There are a few special interest groups in the Church who are exploiting the "old news" of how bishops managed priests who abused children and recycled them into parish ministry in order to advance a "call to action" from the "voice of the faithful" to bring about a new reform that is really the old "spirit of Vatican II" in disguise.
The same is true of those who boarder on the schismatic in terms of their disdain not only for the "spirit of Vatican II" but also for Vatican II. I think of the Society of Pope Pius X that Pope Benedict is trying to reconcile to the Church, but there are other "far right" groups opposed to Vatican II altogether and blame the sex abuse scandal on lax discipline and an "anything goes" mentality that the "spirit of Vatican II" actually did promote. But to blame Vatican II on that would be absurd.
So on the left side of the boat we have those:
--who want married clergy, women priests and bishops elected by the laity
--a liturgy that is contempervent
--a morality that allows for pre-marital sex, post marital sex, no marital sex, same sex pre marital sex, post marital same sex sex, no same sex marital sex and polygamy and bestiality only if you are oriented that way, because God made you that way.
--the right to abortion, condoms, the pill, the morning after pill and the iud
On the right side of the boat we have those:
--who want Vatican II done away with
--EF Mass only
--Rigid excommunication of anyone one who suggests Vatican II has legitimacy
--women sent into exile who are pregnant outside of marriage
--arrest of all, heterosexual or homosexual who commit sodomy in one form or another
--laws against divorce and remarriage
--imprisonment of women who have abortions including the abortionist
In the middle we have those:
--who want Vatican II observed, not some silly spirit of Vatican II known only to gnostics
--who want the Church to listen to the teachings of the pope whether in season or out of season and respect these teachings as being on a higher plane than their own divergent personal opinion
--Who want the liturgy celebrated by the book either OF, EF or AU, read the black, do the red
--who want the guidance of the Holy Spirit as it regards the selection of popes, bishops, priests, deacons and religious men and women
--who want Catholic, laity and clergy to submit in humble obedience to the will of God in the areas of faith and morals revealed in the Deposit of Faith and to be obedient to Canon Law
Which group do you belong to and what suggestions do you have?
10 comments:
I would hope to be in the middle. But sometimes I think I skew. I really don't know what my views were as a young catholic, just doing what I was told. Then I rebelled. And through the Grace of God, Faith was returned. Faith now is the most important part of my life, though still growing and learning. That is the way it should be.
Both extremes can have something to offer as long as the premise is Christ (although I don't see much of Christ on either side of that boat). We as humans blur the focus by are weaknesses.
The teachings of the Church are true and spelled out for everyone to see. The problem is some see what they want and how it fits there own idea of faith. Christ is the Faith. We should be open to all who proclaim Christ. But as one true conservative, Ronald Reagan once said "Trust, but verify." Hate to bring a politcian into the mix but I like the statement.
Christ gave his authority to the Pope so that explains it. What the Pope says "goes."
I suggest the left and the right get in the middle of the boat because when the storms of life come they are more likely to fall overboard and it helps steady the boat. We're all in this together.
I would not class a desire for married clergy (optional celibacy) on the "left side of the boat" unless you want to include on the port gunwale St. Peter, the first pope, who enjoyed wedded bliss and the distinction of being one of the first bishops of the Church.
Remember, Good Father, married Eastern Catholic priests are just as Catholic as me and thee. It is arguable that they adhere to a more ancient Tradition regarding the dignity of Holy Orders and Matrimony
Some of those leaning to starboard are the married priests who have crossed the Tiber/Thames to continue to fulfill their priestly calling as married Catholic clergy.
Everything you blogged about the middle is slam dunk how I feel.
Even though my FEELINGS are irrelevant.
His Truth is the only thing that is ultimately relevant.
One of these days, maybe the left and right extremists will zip their lips, set aside the self/ego, and open their minds and hearts.
Meanwhile, the silent majority is starting to speak up at last!Hooray!
It confounds and boggles my mind why some don't see that following the example of our Holy Father is practically foolproof way to not go wrong. I can't, and don't want to, understand why some Catholics feel entitled to nit-pick or outright ignore his example.
I believe I am in the middle, understanding that their is a balance. The extreme right looks at Vat II as the problem, where as in truth it was the progressives, and ultra left who created an understanding of the council that is false and borders on and sometimes is blatant heresy. I have much sympathy and empathize with the right, because I don't even understand or recognize the nonsense and extreme idealism of what the left brings to the table. What has to be understood by both sides is that Vatican II is valid, and must be followed through with, but only in as much of what it added to what has been before (continuity). The idea that Vatican II changed 2000 years of teaching, and understanding because the Church has been wrong, and all of a sudden it this intangible thing called the spirit of Vat II that is to drive and remake the entire Catholic faith is the true answer (nonsense). On the other side, they must accept the council or they are no better than the left, both border on heresy. It has been this elusive spirit of Vatican II that is directly at fault for the sex scandal. So now the left is screaming for the heads of the same folks they loved. At least I can understand the right, I feel there pain, but being obedient is to follow the council, if the right won't follow the council they are just as bad.
Let all thosee who do not profess the orthodox Catholic faith, accept Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, as the totality of the faith. Accept all the councils as being the authoritative apostolic teaching, and are guided by the Holy Spirit, that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Jesus Christ Himself, and that it is the infallible interpreter of Scripture, infallible teacher of the Christian faith, let them be Anathema! That was fun! Another misunderstanding, Vatican II did not do away with anathema’s nor excommunications.
Recently I saw on EWTN an interview with a married Anglican Use priest who, interestingly, affirmed strongly the value of a celibate priesthood in the Western rite while admitting gratitude for the exception that allowed him to continue his priestly service after crossing the Tiber some years ago.
And I think his other remarks placed him squarely in the middle of the boat regarding your list of attributes of loyal Catholics.
But I cannot help wondering whether this would be true of the curious troll this blog has recently attracted. (Hmm ... Can we hope that he himself will speak up on this point?)
When Pater Ignotus suggested that I name names in terms of bloated diocesan bureaucracies, he suggested that I name names. While I suggest that Pater Ignotus name himself instead of his "cover" name for all to respond. But of course, he knows that I had a married former Anglican priest as my parochial vicar for almost 14 years at the Church of the Most Holy Trinity in Augusta. And Fr. Munn was a great advocate for the celibate clergy. He said that married clergy are too domesticated! I don't think that those in the middle of the boat are opposed to special provisions for protestant ministers to come over to Rome, we're not advocating priests to get married, but married men becoming priests is a whole 'nother ball of wax.
"Married men becoming priests is a whole 'nother ball of wax."
Isn't this what St. Peter, the first pope and one of the first bishops did?
Pater Ignotus:
"Married men becoming priests is a whole 'nother ball of wax."
Specifically, because their getting married would contradict current canon law for our rite.
As would the first pope's getting married today, if he were still living and able to do so. As would the current Peter, Pope Benedict XVI, getting married now, if he were so inclined.
All this is clear enough. What's unclear (to me) is the relevance of remarks about other times, places, rites. Or, perhaps, what they're relevant to. Can you help us understand what you trying to say?
Just because the First Bishop, Peter was married, some are advocating that that is how it should be? Is that how I am to understand this? I guess I fall in the middle but also do not see the great danger in the thoughts of the side that prefers the traditional Mass only etc., only because there was a time when it was like that and some of those years were the most glorious for the Church. The extrem other side allowing for everything that has not been allowed before may, and could have the possibility of wrecking what is left of the Catholic Faith. So leaning to that side makes me a bit more leary.
I'm 0 for 4 on the Port side of the boat.
On the starboard side I would have to say if forced to choose I would vote yes, throw out the OF and return to the EF. I think it's silly to have "two versions of one rite" and the EF is far and away superior in it's purpose as Liturgy. The other issues on this side of the boat I am not so much "in favor of, but could be called inclined towards some of them. For example, I am not looking to arrest victims of abortion, or homosexuals, but it is hard to argue against the fact that society was a better place when stricter morality was the norm. No one seriously wants to exile a pregnant teen, but neither am I comfortable with the way there is no longer any shame associated with teen pregnancy. For starboard side I'm going to have to go with strongly in favor of 2 and partially in favor of a couple more.
In the middle of the boat, I feel like no, from any side of the boat could realistically object to any of those positions.
I guess the bottom line is I think that a large part of the Church has lost the privilege of casual worship that comes with port side of the Church thinking, or even middle of the boat inclined towards port side thinking. Where is the discipline when the congregation is NOT invited to offer to each other the sign of peace, yet does so anyway, and in such a loud and raucous manner that by the second line of the Angus Dei they are still milling about the Church looking for hands to shake.
So in summary, I'm sitting in the middle but I look to the right and I see some the bedrock of Tradition. I look to the left and I see Modernists and Heretics. I want to stay in the boat but we seem to row so darn slow most of the time.
I pray for patience.
Post a Comment