate the clarity of your thinking. I
hope
> > my own attempts can be accepted in the same light.
>
> I wish I could say that I "understand" your approach. All I can
> say, is that I attempt to understand as best as I may. And if you really
> do "understand" my apprach maybe you can help me understand it too...:-)
My "approach" is simple: I am here to serve. I believe I can use a soft
approach to correct error and to help bring the teachings of the Church to
others. I do not believe I have to beat people over the head to bring the Good
News to them. I especially believe that we, as Roman Catholics, can learn from
others just as we have much to teach them. Thus, I meet them with the same
respect and courtesy I expect from them.
Kevin MacMaster
>One of the beauties of the Catholic church has always been for me, the
>ability to embrace so many streams of spirituality...but the general
>trend of late on this list seems to be that only certain streams are
>acceptable and orthodox and the rest are somehow less Catholic.
Dear Fiona,
Gerard Bugge
On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
> I recognize that you do, this was in the broader context of the list itself.
> While I do see an attempt on your part to be as inclusive as possible within
> the spectrum of Catholic Churches I also see an underlying current that seems
> to express a preference for the pre-Vatican II understanding of Catholicism.
> This may be an error on my part, and I freely admit that. Within that
> preference, I do see what *I* perceive to be a limiting of the scope of
> acceptable discussion/debate.
Dear Ed,
Thanks again for your response. I do think you are quite wrong in
your statement that I prefer a pre-Vatican II understanding of the Church.
While I think I know the actual teachings of Vatican II fairly well, and
accept them as an authoritative word of the Lord from and to His Church, I
believe in the Church of all ages, and all the Councils. I resonate
deeply with the teachings of this Pope: and his mission has been, restated
over and over, to make the legacy of the Second Vatican Council, the
overarching theme of his pontificate.
I love the Council's magnificent documents and teachings! I am a
bit "hurt" that anyone who has read my posts could question that I have
been nourished deeply by the great restatement of the Catholic Tradition
at this most recent Council! In fact, I find that its teachings are not
really all that well known in some circles that seem to criticize others
as being "pre-Vatican II". This does not apply to you; but I do wonder if
somehow you don't unconsciously share a certain negativism towards those
who try to see continuity and fidelity to the tradition in this often
misunderstood Council. And it is not uncommon for those who love the
Council and her teachings to be so dismissed as "pre-conciliar"---as the
great shapers of the Council found out soon enough, e.g. de Lubac,
Danielou, von Balthasar, Bouyer, etc. etc.
> I fully agree that there are flaws in all the models. There is no one model of
> the Church that is totally accurate for there cannot be. I submit, however,
> that many have adopted the hierarchical model as the sole model and that many
> believe this to be totally accurate.
Not if they read the New Testament, the fathers, the saints, the
Councils, and the Catechism of The Catholic Church. The CCC's treatment
of the Church is profound and rich. And the "hierarchical model" is at
least well founded in the Third Chapter of Lumen Gentium, The Hierarchical
Structure of the Church, and in various segments of the Catechism. I know
no one who would not see the Church as the place of holiness and sanctity,
as the Mystical Body of Christ. Perhaps again you categorize too harshly.
> I believe that it is okay for a Catholic to question the teachings of the
> Church and to enter in to public discussion. I also believe it is acceptable
> for an individual to identify himself as a Catholic and to state that, on a
> persona basis, certain teachings of the Church are rejected. I would hope,
> however, that the person who does this has actually formulated an alternative
> paradigm and not simply rejected Church teaching because it is inconvenient.
Could you show from what Conciliar or Magisterial sources you base
this opinion that it is "okay" for a Catholic to question and has a right
then to formulate an alternative paradigm. You often show your sources
for what you present as Catholic teaching. I would really like to see on
what you base this assertion.
Again, I am not questioning anyone's right to anything. I am
asking if this is acceptable according to the teaching of the Catholic
Church, in her own self-understanding. I look in vain for anything
suggesting this in the Second Vatican Council or in The Catechism of The
Catholic Church. Or in the teachings of the saints. Or in the teachings
of the Pope. It strikes me as an inaccurate reflection of the teaching
you as a deacon and we as laypersons should be upholding.
Of course, we are sinners and need always to reappropriate the
great gift of faith on ever deeper levels. Dissent is not in the same
league as this ongoing journey of faith! Our Church has confessionals
built right into the walls (or used to!)! But the one great bond is the
faith, which the Catechism rightly describes over and over: and always in
the context of our humble acceptance of God's Word as taught by His
Church. We cannot pick and choose! Your opinion seems to allow for this,
especially for those who seem more enlightened than us simpler folk. Who
are the "experts" we seek out in our questionings.
How about the saints?
Thanks again as we continue the dialog....
Gerard Serafin
Fiona MARSDEN
On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
> Fiona MARSDEN <st95...@ECHIDNA.STU.COWAN.EDU.AU> writes:
>
>
> > Some Japanese churches have an Altar that resembles the low table used in
> > the pagan tea ceremony...does this make their celebration pagan?...there
> > are no pews and kneelers in their churches...does this make them less of
> > a church?
>
> In a sense, it is pagan for it has no "God". However, Paul teaches us that the
> law of God is written in each heart. Thus, all seek after God using whatever
> light they are given. We have to respect and honor Truth wherever it is found.
> After all, the fullness of Truth, Jesus, is not contained in any one Church or
I wasn't clear here for which I must apologise. The churches I was
referring to were actually Catholic churches where the altar is a low
table and the worshippers kneel and sit on the floor as is done
traditionally in pagan ceremonies.
I like Deacon Ed's point here...I must say I prefer to think of people as
'pre-christians'.
Semper Fi $:-]
Gerard Bugge
On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
> Actually, I see Mother Teresa operating out of both servant and herald models,
> and not at all out of hierarchical.
Dear Ed,
Why not ask Mother what "model" she works out of?
Of course, she loves the Church and in her hierarchical structure.
The very concept of "model of the Church" breaks down at the feet of
someone like Mother Teresa. And I think Father Dulles, who has warned
about any such categorization over against the basic teachings of the
Church on her nature and constitution and mission, would be the very first
to agree.
The saints make mockery of many au-courant books! Somehow I think
Mother gets her models directly from the New Testament and not from the
latest theological update of "The Models of The Church".
Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh. But I think your own comment is
a bit overmuch, and does point out to the very limitations of any
"paradigmetic" use of models of the Church (which can lead to an
individualism unknown to Mother Teresa and her Missionaries of Charity).
Gerard Serafin
Lisa Basarab
On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
> hierarchical and servant, herald and sacrament, Mystical Communion and
> Community of Disciples. As each of us brings his model to bear, others find
> that it doesn't fit their model. I tend, as a deacon, to operate out of the
> servant model. Most of our "conservative" members probably prefer the
Dear Deacon Ed,
Thank you for your carefully considered discussion of this important
topic. The Church is both hierarchy and servant, but does there have to be
a choice between the two? Are they necessarily adversarial? It seems to me
we can embrace both; in fact, we need to embrace both. The hierarchical
attitude you refer to is, I think, prevalent, often fostered by those who
are, perhaps, too caught up in a sense of power and pride. But if the
hierarchical model is adopted within a framework of service, there can be
a happy marriage, don't you think? Mother Teresa operates within a
hierarchical framework, but is most definitely a servant.
In Him,
Lisa
Gerard Bugge
On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
> There is a broad spectrum of acceptable thought in this Church -- we do not
> march in lock step, each holding to an identical vision or understanding of
the
> Church's teaching. Rather, we all filter it through our own lived experience.
> We cannot help but do that. Thus, each of us finds a particular area that
> resonates deeply within us, and that we cling to. In doing this, we
> automatically take other areas and lessen their importance to us.
>
> There is a broad spectrum of acceptable thought and belief within the Catholic
> Church. The Catechism talks about unity through diversity (#814) and talks
> about the fact that we have one faith which is expressed through this vast
> diversity of people, cultures, gifts, and ways of life. Those who require
unity
> through uniformity have missed the reality of what the Church is. God's gifts
> are given to different people in different situations. This results in an
> incredible panoply.
Dear Ed,
As I have quoted often, words of Father de Lubac come to mind
(from his magnificent praise of the Church in her unity and diversity in
The Splendor of The Church): "The Church is at one and the same time the
seamless robe of Christ and Joseph's coat of many colors".
This marvellous variety of Catholicism--and I know no Church that
is so variegated and catholic--is rooted in the Most Blessed Trinity. But
the unity of faith is vital for a real diversity, a symphony and not
chaos! Thus the crucial role of the magisterial office of the Church!
There is indeed a wide spectrum of acceptable differences in the
Catholic Church; but you would not make acceptable what dissents from the
official teachings of the Church, or from the great doctrines chiselled
out in Creeds and Councils (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit)?
I do not think that everyone who upholds the Magisterium seeks for
a rigid uniformity! I *know* that I do not! I love dearly the diverse
churches and rites within the Catholic unity: and I try to enrich myself
from the great streams of faith from these diverse streams of grace. I
rejoice, too, in the various "schools of spirituality" from our tradition.
Orthodoxy is, as Chesterton so brilliantly portrays, quite
different from what many moderns consider it to be. It is a romance! For
all who are interested in the "acceptable spectrum" of diversity, a good
read of Chesterton's Orthodoxy might be helpful and clarifying.
Deacon Ed, is it "acceptable" in your view of Catholicism to
publicly dissent from, and publicly criticize, what the Church has
officially stated---for example, that the Church has no authority to
ordain women to the priesthood. Is that opinion within the range of what
you would consider Catholic diversity? The fact is: quite a few on this
List has expressed that opinion in one way or another. Is that OK?
Just looking for some clarification here. Agreeing wholeheartedly
with the Church's diversity and multifaceted beauty; wondering about the
necessity, though, of fidelity to the Teaching Office of the Church as the
guardian of unity of faith......
Gerard Serafin
Fiona MARSDEN
On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Pavel Chichikov wrote:
> The Buddha maintained that this material world is an illusion.
> Buddhists assert that our mental categories, and the mind itself, are
> illusory - artifacts of illusion. The Buddha did not concern himself with
> the transcendent. Instead, he thought deeply about release from physical
> and mental illusion, release from the pain of being alive [or seeming to
> be alive - release from the balls-up we call the world -dukha- the
> out-of-jointedness of things].
And aren't we in the world but not of the world??? I did not mean to
imply that Christianity and Buddhism are the same or even
compatible...what I thought I said was that 'some aspects of Buddhism'
are not 'incompatible' with Catholicism. After all 500 years before Christ
the Buddha said "Do not do unto others what you would not have done to
yourself".
The Litany of Humility you recently discussed actually reminded me in a
number of points of the Buddhist teaching of no-self. It is not the same
but there are similar concepts involved. The Eightfold Path in Buddhism
(right thoughts right actions etc) cannot be condemned in itself.
> Nothing in the above has anything to do with Christianity, which
> acccepts the physical and mental worlds as real, does not strive for
> release from pain, concerns itself with conversion, good and evil, and
> with the transcendent, and looks forward to the ineffable joy of being
> with God for eternity.
Buddhism is in all things a 'practical' religion...a way of living rather
than a reason for living. It is this very practicality that makes me
believe that there are aspects that are not incompatible. In the
Catholic church we believe in balance and moderation...in Buddhism there
is the middle way.
Of course we approach the problem of pain differently...we see the world
as God's good creation whatever the muck up we have made of it. Yes
these are different. And yet the mystics have spoken of emptying
themselves and transcending pain and suffering. While our focus of
meditation is entirely different...the techniques can have something in
common.
> God, in the real person of Christ - is the way to eternal
> happiness. I don't think any Buddhist would make such a claim about the
> Buddha.
And nor would I.
> There are other important differences between Buddhism and
> Christianity - especially Catholicism.
> I can't think of any two religious views which have less in
> common.
> - Buddhism is prized for its gentleness, its morality, its
> non-violence, its genuine insights into epistomology. But it is not
> anything like Christianity.
Sadly this is true...Catholicism is rarely prized for its gentleness, its
morality, its non-violence...maybe a little for its epistomology.
I would agree totally that the world view of Buddhism is not compatible
with Catholicism...but I still maintain that some of it's practices are
'not incompatible'. To deny this is to question the practices of many
eastern Christians who have 'redeemed' these practices by using them to
focus on God (instead of navel gazing ;-] ).
Personally I see no need to look to eastern religions for meditation
practices when the western church has a (largely neglected at times)
mystical heritage. But I do believe they can be helpful to some people.
I enjoyed very much a seminar with an Indian Priest who taught us how to
meditate with a mantra (mine was 'God is now here' ). While I don't do
it often I find the techniques for focussing he taught very useful for
settling into prayer time. In this busy world learning to shut out
distractions in order to listen to God can be quite difficult.
Semper Fi $:-]
Who is flinging herself with gay abandon into her assignment on
no-self...I'm just gonna be so brilliant I wont be able to get over
myself ;-].
Fiona MARSDEN
I am not speaking of disagreeing with church teaching at all. When I
speak of streams of spirituality I mean the different ways each of us
approach and practice our faith in accordance with the teaching of the
church.
For instance we have a marian stream, a charismatic stream, a mystical
stream, an eastern mysticism stream (buddhist ;-] ), even a rationalist
stream alongside the traditionalists. There are probably many more in
different cultures around the world.
Some of these streams overlap...for instance some charismatics are also
marians. But they are all in accord with the teaching of the church.
Now the difficulty of course comes when followers of these different
streams develop views that are NOT in accord with church teaching. Like
the Lefevbrists who are traditionalist but think the Church is going the
slippery slope to hell....and some rationalists who think teaching on
sexual morality is totally their own business...and eastern mystics who
despise heirarchical forms.
It becomes very difficult then to separate the dissident ideas from the
perfectly valid differences in spirituality. The nature of the church is
such that it can embrace amazingly different spiritualities and all of
them valid...but of course we are human and have our weaknesses...
Moral decisions may be influenced by the type of spirituality you embrace
but should always refer back to the teaching of the church. We can
rationalise ourselves into lots of things we like that are not
necessarily the will of God. This is the struggle we all have as sinful
human beings...oh happy fault oh necessary sin of Adam that gave to us so
great a redeemer...
He gave us the church as our mode of transport...with the Holy Spirit as
pilot...what part of the ship we choose to travel in is a gift God gives
us individually...some like the security of a cabin...others like
to feel the breeze from the precariousness of the crows nest...both will
think the other missing out on the very best of the trip. And both
will probably think the idiot way out in front swinging on the spar is off
the planet ;-].
Semper Fi $:-]
Ken Dawe
> So it seems to me that despite the admirable gentleness, calm and
> loving dispassion of many Buddhists, they have not received the fullness
> of truth about salvation, although no doubt a Buddhist may be saved by
> Christ.
Chichi,
As long as you think they can be saved, does anything else matter?
If Christ is gonna save those Buddhists, then he might just save the
Hindus and Moslems too. Why who knows... he might even save modernist
liberals too. His Spirit might just be within everyone. And who
knows...they might even be peaceful, loving, compassionate people in
service to humanity.
Sure is difficult to contain God, isn't it?
Dharma Bum
Fiona MARSDEN
On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Kevin MacMaster wrote:
> >One of the beauties of the Catholic church has always been for me, the
> >ability to embrace so many streams of spirituality...but the general
> >trend of late on this list seems to be that only certain streams are
> >acceptable and orthodox and the rest are somehow less Catholic.
>
> Dear Fiona,
>
> Please, please, don't take this the wrong way. What I find hard to
> understand about your post is this; what is a steam of spirituality? Does
> this mean that some of us who call ourselves Catholic can believe something
> that the Church does not teach? If I think sex before getting married is ok
> if I trully love the girl does not contradict Catholic teaching am I right
> to believe this? I've never really thought about this liberal conservative
> thing much and just want to understand how peoples views can differ so much
> and still be right.
>
In brief I think the best way to express this is that we can disagree
with each other about how to live our faith...but it is much better not
to disagree with THE CHURCH.
The church tells us that no amount of 'love' can make up for lack of
committment in a relationship.
I'd say the church is probably right.
Semper Fi $:-]
Ken Dawe
On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Gerard Bugge wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
>
> > Actually, I see Mother Teresa operating out of both servant and
> > herald models, and not at all out of hierarchical.
>
> Of course, she loves the Church and in her hierarchical structure.
I believe Deacon Ed touches on the essence of Mother Teresa. She is
filled with the Spirit of Christ and in that Spirit of Love serves the
poorest of the poor...and her service heralds the God Who IS Love....
She lives within the hierarchical structure but she shows God to people
through her service. The important question might be: Could she be filled
with the Spirit of Christ if she was not within the hierarchical
structure?
Is the Spirit of Christ existent within Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems?
Would Christ limit his Spirit to only Roman Catholics? Is Christ (The God
of Love) within everyone?
If we show peace, compassion, and love to to others through service, are
we not living Christ's life?
Dharma Bum
Fiona MARSDEN
On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Gerard Bugge wrote:
> I'm sure Fiona will respond to your question. But I wish to thank
> you for raising it and in the form you actually did. Yes, this issue of
> orthodoxy vs dissent has many practical implications. It is not only a
> theological issue, but a pastoral issue, as well as a spritual issue.
>
I found the use of 'orthodoxy vs dissent' quite ticklish actually ;-]. I
have explained in my direct response what I mean by streams. I'd just
like to say a little more on dissent.
I listed a number of 'streams of spirituality' but as I was writing them
I found I could come up with dissent in each and every group. I am not
speaking of what orthodox catholics would consider dissent when seen in
liberals who think they should have a vote to decide the future of this
and that.
It seems that there are weaknesses in every stream that we must guard
against. An extremely orthodox Marian I spoke to the other day told me
that 'The Archbishop is a very nice person BUT he's wrong for
Archbishop'...enquiry about our diocesan Bishop elicited a sneer. There
seems to be a lack of confidence here that the Holy Spirit still has
control of where the church is going. And despite great admiration for
the Pope this person seemed to think the decision of who was to be
Archbishop had somehow eluded JPII.
We cannot be unaware of the dangers of liberal catholicism...J.J.
thoughtfully demonstrates them for us at regular intervals ;-].
At both ends of the spectrum we find dissent...it is not confined to the
too liberal or the over orthodox or the fringe wierdoes.
I have seen a parish go all out to rid themselves of an able priest...all
uncaring that he was the last they were likely to get in this
overstretched diocese.
I see some forms of dissent as allowable...discussion on the future of
the priesthood I think is reasonable considering the tremendous changes
that are taking place...I could write a book on this one ;-].
Trying to convince someone that 'free' sex is ok is just plain
foolish considering the clarity of scripture and church teaching on the
subject. But discussions on sexual expression and sexuality in the
Christian context can be valuable to help clarify and make our own the
teaching of the church.
People who have criticised the structures of the church are not all
wrong. Changes are happening and what ever Gerard may say on models of
the church they are a useful tools for helping us rearrange our ideas on
the workings of what is a might institution ( I like the Circular model
;-] ).
I don't find all of the dissent on this list palatable...I disagree with
a lot of it...but in most cases they are topics that need to be discussed
and re-evaluated...sometimes debating with a dissenter can be the most
helpful way to help formulate those fuzzy ideas you have floating around
in your head.
Because of the nature of this list I don't believe dissent of that nature
meets the criteria for scandal that the Catholic church has for public
dissent. We are not an educational facility (even though some posters
find it useful as such). It is not particularly a Roman Catholic List
though the majority of posters are of course RC. It is a forum for
discussion on matters of interest to Catholics. If the matters of
interest include dissension against the teaching of the Roman Catholic
church then posters may desire to clarify the churches position on the
subject.
Just a few dozen more thoughts from me
Semper Fi $:-]
Fiona MARSDEN
On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Gerard Bugge wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Fiona MARSDEN wrote:
>
> > > I may be wrong, of course! But I think I know what you try to
> > > express here. St Augustine says that only a lover understands the
> > > language of love......
> > >
> > And maybe only someone who does not love Graham Greene's books can
> > sympathise with another person who dislikes them. I don't like his
> > books...I don't empathise with his characters...he simply doesn't appeal
> > to me...does that mean I don't love the church. Is a love of all
> > Catholic authors a prerequisite for orthodoxy.
>
> My dulcet darling Fi,
My dear cherubim Serafin
>
> You miss the point here, I think. Neither Bonnie nor I, as far as
> I can grasp, critiqued anyone for their opinion about a book. We spoke to
> a "tone" that seemed present to both of us....and perhaps to some others
> too. I say, frankly, I may be wrong. And may have expressed myself
> better too! But, please, I am sure Bonnie and myself do not have any
> problems with anyone not liking Graham Greene. But, if you are to comment
> on any book, try to get it right! Don't just mention one "subplot"
> without some acknowledgment of the Plot!
>
I know what you mean. What I was concerned about was that Bonnie took
her upset emotions presumably incurred from previous posts by Ken and
then placed them fair and square on his dislike for a book.
If she had made the same judgement about a post where Ken had said 'the
whole catholic heirarchy sucks' I would probably have agreed with her
granting that Ken didn't give a good reason for his statement.
You may be right in that the same tone Ken uses to despise a book is the
same as that he uses to despise the church heirarchy.
As for critiquing books...what stands out for one person in a book is not
necesarily the same as other readers...when I saw South pacific as a
child I remember the romance between Lt Cable and Leia as the main part
of the story...I was most disappointed when I saw it later and had all
the screen time taken up by Mitzi Gaynor and Rozzano Brazzi. Ken had the
right book..just a different interpretation of what was important. You
aren't an English literature professor I hope ;-].
What the heck...lets talk about the starving children in Africa!
Semper Fi $:-]
Kevin MacMaster
>> Please, please, don't take this the wrong way. What I find hard to
>> understand about your post is this; what is a steam of spirituality? Does
>> this mean that some of us who call ourselves Catholic can believe something
>> that the Church does not teach? If I think sex before getting married is ok
>> if I trully love the girl does not contradict Catholic teaching am I right
>> to believe this? I've never really thought about this liberal conservative
>> thing much and just want to understand how peoples views can differ so much
>> and still be right.
>>
>In brief I think the best way to express this is that we can disagree
>with each other about how to live our faith...but it is much better not
>to disagree with THE CHURCH.
Dear Fiona,
Thank you for your response. I find it very difficult to understand where
people get there ideas sometimes. I was reading the homepage of a guy named
Andrew Greenly (I think that is how you spell it), he claims to be a priest,
teacher and writer. His writing did not seem very catholic to me. In one
piece he seemed to be claiming that we should rut like rabbits! I just don't
see how someone with his knowledge can advise people that things that are
clearly against the moral law of the Church are ok. Leading people down the
wrong path is one sin that I would never want to have to answer for! It's
like saying the Bible is wrong or that Jesus never really meant it when he
said this part. I don't mean to say that we won't do things against the word
of God but it seems that alot of people would rather justify it somehow,
rather than feel guilty and repent for it.
Kevin
Pavel Chichikov
Dharma,
Yeah, but if someone offers you as a baptized person the Blessed
Sacrament and you decide you'd rather go to the pub or an ashram or dance
around a Maypole? Your nose is too short to thumb it at The Almighty.
So why become a Catholic if God might save you anyway? Because you
love God and want to praise him in the fullest joy and truth you can
attain - by following His commandments and partaking of His Precious Body
and Blood.
I like Zen poetry and stories. I like Sufi music and poetry and
Muslim architecture. I like meditative Hindu music and Hindu dance. Jewish
cantors sing great. Animists in New Guinea carve wonderful sculptures.
There is something of God in all of them. But:
I get my realest, fullest taste of God not through these but
through the Holy Sacraments of the Church. That little wafer is really
God, who made me and this beautiful world.
God bless.
Pavel
Gerard Bugge
On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
> > Of course, she loves the Church and in her hierarchical
> > structure. The very concept of "model of the Church" breaks down at
> > the feet of someone like Mother Teresa. And I think Father Dulles,
> > who has warned about any such categorization over against the basic
> > teachings of the Church on her nature and constitution and
> > mission, would be the very first to agree.
>
> I never implied she did not love the Church, or that she had a
> problem with the hierarchical model. I said *she* oeprated out of the
> servant and herald model. It's not a question of what the Church is,
> but of how *she* herself operates.
> If you want a woman who lives out the hierarchical model, look to
> Mother Angelica of EWTN. Now compare the two and tell me Mother
> Teresa lives out that hierarchical model.
Dear Ed,
The point I was attempting to make is that the very concept of
"models of the Church" seems a construct that has little meaning really,
except for theologians and those who wish to categorize and perhaps
justify certain agendas and plans, even perhaps allowing for dissent under
the umbrella of "legitimate diversity in models of Church out of which one
operates".
As I have said, even Father Dulles, who popularized this whole
concept has warned, more recently, of how inadequate this whole scheme is
and how there are *truths* about the Church that transcend every so-called
model, and on these all Catholics must agree to be faithful to the
Church's self-understanding.
To overlay Mother Teresa with an operational "model of the Church"
just doesn't cut it with me. She operates out of a deep faith in Christ
in His Church and has found a mission within that Church, as has, I
presume, Mother Angelica. Within the one Church, there are indeed a
variety of gifts! But I dare say that both Mother Teresa and Mother
Angelica, for all their differences in emphases and style, agree on the
basics of the Catholic faith regarding the Church. Each of them would
gladly accept what the Scriptures teach, what is taught by the Councils
and Creeds, and what is contained in The Catechism of The Catholic Church.
I doubt if either have determined which "model" of the Church they
will operate out of! But each has received, it seems to me, a vocation
within the Church. Mother Teresa has been a servant of the poorest of the
poor (in utter obedience to the hierarchy of the Church, and has formed a
community in which obedience to one's superiors is considered vital for
its missionary fruitfulness); Mother Angelica has been unbelievably
"successful" in evangelization and in using modern means of communication
in the service of the gospel and the Catholic faith and teaches the basics
of the faith (which includes--as Vatican II and the Catechism make
clear--the hierarchical structure of the Church and the necessity of "the
obedience of faith").
I suspect that they would recognize one another as sisters in
Christ, in love with the same Christ and Church.
And would rejoice in the diversity of gifts the Spirit bestows.
I doubt if they would discuss which model of the Church they
operate out of..........
I pursue this some because I think the whole concept of "model of
Church" can be so easily abused and used to furthur fragment the Church,
whose "unity" is professed in the Creed.
Gerard Serafin
Gerard Bugge
>
> Sure -- CCC #1776 - 1802. Specifically #1782 which says each person
> must be free to act in accordance with the individual's conscience
> and cannot be forced to act contrary to it. #1783 which requires that
> one have a "well formed conscience." #1788 which tells us that we
> make moral decisions based upon how we "interpret the data of
> experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of
> prudence, but the advice of competent people, and by the help of the
> Holy Spirit and his gifts."
>
> #1789 provides some good touchstones for decision making, some rules
> that always apply. We also know that one can form a conscience
> differently from the Church's teaching (1790-1794). Finally, 1793
> seems to summarize where I am coming from.
Dear Ed,
I hope to respond to this post, piece by piece....making it more
manageable that way. For now, let me just quote the section of the
Catechism that you say "summarizes" where you come from, as you attempt to
justifiy "dissent" from official Church teachings. In 1793 it says:
"If--on the contrary--the ignorance is invincible, or the moral
subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil
committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. *It remains
no less an evil, a privation, a disorder.* One must therefore
work to correct the errors of moral conscience."
How this could in any way be interpreted to allow for a dissent
that is "within the wide spectrum of Catholic beliefs" is beyond me! How
this gives a Catholic a "right" to dissent and form another "paradigm" is
beyond me!
Gerard Serafin
Ed Faulk
On 28 Jul 96 at 23:22, Lisa Basarab wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
>
> > Actually, I see Mother Teresa operating out of both servant and herald
models,
> > and not at all out of hierarchical.
>
> Dear Deacon Ed,
>
> I suspect we are going by two very different definitions of
> hierarchy. In my view hierarchy is an order, a system by which that which
> is below reflects that which is above. It is an order by which Jesus's
There is no "above" and "below" in the heirarchy. Rather, the
hierarchy reflects different calls and duties. Clergy is not "higher"
than laity, bishops are not "higher" than deacons or priests. Rather,
each has their place in the governance of the Church and that place
is a function of their role. The pope is the "servant of the servants
of God." The "traditional" picture of the Church as a pyramid with
the pope, cardinals, bishops, priests, deacons, and laity forming a
structure is erroneous on several counts. First, it presumes that
this is the way it was supposed to be. Yet, if we look at the
Scriptures, we find that there were bishops over the local churches,
and deacons to help them. The priests came along much later. The
deacons in Rome were frequently the ones who became popes. This
hierarchy we see today is a result of the adoption of a particular
political model that allowed the Church to serve worldwide. Yes,
there are different gifts, and these are all to be used in the
service of the Church. The bishop has the "fullness" of the
priesthood. I have only the common priesthood of belivers. When I was
ordained it was not to the priesthood but to service. My gifts are
placed at the service of the Church. We use the term "brothers and
sisters" because we are *all* brothers and sisters under God.
> deference to the Father is echoed. You seem to view hierarchy as
> inherently negative, a violation of a sense of egalitarianism. Please
> advise if this perception is erroneous. I see Mother Teresa as willingly
> and lovingly submitting to and embracing the hierarchy of the Church,
> faithfully adhering to the Magisterium and accepting the role of servant
> within that framework. Her Missionaries of Charity also have their own
I see I have not made myself clear. Mother Teresa acknowledges the
structure of the Church, and has employed a structure within her own
organization because this is necessary for the organization to be
successful. However, her role, the role of the Missionaries of
Charity, is to bring the Good News to the poor. This is both herald
and servant model of Church. She does not bring the heirarchy to the
poor, she brings the Gospel. And she does this by being servant.
> hierarchy of authority and administration. Additionally, there is a
> hierarchy within their prayer and work. The formula which was quoted on
> this list (I believe) of J - O - Y, Jesus, Others, You, is itself one of
> service. I do not see how service in the Lord can be independent of
> hierarchy. Our Lord's obedience was rooted in a sense of hierarchy, wasn't
> it? And did he not establish a hierarchy of service among His apostles?
> Isn't the diaconate itself a component of this hierarchy? Of course, the
> abuse of power within a hierarchy is a separate issue.
The hierarchy of any organization supports what that organization
does. It is not, however, the organization. The Church is not pope,
cardinals, bishops, priests, deacons and laity. The Church is the
People of God working together for the good of the Kingdom of God.
Deacon Ed
*******************************************************************************
* Ed Faulk | "If ignorance is bliss, *
* SnailMail: Beckman Instruments, Inc. | 'tis folly to be wise." *
* 3300 Birch St. | Phone: (714) 961-3383 *
* Brea, CA 92621 | FAX: (714) 961-3351 *
* Internet: efa...@shelties.dp.beckman.com | CIS: 75500,2726 *
*******************************************************************************
* Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; *
* cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis. - St. Augustine *
*******************************************************************************
Pavel Chichikov
Dear Fi,
Actually, I attended a Russian Easter Orthodox service once, which
lasted from midnight until four am. I found myself leaning up against a
pillar. The few benches along the side of the church were for the infirm
and the elderly. I am supposed to be neither, but did my feet hurt!
Well, I think you're right when you say that all the furbelows of
Catholic ritual are really beside the point so far as salvation is
concerned. If they help people feel some part of the truth about salvation
they're all to the good. But I know of someone who was asked to leave a
Mass because she had a noisy small child with her, and not too politely
either. It seems that the priests and liturgy specialists had worked too
long and hard on their religious theater to make allowances for a cranky
child. My own point of view is that the Mass is nothing like theater. As a
re-enactment in truth of the Sacrifice a little weeping and wailing would
not be out of place, and the hell with somebody's script. Either that or
set up a crying room.
Anyway, enough from this grouchy old crock.
As one blimp to another here's an affectionate bump.
God bless.
Pavel
Gerard Bugge
On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Kevin MacMaster wrote:
> I just don't
> see how someone with his knowledge can advise people that things that are
> clearly against the moral law of the Church are ok. Leading people down the
> wrong path is one sin that I would never want to have to answer for! It's
> like saying the Bible is wrong or that Jesus never really meant it when he
> said this part. I don't mean to say that we won't do things against the word
> of God but it seems that alot of people would rather justify it somehow,
> rather than feel guilty and repent for it.
Dear Kevin,
I don't know if this could be expressed better! Oh yes, it could
be expressed in more sophisicated terms, and with all kinds of theological
jargon. How simple you make it sound.
Sounds like you read the gospels and the saints!
Gerard Serafin
Gerard Bugge
On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
> > Thanks again for your response. I do think you are quite
> > wrong in your statement that I prefer a pre-Vatican II
> > understanding of the Church. While I think I know the actual
> > teachings of Vatican II fairly well, and accept them as an
> > authoritative word of the Lord from and to His Church, I believe in
> > the Church of all ages, and all the Councils. I resonate deeply
> > with the teachings of this Pope: and his mission has been, restated
> > over and over, to make the legacy of the Second Vatican Council,
> > the overarching theme of his pontificate.
>
> Then I apologize for misunderstanding what you have been posting.
> This was, sadly, the conclusion I had drawn, in spite of your
> statements of support for this pope. Perhaps it comes form your
> comments regarding the Liturgy (which, at least in my area, has never
> been a problem!) and other changes in the Church.
Dear Ed,
As I said I break your post up in "bite-sized pieces", hopefully.
Here I just wish to point out what I perceive to be a serious prejudice
that is all too common. If I am convinced that the current state of the
liturgy in large sectors of the Roman Rite is in serious trouble and that
it does *not* reflect often enough the teachings I find in the Council's
Constitution on the Liturgy, and that some of the changes have not borne
the fruit hoped for: does that automatically make my understanding of the
Church "pre-conciliar"?
You know, many of the (human) architects of Vatican II also felt
this way! They saw the Council being diverted from its purposes and
goals. Does that make them "pre-conciliar"? Rather, doesn't it raise
some danger signals that the Council is not always understood properly and
has not yet been implemented fully?
And while our Holy Father supports the novus ordo and the new
liturgical rites (whose validity I have never questioned!), he has also
issued decrees that not only allow, but encourage the use of the older,
classical liturgical rites of the Roman Rite. So to be in favor of this
usage does *not* mean one is against the Council, or "pre-conciliar", nor
to be against the Pope!
But there seems so many unquestioned assumptions abroad today.
One blessing of this List is that we can discuss issues like this and
hopefully clarify for ourselves--and possibly for others too.
And, if you allow for other "paradigms", why not allow, and
rejoice in the "paradigm" of those who even reject Vatican II according to
their consciences and their researches and experts (and they have quite a
few!)? I am not one of them! But if we allow for such "paradigms" I
don't see why it applies to those who want a female priesthood, a
different sexual morality, more radical liturgies, etc. Why not to those
who reject the Council as introducing modernism into the Church?
At any rate, I hope I am faithful to my capacity to the Second
Vatican Council and to the Teaching Office of the Pope. Even with my own
opinions on the liturgy and changes in the Church!
Gerard Serafin
Scott Carson
On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
> There is no "above" and "below" in the heirarchy. Rather, the
> hierarchy reflects different calls and duties. Clergy is not "higher"
> than laity, bishops are not "higher" than deacons or priests. Rather,
> each has their place in the governance of the Church and that place
> is a function of their role. The pope is the "servant of the servants
> of God." The "traditional" picture of the Church as a pyramid with
> the pope, cardinals, bishops, priests, deacons, and laity forming a
> structure is erroneous on several counts. First, it presumes that
> this is the way it was supposed to be. Yet, if we look at the
> Scriptures, we find that there were bishops over the local churches,
> and deacons to help them. The priests came along much later. The
> deacons in Rome were frequently the ones who became popes. This
> hierarchy we see today is a result of the adoption of a particular
> political model that allowed the Church to serve worldwide. Yes,
> there are different gifts, and these are all to be used in the
> service of the Church. The bishop has the "fullness" of the
> priesthood. I have only the common priesthood of belivers. When I was
> ordained it was not to the priesthood but to service. My gifts are
> placed at the service of the Church. We use the term "brothers and
> sisters" because we are *all* brothers and sisters under God.
I'm certain that this is the "right" answer, and that it reflects the
*intentions* behind much of what is written about Church polity, but I
have two related questions: (1) Is it really true and (2) regardless of
how one answers (1), does anyone really *believe* that it's true? The
answers to these questions lay not, I think, in any theoretical discussion
of ecclesiastical documents or history, but in the actual practice of
Church polity. The *fact* of the matter, regardless of what the *theory*
says, is that bishops not only *appear* to many laymen to be "above"
priests and, indeed, laymen, but they *are* above them in certain very
important respects. This fact may not be consistent with the model, but
that's the way it is. By the same token the Pope is "above" the bishops
in certain non-symbolic ways as well as in certain symbolic ways. It is
just wishful thinking, in my view, to pretend otherwise, even though I
fully agree that there is a *model*, to which we all aspire, within which
it is not the case.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Scott Carson Department of Philosophy
voice mail: (919) 660-3052 Duke University
FAX: (919) 660-3060 201 West Duke Building
e-mail: sket...@acpub.duke.edu Durham, NC 27708
Kevin MacMaster
>> So why become a Catholic if God might save you anyway? Because you
>> love God and want to praise him in the fullest joy and truth you can
>> attain - by following His commandments and partaking of His Precious Body
>> and Blood.
>
>catholic but love your neighbor you've got a chance of getting there too.
Dear Ken,
If your not Catholic or of some mainline Christian faith and you have heard
the Word from people who are, but ignore it, do you still think you can get
to Heaven. I'm under no illusion that you *have* to be Catholic to get to
Heaven, but is it not taught that those who have been given the opportunity
to come to faith and reject it will be rejected by the Lord.
It seems there is more to it than loving your neighbor unless one has not
had the chance to know this. For many, loving your neighbor is the easy part.
Kevin
Ed Faulk
Yes, it is really true. That does not change the fact that, as
question 2 implies, people do not perceive it to be true. Those of us
in orders are aware of the fact that, even though it is true, there
are other "truths" that are equally valid. For example, I have
faculties because my bishop gave them to me. Thus, I am "under" him
in "orders". Yet, at the same time, I am his eyes, ears, hands, feet,
voice, and heart. Thus, I am a part of him. In still another context
I am what people perceive the local Church to be. That is, I am an
official representative of the Church that is real to the people while
the bishop is not. Thus, in a sense, I am above the bishop. Which is
real? Which is true?
> how one answers (1), does anyone really *believe* that it's true? The
> answers to these questions lay not, I think, in any theoretical discussion
> of ecclesiastical documents or history, but in the actual practice of
> Church polity. The *fact* of the matter, regardless of what the *theory*
> says, is that bishops not only *appear* to many laymen to be "above"
> priests and, indeed, laymen, but they *are* above them in certain very
> important respects. This fact may not be consistent with the model, but
> that's the way it is. By the same token the Pope is "above" the bishops
Again, what is perceived, and what is real are sometimes different
things. The "reality" is that there is a structural organization with
different roles given to different people. This does not mean that
one is above and another below, just that they have different roles.
As my bishop pointed out at the recent celebration of his 50 years as
a priest and 25 years as a bishop: "I am called to be priest,
brother, and servant. I cannot do that because I do not have time to
be all things to all people. So, then, my brother priests you are
called to bring our shared priesthood to the people. My brother
deacons, you are called to serve in my place. Together we serve,
united we stand, in faith we work together for the good of us all."
> in certain non-symbolic ways as well as in certain symbolic ways. It is
> just wishful thinking, in my view, to pretend otherwise, even though I
> fully agree that there is a *model*, to which we all aspire, within which
> it is not the case.
Each model offers both insight and goal. The model is not reality,
but it reflects both the real and the desire.
Katie Flora
Deacon Ed wrote:
> On 28 Jul 96 at 23:04, Lisa Basarab wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
> > > Further, the teachings of the Church are to be held as authoritative. If
one
> > > finds that one cannot hold a particular teaching, then one is obligated to
> > > research this issue, and to seek appropriate experts so as to properly
form
> > > one's conscience. If the individual eventually rejects the teaching
> > > there is an obligation to formulate an alternative teaching.
> >
> > Dear Deacon Ed,
> >
> > My dictionary defines authority as the right to give commands, to
> > make final decisions, to enforce obedience. What do you mean by
>
> The Church cannot and does not "enforce obedience" except for those
> who have made a public commitment to be obedient (clerics and
> religious and those lay who so chose to do this).
>
> > "authoritative" if the authority can be rejected based on personal
> > research and independent conclusions? And what is the source of the
>
> The Church has always recognized the "sovereignty" of the indiviual,
> rightly formed conscience. While the Church speaks authoritativly on
> matters of faith and morals, she also teaches in other areas. These
> other areas can be accepted or rejected based upon one's rightly
> formed conscience. One such area would be preistly celibacy. This is
> a discipline and can be rightly debated by members of the Church
> without affecting how "good" a Catholic one is. At the same time, the
> Virgin Birth is a matter of basic faith. One cannot reject this and
> remain Catholic. They are simply incompatible. It would be like
> trying to be both Black and White at the same time.
>
> > authority of the "alternative teaching" I espouse in rejection of the
> > Church's teaching? And who are the "appropriate experts"? Theologians?
> > Scientists? Psychologists? Could you elaborate? How does one determine
> > when one's conscience is properly formed -- by what criteria? Could you
> > give an example of a current Church teaching that can legitimately be
> > rejected as a result of the process you delineate?
>
> How does one know one's conscience is rightly formed? I don't know. I
> can give examples of how we know when it is *not* rightly formed.
> Those who reject the Church's teaching on birth control because it
> gets in the way of their "fun" do not have a rightly formed
> conscience. One who espouses a libertine life style because it allows
> the greatest flexibility for doing "whatever feels good" does not
> have a rightly formed conscience.
>
<Snip>
> Deacon Ed
>
>
>
*******************************************************************************
> * Ed Faulk | "If ignorance is bliss,
*
> * SnailMail: Beckman Instruments, Inc. | 'tis folly to be wise."
*
> * 3300 Birch St. | Phone: (714) 961-3383
*
> * Brea, CA 92621 | FAX: (714) 961-3351
*
> * Internet: efa...@shelties.dp.beckman.com | CIS: 75500,2726
*
>
*******************************************************************************
> * Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides;
*
> * cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis. - St. Augustine
*
>
*******************************************************************************
>
Dear Deacon Ed:
I basically agree with you on this. However, I've been told by some
"good" Catholics that a person's beliefs in the area of birth control may in
certain
circumstances be determined by a person' s "formed conscience" without
violating the authority of the church.
I don't know if I agree with this, but I can understand where such a
position would come from. For instance, (here comes one of my
hypotheticals) a young mother has several children and she finds out
that another pregnancy would strongly compromise her health and there
exists a very real possibility that she would die. Some would say she
should leave it up to God. Others would say she and her husband
should refrain from sex. And others would say that she and her
husband should pray about it, determine how strong they are and what
their prioritites are (the kids) and do what they must do
(sterilization). The "formed conscience" would govern this couple's
actions in this last scenario.
This is the way "formed conscience" was explained to me. Another area
where it is used a lot is when a person is unable to obtain an
annulment from a prior marriage and they still want to receive the
Blessed Sacrement although the have remarried.
It seems like a big gray area to me!
Peace to all!
Katie
kfl...@law.ua.edu
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human
stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
-Churchill
Ed Faulk
On 29 Jul 96 at 13:44, Katie Flora wrote:
> Dear Deacon Ed:
>
> I basically agree with you on this. However, I've been told by some
> "good" Catholics that a person's beliefs in the area of birth control may in
certain
> circumstances be determined by a person' s "formed conscience" without
> violating the authority of the church.
This gets into a very sticky situation. I'll explain more below...
> I don't know if I agree with this, but I can understand where such a
> position would come from. For instance, (here comes one of my
> hypotheticals) a young mother has several children and she finds out
> that another pregnancy would strongly compromise her health and there
> exists a very real possibility that she would die. Some would say she
> should leave it up to God. Others would say she and her husband
> should refrain from sex. And others would say that she and her
> husband should pray about it, determine how strong they are and what
> their prioritites are (the kids) and do what they must do
> (sterilization). The "formed conscience" would govern this couple's
> actions in this last scenario.
As long as the basic principles of moral process are used there may
not be a problem. However, one may not commint a moral wrong so that
a good may come of it. That is, one may not mutilate a body to bring
about good, so sterilization is out. One may not use an abortifacient
to terminate a pregnancy so birth control pills and IUDs are out.
Since spermicides kill human sperm they can't be used. The bottom
line is NFP (which, done correctly, is among the most effective
methods of birth control!).
> This is the way "formed conscience" was explained to me. Another area
> where it is used a lot is when a person is unable to obtain an
> annulment from a prior marriage and they still want to receive the
> Blessed Sacrement although the have remarried.
This is called the "internal forum" and it amounts to a
confessional-type setting in which an individual and a clergyman
discuss the situation. This is not even available until the external
forum (annulment) has been tried. In general, internal forum
solutions are discourage for a number of very good reasons.
> It seems like a big gray area to me!
It is, and that's a big part of the problem. Many people think there
used to be only black and white with no gray. Today, of course, they
thing there is only gray and no black and white. The whole spectrum
has always been there, the Church has only emphasized a small part at
a time because we can't grasp the whole thing at once!
John Caughey
:What is the obedience required of lay people?
Obey your superiors and be subject to them, for
they keep watch as having to render an account
of your souls; so that they may do this with joy,
and not with grief, for that would not be expedient
for you (Heb. 13:17).
Ken Dawe
On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Kevin MacMaster wrote:
> If your not Catholic or of some mainline Christian faith and you have heard
> the Word from people who are, but ignore it, do you still think you can get
> to Heaven. I'm under no illusion that you *have* to be Catholic to get to
> Heaven, but is it not taught that those who have been given the opportunity
> to come to faith and reject it will be rejected by the Lord.
I would guess it's a question of conscience. If you're not Catholic and
you've heard the Word from a Catholic but think it's all a crock, and
then you go about living a moral, loving life, I'd personally believe
that the God of Love would happily open Her arms to that person.
I'm sure one of the list members will be quick to quote from a catechism
and you the oficial answer to your question.
> It seems there is more to it than loving your neighbor unless one has not
> had the chance to know this. For many, loving your neighbor is the easy part.
Loving your neighbor is the EASY part? Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Rwanda,
Vietnam, Korea, World War II, World War I and on and on and on....Seems
to me that loving your neighbor is the one thing that is not easy.
There is more than loving your neighbor...love God...give God thanks and
praise.
Dharma Bum
Katie Flora
> From: Kevin MacMaster <ar...@NS.SYMPATICO.CA>
> >> So why become a Catholic if God might save you anyway? Because you
> >> love God and want to praise him in the fullest joy and truth you can
> >> attain - by following His commandments and partaking of His Precious Body
> >> and Blood.
> >
> >Sounds good to me...should get you to heaven. I presume if you're not
> >catholic but love your neighbor you've got a chance of getting there too.
>
> Dear Ken,
>
> If your not Catholic or of some mainline Christian faith and you have heard
> the Word from people who are, but ignore it, do you still think you can get
> to Heaven. I'm under no illusion that you *have* to be Catholic to get to
> Heaven, but is it not taught that those who have been given the opportunity
> to come to faith and reject it will be rejected by the Lord.
>
> It seems there is more to it than loving your neighbor unless one has not
> had the chance to know this. For many, loving your neighbor is the easy part.
>
> Kevin
>
So do you believe that my parents, who are good Christians but not
Catholic, won't be going to heaven by virtue of the fact that I am
Catholic. They have gone to Mass with me and they have talked to me
about my becoming Catholic (they were supportive), but they're not
interested in leaving the Methodist Church. Does this mean they're
not going to heaven. What about Christians who marry Catholics but
never join the Catholic Church themselves. I agree with Ken, that
whether one goes to heaven hinges more on how you treat your
neighbor. And how much faith you have.
Peace to all!
Katie
kfl...@law.ua.edu
"Not only is life a bitch, but it is always having
puppies." -Adrienne Gusoff
Ken Dawe
On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, John Caughey wrote:
> >If we show peace, compassion, and love to to others through service, are
> >we not living Christ's life?
> >
> I believe that Jesus Christ is true God and true Man.
> I believe that He is the Second Person in the Blessed
> Trinity.
>
> Who do you think He is?
Better question might be: Who do you think you are?
Dharma Bum
Pavel Chichikov
On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, John Caughey wrote:
> >
> I believe that Jesus Christ is true God and true Man.
> I believe that He is the Second Person in the Blessed
> Trinity.
Some people say that being a good person makes you a follower of
Jesus. Our faith says that Jesus of Nazareth is God born to a virgin on
Earth; He lived and performed works, taught, was killed and was buried,
rose again to new life and will judge the living and the dead. He did
this to atone for the sins of human beings and bring them from death to
eternal joy with Him. He told his disciples that the way to life in Him
is through Him and only through Him. This is not myth, legend or symbol.
Jesus is an historical person, who is also a Person of the Blessed
Trinity. God. There is nothing, literally nothing abstract about faith in
Christ. He is present to us pre-eminently in the sacraments of the Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Church, founded by and guided by Him. These
sacraments are not merely symbols, but symbols which actually, in truth
and on Earth, effect what they symbolize, become what is intended by them.
It's one thing to be born at a time and place in which it is not
possible to hear this Gospel in its fullest form. The Holy Spirit, who is
love, can be heard by anyone, anywhere. It is another thing to pettifog,
as a hypocrite who hears the message and says: 'I have the substance, but
I do not accept the details. In my wisdom I boil them down and take only
the essence.'
Chopping logic with God is perhaps not the most prudent course a
soul might take. But we shall see. He is most merciful. Let's not presume
on - or as the Gospel says - 'tempt' - His mercy.
Peace,
Pavel
Abigail Tardiff
On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Kevin MacMaster wrote:
> If your not Catholic or of some mainline Christian faith and you have heard
> the Word from people who are, but ignore it, do you still think you can get
> to Heaven.
I just want to add: hearing the gospel with your ears may not
constitute the kind of hearing that makes you culpable for rejecting it.
My grandmother (I've mentioned her before, but it bears repeating) fled
Russia with her family when she was six, because of the pogroms. She
couldn't look at a cross without shuddering. God is the only judge, but I
don't think her exposure to Christianity counted as "hearing" the gospel.
This is my own speculation, and not as far as I know explicit
Church teaching. But the CCC, quoting _Lumen Gentium_ and other
encyclicals, speaks of those who are ignorant of the Gospel through no
fault of their own, and says they can be saved. I think that someone who
has heard the gospel but is not able to see that it is true (though no
fault of his own) is as ignorant of the real Gospel as someone who has
never heard it at all.
Abigail
Pavel Chichikov
No one knows who is or is not going to heaven except God. That's
good standard official Catholic belief. It is not Catholic doctrine that a
Methodist or anyone else not Catholic is going to hell for not being
Catholic.
Peace,
Pavel
David Aldred
In article: <1996072900...@smtp1.sympatico.ca> Kevin MacMaster
<ar...@NS.SYMPATICO.CA> writes:
> What I find hard to understand about your post is this; what is a steam of
> spirituality?
It's the natural result of an overheated discussion on the Free Catholic
List.
:-)
--
------------------ -------------------------
|\avid Aldred / Da...@aldred.demon.co.uk \ Nottingham, England
|/ --------------------------------
Kevin MacMaster
>So do you believe that my parents, who are good Christians but not
>Catholic, won't be going to heaven by virtue of the fact that I am
>Catholic. They have gone to Mass with me and they have talked to me
>about my becoming Catholic (they were supportive), but they're not
>interested in leaving the Methodist Church. Does this mean they're
>not going to heaven. What about Christians who marry Catholics but
>never join the Catholic Church themselves. I agree with Ken, that
>whether one goes to heaven hinges more on how you treat your
>neighbor. And how much faith you have.
Dear Katie,
No not in the least. I'm sure God takes into consideration our circumstances
in life. What we have been taught and the culture we grow up in. I'm
thinking more about those who grow up in the Catholic faith and decide what
parts of it they like and don't like. I won't get into a nasty flame war
with anyone and you can be sure that when I ask a question that I don't want
to insult anyone either. So if you took offense, I'm very sorry.
Kevin
Ed Sayre
Hello all, I'm back more or less, from a different account.
> What is important to me in the Augustine thinking is that he, although he is
> one of the deepest lovers of the Church, consider the Church only as an
> instrument in the hands of God, what he consider important is the salvation,
> not the membership to the church.
> Sometimes I feel the longing to hear a bishop remebering us that Church is
> not so important, that the Reign of God is our aim, that, as the Fathers
> said, the Church is moon, she reflects the light of the sun and don't shine
> per se.
The only problem is that a lot of people agree that getting to
the port _is_ important, but many people say "Forget the boat,
I'm gonna swim to port!" and wonder why the people in the
boat fret so. :)
I'm not sure what the other option to viewing the church was that
you posted. Don't get me wrong, I love and admire Augustine, but
I think too many people (not you, jsut what I think many take it
to mean) misinterpret what he means. Remember the famous "Lord,
make me chaste, but not yet?" :)
Peace,
Ed
P.S. I'm using new software, and if there's a formatting or any
other sort of error, please let me know via private email.
Lisa Basarab
On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
> The hierarchy of any organization supports what that organization
> does. It is not, however, the organization.
Dear Deacon Ed,
I would hope this is not the view I conveyed. However, I would say
that order and form are important for more than their worldly utilitarian
purposes. And the specific view of hierarchy I espouse is one that
reflects a Divine order, an order in which nothing is accidental and the
form does express a larger truth.
In Him,
Lisa
Ed Faulk
On 29 Jul 96 at 22:34, Lisa Basarab wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
> > We are
> > obligated to accept Church teaching as authoritative, yes, but we
> > are also obliged to internalize that, to reflect on the teaching
> > of the Church and to make it our own. If one finds one cannot do
> > that, then an alternative paradigm is required. For, you see, it
> > is not enough to simply reject the teaching of the Church, but one
> > must substitute something for that teaching.
>
> Dear Deacon Ed,
>
> What of the peasant who states, simply, "the Church said it,
> and therefore it's mine." Is he delinquent in his duty, in his
> eager obedience? Does he have an obligation to ruminate and dissect
My opinion, and mine only, is that such a person is using a
bare-minimum approach. Since one of the precepts of the Church is to
continue our education in the teachings of the Church such an
individual would be violating that precept and, thereby, not
following the teachings of the Chruch.
> before he adopts? What of the different levels on which the faith
> is approached?
There are different layers of faith and I would hope and pray that
all of us continue to exercise our faith so as to develop it still
further. At some level we operate on the acceptance of the teachings
because the Church is in authority. However, I would expect (and the
Church expects) that we continue to study, to grow and to learn.
> And my concern about substitution is that it usually involves some
> variation of Catholic lite, rather than any great penetration into
> the love of the Church.
And, yet, like Augustine or Aquinas it can result in still deeper
insight that leads us closer to the fullness of Truth.
> There are many of great faith who did raise views not consistent
> with the prevalent Church understanding, however, this was often
> done in deference to the authority of the Church, which they did
> not reject and which they treasured.
Um...I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. They raised
alternate views but did not reject the Church teaching? That seems
inconsisten unless they were playing mental gymastics. My reading
indicates that when a writer raised some point contrary to, or not
consonent with, the teachings of the Church it was usually (but not
always) because they disagreed with the Church. On rare occasions
(like most of Aquinas' Summa) this was done to provide contrast.
> As for Saint Thomas Aquinas's view on the Immaculate Conception of
> our Blessed Mother, I do not understand why you raised this issue
> since this was not defined decisively as dogma by the Church until
> centuries later.
I raised it simply to show that there are saints who disagreed with
the direction the Church was taking. Although the Immaculate
Conception was not yet defined dogmatically, it was being discussed
in the Church.
> I have confidence that Saint Thomas would have been obedient to the
> Church in Her statement and would not have substituted his own
> paradigm -- but maybe not (Saint Thomas, great dissenter?).
It's hard to imagine Thomas NOT supplying paradigms that fill in gaps
in the Church teaching. Sicne so many of his pardigms seem to have
been adopted by the Church, it's hard to tell if they would have been
different, or simply defining.
Deacon Ed
*******************************************************************************
* Ed Faulk | "If ignorance is bliss, *
* SnailMail: Beckman Instruments, Inc. | 'tis folly to be wise." *
* 3300 Birch St. | Phone: (714) 961-3383 *
* Brea, CA 92621 | FAX: (714) 961-3351 *
* Internet: efa...@shelties.dp.beckman.com | CIS: 75500,2726 *
*******************************************************************************
* Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend, *
* Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -G. Marx *
*******************************************************************************
Kevin MacMaster
At 03:54 PM 7/27/96 GMT, you wrote:
>Beloved Sisters and Brothers!
>
>I'm completely and totally confused about this thread. I've quit a
>back-log of messages to read, and some to answer, but this message
>must go first, simply because I'm not sure anymore if this list is
>worth my time.
Dear Richard, Fiona, Ken and whoever else I may have insulted,
Maybe I have come across as being as a complete prude or something but I ask
questions the way I do because I realy want to learn how to live a better
life. If I sound like I'm putting anyone down I'm very sorry. I've lived my
life mostly in fear of God but what I want is to choose the right thing out
of love for our Lord. I would also like to, in some way, inspire friends and
family by learning as much as I can about our Church, that has so much to
offer us.
E-mail, it seems, realy has a way of making emotions run high, but I'm quite
sure Ken and I could solve all the worlds problems over beer and dance in
our local tavern. Guided by the Holy Spirit of course. ;-)
God Bless you all
Kevin
Bartoli Fabio
All of this thread recalls me a quotation of S. Augustine, but I'm not able
to find it in my library. Anyway it is from the City of God, if I don't
mistake. In it Augustine compares the Church to a boat in which there are
someone rowing and some others only as passengers, which is important to be
saved, he said, is to be in it, the boat will certainly arrive to the port,
because the wind of the Spirit drives it.
There are others who are not in the boat, they are outside, but they are
hang up to its edge. They are not in the boat, they are not formally
christian, on the contrary, they obstruct the navigation, maybe they pursue
the Church, but if they are hang to its edge in some way, if they agree to
the basics christian truth, THEY WILL BE SAVED.
What is important to me in the Augustine thinking is that he, although he is
one of the deepest lovers of the Church, consider the Church only as an
instrument in the hands of God, what he consider important is the salvation,
not the membership to the church.
Sometimes I feel the longing to hear a bishop remebering us that Church is
not so important, that the Reign of God is our aim, that, as the Fathers
said, the Church is moon, she reflects the light of the sun and don't shine
per se.
One in Christ, yours Church lover
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| "Let him not vow to walk in the dark, |
| who has not seen the nightfall" |
| (J.R.R. Tolkien) |
| |
| don Fabio Bartoli |
| comunita' Maria del rinnovamento carismatico |
| v. P. Belon 119/a 00169 Roma |
| tel. 06-2677265 oppure 0338-445349 |
| e-mail: bar...@mbox.vol.it |
+-------------------------------------------------------+
Lisa Basarab
Dear brother in Christ, Richard,
While we are venting anger, I will vent my frustration that so often
beauty and joy that are posted receive little or no response, and then
when the purveyors of joy and beauty say something deeply felt about their
love of orthodoxy, they get an indignant adversarial retort. Where is
the appreciation of their reflection of the Lord's light?
In Him,
Lisa
Theresa Blevins
>In the mean time people with *REAL* problems stand crying in front of
>closed churches. While within magnificent halls learned men, (and some
>women) are shouting *Heresy, Heresy* to each other, uncountable
>numbers of young people have lost their way. And in stead of trying to
>understand their needs they are criticized if the walk in the
>direction of "New Age" not because they know what that is, but because
>*there* at least people seem to listen...
>
*Warning the following post is negative, read at your own risk.
While these discussions are taking place we are not paying attention
to what is really happening in the world, which is rapidly going to hell in
a hand basket. Even as we write there are:
Over 400 wars going on in the world.
In Russia there are two abortions for every live birth - some Russian women
have had as many as 10 abortions. Alcholism is rampant, and still they
build up their arms - 40% of the GNP is still going into arms production.
Russia is not converted it is perverted, and flooded with American forms of
vice.
The Church is rapidly loosing souls to New Age movements in Latin America.
Europe is in a spiritual and political crisis.
Rome has been declared by the official Exorcist for that diocese, Father
Amorth, to be the capital of the world for Satanic cults. In three cities in
Italy the police have determined that there are over 600 Satanic cults. And
black Masses are going on while children disappear.
In China the new delicacy the new health food is aborted fetuses! Yes, it
has been reported by a Western a journalist that at least one restaraunt in
Shanghai they are on the menu. Also in the journal "First Things," it was
reported that a Chinese abortionist has declard that she consumes aborted
fetuses because they are nutritious. If you doubt it you should know that
Senator Strom Thurmond has
held talks about it.
There is slaughter in Africa that has been described as a "vision of hell".
In the various Christian denominations apostacy is reaching ridiculous
proportions - not long ago 100 Anglican priests had a seminar and admitted
that they no longer believed in God at all, let alone hell, which they
declared null and void.
So as we fool around and argue about these crappy little points of theology,
and Deacon Ed chides me for focusing on the negative and Gerard suggests I
should try to develop a sense of humor about the dissidents, I sometimes
think that some of the posts on this list, including my own, are pretty darn
irrelevant.
The Church and the secular world cannot continue to limp along like this,
something has got to give!
The real question to me is - are we at a point of no return? Can we fix this
terrible state of affairs? Will there be a tremendous outpouring of the Holy
Spirit - which is what I think will have to take place in order to turn back
the tide, or will there be a tremendous chastisement which will cleanse the
earth so that we can go forward and cross over into that threshold of hope.
Or will we just slowly get our act together?
Am I being fearful? -(which seems to be a very unpopular emotion to express
on this list) No, I'm not afraid, I know in the end everything will work
out, I just think there is too much intellectualizing and not enough
concentration on
the realities going on around us. "The kingdom of God is not about talk, it
is about power."
Theresa
Lisa Basarab
On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Pavel Chichikov wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Bartoli Fabio wrote:
> >
> > > Sometimes I feel the longing to hear a bishop remebering us that Church is
> > > not so important, that the Reign of God is our aim, that, as the Fathers
> > > said, the Church is moon, she reflects the light of the sun and
> > > don't shine per se.
>
> Church is not important until it isn't there. Then you find how
> much difference it makes to people that there is no Church. That's when
> the wolf is truly loose among the sheep.
Dear Father Bartoli and Pavel,
Again we are highlighting different aspects of the truth. Thank you,
Father, for reminding us of the transcendent, and thank you, Pavel for
raising the practical truth of how grievously Christians have suffered for
their forbidden Church. We seem to be so often talking at cross purposes
lately. What's the tonic? Or is this discussion itself the tonic, a
purgative?
In Him,
Lisa
Ken Dawe
On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, John Caughey wrote:
> Is it true that Buddists do not believe in God?
Buddists mostly believe in Bud Light.
Dharma Bum
Fiona MARSDEN
On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Pavel Chichikov wrote:
> Dear Fi,
> There is one very big trap. It's to think - I'm gonna find the
> state of non-selfhood, I'm gonna achieve contact with the ineffable, I'm
> gonna meditate myself into a state of blessedness.
<snip>
> The practices of Buddhism seem to me to be incapatible with
> Christian revelation not because there's something despicable about them,
> but because they are simply irrelevant to revealed truth about God - for a
> Christian an empty form. But go ahead and wear a Buddhist monk's robe if
> it makes you happy. It don't mean diddly to your salvation.
I happen to prefer Islamic dress styles if I decide to go multicultural.
There happen to a lot of things Catholics do that 'mean diddly to your
salvation'...All the accumulated clutter of two millenia that make the
Catholic Church rich and beautiful...heavy with ritual and
symbolism....but when you cut down to the bone all quite unnecessary for
salvation which relies totally on the love of God and the willing
Sacrifice of his Son revealed to us by his Spirit.
Irrelevant can be all in the eye of the beholder. I bet you'd be mighty
uncomfortable in an eastern Catholic church sitting and kneeling on the
floor. After all pews and kneelers are irrelevant and mean diddly to
your salvation.
I am not claiming that Buddhism in itself possesses the Truth or is even
a desirable religion. All I have been trying to say is that there are
some practical aspects of the religion that can be, in fact have been
found to be, useful to some Catholics. Largely Catholics from Asian
countries but apparently also to Ken Dawe. I have no personal desire to
don the saffron robes...I see enough of them shopping when they wonder in
from the local Krishna enclave. I would look too much like an emergency
blimp ;-].
Semper Fi $:-]
Gerard Bugge
On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
> I'm not suggesting a "pick and choose" attitude at all. What I am
> stating is that it is possible for people of good conscience to
> disagree on things like the ordination of women, celibacy of priests,
> and other issues of this nature. Certainly, the basics of faith fall
> into an entirely different category, and I would not suggest that
> these are open to interpretation. Nor would I suggest that the basic
> issues of morality are open to personal interpretation. If you got
> that from what I said, I apologize for that is not at all what I
> intended.
Dear Ed,
You still seem to be giving the impression that Catholics can
indeed pick and choose! You say one thing about the authority of the
Church, and then undermine that very authority as you seem to allow for
other "paradigms" flowing from dissent from that very authority! I do not
find your expositions at all consistent. They seem confused to me anyway.
For example, you say it may be OK for a Catholic to dissent from
the teaching of the Church on the ordination of women (now, of course, a
Catholic may dissent and many do---but they are "dissenters" and out of
line in this dissent, in my view of the demands of Catholic faith and
assent). The difference is that you say that this may be fine, as long as
the process you outline is followed.
But this is *not* what the Church teaches! For example the
Catechism, following Vatican II's clear teaching about the obligation of
*all* Catholics to give assent to the magisterial teachings of the Church,
says, among other statements:
"Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the
apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a
particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when,
without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing 'in a
difinitive manner', they propose in the exercise of the ordinary
Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in
matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful 'are
to adhere to it with religious assent' which, though distinct from the
assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it." (892).
I quote this selection since it states clearly that here, even if
the teaching is not proposed in "a definitive manner" it is still binding
on the consciences of the faithful.
Yet you say a Catholic can legitimately dissent from the teaching
about women's ordination. But, deacon Ed, the Pope declared, with the
authority bestowed on him by Christ as successor of Peter, and in the duty
of confirming the brethren in the faith (read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to
see just how much authority the Pope wished to give it!), that the Church
has no authority to bestow priestly ordination on women, and did this in a
way "definitively binding" on all the faithful. He expressly says that he
does this precisely to put an end to any doubts!
Now how can you possibly say that this question is open and falls
under any "legitimate spectrum of Catholic belief"? How can you say you
uphold the authority of the Church as a deacon, and yet seem to imply that
it really is OK--as long as you have good reasons--to keep this question
open as if the Pope had not said what he say, why he said it, and the way
he said it? I find a real contradiction here. Can you clarify furthur
lest I am misrepresenting what I read you saying?
> > How about the saints?
>
> Um, what about the saints? Aquinas rejected the notion of the
> Immacualte Conception, St. Jerome certainly dissented on the issue of
> which books should be included in the bible. Yet, in spite of the
> areas where they may have disagreed, they are models of how to live
> out the call to follow Jesus.
As John Henry Newman says about the Pope's authority:
The voice of Peter is
now, as it ever has been, a real authority, infallible when it teaches,
prosperous when it commands, ever taking the lead wisely and distinctly
in its own province, adding certainty to what is probably,
and persuasion to what is certain. Before it speaks, the most
saintly may mistake; and after it has spoken, the most gifted must
obey.
Amen!
Gerard Serafin
Bartoli Fabio
Dear Pavel, forgive me
At 20.37 29/07/96 -0400, you wrote:
> Church is not important until it isn't there. Then you find how
>much difference it makes to people that there is no Church. That's when
>the wolf is truly loose among the sheep.
Obviously I speak from an italian point of view, and I always forget how can
be rude to live in a situation of persecution. Sorry.
I'm really bored in hearing bishops and priests who seem worried only about
the organization and the structures of the church and not about heaven.
Sometimes it seems to me that we think that salvation is our property and
that we have only to join the Church to get it... Sometimes it seems that we
think that church is a club and so the only important question is "how many
baptism?" "how many people to the mass this sunday?"
Let's put back Jesus on the center! Church is strong and lives when she
talks about him, not when she talks about herself. We are moon and we have
to reflect his light.
Obviously if there is none who reflects light, it cannot be seen, that's why
Church is really important. But what's happen if the Church herself don't
reflects anymore and try to shine by herself (i.e. by her organization, by
her activities, by her enterprises)?
That's what's happening I fear.... Lord preserve us from the spirit of the
world!
One in Christ, yours
Lisa Basarab
On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Gerard Bugge wrote:
> And, if you allow for other "paradigms", why not allow, and
> rejoice in the "paradigm" of those who even reject Vatican II according to
> their consciences and their researches and experts (and they have quite a
> few!)? I am not one of them! But if we allow for such "paradigms" I
> don't see why it applies to those who want a female priesthood, a
> different sexual morality, more radical liturgies, etc. Why not to those
> who reject the Council as introducing modernism into the Church?
Dear Gerard,
I have puzzled over this question, too. Didn't our wonderful pope
have a lot of valuable, relevant stuff to say to apply to this general
topic in his incisive Veritatis Splendor? And why is it that one man's
well-formed conscience is another man's stick in the mud intransigence?
In Him,
Lisa
Lisa Basarab
On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
> We are
> obligated to accept Church teaching as authoritative, yes, but we are
> Church and to make it our own. If one finds one cannot do that, then
> an alternative paradigm is required. For, you see, it is not enough
> to simply reject the teaching of the Church, but one must substitute
> something for that teaching.
Dear Deacon Ed,
What of the peasant who states, simply, "the Church said it, and
therefore it's mine." Is he delinquent in his duty, in his eager
obedience? Does he have an obligation to ruminate and dissect before he
adopts? What of the different levels on which the faith is approached?
And my concern about substitution is that it usually involves some
variation of Catholic lite, rather than any great penetration into the
love of the Church. There are many of great faith who did raise views not
consistent with the prevalent Church understanding, however, this was
often done in deference to the authority of the Church, which they did not
reject and which they treasured. As for Saint Thomas Aquinas's view on the
Immaculate Conception of our Blessed Mother, I do not understand why you
raised this issue since this was not defined decisively as dogma by the
Church until centuries later. I have confidence that Saint Thomas would
have been obedient to the Church in Her statement and would not have
substituted his own paradigm -- but maybe not (Saint Thomas, great
dissenter?).
In Him,
Lisa
Ed Faulk
On the other hand, one who rejects the Church's teaching on priestly
celibacy with well reasoned argument may have a well-formed
conscience. We are obligated to follow our conscience under penalty
of sin. Conscience is internal, not external in that we cannot simply
adopt, without thinking, an external system of behavior. We are
obligated to accept Church teaching as authoritative, yes, but we are
also obliged to internalize that, to reflect on the teaching of the
Church and to make it our own. If one finds one cannot do that, then
an alternative paradigm is required. For, you see, it is not enough
to simply reject the teaching of the Church, but one must substitute
something for that teaching.
Deacon Ed
*******************************************************************************
* Ed Faulk | "If ignorance is bliss, *
* SnailMail: Beckman Instruments, Inc. | 'tis folly to be wise." *
* 3300 Birch St. | Phone: (714) 961-3383 *
* Brea, CA 92621 | FAX: (714) 961-3351 *
* Internet: efa...@shelties.dp.beckman.com | CIS: 75500,2726 *
*******************************************************************************
Ed Faulk
On 28 Jul 96 at 23:37, Pavel Chichikov wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
> > I would hope that is not the case. Rather, I suspect that the
> > au-courant books reflect aspects of saintly lives in a context that
> > may be meaningful for the modern reader. Of course, as with any
> > attempt to categorize an individual, much is sacrificed in an effort
> > to present an idea, image or realization.
>
> Deacon Ed,
> You write as if you've been infected by these with-it books - a
> large dose of sociology administered with a dirty needle.
A good analogy with respect to some of the current works! Thanks for
the image. ;-)
> I think you meant something like:
> You can't show all of a person by using abstract ideas to describe
> him. But maybe some of these ideas make more sense out of holy lives for
> the people around here.
Yes, this is the idea I had in mind. Thanks.
Ken Dawe
On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Kevin MacMaster wrote:
> I'm not trying to insult you here,
I know you're not, Kev
> just to understand how people of less
> traditional belief come to think they are right. I'm no Phd, but if I claim
> to be Catholic, I feel I must follow what the Church has to say about moral
> law very closely, and when I fail, to feel badly and get confession.
Then follow it or go to confession when you don't follow it. If that's
what being Catholic means to you, then do it...and don't let anyone think
you shouldn't.
> If you
> were to think it was all a crock and then went out and lived a moral
> life...then you must not think it such a crock after all. :)
I thought you said you weren't a PhD?
I could think it'a all a crock and go live a moral life and still believe
it's all a crock. Suppose I don't believe that Jesus was/is God....that
eating a dry wafer that sticks to the roof of your mouth and having just
one little sip of wine....and believing that's God you're eating and
drinking...is foolish and silly. But I could go off to my job and give a
solid eight hours of conscientious work....I could go home and enjoy a
meal with my family....I could go visit a friend at the hospital...I
could give people I meet a smile and a friendly word....and that could be
repeated thru the days of my life. And I could still believe that all
that church stuff is weird.
Whether I know it or not, or accept what the Catholic Church has to offer
or not, I'm still living in the Spirit of Christ with the mindful work I
do, with my love to others, and with my service to and for others. God is
within me and if I can just get my big ego out of the way, then God will
get a chance to operate through my words and actions.
Be grateful if you believe that the Catholic Church will unite you with God.
Don't let anybody sway you from that belief.
> Ken, read again, I said for many. I guess I'm talking about the western
> world here. I'll give you an example of what I mean; I have two good
> friends, both Catholic, who will get married next summer, that have moved in
> with each other. They know that what they are doing is wrong, but they don't
> think that wrong. These people would give you the shirt of they'er back, but
> by going against a moral law of the Church, are they not putting salvation
> at risk?
That's a question for the Creator, Kev.
> I agree, but I can claim my love for Him from the highest roof, but if I
> don't follow His law, and knowingly go against it, am I not somehow saying
> that I don't love Him enough to be inconvieniencd by Him?
Seems logical to me, Spock.
> In our world today, it seems that people don't want to ever feel guilt over
> anything. I'm just trying to understand how so many of us who claim to love
> the Lord could not feel guilt when we break the laws he has given us
> to live by.
Humans are weird, aren't they?
Dharma Bum
Ed Faulk
On 29 Jul 96 at 9:26, Gerard Bugge wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jul 1996, Ed Faulk wrote:
>
> > > Thanks again for your response. I do think you are quite
> > > wrong in your statement that I prefer a pre-Vatican II
> > > understanding of the Church. While I think I know the actual
> > > teachings of Vatican II fairly well, and accept them as an
> > > authoritative word of the Lord from and to His Church, I believe in
> > > the Church of all ages, and all the Councils. I resonate deeply
> > > with the teachings of this Pope: and his mission has been, restated
> > > over and over, to make the legacy of the Second Vatican Council,
> > > the overarching theme of his pontificate.
> >
> > Then I apologize for misunderstanding what you have been posting.
> > This was, sadly, the conclusion I had drawn, in spite of your
> > statements of support for this pope. Perhaps it comes form your
> > comments regarding the Liturgy (which, at least in my area, has never
> > been a problem!) and other changes in the Church.
>
> Dear Ed,
>
> As I said I break your post up in "bite-sized pieces", hopefully.
> Here I just wish to point out what I perceive to be a serious prejudice
> that is all too common. If I am convinced that the current state of the
> liturgy in large sectors of the Roman Rite is in serious trouble and that
> it does *not* reflect often enough the teachings I find in the Council's
> Constitution on the Liturgy, and that some of the changes have not borne
> the fruit hoped for: does that automatically make my understanding of the
> Church "pre-conciliar"?
Not at all. I find that some of the changes were not only not in line
with the desires of Vatican II and those charged with the reformation
of the Liturgy, but actually reflect a very poor understanding of
what Liturgy is and how it is supposed to "work." (If you'll pardon
the rather plebian term.)
> You know, many of the (human) architects of Vatican II also felt
> this way! They saw the Council being diverted from its purposes and
> goals. Does that make them "pre-conciliar"? Rather, doesn't it raise
> some danger signals that the Council is not always understood properly and
> has not yet been implemented fully?
Danger signals? No. I am fully aware that the Council has yet to be
fully implemented. I am equally aware that some of what has been
implemented has not worked as well as it should have. There are other
areas where the implementation has been exceptional and great benefit
has flowed from it.
Just from my own perspectives:
* the greater involvement of the laity in all aspects of the Church
is excellent (even if it does engender other problems)
* the loss of personal devotion is abhorent
* the restoration of the diaconate as a permanent order in the Church is
great (I may be biased here) ;-)
* the changes to the Liturgy have offered more scripture and a
greater awareness of what is happening
* the changes to the Liturgy have offered more opportunities to
introduce practices that are not consistent with the goal of
Liturgy
* The increase in people studying the bible, and Catholic teaching
overall has been great.
* The increase in books available to help educate both laity and
clergy has been a mixed blessing: now we have to be a little
more selective in what we read.
There is a lot more, but I think you get my point. One can
acknowledge the benefits while being realistic about the
shortcomings. This is not what I was objecting to with some of your
posts. It may be the "tone" as indicated by the choice of words, of
phrasing, or it may simply be that I'm reading more into your posts
than is there (which would reflect my bias).
> And while our Holy Father supports the novus ordo and the new
> liturgical rites (whose validity I have never questioned!), he has also
> issued decrees that not only allow, but encourage the use of the older,
> classical liturgical rites of the Roman Rite. So to be in favor of this
> usage does *not* mean one is against the Council, or "pre-conciliar", nor
> to be against the Pope!
There is no such thing as the "novus ordo." That was a working title
while the Mass was being revised. See, this is the sort of
terminology that I was mentioning. The use of this term, normally
used as a pejorative by certain crowds, is the "phraseology" I was
referring to above. What you are talking about is the "Mass of Paul
VI" or the "Pauline Mass." Use of the other term is, at least in my
experience, reflective of a particularly loud group of people who
wish to reject the Pauline Mass and return to the "Mass of Pope St.
Pius V" or, in popular parlance, the Tridintine Mass.
> But there seems so many unquestioned assumptions abroad today.
> One blessing of this List is that we can discuss issues like this and
> hopefully clarify for ourselves--and possibly for others too.
I would certainly hope so.
> And, if you allow for other "paradigms", why not allow, and
> rejoice in the "paradigm" of those who even reject Vatican II according to
> their consciences and their researches and experts (and they have quite a
> few!)? I am not one of them! But if we allow for such "paradigms" I
I see that I have not been as clear as I should be. The basic
teachings of hte Church are not "up for grabs." These are either
accepted en masse or rejected. There can be no "pick and choose". If
you chooses to reject Vatican II, one rejects the teaching authority
of the Church. If one does that, there is no Church to return to
because the very basis for the prior teaching has been rejected by
rejecting the current teaching. This is not at all what I have
espoused.
Rather, I believe it is possible to give religious assent to a
position held by the Church, and yet to reject that teaching. The
areas that I believe this is possible in are, primarily, disciplinary
areas. Issues like priestly celibacy are, in my opinion, something
that people can legitimately disagree with the Church on. In fact,
the Church herself sends mixed signals. We have married Eastern
Church priests, we have married Latin Rite priests, and we have
married deacons. Clearly, there is latitude for discussion here.
Other areas are no so clear. Can one legitimately discuss ordaining
women to the prebyterate or the diaconate? To the diaconate -- sure,
there's no problem there. To the priesthood? I can't. For laity who
believe that this is necessary, I believe that there is still room
for discussion. Why? Because the laity have a right to bring their
concerns to the Church. They will get the same answer, but they have
the right to address their problems.
> don't see why it applies to those who want a female priesthood, a
> different sexual morality, more radical liturgies, etc. Why not to those
> who reject the Council as introducing modernism into the Church?
First, I've discussed the female priesthood above. Sexual morality
is, in my opinion, one of the fundamentals that cannot be rejected
without rejecting the entire Church since this is a matter of "faith
and morals" where the Church has the authority to speak clearly and
with the expectation that all Catholics everywhere will follow the
teaching. For those who would reject the Council on any grounds I've
already covered above. However, Modernism happens to be one of my
favorite topics. I find that most who claim that Vatican II opened
the doors to Modernism (which, in a way, it did) haven't got the
foggiest idea what that particular heresy is. Most seem to thing it
means "being modern."
> At any rate, I hope I am faithful to my capacity to the Second
> Vatican Council and to the Teaching Office of the Pope. Even with my own
> opinions on the liturgy and changes in the Church!
On this I can have no comment. Only you know if you are faithful or
not.