The Heavens Are Silent

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' date='06 March 2010 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1267897256' post='2067542']
I disagree that the Church cannot have a hierarchy without an institution. The early Church had just that.

The authority of the Church is not a social power. Christians are united by love, not by social institutions. Unfortunately, excommunication became over the centuries a form of social power. Institutions need social power, because institutions are held together by the institution, not by love.[/quote]
You're using a lot of undefined words in this thread ("institution," "sociopolitical," "social power") without a lot of concrete specifics, which is creating confusion and making productive discussion difficult.

Excommunication is a power of the Church contained in St. Peter's authority to bind and loose, and was, as far as I'm aware, practiced from the beginning. The point of excommunication is not "social power" (whatever that means), but to make it clearly known when one's actions or positions have cut him off from the Body of Christ. It's unfortunate, but sometimes it's necessary for the Church to put its foot down in such a manner. Otherwise, fallen human nature being what it is, we get endless confusion as to what is and is not acceptable within the Church, and who is and isn't in good standing. We then wind up with the confusion of thousands of different conflicting protestant sects, all claiming to represent the truth.

[quote]Here is an example of how authority in the Church can be exercised without an institution.


When Christians cast a brother out of the family, they are exercising authority and discipline. But this is not a form of social/institutional power. This kind of authority that St. Paul writes about makes no sense for institutions. The military, for example, has institutional power to force its members to comply with its orders (e.g., by imprisoning a soldier who goes AWOL). When the Church begins to function as an institution, then the Church also resorts to institutional power (e.g., by having the state execute heretics). The Church's true authority is about witness to Christ. Once the [i]casting out[/i] that St. Paul refers to becomes a form of institutional power, then its spiritual and moral character is corrupted, because it ceases to be about love and becomes about power and control.
[/quote]
That's a great quote from St. Paul, but I see nothing in it condemning "institutions." I don't really see how formal excommunication is in essence difference from casting a brother out of the family. Sadly, it's occasionally necessary if the offending member's actions create division and damage within the Body of Christ. I don't see what the difference is (other than that you condemn one as "social/institutional power"). In serious cases, something more has to be done than just personally shunning somebody. As I said earlier, the alternative is endless confusion and discord within God's "family."
Nobody has been executed as a heretic for centuries, so I fail to see how this has anything to do with your criticism of the current Church. It seems you just want some sort of Church with no rules or discipline, period, which is in fact a Church which never existed.

[KnightofChrist]

Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Who said: Who art thou, Lord? And he: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. It is hard for thee to kick against the goad.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Socrates' date='06 March 2010 - 05:40 PM' timestamp='1267915245' post='2067643']
You're using a lot of undefined words in this thread ("institution," "sociopolitical," "social power") without a lot of concrete specifics, which is creating confusion and making productive discussion difficult.[/quote]
Honestly, I don't think you and I are having a discussion. We both have our points of view, and we both approach these things differently, so I don't think defining terms is going to make that much of a difference, because neither of us is going to be convinced by the other. I think we just have to agree to disagree. It's easier to have a discussion in real life, where we could share what we've been reading. A lot of what I say probably comes across as "undefined" because I'm coming from a certain perspective based on what I'm reading. I assign a certain context to what I'm saying, a context which (understandably) other people might not pick up on because we come from different reading backgrounds. I think it's fair to say that you and I just have very different approaches to issues in general, so I don't think we can really have a productive discussion, at least not on the Internet.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Era Might' date='05 March 2010 - 12:49 AM' timestamp='1267768149' post='2066947']
The idea of Christ or St. Peter with armed guards would be laughable if it weren't so blasphemous.
[/quote]

Yet it was St. Peter who armed himself with a sword in the garden of Gethsemane.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='06 March 2010 - 07:24 PM' timestamp='1267921445' post='2067690']
Yet it was St. Peter who armed himself with a sword in the garden of Gethsemane.
[/quote]

The Lord did not have a problem with the idea of armed guards

"Lord, behold here are two swords. And he said to them, It is enough."

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Era Might' date='05 March 2010 - 01:40 AM' timestamp='1267771255' post='2066968']
As I said, I cannot work within the institution. That includes religious life, which has been institutionalized like everything else in the Church. Priests and religious are free labor for the ecclesial institution. The Church builds all kinds of institutions precisely because it has this free labor (e.g., nuns and Jesuits to run schooling institutions). The religious orders have become branches in the worldwide ecclesial institution. Becoming a monk or a nun means becoming a sort of employee for the worldwide ecclesial institution, because joining the religious order is by extension making a commitment to the ecclesial institution. I am not against religious life, but I do not believe in institutionalized religious life. As I said, the best I can do is ignore the Church as an institution, because the institution inevitably wants to control and manage everything, even your vocation.
[/quote]


There are also the ones called religious hermits, that would be tough though. If you live your life as you see fit in honor and reverance to God, live as an example of christian holiness and seperate yourself from scandal while helping those who you can as your means allow i am sure God would smile on your endeavors and someday call you home to him.

ed

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' date='06 March 2010 - 05:55 PM' timestamp='1267916152' post='2067655']
Honestly, I don't think you and I are having a discussion. We both have our points of view, and we both approach these things differently, so I don't think defining terms is going to make that much of a difference, because neither of us is going to be convinced by the other. I think we just have to agree to disagree. It's easier to have a discussion in real life, where we could share what we've been reading. A lot of what I say probably comes across as "undefined" because I'm coming from a certain perspective based on what I'm reading. I assign a certain context to what I'm saying, a context which (understandably) other people might not pick up on because we come from different reading backgrounds. I think it's fair to say that you and I just have very different approaches to issues in general, so I don't think we can really have a productive discussion, at least not on the Internet.
[/quote]
Fair enough.
I'll just add, though, that I strongly suspect your dubious choice of reading material plays no small part in your problems.
If the books you're reading are causing you spiritual unquiet, and weakening your faith, it's clear their source is not godly, and it's probably best to chuck them.
I'll recommend (and I'm sure any good priest will back me up on this) limiting your religious reading, at least for the remainder of this Lent, to Holy Scripture and the writings of the saints.

You have my prayers.

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='kafka' date='06 March 2010 - 05:23 PM' timestamp='1267910581' post='2067607']
Era I recommend reading 'Models of the Church' by Avery Dulles. It is excellent. He criticizes the institutional model of the Church and shows how it has been overemphasized for centuries, since the Protestant revolution. It truly is the weakest model of the Church, but necessary in some sense. Maybe less necessary than we like to think.
[/quote]

I second this book. Seriously, Era, look into it. I think it might be of some aid to you as well.

I am praying for you! I sympathize with you and am in such pain over the things you are feeling and thinking right now.

"If the Church is true, all in her is true; he who admits not the one, believes not the other." – Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich

“I believe in the sun even with it does not shine. I believe in love even when it is not expressed. I believe in God even when He is silent.” – from a Nazi prison camp

Many prayers!

Edited March 8, 2010 by TotusTuusMaria

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='Socrates' date='07 March 2010 - 05:27 PM' timestamp='1267997279' post='2068246']
Fair enough.
I'll just add, though, that I strongly suspect your dubious choice of reading material plays no small part in your problems.
If the books you're reading are causing you spiritual unquiet, and weakening your faith, it's clear their source is not godly, and it's probably best to chuck them.
I'll recommend (and I'm sure any good priest will back me up on this) limiting your religious reading, at least for the remainder of this Lent, to Holy Scripture and the writings of the saints.

You have my prayers.
[/quote]

Seconded.

[Winchester]

Is part of your objection the possible reduction of personal involvement brought about by the ease of donating to a group which takes care of the 'business' of charitable acts? I can see the danger in reducing acts of grace to a sort of tax.

The Gospel is concerned with Salvation. The purpose of charitable institutions is to alleviate suffering, which can be a block to Salvation (I am aware it can also be redemptive). Efficiency is not a problem, but of course there is a danger in efficiency of the act becoming automatic--like the vain repetition of a prayer. This affects, however, individuals not necessarily recipients. So in a sense, part of the concern of the Gospel is alleviating societal problems. Societal problems are due to sin and the Gospel is concerned with sin. That men orgnize and codify and lay down rules is a reaction to finding (or thinking one has found) what works. I've a Moral Theology book that has numbered paragraphs and condensed arguments from much thought. It's funny, sometimes reading it because it appears as a legal brief. But it works and it's helpful in discerning things.

Without delving too much into a defense of the Inquisition--such courts existed prior to the Church getting involved and her involvement overall seems to have made the process much more humane than it was. The Church did not magically come up with the idea of dealing with heretics through courts or with the idea that such was needed. Laity was quite fond of mob rule with regards to heretics, and they observed no court system. It was a reaction, not an action. Further, institutionalization seems to be fine with God, as there's quite a bit of codification of behavior in the OT, when God was fond of talking to His chosen leaders more directly. Moses put people to death in the name of religion, and the only thing that kept him from the Promised Land was a screw up with water from a rock. God never told Moses not to codify rules and not to enforce them through violence. The inquisition cannot be a problem if the OT is not a problem.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Winchester' date='09 March 2010 - 06:48 PM' timestamp='1268174881' post='2069800']
Is part of your objection the possible reduction of personal involvement brought about by the ease of donating to a group which takes care of the 'business' of charitable acts? I can see the danger in reducing acts of grace to a sort of tax.[/quote]
Yes, that is part of the problem, but I would say that it is only a symptom of the real problem.

I will pose a question as an attempt on my part to get at the root of the problem: Would St. Paul be welcome today at your parish? I think that St. Paul would have no real place in the institutionalized Church. To volunteer at your parish, he would probably be required to undergo a criminal history check. The institution would see that he has been guilty of killing Christians in the past, so he would be excluded from volunteering in the various institutional programs. As far as becoming a Bishop, you can forget about that. St. Paul was sort of the Osama Bin Laden of his day. If Osama Bin Laden converted to Christianity, would he be welcome at your parish? Would he even be considered for ordination as a Bishop?

What am I trying to get at with this analogy? My point is that institutions are "respectable." They have to maintain their position in society (or else the institution is threatened). That is why, for example, when Bishops apologize for sexual abuse, the apology is so hollow. Who cares about an institution's apology? A real Christian witness would be sackcloth and ashes. Instead, we get press statements from diocesan spokesmen. Catholics talk about excommunicating pro-abortion politicians. But the Church is so institutionalized that such an excommunication is hollow. It's a way for the institution to avoid "scandal." But there is no sense of the Church as a supernatural family that is casting out a brother. The Bishop is likely a stranger to the politician he would be excommunicating. The politician is probably a stranger to his parish. The institution binds everyone together, and such an institutional relationship is pathetic.

"Scandal." We hear a lot about priestly "scandals." But what's the response going to be to those scandals? The Church will make a few institutional moves, defrock a few priests, and then the institution can regain its "respectability." Maybe the Pope will write a lofty letter about how sexual abuse is a sin (there may even be a few harsh words in the letter...but not too harsh, because institutions are cool calm collected and in control of the situation). The institution provides a mirage that it is weathering a storm, but that it will be fine eventually. Like any good institution, it has to do damage control, it has to assure people that despite bumps in the road, the institution will survive. But the Church cannot see that it is precisely its institutionalization that has made it so weak and cowardly.

But the writing is on the wall. The Church has become just another irrelevant social institution. The Church is socially "respectable." That's one of the "selling points" that Catholics make: Look, we do more for the poor than any other organization on earth! Yes, indeed, I don't deny that. But here's the problem:

The early Church became the poor and the powerless. But now, the institutionalized Church "does for" the poor and the powerless. The Apostles led the way to martyrdom. But now, the institutionalized Bishops implore governments to protect Christians from martyrdom. The early Church spoke of "here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city which is to come" (Hebrews 13:14). But now, the institutionalized Church proposes itself as the first building block toward a "civilization of love."

I don't know if any of this it helpful in answering your question, and perhaps it is all a bit indirect. But I'm just trying to point toward what I see as the problem, without going into every specific example of problems.

[quote name='Winchester' date='09 March 2010 - 06:48 PM' timestamp='1268174881' post='2069800']The Gospel is concerned with Salvation. The purpose of charitable institutions is to alleviate suffering, which can be a block to Salvation (I am aware it can also be redemptive). Efficiency is not a problem, but of course there is a danger in efficiency of the act becoming automatic--like the vain repetition of a prayer. This affects, however, individuals not necessarily recipients. So in a sense, part of the concern of the Gospel is alleviating societal problems. Societal problems are due to sin and the Gospel is concerned with sin. That men orgnize and codify and lay down rules is a reaction to finding (or thinking one has found) what works. I've a Moral Theology book that has numbered paragraphs and condensed arguments from much thought. It's funny, sometimes reading it because it appears as a legal brief. But it works and it's helpful in discerning things.[/quote]
I think you make an excellent and very important point about the connection between suffering and sin. I will have to think about that point more, because I think it is a foundational issue to what we are discussing.

My first thought, however, is that by turning the Gospel into a mission to “alleviate societal problems,” you are taking away the very power of the Gospel. When the Gospel is institutionalized, and the Church becomes its institutional guardian, then there is no real possibility for the Church to witness to the true power of the Gospel, because the institution becomes part of the status quo.

Let me use prison as an example. I am all for finding alternatives to the prison system in the United States. I believe that our prison system is inherently flawed. But I do not want to see the Church getting involved in prison reform. Why? It’s not because I think prison reform is unnecessary; rather, it is because the Church’s mission is something different. When the Church gets involved in social issues, then one of three things happens: either the Church becomes another institution trying to preserve the status quo, or else the Church shows itself incapable of doing what needs to be done. So, for example, the Church might support this or that prison reform, but the Church doesn’t have the courage to call for the abolition of the prison system as it exists. That is too radical a proposal to be made by a "respectable" institution. And when Priests do get involved in radical solutions to social problems, they thereby cease to act as signs of Sacramental unity, and instead they become divisive politicians and social workers.

So while the Church is busy either defending the status quo, proposing mediocre solutions, or engaging in social work that undermines the Church's Sacramental unity, the real power of the Gospel is lost. Rather than simply witnessing to Christ, rather than individual Christians moving into violent neighborhoods where many former (and future) prisoners live, the Church acts through institutional means. I believe in prison reform, but I do not believe that the Church should get involved in prison reform. Any person of any religion (and even of no religion) can do great things for prison reform; you don’t have to be a Christian for that. But you do have to be a Christian to witness to Christ. That is the Church’s only mission, in my opinion: to witness to Christ. You don’t need an institution to witness to Christ. All you need is witnesses.

Christ told us to visit those in prisons. He didn't tell the Church to solve the problem of prisons in society. Christ told us to feed the hungry. He didn't tell the Church to solve hunger as a social problem. The Gospel is a personal vocation to love, not an institutional vocation to solve social problems. Any person, of any religion (and even of no religion), can come up with solutions to social problems. The Church has no unique ability to solve social problems. The only thing that makes the Church unique is witness to Christ.

I’ll give another example of how Church involvement in social problems ends up hurting both the Church and society. In the 1960s there was a big push by President Kennedy to help Latin America. This was when the Peace Corps was created. The so-called “first-world” descended on Latin America to “help” them become “developed.” At the same time, Pope John XXIII called for missionaries to go to Latin America. Thus, the Church became part of a social enterprise. All these so-called “first-world” people brought institutions to the so-called “third world.” The Church was one of those institutions. Instead of being a transcendent witness to Christ, the Church’s missionaries brought with them the social ideologies of the so-called “first world.” Latin America was on its way to being institutionalized just like the so-called “first-world,” and the Church became part of this effort. And look what we see today in Latin America. It is increasingly materialist and consumerist, just like the so-called "first world." And how many of its people are abandoning the Church for Pentecostal religious groups? The Church is a social institution in Latin America, and many people are abandoning it because they want something personal, something non-institutional. So long as the Church functions as a social institution, it will continue to lose many people, and most of those who stay will continue to poorly understand what it means to be Christian.

Both liberals and conservatives want the Church to function like an institution. Conservatives want the Church to uphold “Western Christian civilization.” Liberals want the Church to be a Christian peace corps.

What do I want? I want the Church to stop being an institution. I want the Church to stop trying to be a defender of civilization or a political advocate for the poor. If individual Christians want to do those things, they can do so. But the leaders of the Church should be leading the Church so that it is a transcendent witness to Christ, not a social institution. There are billions of people on earth who can create institutions; the Church should not be another social institution, because institutionalization corrupts her real mission which is witness to Christ.


[quote name='Winchester' date='09 March 2010 - 06:48 PM' timestamp='1268174881' post='2069800']Without delving too much into a defense of the Inquisition--such courts existed prior to the Church getting involved and her involvement overall seems to have made the process much more humane than it was. The Church did not magically come up with the idea of dealing with heretics through courts or with the idea that such was needed. Laity was quite fond of mob rule with regards to heretics, and they observed no court system. It was a reaction, not an action. Further, institutionalization seems to be fine with God, as there's quite a bit of codification of behavior in the OT, when God was fond of talking to His chosen leaders more directly. Moses put people to death in the name of religion, and the only thing that kept him from the Promised Land was a screw up with water from a rock. God never told Moses not to codify rules and not to enforce them through violence. The inquisition cannot be a problem if the OT is not a problem.
[/quote]
I only brought up the Inquisitions as a useful example, because it is a very obvious example of where institutionalization leads. But it is just that, an example, not the only example or even the primary issue with institutionalization.

You bring up Moses. The entire message of the New Testament is how we are free from the law, because Christ has fulfilled it. The Christian law is the law of love.

The early Church was held together by freedom in love. The Church today is held together by an institution. It is no wonder that the Church is falling apart. Only freedom in love can hold the Church together.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Era Might' date='17 March 2010 - 04:05 PM' timestamp='1268856342' post='2074775']

Here is a question that is an attempt on my part to get at the root of the problem: Would St. Paul be welcome today at your parish? [/quote]
He'd have to bathe more often, but probably.


More later.

[AccountDeleted]

Some deep thoughts there. I can't reply now because I am going out the door but I wanted to subscribe to this thread so I can follow it later. This kind of pain is very deep and I am praying for you. If there is a God (which I happen to believe there is) then I will ask Him to give you some light on this for your head as well as your heart.

[mortify]

[quote name='Era Might' date='04 March 2010 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1267729337' post='2066553']
There is a reason why religion exists in every culture and every age. Either the reason is because there is a God whom people seek, or the reason is because we need to create God just to have the strength to wake up every day. I honestly don't know what the reason is anymore, I just know that it is a beautiful belief that there is a God, whether that belief is true or false.
[/quote]

You made a good observation when you noted that people universally yearn for God. That in itself is worth meditating on, but consider also the object of our yearnings. The need for food and water is built into us, thus when we yearn for them our yearning leads us to realities. The same is true for our yearning for God, the difference is that God is pure Spirit and so we can't enjoy Him the way we do material goods, at least not in this present life. Yearn for Him, and you shall be filled.

[peach_cube]

[quote name='Era Might' date='04 March 2010 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1267729337' post='2066553']
I cannot shake the feeling that there is no God. The Gospel makes sense to me. Christ makes sense to me. If there is a God, then Christ is certainly God. And yet the Heavens are silent. The ancient Greeks were convinced of a world of gods in the heavens. They were as convinced about their gods as we are about Christ. And yet today we look back at the Greek gods and chuckle that anyone ever believed in them, even if we regard the Greek myths as interesting stories. I cannot shake the feeling that Christ is our "interesting story." If there is no God, then Christ is certainly the greatest work of fiction that the world ever has or ever will create. If there is no God, then why not believe in Christ? At least he's a beautiful story, even if it's not true. But still, the heavens are silent. I have never seen any cripples cured before my eyes. I have never seen a person raised from the dead. I have never seen any visions. I am not saying that these things did not happen as the Gospels say they did...I'm just saying that I've never seen them. The Greeks also believed in all kinds of wondrous events...and yet those events that the Greeks believed in were false, because the Greek gods were false.

This post is not meant as a declaration of atheism, I'm just throwing out something that's been on my mind. Feel free to respond however you want.

I cannot shake these lines from my mind:


"Signifying nothing." As I said, I cannot shake the feeling that life signifies nothing. In other words, it feels like God is like literature: beautiful, powerful, mysterious, paradoxical, challenging...but ultimately, he is a work of fiction whom we create for amusement and comfort, because if there is no god, he is certainly worth creating in our minds. There is a reason why religion exists in every culture and every age. Either the reason is because there is a God whom people seek, or the reason is because we need to create God just to have the strength to wake up every day. I honestly don't know what the reason is anymore, I just know that it is a beautiful belief that there is a God, whether that belief is true or false.
[/quote]
I would say that I have struggled with these thoughts before as well. Then I had a child. In her I understand who I am to be, I better see how God sees me. I think too much and act too little. I kick and scream against the pull of the Father. In my selfishness I do not see why he does these things to me. I think He is wrong. But I am the child.

When you are a child the days are full of joy and you never wish them to end. It seems as if time will go on forever. You wish for it to go on forever. As an adult I grow weary of time. I can feel it bearing down on me, stalking me. Eternity is incomprehensible, yet the finality of life is terrifying. I hope to again be as a child, for time to have little consequence.

I know the universe will end. All that has been done and will ever be done will amount nothing. It will only matter if it is remembered. Is this not the wish of all the souls who die? But we forget. Only He can remember. It is only how He remembers me that matters. Still the hardest part for me is to put my trust in Him, just as it is for the child kicking and screaming against their father's will. I love my daughter more than I can say, yet she cannot understand or see that I am really just protecting her.

I am not sure if this means anything for you, I have always read your posts and felt that I should say something.

You have my prayers.

Edited March 17, 2010 by peach_cube