How Does The Catholic Church Respond To Challenge?

[OraProMe]

Well or not? I think in the past it's been incredibly insular & even totalitarian and this has effected the way it's responded to external challenges. For example the Gallileo affair, the way we dealt with the Cathars and the index of forbidden books are things I'd rather forget. However I am very proud of the way the Church dealt with evolution, especially Pius XII in 1950 by saying it's an acceptable theory as long as it concerns itself with the evolution of the body (not the soul) from pre-existant matter.

In my opinion someone who has considered other peoples viewpoints and still held onto their faith is far more impressive than someone who simply ignores anything/anyone that contradicts them and turns inward. Then on the other hand someone who engages with other peoples viewpoints risks falling away from the faith whereas someone who surrounds themself with like-minded individuals doesn't place themself in that danger. I still think I'd prefer the former.

I'd love to know everyones thoughts on all this? I'm still piecing it together myself.

[Winchester]

So what do you think happened with the Cathars? What do you think they believed?

[Winchester]

And what do you think happened with Gallileo?

[VeniteAdoremus]

[quote name='Winchester' date='25 August 2009 - 06:58 PM' timestamp='1251215939' post='1956163']
So what do you think happened with the Cathars? What do you think they believed?

And what do you think happened with Gallileo?
[/quote]

Yes, popular opinion tends to be rather unhistorical in both these cases Especially the Galileo one drives me MAD. Must be all the physicists I hang out with.

Anyway, that doesn't address the real question. I agree that we don't have a very good reputation, and partly for good reason. You'll have to be careful about "the Church" and "individuals within the Magisterium", though. Especially the latter can say the dumbest things from time to time. Most certainly room for improvement there.

[thessalonian]

Do you know anything about history? For example, the index of forbidden books. Do you know the context of the times? There were few books. Even the Bible was not easily come by. Commentaries? Ya right. And the people couldn't read. They were ripe for the plucking of those who could. At their mercy. The only way they got the gospel is if someone who could read read it to them and explained it to them. Less than 10% could read. The Church had a grave obligation to protect them from WOLVES. And so it put certain books on a list that should not be read in order to properly form one's theology so that they could instruct the masses rigthly.

At that time the index of forbidden books was practical because there were so few books. By the way the Bible was never on it. Funny thing is that when protestants say that the Bible was on the list, the list didn't even exist. Today such a list is impractical because there are millions upon millions of books. Further it is less neccessary because people can read and understand much more because of the education they get. Not only can they read the Bible but the Catechism as well and there are lots of good commentaries out there. The individual still has the obligation to protect his soul by not reading what might put it in danger. But there is much greater accountability of the individual because we all have far more education than even the common pastor had at the time of the index.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='VeniteAdoremus' date='26 August 2009 - 10:47 AM' timestamp='1251298035' post='1956232']
Yes, popular opinion tends to be rather unhistorical in both these cases Especially the Galileo one drives me MAD. Must be all the physicists I hang out with.

Anyway, that doesn't address the real question. I agree that we don't have a very good reputation, and partly for good reason. You'll have to be careful about "the Church" and "individuals within the Magisterium", though. Especially the latter can say the dumbest things from time to time. Most certainly room for improvement there.
[/quote]

I don't know that it is with good reason. Read my post above. The scriptures tell us that in general our leaders have concern for our souls. Heb 13:17 and that they protect us from ravenous wolves. We make judgements about times that we do not even understand. Were we in Leo X's shoes. Do we have all the facts he had and do we understand the gravity of sitting in that chair of Peter with the weight of all the souls in the world (not just Catholic) on our shoulders? Judge not I say.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='25 August 2009 - 12:51 PM' timestamp='1251215485' post='1956159']
Well or not? I think in the past it's been incredibly insular & even totalitarian and this has effected the way it's responded to external challenges. For example the Gallileo affair, the way we dealt with the Cathars and the index of forbidden books are things I'd rather forget. However I am very proud of the way the Church dealt with evolution, especially Pius XII in 1950 by saying it's an acceptable theory as long as it concerns itself with the evolution of the body (not the soul) from pre-existant matter.

In my opinion someone who has considered other peoples viewpoints and still held onto their faith is far more impressive than someone who simply ignores anything/anyone that contradicts them and turns inward. Then on the other hand someone who engages with other peoples viewpoints risks falling away from the faith whereas someone who surrounds themself with like-minded individuals doesn't place themself in that danger. I still think I'd prefer the former.

I'd love to know everyones thoughts on all this? I'm still piecing it together myself.
[/quote]

Regardless of how much right and wrong there actually was on various sides, we should learn about our history rather than forget it. Some people don't have the analytical mind or the personal desire to actively engage various points of view contrary to their own beliefs. I don't hold that against them. The purpose of the Gospel is Love, and if the Church is too insular, it is because many of us refuse opportunities to sacrifically love our neighbors (myself included), especially by prayer and fasting. Sure, I personally enjoy learning about different philosophies and the experiences of people who disagree with the Church, but the fulfillment comes from loving them and having a sincere desire for their repentance and conversion.

We all prefer to dwell on scandal, and as much as the Church is known for her saints, there seems to be a disconnect in peoples' minds between the lives of saints and "the Church." Consider how the Crusades are a period of scandal, but how many people know about St. Francis' courageous visit with the sultan? And he didn't go primarily to learn about Islam or experience a different culture, though he surely did along the way: his purpose was the share the Gospel. He didn't let all the politics around him that were outside of his control get between him and loving this sultan of whom nearly all other Christians were afraid.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='26 August 2009 - 12:16 PM' timestamp='1251303379' post='1956284']
I don't know that it is with good reason. Read my post above. The scriptures tell us that in general our leaders have concern for our souls. Heb 13:17 and that they protect us from ravenous wolves. We make judgements about times that we do not even understand. Were we in Leo X's shoes. Do we have all the facts he had and do we understand the gravity of sitting in that chair of Peter with the weight of all the souls in the world (not just Catholic) on our shoulders? Judge not I say.
[/quote]

Wow. That totally wasn't condescending.

For a Church leader to have concern for the souls that he's entrusted to is one thing. To try to guide them as a rider guides a horse with his reigns is another. If the Church were to instate a list of forbidden media (not even necessarily books), it would blow up in their face because 1) people are giving less and less of a rip about what the Church is saying in today's world (not defending them, just saying) because while the Church has management issues of their own that are making them look inadequate (sex scandals/cover-ups, for instance), the only thing that most good people can do is find ways to defend their legitimate authority in spite of it, and 2) people would feel as if their intelligence was being slighted because they wouldn't even be given the opportunity to discern for their own self what's good and what's evil. The purpose of the teaching of the Church is to form the conscience, not give specific instructions as to what someone can and can't view. There are so many things that the Church doesn't even know about, so many things that aren't even worthy of human contemplation. It would be a waste of time. That's why there are Catholic apostolates and organizations that give commentary and analysis on pop culture items like Catholic radio, Catholic Answers, certain topics covered on EWTN broadcasts, and the like. Let them give commentary and allow people to gain knowledge from a Catholic perspective. Besides, the Church could do a lot more useful things with her time, like excommunicating Nancy Pelosi and the like.

[thessalonian]

Actually many do give a rip about what the Church says. I do and I'll bet half or better of the people on this board do. Did you read my other post. I agree that the list is not practical today. But my point is about judging different times when people could not read and were at the mercy of those who could. You take my statements out of context.

[CatherineM]

Having survived 2000 years, I guess the church must have figured out some adequate way to deal with challenges.

[Apotheoun]

I see what Thessalonian is saying, and I agree that many Catholics would avoid reading a book that the Church's hierarchy has declared off limits.


Does the Church have the authority to censor certain books? Yes.

Should it use that authority? Only with great care.

Can the Church decide to simply warn the faithful about harmful books, i.e., without applying any canonical censure against those who still read the book in question? Yes.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='26 August 2009 - 02:01 PM' timestamp='1251309666' post='1956375']
Actually many do give a rip about what the Church says. I do and I'll bet half or better of the people on this board do. Did you read my other post. I agree that the list is not practical today. But my point is about judging different times when people could not read and were at the mercy of those who could. You take my statements out of context.
[/quote]

I meant people in general, not just Catholics. Besides, what makes you think that while this is a rather popular Catholic discussion forum, that is represents the vast majority of Catholics in the world? Most people in general have better things to do than spend the amount of time on the internet that we do, yet alone Catholics.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='26 August 2009 - 02:01 PM' timestamp='1251309666' post='1956375']
Actually many do give a rip about what the Church says. I do and I'll bet half or better of the people on this board do. Did you read my other post. I agree that the list is not practical today. But my point is about judging different times when people could not read and were at the mercy of those who could. You take my statements out of context.
[/quote]

I meant people in general, not just Catholics. Besides, what makes you think that while this is a rather popular Catholic discussion forum, that is represents the vast majority of Catholics in the world? Most people in general have better things to do than spend the amount of time on the internet that we do, yet alone Catholics.

[iheartjp2]

Gaaaah! How do you delete posts?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='26 August 2009 - 01:06 PM' timestamp='1251309991' post='1956381']
Does the Church have the authority to censor certain books? Yes.

Should it use that authority? Only with great care.

Can the Church decide to simply warn the faithful about harmful books, i.e., without applying any canonical censure against those who still read the book in question? Yes.
[/quote]