UT=Ultra Traditionalists; UP=Ultra Progressives
The Pope says he is a son of the Church and refers everyone to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the moral teachings of the Church contained therein. The UT freak out.
The Pope tells the scholars of the Pontifical Biblical Commission to be faithful to the Magisterium of the Church and not interpret Scripture in a way that undermines the faith (using the historical-critical method in a Modernist way)and the UT freak out.
The Pope calls the religious of the world to fidelity to the Pope and the bishops in union with him, the Magisterium and the UT freak out.
The Pope has a Marian spirituality and a desire for a return to praying the Rosary everyday and for the laity to rediscover popular devotions of all kinds based upon one's nationality/culture and the UT freak out.
The Pope believes in the devil and has spoken/preached about him more in five months than most Catholics my age have heard in a lifetime in our post-Vatican II parishes and the UT freak out.
The Pope says that the ordination of women to Holy Orders (diaconate, priesthood and bishop) is a closed door as Pope John Paul II, of course, and without ambiguity, closed that door in the most Magisterial way possible. He said that the Pope has no authority to change this discipline rooted in Scripture, Tradition and Natural Law as it is a part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church and needs no Extraordinary Masgisterial clarification! You'd think the UT's would jump for joy, but no, the Holy Father said we must promote the role of women in the Church apart from ordination and make clear that the role of the women as mother is the most profound when linked to holiness and that the Blessed Virgin Mary is higher than any pope or bishop. So what is Mary's role? Read between the lines. The UP are totally oblivious to what the pope said!
Now, you would think that in all of the above, especially Pope Francis' consistent calls for fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church, meaning the Pope and Bishops in union with him, but even broader than that, the whole of Church teachings from all of the Councils, not just Vatican II, that it would be the UP that are freaking out. But they are not.
Why aren't the UP freaking out over this very traditional and conservative pope in all of the aspects I highlight above, especially fidelity to the Magisterium? Are they like a patient given a diagnosis of a terminal illness who are in a state of denial about it and go their merry way as though nothing is wrong, that no fatal diagnosis has been made?
The UT are freaking out over one thing and one thing only that colors their antipathy and disregard of this Pope in a way that shows their myopic vision. His liturgical style and choice of what he wears and his emphasis!
He likes simple, not the ostentatious in vestments and daily wear for the pope and how he presides at formal and informal events, liturgical or otherwise.
He doesn't wear what Pope Benedict brought back from the closet after John Paul II who discarded most of it himself.
He doesn't use Latin like Pope Benedict did.
He doesn't use the variety of styles of vestments for the Mass that Pope Benedict did.
He can't chant, really, he can't chant.
He is pastoral and is symbolically modeling for bishops, priests, religious and laity how to "smell" like the sheep. He washes the feet of all kinds of people, male, female, Catholic, non-Catholic to show that Christ the High Priest and His bishops/priests must not be clerical but go the the periphery with the Gospel, with the Church to convert the world! But what do the UT's do? They carp that he didn't following a specific rubric for the Holy Thursday Mass, that the supreme legislator of the Church changed it. Now, you would think that they would like the pope to act as the supreme legislator of the Church and change man-made laws where it is possible to do so for a greater good.
But keep in mind UT's that the UP's have more to worry about than the UT's do. This pope is against Modernism as it was condemned by Pope Pius X. But this pope understands it in a modern way just as he has modernized the heresies of Pelagianism and Gnosticism to fit the categories of people he sees today falling victims to these heresies with a modern face. But his condemnation is more severe for the gnostics as there are far more of them and they are in most parishes of the world and in control. Whereas the Pelagians are a small, vocal group like a thorn in the side but not a pan epidemic like the Gnostics.
Again, the semi-progressive Jesuit priest, Father Thomas Reese formerly of America Magazine hit the nail square on the head when he diagnosed Pope Francis' greatest concerns for the modern Church and it has to do with the UP's not the UT's as the primary concern is about the modern gnostics who are Modernists in the classical sense of the word and born of the worse of the Enlightenment which eventually destroyed Liberal Protestantism which embraced it:
This temptation [to ideology], the pope argues, has been present in the church from the beginning. It attempts to interpret the Gospel apart from the church or the Gospel itself. Francis says you must look at the Gospel with the eyes of a disciple. There is no such thing as "antiseptic" hermeneutics.
Other forms of the ideological temptation include sociological reductionism and psychologizing. The first interprets the Gospel message through the lens of social science, whether from a Marxist or libertarian perspective. Here, the Gospel is manipulated for political reasons. It is a temptation of both the right and the left to use the Gospel to serve political goals. Fear of this temptation probably led Francis to be cautious toward liberation theology while at the same time very negative toward libertarian capitalism.
The temptation to psychologize the faith, on the other hand, is individualistic. "Here we have to do with elitist hermeneutics which ultimately reduces the 'encounter with Jesus Christ' and its development to a process of growing self-awareness." This is a self-centered spirituality that "has nothing to do with transcendence and consequently, with missionary spirit."
Although he does not mention it, another danger of this temptation is that it fosters a passive, "feel-good" spirituality rather than an active spirituality that works to make the world a better place. He believes this kind of self-centered spirituality can be found even in spirituality courses and spiritual retreats.
Related to this self-centered spirituality is the temptation to the Gnostic solution. "It is ordinarily found in elite groups offering a higher spirituality, generally disembodied," he says. Gnosticism first appeared among early Christians, and it reappears throughout the church's history in new and revised versions. "Generally its adherents are known as 'enlightened Catholics' (since they are in fact rooted in the culture of the Enlightenment)."
The reference to the Enlightenment makes it clear he believes this is the temptation of liberal Catholics. They end up "in a preoccupation with certain pastoral quaestiones disputatae" (disputed questions), which he does not list. Would these disputed questions include things like women priests and birth control?
MY FINAL COMMENT: My advice to the UT's is to take a chill pill about what they don't like, because it is superficial and a blip on the radar screen of the history of the papacy. What they should like is the substance of this papacy and the Church and this bodes well for continuity now and in the future in terms of what the Church truly is and should be. In this Pope Francis is even more radically traditional than Pope Benedict!
53 comments:
Bravo for "My Final Comment". In some cases a whole bottle of chill pills with a generous dose of humility would be in order!.
Seeing Papa Ratzi is so depressing...
Father, shouldn't we stop using all these adjectives to describe fellow Catholics? To what good is it serving?
I assume a 'trad' is someone attached to the Extra Ordinary Form but I know many 'conservative' Catholics who prefer the Ordinary. How would you describe them? Who then is an 'UT'? The SSPX? Who is a 'progressive'? Anyone who denies doctrine isn't a 'prog' or 'UP' they are a dissenter or heretic.
Who is freaking out? I haven't seen any evidence of this phenomena. If you're basing your conclusion on com-boxes and chat forums then I suggest you're getting a false view of reality.
I don't know that "freaking out" is the appropriate term for the reaction of "Ultra Trads" to Pope Francis. Lingering disappointment and ongoing concern would be more apt.
Those of us who Fr. Reese would like to categorize are not about to forget how we were treated like lepers for about 40 years simply because we wanted what was never forbidden in the first place, although we were lied to and told that it was forbidden until good Pope Benedict came along. We are not about to forget the change that came with Summorum Pontificum. And, for now, it is very hard to ignore the Jesuit Pope's order forbidding the EF in a religious order.
How the pope chooses to vest himself for Mass is probably important but that doesn't bother me half so much as his careless remarks about "Who am I to judge" when it comes to gay priests, leaving us with a response so ambiguous and open-ended that it might as well be a Vatican II document.
It's almost unnerving that, to a fault, the most liberal and dissenting priests among us are so effusive in their praise for this pope.
It is very hard to forget or ignore that dissenters and modernists have had their iconoclastic day in the sun for the last 40 years and, for the most part, are still running the show. The Jesuit Pope has given us little indication that he is going to appoint bishops like Benedict gave us. His refusal to distribute Communion speaks volumes: Rather than deal with the pro-abortion dissenters who present themselves for Communion, he's just avoiding them. So well-known public advocates of abortion can continue their charade of being good Catholics. Justice delayed is justice denied and, in this case, refusing to deal with the dissenters punishes the rest of us who are trying to be faithful.
Those of us who actually know the Catechism know that a pope, as Supreme Pontiff, will be infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit in very specific pronouncements on faith and morals, but we are not so blind as to ignore that popes are also human and can do a good deal of damage the rest of the time. For the time being, it's hard to know what to think about this pope, but even harder to get excited. We'll obey him, pray for him, respect him and refrain from criticizing him publicly, but that doesn't mean we have to like him.
Never mind, I'm over it now.
Secular culture forces have invaded the Church. Some support its values some are against them.
Those who are against further deconstruction of the Church support reinforcing traditional forms in language, music, devotions, liturgy and architecture as the way to go. They want to see a synthesis of secular and Christian values that favors the latter.
The Spirit of the Council Church is a 5th column within our ranks who long ago decided that the past 2000 years was a mistaken start and want to forget it ever happened. They war on Tradition with words and notions borrowed from secular culture.
One of these two factions in time will triumph. The question is which side to join? Jesus did not like the lukewarm.
For all of his orthodox statements, it still remains to be seen whether he understands that the liturgical chaos that is so widespread and the thumbing of the nose at Church Dogma on the part of Bishops and Priests and Catholics "in the news" must be addressed from the top and in a serious, consequential manner. If he does not, then nothing he says makes any difference.
I also believe that we are missing the underlying issue here. The issue is belief versus unbelief...trad vs. progressive is merely the surface manifestation of it. I am sure there are some devout, believing Catholics who may prefer the OF and who may see nothing wrong with some of the modernist innovations born of Vat II ( I believe these are naive, however). But, my experience with progressives and liberal Catholics (and I have had a lot) is that the vast majority of them do not believe the articles of the Creed and view the Church as primarily a humanistic organization to be used for social change and the promotion of political ideology. Their hope is in man and government or in some unitarian/universalist utopia...or they are merely nihilists playing a game.
I think Pope Francis is on a learning curve in terms of spontaneous answers to questions. But keep in mind, "who am I to judge" was followed by references to the Cathechism of the Catholic Church on the subject of homosexuality and that the pope is a son of the Church and accepts these teachings. His statement was pastoral and of course, we can't judge someone salvation and we can't condemn someone who has same sex attractions but surely as the Catechism states, we can judge immoral behavior in the area of sex for both heterosexuals and homosexuals and we can judge which acts are natural, if immoral, and unnatural, along with being immoral. It is all in the CCC!
Fr. McDonald, I have a very wide range of acquaintances and contacts among traditional Catholics, and I don't personally know any who are "freaking out" in any sense like you describe. None.
Certainly not over the substance of any of the issues you cite. Other than in comments a few places written by people who, so far as I know, do not really exist. Or, if they do, are “stricter SSPX” separatist types or actual sede-vacantists who are not in communion with the Church, and therefore are beyond the pale of relevant concern with faithful Catholics. Certainly not relevant to a blog like yours.
Of course, I can understand that, because of your own rather traditional leanings in contrast with most of your clerical confreres, you might “protest a bit overmuch” as a personal defense mechanism. But if your over the top posts like this one were taken seriously by someone who did not know you better, he might think you yourself one of the worst cases of denial he’d recently seen.
The sense apprehension of about the course and ultimate effect of this papacy results from the aid and comfort his style gives those who have led the Church into such disaster during the past forty years, and therefore really comprise the “enemy” of faithful Catholics who are loyal to the Magisterial and accept the CCC in its entirety. Admittedly, this is in the area of “perception is reality”. But aid and comfort given to an enemy that is already in power serves to reinforce that power. The fact that this is happening now—as you surely cannot truthfully deny—is indeed a keen disappointment to not only traditional but “merely” conservative (that is, faithful) Catholics, particularly after a rather brief papacy that had finally begun to reverse the long decline of the Church.
And it certainly is no consolation that this is happening on the watch of a pope who supports the core doctrine and magisterial faith of the Church, whose liturgy is serious, who is conspicuous in his Marian devotion, etc. What less would one expect of any faithful pope. The real issue that remains unresolved is the effectiveness with which he can and will provide support for those who seek to restore the faith and liturgy of the Church. Let us hope and pray that he can rapidly progress sufficiently far along that learning curve to do so.
Let me repeat what I posted in the previous post.
Father,let me tell you a story about my pastor. During the 8 years Benedict was pope, I don't think I ever heard my pastor utter his name except for in the required spot in the EP. He never wrote any articles about Benedict in the church paper. But in the few months Francis has been pope, my pastor has already written 3 articles in the church paper glorifying Francis. But here's the rub - - in not one of those gushing articles has he mentioned any of the spiritual things Francis says that I read about in your blog, specifically about he devil. No, what my pastor gushes about are Francis' remarks about the poor, the "pauperism" as some on this blog have called it, the, IMO well-calculated, humility and simplicity. And of course the recent article, about the comment on gays and as my pastor puts it, "tolerance and mercy trump judgement".
Some on this blog coined the phrase "the spirit of Pope Francis". I believe it. I see it in my pastor's filtering of the papacy of Francis. BTW, my pastor is in his early to mid 50s.... not exactly the dying dinosaur Vatican II priests over 65, but not the young, traditional-leaning priests in their 20s to early 40s that I have heard about, but alas have yet to see in my diocese.
Let me also add, while I agree with the idea of "mercy and tolerance trumps judgment", my concern is, isn't this a form of relativism?
Your pastor is wrong.Tolerance and mercy do not trump Judgement...repentance trumps Judgement...and the Grace whereby we are moved to repent.
We tolerate and show mercy with a view to bringing people to repentance. More liberal crap...
Louis:
It seems from what you describe that your pastor, like many others, may have a “skewed perspective” about Pope Francis. But, couldn’t exactly the same have been said about Pope Benedict? In his case, too, didn’t both supporters and critics frequently have a tendency to “cherry pick” those positions and pronouncements they liked and ignore or downplay those they didn’t?
It seems to me that this is a natural human tendency to which we are all, without exception, subject or, putting it another way, by which we are all tempted. But, of course, it distorts or “does violence to” truth.
Similarly, pinning easy labels (traditional, progressive, conservative, liberal, enemy, etc. ad infinitum) on one another also distorts and “does violence to” the “truth” (or as a friend and colleague of mine would put it – I claim no originality for the thought – the “mystery”) of who we are.
I suspect that the roots of both tendencies go deep, are likely multiple and are, moreover, likely related, if not indeed the same. So, perhaps the best we can do is to try to become as self-aware of these tendencies at work within us and try to resist them, or at least apply them with greater circumspection, remembering, as Pope Francis has also forcefully reminded us, that we are all, again without exception, precious children of God who are created in His image and likeness – the one “label,” perhaps, to which we could all in good conscience unconditionally subscribe.
The UTs are freaking out because the UPs have stopped Liturgical restoration. The UPs think they are winning and I agree.
Why is it the on line priest-osphere that is so very intent on labeling? Not only labeling but turning the labels in to acronym's.
UT, UP.
This coming from the priest who earlier blogged about his worries about his successor changing his ad orientem "peculiarity".
Why don't you all spend some more time on catechisis and er... I don't know... preaching personal holiness and how we are all part of the Body of Christ and NOT the sum of some trite acronym.
Of course it was the Holy Father that has been speaking about the Pelagians and Gnostic and thus labeling both as heretics, something we haven't heard from modern popes, so it is a sign of the times.
I think most of the people who post here are beyond being preached to about personal holiness, and the blog began as more of a discussion of liturgics and some catechesis, then took off from there as we had to deal with the progressives and minions of Vat II Oh, it is possible to be both a member of the Body of Christ AND the sum of trite acronyms. But, really, you are supposed to get your personal holiness infusion from the homily on Sunday. ..and, buy a Catechism.
Pin/Gene - As I recall, it was your reference to Muslims as "towel-heads" or "rag-heads" that spiked my interest in this little corner of the blogosphere.
So much for the pre-"minions of Vat II" discussion of liturgics and catechetics.
Newguy - Labels are most often used by those who have a deep seated need to distance themselves from others. It is little more than a convenient way to dismiss another person, his/her ideas or questions. As in: "I don't have to give you the time of day because we all know you are a "________." (Fill in the blank with the desired label.)
There are many great websites where spirituality and personal holiness can be discussed.
Name a few of those.
You were on the blog before I mentioned the camel jockeys and rag heads and other enemies of the Church and America. I am glad, however, that it upset you. Any time I can cause discomfiture in a defender of the Infidel brings me pleasure.
Oh, and please feel free to remove yourselves to those other blogs with haste. Sic transit gloria.
Pater:
Re labels: Or, even more elementally perhaps: “You are one of THEM, not one of US”; or, conversely, “You are one of US, not one of THEM.”
As Eliot famously puts it in Prufrock:
And I have known the eyes already, known them all--
The eyes that fix you in a formulated phrase,
And when I am formulated, sprawling on a pin,
When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall,
Then how should I begin
To spit out all the butt-ends of my days and ways?
And how should I presume?
Pater, et al:
It is ALL about personal holiness...catechesis, liturgics, how we communicate with God AND with each other. From Holy Mass/Divine Liturgy down to speaking on this blog we are commanded by the Law of Love. We know this, but we transgress it every day in so many ways. We are all guilty. The secret to holiness is humility. When we transgress we humbly admit it, confess it and repent. If not, we are a stumbling block to ourselves and each other on the journey home to God which is our ultimate goal, yes?
Anon friend, Congrats! You just passed Trite 101.
I feel fairly sure Pater will agree with you, Gene; perhaps the one thing you both WILL hold in agreement. Perhaps you can begin feom there...if so, it makes my day--thanks.
Anon Friend, One has to live the Catholic/Christian life boldly. It is all well and good to be concerned with personal holiness and humility, but the Church's enemies on the Left only see that as weakness and they will exploit it. It is fine to exhort the faithful to personal holiness, but the progressives and de-constructionists are not going to repent and believe the Gospel. They are not going to change. In dealing with those, we need to spend more time reading Paul and John.
The ancient samurai warriors preached and understood humility...they were also some of the deadliest and most fearsome opponents of their enemies.
"Blessed are the samurai, for they will . . . "
Wait, that's not in the Bible.
Anonymous:
You are correct. Instead, it says “Blessed are the Knights Templar and their sharp, pointy swords that will slice up their enemies a proper treat.”
Go read about Joshua.
Gene:
To the extent your comment is addressed to me -- I have read about Joshua and find the Biblical account of the conquest of Canaan extremely disturbing. I would hope that you do too.
Thankfully, I do not believe that I am required as part of my Catholic faith to accept that genocide (including the massacring of women and children) was literally commanded by God. I do not believe that this makes me a Marcionite or other kind of heretic.
I don’t want to argue with you about this, Gene, so let’s do this instead: If someone in authority such as Father McDonald or another priest tells me that I must accept this as part of my Catholic faith, then I hope they will show me how such a commandment by God is limited by its historical context. And if not, then I will make an appointment to talk with one of them about it because, as you already know from our previous exchanges about it, I find the entire subject of religiously based/mandated violence, indeed violence generally (including its glorification in our contemporary American culture), very troubling indeed; and to be required to believe in that kind of violent God would present a real crisis of faith for me. I also hope that they would address the words of Pope Francis that “To say that you can kill in the name of God is blasphemy.”
I am trying to be honest here and hope that this answer will suffice.
Anon 2, Here ya' go:
"We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices
When we whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rat's feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar.
Gene:
Yes, it is another great poem, albeit somewhat ambiguous. So, if you posted it in response to my 7:41 p.m. comment (it is hard to know sometimes which comments are a response to which), then my question is: What exactly does Eliot mean in this poem, and does it support or challenge warfare and the use/non-use of violence?
We do not kill "in the name of God" when we kill those who seek to destroy Christians, Jews, innocents, or the Church. We kill in our own name to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and the Church that has given us our lives, our hope, and our culture. As we kill in our own name, when necessary, we do so based upon our good judgement and, ultimately, cast ourselves upon the Divine mercy as to our intention...we do not presume to "kill in God's name." I have no problem with that and do not tremble or fret at the prospect of necessary violence. Many of us have been trained to produce it and have remained good stewards of that potential. We'll be the ones defending you while you hide somewhere, trembling and wringing your hands over whether violence is justified or not. Sheesh!
Then please tell us, Gene, what Pope Francis means when he says: “To say that you can kill in the name of God is blasphemy.”
Also, if more of us wrung our hands over whether violence is justified or not, perhaps there would be less violence in the world. I have never denied that sometimes violence is necessary, merely questioned the almost reflexive resort to it as being an illusory and often self-defeating solution to all kinds of problems. You and I have been down this road before.
I am not talking about resorting to violence reflexively. You know that. Once again, we are not killing "in the name of God."
With the conviction of her faith in Christ and with the awareness of her mission, the Church proclaims "that violence is evil, that violence is unacceptable as a solution to problems, that violence is unworthy of man. Violence is a lie, for it goes against the truth of our faith. Violence destroys what it claims to defend: the dignity, the life, the freedom of human beings." Pope John Paul II, Address at Drogheda, Ireland (29 September 1979)
CCC 2306 "2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death."
Anon 2, The Catechism also speaks to the legitimate use of violence a bit further on....I think 23...something...2363 maybe. Anyway, killing in war and in self-defense ia permissible.
Anonymous: Thank you for those references.
Gene: First, I didn’t say “reflexive” but “almost reflexive.” Second, you may not have been advocating the “reflexive” or “almost reflexive” use of violence, but I definitely see this as a strong cultural tendency in the United States nowadays, and I find it extremely disturbing. Our disagreement, perhaps, concerns the question when violence is “necessary.” Here, I try to be guided by the teaching of the Church, e.g., regarding just war. And the texts cited by Anonymous would also seem to be relevant to this point.
Now, getting back to what started this exchange between us – and you were the one who brought up samurai and Joshua – no priest has yet responded to my spiritual difficulty regarding Joshua and the relevance of Pope Francis’s statement to the conquest of Canaan. Nor have you responded to my question about what you think Pope Francis meant when he said that “To say that you can kill in the name of God is blasphemy.”
.
So to help clarify the issues we are currently discussing, let me ask very directly: Were the Israelites “killing in the name of God” when they invaded Canaan and killed men, women, and children in accordance with the ban? Were the Zealots in the time of Christ? Were the Crusaders?” Were their Muslim enemies? Were Catholics or Protestants when they executed heretics or fought the Wars of Religion? Do Muslim extremists today “kill in the name of God”? I could give many other examples of what seems to me to be “killing in the name of God.” Please show me how the above examples are not examples of “killing in the name of God” or, if they are, what to do with Pope Francis’s statement and the texts quoted by Anonymous.
Gene: The relevant CCC sections are 2663 (legitimate self-defense) and 2807-17 (conditions for just war and associated matters).
Anon 2, Certainly Joshua was killing in the name of God since it was God who told him to do it. I would say that the Crusaders, and the Church herself when she dealt with heretics, were killing in the name of the Church...there is a difference. This is merely my opinion ( about the latter two) and you, of course may want to argue that, no, they were killing in the name of God. As we know, the Crusades are a good example of good intentions run amuck...
As far as Muslims go, they kill in the name of a false God and so can be, theologically, safely ignored. They should be dealt with according to Joshua.
To say that we can kill in the name of God is a huge presumption, but sometimes it has been necessary to kill "on behalf of the Church." I do not believe an individual could truly ever kill in the name of God except under very remarkable circumstances. The Church, having more authority than an individual and more Divine sanction, may indeed at some point advocate violence in her own defense. She may have to eventually in order to survive. So, if I come upon a Priest being beaten by Democrats or a bunch of arsonists setting fire to St. Jo's and I shoot them all, have I killed in the name of God? I would not say so, but others might.
The question really becomes, "Is the survival of the Church a thing ultimately desirable in itself and, therefore, something important enough for which to take up arms, or should we simply turn the other cheek and assume a passive form of resistance even if it leads to Her disappearance and the death/exile of Her people?" Short of this, of course, we may ask if she is important enough that we resist Her enemies verbally, theologically, politically, and polemically...using ridicule, scorn, and invective also as weapons?
I know some thoughtful and highly theologically educated Christians who believe that we should just let the Church go and become an exiled and hunted remnant in the post-apocalyptic ruins. We should hide in burned out Wal-Marts and tumble-down MacDonald's, using old car bodies for altars and scavenged Ripple wine and Wonder Bread for our elements. I do not believe that is God's will for the Church or He would not have given us His promise. So, I think those who do think the Church should just passively do nothing are full of a well-known substance. But, if I get to Heaven, I'll ask Joshua and the Popes of the Crusades. If they are not there, you can ask them. LOL!
Commenting on Luke 6:27, Pope Benedict XVI said:
This page of the Gospel is rightly considered the "magna carta" of Christian nonviolence; it does not consist in surrendering to evil -- as claims a false interpretation of "turn the other cheek" (Luke 6:29) -- but in responding to evil with good. (Romans 12:17-21), and thus breaking the chain of injustice. It is thus understood that nonviolence, for Christians, is not mere tactical behavior but a person's way of being, the attitude of one who is convinced of God's love and power, who is not afraid to confront evil with the weapons of love and truth alone. Loving the enemy is the nucleus of the "Christian revolution," a revolution not based on strategies of economic, political or media power. The revolution of love, a love that does not base itself definitively in human resources, but in the gift of God, that is obtained only and unreservedly in his merciful goodness. Herein lies the novelty of the Gospel, which changes the world without making noise. Herein lies the heroism of the "little ones," who believe in the love of God and spread it even at the cost of life." - Pope Benedict XVI, Angelus Message, 18 February 2007.
All of that is well and good, Ignotus. It still does not address the question I posed about the very existence of the Church. Some Popes like to say nice things like that, focusing on one aspect of Jesus' teachings and warnings. The problem is much more complicated than that, especially in an age in which the Church is going to be increasingly in danger of being overwhelmed.
Of course, you lib/progressives would love for the Church to be diminished so that she can be "resurrected" to become the social action committee/humanist conclave you envision. Nice try.
Gene and Pater: Thank you both for those very thoughtful answers.
There is much to ponder there, and of course I am still troubled by the account of the conquest of Canaan and the idea that God would have literally commanded such dreadful violence.
Gene and Pater: Gene, your 2:19 post only appeared after I sent my previous one, so I was responding to your 6:43 post and your 11:32 reply, Pater.
Anon 2, Have you read the prophets? It was a violent world the Israelites lived in...God guided them in ways that enabled them to survive in that violence. Why does Joshua trouble you so? Christ promises violence at the Second Coming. Perhaps our problem is we have been afraid of it for too long...and now we have a"million Muslim march" planned on the anniversary of that savage race's attack on the Western Judaeo-Christian tradition. People of your persuasion are no help. People of Ignotus' persuasion are aiding the enemy. I have no patience with it.
Pin/Gene - The words and ideas I posted are the Pope's. They do address your question, but not in the way you are able to hear.
The Church is not made stronger, but weaker, when violence is employed to "defend" it. As quoted earlier, "Violence destroys what it claims to defend: the dignity, the life, the freedom of human beings."
Gene: Yes, I have read the prophets.
Why does Joshua trouble me? How about this as an illustration: “They observed the ban by putting to the sword all living creatures in the city: men and women, young and old, as well as oxen, sheep and asses” (Joshua 6:21). Children, and presumably babies too, then. Not exactly “ius in bello” I think. And I am supposed to believe that God directly commanded this?
Perhaps people like me are not of much help. But think about this: one additional example of the ready resort to violence as a solution in our culture today is, of course, abortion, which I regard more in the “violence” category than the “sex” category. Can one imagine a more horrible and violent response to a pregnancy? And then imagine, or recall, what actually happens in war. It is not a video game.
P.S. I think I may have forgotten to include this:
BTW Muslima are not a “race.” Members of all races are Muslims. In fact, Islam has very strong norms against racism, which is one of its great appeals (like Christianity is supposed to have). Of course, Muslims have other hatreds and divisions, especially Sunni versus Shia (also like Christianity, although ours no longer issue in such violence – they used to, of course).
Gene: I have reread your post of 5:37 p.m.
Why do you conflate an attack on America with an attack on the Judaeo-Christian tradition? They are not identical. I suspect that much mischief is caused by the tendency to think that they are identical and the blind refusal of some to see that, in many ways, America represents a repudiation of the Judaeo-Christian tradition or, at least, a perverse development of it that many Christians, including many followers of this Blog, reject.
With my strong reservations about unjustified violence, I condemn terrorism in the strongest possible terms. However, you mention the Prophets. My understanding is that a central mission of the Prophets was to call the Jews to be faithful to the Covenant and to warn of God’s wrathful judgment if they failed to do so and/or to pronounce that judgment when disasters befell.
In the same idiom, does the shoe fit? Dinesh d’Souza, hardly a left-wing liberal type and not a Muslim, but rather a darling of the political Right and a professing Christian with Catholic roots, might be suggesting that it does in his controversial book “The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11” (2007):
http://www.randomhouse.com/book/36062/the-enemy-at-home-by-dinesh-dsouza
I have read d’Souza’s book and even used it a couple of times in my courses in previous years. It is a mind-bending read. That said I find his case to be partial and overstated, but I cannot avoid the questions: Isn’t he on to something important in suggesting that some national soul-searching may be warranted? And wouldn’t that be a very patriotic thing to do?
Anon 2, We are never going to agree. I used the term "race" loosely. They are a savage lot. Yes, it was an attack on the Western Judaeo-Christian world. Listen to what they say. Just because there is a MUslim here and there who may be an exception only proves my point. Again, if your yard is full of rattlesnakes you don't have time to look around for the one that won't bite.
I can hardly equate abortion, a true evil, with war. In war, you are killing people who are trying to kill you. They are not innocent and helpless. It is not wrong to kill people who are trying to kill you and who are enemies of your country. In fact, it is stupid not to.
Gene: Did you read CCC Sections 2302-17?
Have you read d’Souza’s book?
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
This is not merely and eschatological vision, but a command of how we are to live here and now. It is not "stupid," but the way of life Christians are commanded to live. And how we live, not merely what we believe, determines whether or not we will be happy with God in heaven,
"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
But PI, just as the Millennials no longer believe in heaven or hell as a final destination or if they do believe in an after life it is only heaven, why should the words of Jesus frighten them in any way whatsoever, they have departed the Church because they have to fear of eternal damnation. And those who remain and promote anti-Catholic drivel as it concerns violence, what's to stop them when the faith is a do-it-yourself endeavor from liturgy to morality. Therein lies the problem and the conundrum and perhaps what Pope Benedict predicted, a smaller but purer Church. Religion has become the parsley on the plate of life, a nice decoration but oh so unnecessary except for those who like decorations on their plate.
Good Father, my quote of Jesus was offered to show that, once again, Pin/Gene is simply wrong about what the Church believes and teaches.
If he thinks it is "stupid" not to kill your enemies, then he thinks Jesus was stupid for saying we should love them.
Post a Comment