Here's A Bomb

[Ash Wednesday]

Y'all dishing out personal attacks or itching to do so need to cool it.

[PhuturePriest]

Y'all dishing out personal attacks or itching to do so need to cool it.

 

I quite agree -- personal attacks are a dish best served cold.

Edited October 29, 2014 by FuturePacker

[Cherie]

you know the Latin thing is interesting but is not really the point of the thread.

is it possible that people who support the traditional teaching re: marriage have a duty to actually resist the Pope in this situation? Like a moral responsibility? Is it possible we have to "save' the Pope from error? Is that a thing in general and is it a thing in this instance??

This is a great question. I'd love to know if the great minds in the Church over the years have written anything to this effect. Does anyone know if there have been any writings about this?

Apparently this article is causing a big stir in the [eta: American] Catholic world. Very, very interesting!

[Benedictus]

Enjoy. An unusually coherent article on Catholic issues (whether or not you agree with his ideas) from the New York Times. Appreciate your thoughts.
 
The Pope and the Precipice

 

I think the whole church, not just the Pope, has always had an influence.I think a lot of the chatter about the Pope making isolated decisions is false. I don't think this really seems to happen. It's fairly clear the Pope, especially this one, is drawing out and bringing together the Bishops and Cardinals. He is expecting more from the laity, not less. He is a Jesuit after all; it's not in their leadership style to make solo decisions. I think he will be collegiate and draw on the voices of the 'whole' in order to offer a more rounded perpective of where things are at.

I think he will have his thoughts on what God is saying in these times and what we should do, but I don't think he'll dictate that without laying the ground for consensus. I think this will work better than staying silent or reaffirming the same old offical lines on everything, but not offering any clear pastoral guidance. Business cannot carry on as usual because most people recognise that all elements within the church are tugging so hard with exasperation that the whole fabric will eventually fall apart if the church doesn't start listening to them, and God, and find a way through.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Benedictus

[Lilllabettt]

Business cannot carry on as usual because most people recognise that all elements within the church are tugging so hard with exasperation that the whole fabric will eventually fall apart if the church doesn't start listening to them, and God, and find a way through.

 

Sometimes i wonder if I live in bizzaro world, since my experience seems so diametrically opposed to other people's descriptions ... 

remember the whole thing about the Church sawing off too often about abortion? That was twilight zone material to me. When did this sawing off about abortion happen? Not in any homily I've heard the last 6 years or so ... 

now there's a crisis about divorce and the Catholic church? really? I've never belonged to a parish that didn't have a support group for divorcees. 

 

I did/do not see any crisis in the Church, except for the sex scandals, which were a management failure not a sign of doctrinal inadequacy. 

Or maybe the crisis is in the wild swings in leadership we've seen. It's almost like Ratzinger was too conservative for them so they over-corrected with Bergoglio. If that's the case that would also represent a management failure. 

[Benedictus]

I did/do not see any crisis in the Church, except for the sex scandals, which were a management failure not a sign of doctrinal inadequacy. 

 

 

It was a bit more than a management failure. It drew attention to how much power the church has and how its structures don't easily allow a means of addressing injustices. It made the laity aware of the lack of voice they often have to make an impact, a lack of support, training, voice, education, advancement on faith matters. They can't suggest or innovate for evangelization as easily as some other churches do. They are often ignored by the leadership, be they deemed Conservative, Liberal or otherwise.

It has dragged the church into a posiion where its credibility and message is damaged. Every non catholic I know associates the church with sex abuse, its use of politics to advance its views, its views on contraception, homosexuality and women (all in the negative). It cuts conversations dead. This is a major problem.

Current problems:  Churches closing, pews empty, religious declining, priests declining, priests defecting or leaving to marry, priests and religious forming asociations to challenge the church (and threatening to take provinces out of the church or striking), protests, church obstructions and demonstrations, opinion polls showing Catholics who attend church disagree with the church in large numbers, Priests, Bishops and religious publicly (or more privately) not agreeing with the church on many hard line issues. Once the baby boomers (priests and laity ) die the church will hit the wall and struggle to operate in terms of money and man power. Crisis much? Well, yes, but especially in Europe and North America who've got more pain to come.
I'm not sure what crisis you're waiting for exactly?

 

Or maybe the crisis is in the wild swings in leadership we've seen. It's almost like Ratzinger was too conservative for them so they over-corrected with Bergoglio. If that's the case that would also represent a management failure. 

 

Pope Francis isn't a liberal, he's a Catholic. If you look at his views as a Bishop I think that's clear. But I think he has as much heart and nuance as he does intellect. Is he Ratzinger, no. But he doesn't need to be.

[Socrates]

It's rather strange that so many who want the Church to become more welcoming, show more mercy, love and peace to the world are so quick to close their open arms, and throw mercy, love and peace under the bus to get rid of the 'conservatives', orthodox, or traditional Catholics.

 

Mercy, peace, and love are only for homosexual activists, Islamic terrorists, left-wing politicians, and other poor victim souls, not for those horrible, awful conservative Catholic types who deserve to be hated.

 

Didn't you get the memo?

[PhuturePriest]

I think that it's a bit too much on the "conservitives you be going down"    Rather I think that Francis is trying to rid the church of verbal abusers (quite frankly like Burke) who use the Bible and Chatechism as their own personal bludgeoning bar.

 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/pulse/pope-emeritus-benedict-considers-cardinal-burke-among-great-cardinals
 

[Poverelli]

I think that it's a bit too much on the "conservitives you be going down"    Rather I think that Francis is trying to rid the church of verbal abusers (quite frankly like Burke) who use the Bible and Chatechism as their own personal bludgeoning bar.

 

I have no desire to enter this discussion in a prolonged way, but felt the need to respond to this. Calling Cardinal Burke a verbal abuser without any facts or reference material to back your assertion is inappropriate.

[Cherie]

Burke is a verbal abuser?! What are you talking about?!

[Lilllabettt]

It was a bit more than a management failure. It drew attention to how much power the church has and how its structures don't easily allow a means of addressing injustices. It made the laity aware of the lack of voice they often have to make an impact, a lack of support, training, voice, education, advancement on faith matters. They can't suggest or innovate for evangelization as easily as some other churches do. They are often ignored by the leadership, be they deemed Conservative, Liberal or otherwise.

It has dragged the church into a posiion where its credibility and message is damaged. Every non catholic I know associates the church with sex abuse, its use of politics to advance its views, its views on contraception, homosexuality and women (all in the negative). It cuts conversations dead. This is a major problem.

Current problems:  Churches closing, pews empty, religious declining, priests declining, priests defecting or leaving to marry, priests and religious forming asociations to challenge the church (and threatening to take provinces out of the church or striking), protests, church obstructions and demonstrations, opinion polls showing Catholics who attend church disagree with the church in large numbers, Priests, Bishops and religious publicly (or more privately) not agreeing with the church on many hard line issues. Once the baby boomers (priests and laity ) die the church will hit the wall and struggle to operate in terms of money and man power. Crisis much? Well, yes, but especially in Europe and North America who've got more pain to come.
I'm not sure what crisis you're waiting for exactly?

 

 

 

The above represents a management problem. Power imbalances in workflow decision making is a management failure.

 

The fact that people associate the Church with its views on contraception, homosexuality and women, despite the Church's reluctance to teach much of anything regarding those views, represents a management failure. PR failure. Maybe what is required is that they actually be taught full throttle? Not massaged into easier to digest forms?

 

Current problems:  Churches closing, pews empty, religious declining, priests declining, priests defecting or leaving to marry, priests and religious forming asociations to challenge the church (and threatening to take provinces out of the church or striking), protests, church obstructions and demonstrations, opinion polls showing Catholics who attend church disagree with the church in large numbers, Priests, Bishops and religious publicly (or more privately) not agreeing with the church on many hard line issues. Once the baby boomers (priests and laity ) die the church will hit the wall and struggle to operate in terms of money and man power. Crisis much? Well, yes, but especially in Europe and North America who've got more pain to come.
I'm not sure what crisis you're waiting for exactly?

 

 

I don't see these things as a sign of crisis, but a natural process. Birth pangs. It is becoming harder to be part of proper society and remain a faithful Catholic. It is harder and harder to stay and just "go through the motions." The possibility of being a "cultural Catholic" is dying. Is this really a process we should stop? If we really want to, maybe we could address it by adjusting management processes. How authority flows through decision making hierarchies.  But by changing fundamental teachings re: the meaning of marriage and the Eucharist? I don't think so.

 

 

 

Pope Francis isn't a liberal, he's a Catholic. If you look at his views as a Bishop I think that's clear. But I think he has as much heart and nuance as he does intellect. Is he Ratzinger, no. But he doesn't need to be.

 

I am not holding up Ratzinger as the be-all-end-all. He had many management failures.

 

But:

John Paul II was above partisan Church politics in a way I really miss. Neither side could claim him. 

Ratzinger was known to be in a certain camp but he had a very modest idea of himself as Pope and the changes he made to his way of thinking were never going to be extravagant.

I think Francis is most definitely a partisan in Church politics, and he does in fact intend to make his mark in a big way. 

[HisChildForever]

Here is my take.

 

1. The Catholic Church does not have the authority to change infallible doctrine.

2. The Scriptures explicitly state that the gates of Hell will not prevail.

3. It's okay to express concern over...the media's coverage, poor PR from the Vatican, and possible scandal resulting from a misunderstanding of the Synod. But not everyone is concerned, and you should respect that.

4. It's okay to disagree with the Catholics that fall into #3. It's okay to not be too troubled. Wary and curious is fine too.

5. It is NOT okay to be rude, insulting, and/or disrespectful toward those who disagree with you. Especially since we ALL agree on #1 and 2.

[HisChildForever]

I hold love for the Catholic Church in my heart and I seek to strengthen my relationship to Christ every day. His very words of "I thirst" are what I feel in my soul, which are only quenched when I pick up the Scriptures or dive into spiritual reading. Also satiated when I check out Phatmass and immerse myself in real Catholic culture. Over the past few years I have been introduced to a new world--not a bad world, just a different one--of Protestants, Muslims, agnostics, mentally ill, inmates, addicts...and I've learned how to apply my faith in such a way that I feel only love in my heart for these brothers and sisters of mine. Love, and respect. Love, love, love. It's love and hope that gets me through each day with joy in my heart. I desire to live up to the example Pope Francis has set for us. One of Truth, yes, but also of mercy and compassion. We're all so complex, so individual. Even when I see opinions here I blatantly disagree with, I still love you and cherish those experiences and prayer that has led you to these expressions. Keep your eyes fixated on Jesus!

[Benedictus]

The above represents a management problem. Power imbalances in workflow decision making is a management failure.

 

Well, true, there are governance failures. But there are also leadership failures on reform and a basic call of the Gospel within parishes. Yes, there should be better management. But I want a more creative structure, not micromanagement. But I don't see many ideas for how this could work out, aside from Bishops wanting power grabs.

The problem is I'm critical of some calls for reform, not because I don't think it's needed, but because it's seen as a way to delegate power to Bishops for its own sake, in order to make local decisions (and or on a provincial level). I don't think many of them have shown they have the capacity to do this well. Most of the current failures, management or otherwise, lead back to dicoeses or religious orders, not to the Vatican. Abuse, division, corruption, clergy misconduct, disclipline issues, and a lack of parish innovation all come back to the boots of the Bishops. They stranglehold all parishes to a great extent. What should have been happening, and I guess Vatican ll was hopeful of, was that the laity would be supported, trained, educated, lead and be a collaborating force within the wider collegial system of the church. But this hasn't happened and, in my view, most are ill prepared to take on such a role at the moment without messing it up.

Many Catholics have called for an 'Anglican system' of governance for the Catholic church, without understanding what this means. Bishops in that system have hardly any power within their dioceses. Bishops only have control over curates, diocese governance and vocations. Aside from guiding and sitting on panels the power rests with the clergy and the parishes to a large extent, especially on day to day issues. Anglican Bishops can't even decide on policy without a supporting vote of clergy and the laity.  I doubt Catholic Bishops would want to become this impotent. So it's anyones guess what Catholic Bishops see as adequate for themselves, and then everyone else

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that people associate the Church with its views on contraception, homosexuality and women, despite the Church's reluctance to teach much of anything regarding those views, represents a management failure. PR failure. Maybe what is required is that they actually be taught full throttle? Not massaged into easier to digest forms?

 

 

 

PThe point is evryone knows the general outline of what the church already teaches on thsoe issues. I don't think going on and on about it will help anyone. I think it's already distorting the Gospel message as a whole and taking a more forward role than it should. Jesus and the good news needs to come first. The church is overly negative, or it seems that way. It's damaging and counterproductive, even punitive, to keep doing something that isn't working.
 

 

I don't see these things as a sign of crisis, but a natural process. Birth pangs. It is becoming harder to be part of proper society and remain a faithful Catholic. It is harder and harder to stay and just "go through the motions." The possibility of being a "cultural Catholic" is dying. Is this really a process we should stop? If we really want to, maybe we could address it by adjusting management processes. How authority flows through decision making hierarchies.  But by changing fundamental teachings re: the meaning of marriage and the Eucharist? I don't think so.

 

 

 

 

True, I think those elemets are at play too. Birth pangs or death pangs? There is a group who are reactionary and have a persecution complex, that's for sure.  Maybe elements need to die so it can be be born again anew, especially if it can't be reformed. But it is a current crisis for all those not getting the message, support, and love they should at this moment because of those failures and hurts. Management failure and a large lump of sinful behaviour, but by far not enough penance (not even an interest in admitting culpability for the problems that persist). I'm not sure they plan to change any of those teachings, but a pastoral awareness and gudance would be good. I'm sure they know more than any of us about how to go about things, well you'd think so 

 

 

 

I am not holding up Ratzinger as the be-all-end-all. He had many management failures.

 

But:

John Paul II was above partisan Church politics in a way I really miss. Neither side could claim him. 

Ratzinger was known to be in a certain camp but he had a very modest idea of himself as Pope and the changes he made to his way of thinking were never going to be extravagant.

I think Francis is most definitely a partisan in Church politics, and he does in fact intend to make his mark in a big way. 

 

I'm not sure I'd agree John Paul ll was that much above partisan politics. His action to appointed a more conservative Jesuit papal delegate, against the liberal one they selected, in the early 80's wasn't exactly a neutral decision. There are other examples.
He was definately a conservative, although this was tamed somewhat by his openness in matters of dialogue, devotions and liturgy. This made him popular with charismatics, liberals and conservatives for varying reasons. He was able to hold things together fairly well by tolerating a degree of diversity/flexibility where it could happen. He also appointed Cardinals from a spectrum of views, not always to the benefit of local areas, but there you go. This intensfied, so some say, as he got more sick. Was he really appointing all these people in the later years with full consent and clear judgement? Well, who knows. But I'm sure the staff at the Vatican, and elsewhere, played a big role. But thoughout his whole life, especially under Communist rule, he was able to pursue a political agenda without appearing to pursue a political agenda. It's why he got where he did in the end.

 

[PhuturePriest]

Burke is a verbal abuser?! What are you talking about?!

 

Apparently, being the most capable and respected canon lawyer who defends canon law without blinking an eye makes you a "verbal abuser".