This Friday begins the Year for Priests, as announced by Pope Benedict. In one sense, I have no problem with trying to offer greater support for priests. There are so many good priests out there that suffer from alienation. But could part of this alienation be because some are forced down a path of celibacy that is too difficult for them. In addition, the decrease in priests since the 1950s now means that most priests live in their rectories alone, instead of with the two other priests that were serving at the parish. The second problem could be partially dealt with by allowing married priests and women priests or by more dioceses allowing their priests to live away from their parish. So although Benedict is asking us to support our priests, is he really doing his part to support priests to the fullest?
The other disturbing factor in all this is that I doubt we will be seeing a year for the laity in the near future. Most of the liturgical changes of late have been to remind the people that priests are special by making more specific rules to keep the laity out of the sanctuary during certain times and to make sure they are not too close to the priest. The sexual abuse scandal has not only hurt the image of the priesthood, but of all Catholics, meaning mostly the laity. We are seen as idiots for still being Catholic. So let me know when Benedict will be holding something to support the laity, but I think I might be waiting a while.
A Faithful Catholic
32 comments:
We are seen as idiots for still being Catholic
Speak for yourself.
I think it is interesting to note that Catholocism is the ONLY religion in which the laity have NO say whatsoever in the religion.This religion would exist if there were NO laity.
This is defended by saying the Church is not a democracy---a cute saying, but one which has led to incredible abuses. Jack
Jack, True there have been abuses, but the Church IS NOT a democracy. End of discussion, you are certainly welcome to swim the other way on the Tiber to Geneva or elsewhere though.
CS, so you agree: The laity are totally superfluous. Do you not think it is a bit dangerous to allow a group of celibate men total domination over a billion people. Jack
I think it is interesting to note that Catholocism is the ONLY religion in which the laity have NO say whatsoever in the religion.
Please define what you mean by "having no say". If you mean the laity has no say in doctinal issues, you are right. Neither does the clergy. We may only believe what has been handed down to us from the Deposit of Faith. When something needs to be examined or clarified, it's a group effort. If you ever read Church History, you would know that.
If by "having no say" you mean the laity has no voice in day-to day affairs,or on the Church's constant messsage, or on the state of the Church, you are most definitely wrong. The laity has taken a leading role in demanding that the Church's leadership act like shepherds, much to the dismay of the Dissenting Element.
Something tells me that you really don't know much about the Church, and don't want to know.
Dave, I'm usually rather nice.But your comment is almost too much. You are clearly a member of the Republican Catholic Church. Your silliness about the "deposit of faith" is well----just silliness. Obviously that "deposit of faith" has to be determined by someone. And today that is done by a bunch of ald 'queens.' Wake up. Jack
Obviously that "deposit of faith" has to be determined by someone.
Yes. Jesus Christ, through Scripture and Tradition. 2,000 years worth.
And again: how much do you really know about Catholicism? Have you read the Catechism or the Early Church Fathers? Ever been involved in the day to day workings of a parish? I have. Ever wonder why the foremost defenders of the faith nowadays are laity, and have been for quite some time (Maritain and Chesterton are two I can name from the "old days")?
I think you are the one who needs to wake up.
Jack,
I would point you to the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 16, versus 18-19; the Church is not of Human Origin, you appear to believe it is. I do not, the Church is a mystical body instituted and protected by Jesus Christ.
My friend, you obviously know almost nothing about church history. Yes some defenders of the Church are from the laity. Usually Republicans first and Catholics second (Gingrich)as I suspect you are. Jack
CS,you might check your Bible. You might be surprised. Possibly you are looking at the "rock" quotation. You might check the same incident in the other gospel(S). Might be interesting. Jack
Jack: In another age, I would have been a blue-collar Northern Democrat, fiscally and socially conservative and a "liberal" on racial issues. At any rate, I put not my trust in princes, be they of whatever political stripe. My Faith is the same as held by kings like Louis of France and street bums like Benedict Joseph Labre. I hold company with Gabriel Possenti the gunslinger and Dorothy Day the pacifist. I will even consider our esteemed host a brother (or sister) in the faith, even though we disagree greatly. In such a diverse cloud of witnesses, politics plays no role - only the Faith as passed down the last 2000 years.
Dave, briefly checking your blog, I notice it is hysterically Republican. I just question your priorites. What about Gingrich? Do you know he appears at meetings of fundamentalist anti-catholics. Just saying 2000 years proves nothing. Has church teaching ever changed? You seem to say no. Do you think totalling turning over your thinkinc to a small group of priest makes life easier? Jack
Jack: that's mostly my wife's writing. She has her own opinions, and I have mine. What Newt Gingrich does is not my concern.
You say that 2000 years means nothing. It does. Either the Creeds are true, or they're not. The Sacraments give grace through physical means, or they don't. Either Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John, was right about the structure of the Church and the Real Presence, or else he was thrown to the lions in vain. None of these things are up to popular vote, or the decision of any layman or cleric.
As far as letting a group of priests do my thinking for me read some G.K. Chesterton, or C S Lewis, or Peter Kreeft - all laymen. Are they mindless zombies because they are Christians, or do they read like intelligent people who articulate their ideas clearly and even brilliantly? As far as I can tell, they think for themselves quite nicely. And while I will not presume to claim to be at their level, I will say that by God's grace I came to assent to the faith through independent reading and thinking, just as they did.
And just to get an idea of where you're coming from: what belief system do you hold?
To the Moderator:
If the discussion we're having doesn't belong here, please let us know. You're the boss here, and I don't want to be disrespectful.
It seems a little off topic at times. I have deleted comments in the past, but they have to either be really off topic or beyond offensive.
While the Catholic Church is not a democracy, it is not a dictatorship either. In the spirit of Vatican II and John XXIII, sometimes timeless truths need to be formulated in new ways. And as a church, I like to think we grow in our understanding of Christ and the meaning of the Paschal Mystery as each century passes.
There is also the sensus fidelium, an understanding that the holy spirit is with the people of God (all of them). I think the bishops at times have forgotten this. Some of the John Paul II priests think they are a savior for us poor dumb laity. They want to "lead us" instead of nurture the spirit that has always been there.
Dave, you seem to be a gentleman. So let me say this. There are plenty of ways to defend the Church. But Ignatius of Antioch and Chesterton and 2000 years is not the way. I have defended Catholicism for years, and am a Catholic. But my friend, you need better arguments. I have never heard or read a Catholic defender that uses your arguments. Jack
Jack:
Thanks for explaining your position. I'll explain mine.
I brought up Ignatius because he represents continuity. From his writings, we have the Real Presence and the hierarchy stated as matters of belief. He was taught by an Apostle, who learned from Christ. That lineage matters, just as the Didache's treatment of abortion matters, or Justin Martyr's description of the Eucharistic Liturgy. Those writings demonstrate that the basic beliefs of the Church have stayed constant over two millenia.
I brought up the brightest Christian writers I know of, as I've come across those who contend that anyone who believes in Christianity is a mouth-breathing moron. Granted, bigots like that will not even consider reading those authors, but you might get someone open-minded enough to read them, or to have read them and have some respect for their positions.
As far as Church and politics go, I will reiterate: I don't confuse the Church's social teachings with any political party's platform. I am Catholic first. So is my wife, although I do admit she is the political animal in the family.
And as far as my last point as to certain things being true or not: try C.S. Lewis' "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" argument. Or, to quote Jaroslav Pelikan: "If Christ is risen, nothing else matters. And if Christ is not risen -- nothing else matters." No matter who is in charge, some things are non-negotiable.
I nearly forgot your comment on the laity which sparked all this. I'll just quote Cardinal Newman: The Church would look very silly without them. He also says: "In all times the laity has been the measure of the Catholic spirit; they saved the Irish Church three centuries ago and they betrayed the Church in England."
Dave, what if you had lived when the Church said slavery was acceptable, torture was alright,women were man's delight and man was God's delight etc. Would you have said we must accept continuity. And what about the world as center of our universe? Continuity proves nothing. In fact it can be dangerous. To believe something just because the belief has been held by some for centuries is not a good argument to most people.
Many scholars believe Newman was the real inspiration of Vatican 2.Which many are pushing back against. Where do you stand on Newman? Jack
Jack:
If you're talking about what has "always and everywhere been believed",such as the Creeds, the Sacraments, and the structure of the Church, then continuity does count. With the situations you describe, there is no continuity, just circumstances with which the Church dealt with wisely (the original Inquisition, ransoming slaves and ministering to them, just war, the South American Reductions, ) or not so wisely (the Spanish Inquisition, Jesuits owning slaves, treatment of Jews). Some things mst be judged by times and circumstances; other things must let history judge, just as I believe history will judge on whether the leaders of the Church acted wisely in these times
Cardinal Newman is a personal favorite. I've read a good number of his works, and I hope to see him canonized and declared a Doctor of the Church in my lifetime. And I see how he influenced the Second Vatican Council. That being said, considering that he saw what was coming in the Anglican Communion, I don't think he would approve of the things done in the "Spirit" as opposed to the actual documents.
Jack:
If you're talking about what has "always and everywhere been believed",such as the Creeds, the Sacraments, and the structure of the Church, then continuity does count. With the situations you describe, there is no continuity, just circumstances with which the Church dealt with wisely (the original Inquisition, ransoming slaves and ministering to them, just war, the South American Reductions, ) or not so wisely (the Spanish Inquisition, Jesuits owning slaves, treatment of Jews). Some things mst be judged by times and circumstances; other things must let history judge, just as I believe history will judge on whether the leaders of the Church acted wisely in these times
Cardinal Newman is a personal favorite. I've read a good number of his works, and I hope to see him canonized and declared a Doctor of the Church in my lifetime. And I see how he influenced the Second Vatican Council. That being said, considering that he saw what was coming in the Anglican Communion, I don't think he would approve of the things done in the "Spirit" as opposed to the actual documents.
Apologies for the double post. Computer hiccuped.
But Dave, if you had lived at these earlier times and the Church said something which we reject today, how would you have known it was not 'real' teaching but just determined by the times. And, of course, many churches today accept the two major creeds. So? Jack
Jack: I'm very aware that the Creeds are accepted by most Christian denominations (even a good portion of Evangelicals use the Apostle's Creed). That's what makes them recognizably Christian. But most lack the complete package, such as sacraments, apostolic succession, and tangible leadership. Since we've mentioned Cardinal Newman in this discussion, perhaps you ought to read his writings, and how the continuity of the Catholic Church convinced him to join it.
As far as the other things go: we are always creatures of our times. Perhaps slavery was tolerated; it did not change the fact that even slaves were to be treated decently as fellow human beings (Philomen and Onesimus, or St. Peter Claver). Maybe it was believed that the Earth was the center of the universe; such was the science of the time, and it did not affect one's path to heaven. If I was a Southern Catholic in the late nineteenth century, I would have mistakenly thought it normal for whites and coloreds to worship separately; but if I ever encountered Bishop Healy of Portland, I had better treat treat him with the dignity due his office. But in none of these times would the central doctines ever be altered.
Dave, I believe you did not answer my question. You cited a couple of exceptions to church teaching of the time and said they were right. Does not the same apply today. Again, just saying something is the 'full faith' means nothing. What is "tangible" leadership?
On Newman I have taught courses on him for 35 years. I may have missed a few, but I believe I have read his total works. Why do you think so many catholics oppose Vatican2? Are its pronouncements binding? BTW did you by chance look up the Peter as the "rock" quotes in the first three godpels, as I suggest to CS. Jack
Jack:
how have I not answered your question? I didn't say that slavery or segregation was right. In fact, I considered them to be mistaken.
Why doesn't the Magisterium's assertions on the full faith mean anything? Either there is an objective standard and definition of what it means to be Catholic, or there isn't. Either the Creeds are correct, or they're not. Either the Eucharist is the Real Presence, or, as Flannery O'Connor said, "if it's just a symbol, then I say to hell with it." One has to assent at some point.
Vatican II: let's start with Newman again: "There is seldom a Council after which chaos does not follow." (quoting from emeory here) More later, as time allows.
Now, let's see. The pope says "next to God, the priest is everything." So Dave and CS that means you are "nothing." Am I right? Jack
Started reading Weakland's book. Very well written. Jack
Jack:
First of all, context. I'd have to read what His Holiness meant within the context of the rest of his address.
As to the other matters I promised to address, I'm going to make a rare contribution on moderncommentaries.blogspot.com. I am not comfortable continuing on this forum, as our host and I have very different viewpoints, and I do not wish to be disrespectful to him (or her), or to continue to go off-topic. So I will write about Vatican II elsewhere, and you are welcome to come and comment. But not here any longer, out of respect for this blog's host.
Dave, your gentlemanly manner is appreciated. You mike like to check my blog where I am in the process of doing my decade analysis of the different Christian religion. I try to be fair. I kid a lot in my religion rankings.
BTW several of us use my blog. Including my three stepsons,ages 20-25. I change the name at the top of the blog because of my feudes with an Anglican blog. The rankings are mine. Jack
you call your self a "faithful" Catholic!??!?!
you don't reflect that at all in your writing :-(
The "Year for the Priest" is the next logical step beyond posters of seminarians. The rapturous ferverinos are all offered by priests (presbyters and bishops). How are they anything more than theological masturbation?
"Those who exalt themselves will be humbled."
If no one affirms you, affirm yourself.
Post a Comment