On Political Use of Catechisms: Vs. Fundamentalist Attempts to Capture "the" Truth
In response to the way the Catholic Catechism is often cited on threads of the NCR blog café, I’ve recently been mulling over the how the catechism is used today in discussions in which politics and theology intersect. It strikes me that some Catholic political activists allied with the religious right are intent to use the catechism to marginalize voices that do not read the Catholic tradition as these political activists do—-that is, to support a neoconservative political agenda.
It interests me that right-wing Catholics are choosing to use the catechism as a political weapon—-as an answer book that contains all Catholic truth, which can then be used as a sword to divide the flock into true and false Catholics, for political reasons. I’m not surprised that this is going on. Right-wing political groups have laid the foundation for this use of the catechism in recent years by funding absurd Catholic answers websites and Catholic answers journals, as well as Catholic voter guides, all of which hammer the rich tradition of Catholic theology, belief, and thought into tiny, rigid “answers” that support the political outlook of neo-conservative activists.
The more this method of corralling the Catholic vote and assuring that it is predictably "right" falters—-and there are some strong indicators that it is not working so well in this election cycle as it has done in recent ones—-the more adamant and angry those promoting the Catholic answers approach become. The fascist tendency that runs always just beneath the surface of Catholicism is very evident in their use of the catechism today. As they sense that they cannot any longer command all Catholics to toe their political line, they step up the insistence on the catechism as the ultimate arbiter of Catholic truth (indeed, of all truth everywhere). These right-wing Catholic activists demand that those who do not accept catechetical teachings in the most literal and fundamentalist way possible should absent themselves from the church and renounce the name Catholic.
In my view, the authentic catholic tradition, catholicism at its best, seeks fidelity to what the word “catholic” actually means. Catholicism at its best invites everyone to the table, excludes no one, recognizing that the Lord who sets the table is the sole judge of the hearts of those who come, and honoring the Lord’s invitation of all sinners. This authentic way of being Catholic is, unfortunately, a way of being Catholic that infuriates those who want the church to use its sacraments and its teachings—-above all, the catechism—-as political weapons to whip dissenters into shape and to assure that voters choose the one political option they believe is justifiably Catholic.
As I’ve thought about the political use of the catechism lately, I’ve been asking myself about why I simply cannot buy into the Catholic-answers approach to the catechism, the use of the catechism as a tool to bludgeon dissenters over the head with, or as a sword to divide the flock into a tiny cadre of true believers and all the rest of us, the vast majority, sinful slobs who just can’t cut muster.
To be specific, I’ve been thinking about wisdom—-or, perhaps better, Wisdom. There’s a venerable tradition in Judaism and Christianity that sees the entire spiritual life as a journey towards Sophia, Wisdom. There’s a whole genre of literature within the Jewish scriptures (and strands of it run through the Christians scriptures as well) describing how one sets out on the path to Sophia (and yes, Sophia is a female name, and there are longstanding currents in scripture and Christian tradition equating Her with the Holy Spirit).
Ultimately, I reject the way right-wing Catholics are trying to use the catechism for political reasons today, because it is not wise (in my view). This use of the catechism does not place us on the path to Wisdom. It does not do so for the following reasons:
• It is never wise to limit truth to a single source.
• It is never wise to assume truth can be locked into a book, any book.
• Truth is never like a set of answers—a set of things—to be pulled out of a bag we alone own, and produced as if on cue when it’s demanded.
• It is never wise to assume that one’s own understanding of truth is The Truth.
• It is never wise to believe that we can control and manipulate truth.
• Truth is not like that: it has the upper hand, if it’s truth.
• We know when we have met truth, because it overwhelms us: it moves us; it shatters us; it points us to revision of how we see things, and to transformation of our lives.
• Truth speaks from many different mouths, in many different voices.
• Because truth speaks with many mouths and in many voices, what it has to say can never be packaged into a single, univocal package.
• Those who hear truth hear contradiction, tension, yin and yang, yes and no.
• Because truth points to mystery beyond our control, when we meet it, it invites us on a journey—on the path to Sophia/Wisdom.
• We lose our sense of balance, control, assured place, when we set out with truth on the path to Sophia.
• Truth controls us, not vice versa. This is why truth can never be shut up in a book that we own and use to our own ends.
• Truth is never complete in this life. No one possesses it utterly and completely.
• Truth is eschatological. It is a horizon. It is ahead of us, not behind us.
• Wisdom demands that we listen especially to the voices we (personally, in our social institutions, in our churches) exclude because we don’t want to hear the complacency-shattering truth they tell.
• Truth comes far more often from those at the bottom of the social order than those at the top; those at the top have a vested (and self-serving) interest in limiting what can be seen and in controlling “truth,” while those at the bottom see the wider picture, including inconvenient realities those at the top try to hide.
• Truth demands willingness to foster community, respect for complementarity, and respect for many different perspectives.
• Truth demands justice, the attempt to create a social order in which those whose voices are extinguished, silenced, muffled, distorted, finally have the chance to speak.
• Truth and justice point to a table at which every voice has a place. No one can have a voice without bread, work, the social place and social respect that having a job, access to healthcare, etc., provide.
William D. Lindsey
The title of this forum
The title of this forum topic is "On Political Use of Catechisms: Vs. Fundamentalist Attempts to Capture "the" Truth". We have certainly seen attempts to do that in other forum topics but here also, to use the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a type of 'hammer' to nail anyone who questions, who has a different perspective of what is happening in the world, the church and in their lives today--by utilizing what is stated in the CCC (almost as a bible).
I have stated it, if not in this forum topic, then in the other that dealt with the Catechism, that the CCC is an excellent reference book. And it truly is. But it is a REFERENCE, nonetheless. It is not Sacred Scripture and it was never intended to provide all answers for everything that happens within the life of God's people. It is subject to varieties of intrepretation---since it was published in English 14 years ago. We have been and will continue to be presented with situations that were never imagined when the CCC was being written.
Even Canon Law has a variety of interpretations coming from different schools of thought---at least 7 or 8 of them. And Canon Law is very different in its scope and purpose from the CCC (as William pointed out in one of his postings). And these interpretations are valid, licit, whatever words of verification that I can use--EVEN CANON LAW, almost as ancient as the Church itself--is subject to a variety of intrepretations.
Only the Holy Spirit's presence and power must be recognized and affirmed as central to any authentic guidance of the church. However, the Western Church has (and unfortunately still often does) neglect this pneumatological element in its ecclesiology. As recently as the mid-twentieth century (and in the conservative elements of the church even today), only two functions for the Spirit were/are recognized in relationship to the Church: 1) guaranteeing the teaching magisterium, and 2) assisting the inner life of individual believers. The work of the Second Vatican Council, however, went a long way (and is still moving) toward correcting this centuries-old neglect of the Spirit.
The New Testament describes the extensive activities of the Holy Spirit related to the life of God's people---and since we are the people of the New Testament, it applies to people today and in the future as well.
The Spirit:
a) gives life, empowers, energizes, renews (Jn. 7, 37-39; 2 Cor 3; Acts 1,8)
b) teaches truth, bears witness, scrutinizes, instructs (Jn 14, 16-17 and 26;
Jn 15, 26; Mt 10, 19-20; Acts 1, 1-2; 1 Cor 2, 10-13)
c) gives gifts, charisms, ministries (1 Cor 12, 7-11; Eph 4)
d) prays, intercedes, advocates (Rom 8, 26-27; Jn 16, 7)
e) forgives, reconciles (Jn 20, 21-23)
f) guides, leads, directs (Acts 13, 2-4; 15, 28-29; 16, 6-8; Rom 8, 14)
g) gathers, unifies, builds up the community (2 Cor 13, 13; 1 Cor 12, 13)
h) stands for freedom (2 Cor 3, 17; Gal 4 & 5; Rom 8, 2; 1 Thes 5, 19-21)
These Spirit-actions are truly vital functions, like the circulation of blood and the breathing of air for the human body. They give life to the people of God, the Church and impel its mission in individuals, in local congregations, dioceses, and the worldwide communion.
The Holy Spirit's presence in the Church is not like that of some stone statue of a Greek or Roman god in a temple. Rather, the Spirit makes the church grow, continually renewing it, and leading it toward perfect union with its spouse (LG 4).
The Spirit gives gifts to everyone, for benefit, for the common good. And the Spirit gives these gifts (charisms), ministries, works, and energies freely and according to the Spirit's own initiative (1 Cor 12, 4-11; LG 12)
These talents are certainly not just restricted to clergy or hierarchs, the Magisterium. They are widespread and recurrent, like flowers blooming everywhere. These gifts are found in the folks who post on this website as well. The Spirit lives moves and breathes in their questions, their struggles, and in their desire to move as the Spirit speaks to their hearts. Freedom is central to the new law of love whispered by the Spirit to the human heart. This is the law of grace. It is not only freedom from an old law which provoked transgressions, it is a feeedom for service and love. The church itself must always harken to the declaration that, "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom" (2 Cor 3, 17) This is the good news, that Jesus brought to the human race.
And this will be the last time that I am posting on this particular forum. I believe that we could be going back and forth forever---and not come to a conclusion.
Littlebear~ "I believe that
Littlebear~ "I believe that we could be going back and forth forever---and not come to a conclusion", you wrote. Don't underestimate yourself littlebear. You and William have contributed some powerful messages and learning moments in this thread which have been instructive and persuasive and the overwhelming agreement from most who responded has clearly demonstrated the connection with the right minded. It has been Thomas and Annedanielson who have persisted in the repetitive and predictable denounciation founded on a desperate clinging to the lifejacket of mindless obiesence which they call faith. It would be reasonable to predicate that the silent observers follow a similar distribution. Personally I think that the conclusion from reason and observation is quite clear.
Little Bear, I really hope
Little Bear, I really hope you only mean this is the last post on this thread, not the Cafe. This is a brilliant post and to lose your insight would be a grievous blow to this forum.
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
Little Bear, the 4 rating is
Little Bear, the 4 rating is not a positive statement about your decision to refrain from posting further (though I understand your frustration).
Your contributions are immensely valuable, and we'll be the poorer for not receiving them. I say this as a contributor to the dialogue on the blog, and not as someone who feels he owns the blog simply because he made the opening statement.
William D. Lindsey
Thomas---I am an official
Thomas---I am an official teacher within the Catholic Church and have been recognized as such for years and years. I began teaching when your soul was still in God's pocket. I have not only read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but I have taught it many, many times. My former students are engaged in many walks and professions of life. And a number of them are now priests, diocesan liturgists, directors of vocations in their respective dioceses, and directors of catechesis in their parishes, etc.
And since my childhood, I have read and studied Sacred Scripture. I read it daily, pray it daily. I have had extensive courses in it and I have taught several courses in Sacred Scripture. This year will be no exception--I will be teaching a 5 week course on Paul---since this is the Pauline year. But that's enough about my background.
The people who post on this forum, from what I have observed, have backgrounds that are equally deep, rich, broad and varigated. I have seen nothing from any of them that suggests that they are either uniformed or at the beginning stages of their Journey with God or their journey in life.
Yet you have taken it upon yourself to act as if you are an officially appointed member of the "ecclesiastical police" or the V.I.A. (Vatican Intelligence Agency), whose sworn duty is to counsel, and to bring to repentance/conversion all of the 'liberal rogues' on this website who are "coloring outside the lines determined by the official Church." They have that right to do so.
While I cannot presume to comment for any of the others who post here, I do speak for myself. By no stretch of the imagination are you my mentor, my spiritual director, my confessor or my ecclesastical superior (who is a very wise person who reads postings on as many Catholic websites as possible (including this one) to better understand where Catholics are today on different issues). I can respect where you are coming from, and you have every right to post your ideas and positions---but please stop wagging your finger like an insufferable schoolmaster out of a Charles Dickens novel---I am not your student---none of us are.
Dear Little Bear - Jn 7:15
Dear Little Bear -
Jn 7:15 The Jews marveled at it, saying, "How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?"
Jn 7:16 So Jesus answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me;
Jn 7:17 if any man's will is to do his will, he shall know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.
Jn 7:18 He who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but he who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood."
There are authentic teachers who can say with Jesus, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me." And there are others, who shout louder and louder, and who get angrier and angrier if they are ever corrected, but who cannot put truth into their empty words.
I paraphrase to you (see Jn 18:23) more words of Jesus:
"If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you attack me?"
Please show me in magisterial documents where you see error in anything I have said on this forum. If you are so highly educated, and have such impressive experience, then surely my errors are very simple for you to point out. I would sincerely be grateful for any true correction. Otherwise, please stop the ad hominem attacks, and the caricatures and presumptions that you and others keep making about me. You know almost nothing in fact of my background, or age, or experiences.
The Church has it right, Little Bear. If and when you stay with the Church, then and only then are you a good teacher.
"If and when you stay with
"If and when you stay with the Church, then and only then are you a good teacher." ???
Thomas, I don't think you heard Little Bear very well. There's no "if" about whether he's "staying with" the Church. He tells us his connection to the Church as an official teacher in the posting to which you're responding.
I have to say, it really does perturb me when some groups within the Church set themselves up as the arbiters of the faith of others. There's something really--disturbing--about someone implying that a person who has just told you he's an official teacher in the Church is not authentically Catholic.
I've just gotten through reading a comment on one of the news articles about how Archbishop Nienstedt of St. Paul gave such lavish hospitality to the Republicans gathered there this week. The person commenting says something like, Any Catholic who votes for Obama the baby-killer should be excommunicated.
I thought about writing a response to that, noting that I have not read any information that Obama has killed or plans to kill babies, and that I intend to give him my vote.
Then I decided it's futile to get into that kind of shouting match: you're a Catholic! No, I am! No, you're not!
It hasn't gotten us anywhere good for lo these many years, and it's not going to get us anywhere good in the future, if we keep it up. This ravenous need of some Catholics to see others hounded out of the Church--it does not seem to come from a good place inside us or our Church.
William D. Lindsey
William, Having an
William,
Having an "official" teaching position "in the Church" certainly does not automatically make a person's teachings true! If this were the case, every dissident and free thinker would have to admit that the Magisterium is right! That would eliminate almost every debate of this forum immediately.
In fact the Magisterium IS protected from error by Christ Himself. This guarantee of teaching truth does NOT, however, cover every person who teaches in the Church. There are, sadly, many who abuse the teaching positions they have been given. It is difficult for me to believe that you do not know this.
If you would read an account of Obama's radical anti-life positions, read this:
http://www.billhinkle.us/files/ncrobama.pdf
There is a place of peace in this life, William, and that place is in the Truth of Christ. "In Me you have peace," He said. Union with Christ is not automatic, is not determined by external labels or titles. And it comes with a Cross.
A Vatican Intelligence
A Vatican Intelligence Agency? Hmmm. I think I like that idea. Maybe they should call it The Vatican Correction Agency. Great idea, Little Bear!
If you ever wanted to show
If you ever wanted to show how off-base your idea of what church leadership should be--at the core--you've done it all in one post, even or especially by the church's own definitions of leadership. Unless, of course, you'd like to re-consider what you're saying?
Annie O, you are sooo right.
Annie O, you are sooo right. The "Vatican Correction Agency" would not work. Too many might misinterpret the intention of the agency. How about, "The Bringing Into Conformity Agency?" Oops, same problem with that one. Perhaps, "The Something Substituted In Place Of What Is Wrong Committee"? Wait! I think I'v got it! This will definately work:
"THE VATICAN RECTIFICATION COMMITTEE" I think I like the sound of that!
annedanielson, I'm torn
annedanielson, I'm torn between a desire to support the infrequent use of humor on your part--which I love--and the fact that you are not understanding the gulf between your version of the role of the vatican and the one the papal office sees for itself. Does it matter that B16 would not like your idea of his role? That he is telling the catholic world in many different ways that he is heading the papacy in a different direction than even his own talk of ten years ago? That he has changed in his approach since he became pope from what he was when he tried to be what you would like the role of the whole papacy and vatican bureaucracy to be?
And, if your idea of what is catholic is "conformity" is your model of organization like a military school or what? I'm a bit lost on where you are.
I thought we had already
I thought we had already settled this with 'reform of the reformers'. Where's HT when you need him?
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
"...my ecclesastical
"...my ecclesastical superior (who is a very wise person who reads postings on as many Catholic websites as possible (including this one) to better understand where Catholics are today on different issues.)"
Here is what a very wise person recently said in regards to the question: "As a Catholic,if you do not believe what the Catholic Church teaches, what do you do?" His answer: "You change your mind."
WEll, okay, annedanielson,
WEll, okay, annedanielson, let me ask the questions that come to my mind here (not that you will respond to the likes of me...)...
The wise person, when changing his mind, does he just decide to spout what is in the catechism because he is wise enough to say he believes what he is "supposed" to believe? Does he think about what he now so wisely "believes"? Does he talk to anyone else on the way to "believing" what he now says he wisely "believes"? Does he do this in the length of a heartbeat so that no one can guess that he actually had to work through/think through what he now so wisely "believes"? Does he pretend he "believes" what he "believes" until he actually does "believe" it (like he doesn't any longer remember what his "unbelief" was about)? Does he live in fear of the condemnation of others who "believe" in more the exact words of a memorized catechism? Is this wise man afraid to face his God because he sees his God as not understanding that the human beings which [He] created are ACTUALLY human beings, whose 'mind is not his mind' and 'ways are not his ways.'
I say this, wise or unwise as I stand before you. The wise person--and the good catholic person--when asked the question, "As a catholic, if you do not believe what the catholic church teaches, what do you do?" responds as St. Thomas the Apostle did, "Lord I believe. Help my unbelief." St. Thomas the Apostle stood the ground of his unbelief--even in the face of the Lord--and honestly presented himself to the Lord. He didn't feel any need to pretend to things to look good to others or to God.
Pretense itself makes the work of the Holy Spirit harder, and such judging of others (oh, would you please just be wise enough to say you believe...) makes the work of the Holy Spirit harder. Since you've been on here a long time, annedanielson, why don't you just sit down and have a cuppa coffee with me and let's talk.
Annie, here is a novel
Annie, here is a novel thought:
If one does not believe the teachings of the catholic church
And has faithfully prayed for guidance, and receives guidance
And still does not believe the teachings of the catholic church
Then, perhaps, the teachings are wrong, and the ones whose minds
are not HIS minds are those who created the teachings, and the ones
whose ways are not HIS ways are those who created the teachings.
I disagree slighty with your last statement. While nothing is greater than God, we do have sufficient historical evidence to support the following generalizations:
Pretense makes the work of the Holy Spirit impossible in the pretentious
Condemnation makes the work of the Holy Spirit impossible in those who condemn
And I will agree with most
And I will agree with most of what you say as well, since I don't believe that the church teachings as presented are always right at all. I realize that what I wrote sounds as though I'm praying to think like the church, but that wasn't really what I was trying to say, but rather, that if doubting thomas was able to stand before the Lord without pretense over total belief in His very identity, belief in church teachings as presented pales in importance to God in comparison. I think church teachings are frequently gendered, for instance and without question, and often so out of touch with reality/science as to be simply long-standing cognitive musings by powerful men.
But I don't agree as to the "impossible" when it comes to the Holy Spirit. But then, I also believe that Jesus is so really the Eucharist that we should hand him out on street corners to any takers and watch the healing begin.
:-)
If as a Catholic who sees
If as a Catholic who sees more deeply into what the Catholic Church teaches than do some self-appointed interpreters, what do you do? Forgive them.
Actually, Marie R., these
Actually, Marie R., these are not "some self-appointed interpreters", these are God appointed interpreters.
I'll believe these men are
I'll believe these men are God appointed interpreters when they demonstrate by action that the Spirit is working through them, as in when they actually do the things that Jesus did and Jesus said all of us could do. In the meantime in my bood they are SELF ANNOINTED.
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
Actually annedanielson, I
Actually annedanielson, I sense that MarieR was referring to people like you and Thomas as "some self-appointed interpreters". Still hold that (you) are "God appointed interpreters"?
This article really hits
This article really hits home for me. In search of Catholic conversation on the internet, I stumbled upon a forum where every conversation about every issue is sprinkled with doses of direct quotes from the Catechism-usually to "correct" and "instruct" someone who deviates from the accepted interpretation of the majority of the posters. Like fundamentalists in every other religion, these well intentioned people use the Catechism selectively, and use it to squelch any hint of questioning or dissent.
I am thankful that I found this forum.
Do justice, love tenderly, and walk humbly with your God.
fitswimmer, I invite you, in
fitswimmer, I invite you, in the name of Justice, to use your Catechism to instruct or correct me in regards to the teachings of the Catholic Church, anytime you wish.
Fitswimmer, I second Dennis
Fitswimmer, I second Dennis in welcoming you. Thanks for joining the conversation. We look forward to your contribution.
William D. Lindsey
P.S. I apologize for misspelling your name in the first version of this posting. For aging eyes, the fine print of usernames on this website is a challenge.
Dear fitswimmer~ You will
Dear fitswimmer~ You will not be spared the fundamentalist right wingers here either. But please stay with us.
Thomas,it is pathetic that
Thomas,it is pathetic that the only people whom you will recognizes as legitmate transmitters of truth are canonized saints. Perhaps, then, you will recognize the prophet Jeremiah who, speaking in God's name, states "I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." (Jer 31:33-34).
No one can learn to love from a book---not from the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" or the "1984 Code of Canon Law". One learns to love, by loving, by being loved---by engaging in a relationship of love with another or THE OTHER. If a person does not have the love of God in his/her heart---no reference book (CCC) or coda (canon law) will give it to them. The Law of God is written in human hearts--in our consciences, by the hand of God, and we are expected to live it out in our loving relationships with God and with one another.
It is St. Paul who also recognized this when he observed that the Gentiles, who had never received the prescriptions of the Mosaic law---had responded lovingly to God, who had first loved them. Before any Catechism book was written, or given to them, Paul wrote that they "show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts." Thus their consciences will bear witness for them when God judges their hidden good and loving works through Christ Jesus (Rom 2: 14-16).
Thus repeating what I stated before, the more complete the mystery of love, the more freedom it confers. The Church also recognizes this and the fact of the primacy of human conscience when it states:
"For inscribed in their hearts by God, human beings have a law whose observance is their dignity and in accordance with which they are to be judged."
(Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World Today, December 6, 1965)
And again----
"People grasp and acknowledge the precepts of the divine law by means of their own consciences, which they are bound to follow faithfully in all their activity so as to come to God, their end."
(Declaration on Religious Freedom 3, December 7, 1965)
This is the evidence of the true hand and heart of our loving God!
The evidence of the true
The evidence of the true hand and heart of our loving God is a conscience formed in communion with God. God so loved the World, that He sent His only Son, so that we could Know and Love Him. The Mission of the Catholic Church is to protect and proclaim The Deposit of Faith, which includes the Sacraments and all that Christ Has revealed as necessary for our Salvation.
Brilliant! :: "No one can
Brilliant! :: "No one can love to learn from a book -" and then you write, "The Law of God is written in human hearts--in our consciences..."
YES! Love is the Law and it is, by the grace of God, written in our hearts that we know it and that we have the opportunity to CHOOSE it!
This is a wonderfully succinct and profound theology you teach LB! Thank you for an economic purchase on a complex subject.
And isn't it so fitting that you should give this teaching as one prepares for the coming Sunday's lections; especially Paul's Letter to the Romans in Chapter 12:
"Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor."
Thanks, again.
May God's peace be with you,
e+
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." (John 20:21)
Little Bear, You seem to
Little Bear,
You seem to assert that you have no need for anyone to counsel or teach you - not the Catechism, certainly, and I suppose not anyone who disagrees with you. I wonder if you need the Bible? Maybe not - if the truth is now in you, I guess you have no need for anything or anyone.
Your misunderstanding of the meaning of freedom (as well as of love) may be at the foundation of this perspective of yours. At the risk of being ignored, may I please suggest, sincerely, that you read the Catechism section on that very issue - freedom.
"Every man does what is right in his own eyes." Tornados have not left a wake of destruction to compare with the catastrophic wake of this prideful error!
Please reconsider. You can thank me later.
Thomas
Thomas, it is glaringly
Thomas, it is glaringly obvious that you owe Little Bear an apology for the words above. (Aug 29, 4.06pm) Your words are grossly insolent and insulting. They do you no credit.
Please consider more carefully before you post again.
I cannot sit back and listen
I cannot sit back and listen to you Thomas and not admonish you for doing what you have accused others of doing here, and your insistent and persistent personal attack against people and your general idea that only you are gifted with the Holy Spirit! Your view rather says that "you have no need for anyone to counsel or teach you!" Your view narrows the Holy Spirit down to just the interpretation of the Catechism's. You have narrowed down all faith and understanding into one interpretation of faith and love, a limited and legalistic understanding, watered down concepts, the hierarchy's interpretation of freedom and love. Do you need the Bible? It would seem from your comments that you don't need anything more than the Catechism.
You are, in fact, doing what is right in your own eyes! You then accuse those who don't share your view as having "no need for anything or anyone." How hypocritical! Prideful error on your part!
I am attempting to be
I am attempting to be faithful to what the Church teaches, dear butterfly. If I deviate from the teachings of the Church, please help me by correcting me and setting me straight. Only I insist that you use the teachings of the Church - and not merely your own human opinions about truth.
If my posts are at one with the teachings of the Church, then please take up your disagreements with the good Lord, who sent the Church and who keeps her in His truth.
Thomas
You have every right to face
You have every right to face the world and make decisions as you see fit. But the posture you are castigating Butterfly for is the way Jesus consistently faced the world. If someone is hungry on the Sabbath and the law forbids work, He let them pick grain. If someone needs healing at a time it is forbidden, He healed anyway.
Even dumb animals in distress took precedence in His mind over the strictures of the law. He refused to stone the woman as the law commanded. He refused to admonish the woman with the isue of blood for violating the purity codes. The law was made for people, not people for the law.
Thomas, no one else here is
Thomas, no one else here is deviating from the teachings of the Church either. These things are not as simple as you are reading them to be in the Catechism. You are missing the concept in favor of the example. Life goes beyond the situations discussed specifically in the Catechism, and it is important that when life is not an exact match, people know how to think with God. It really is not appropriate for someone to look at someone else's life and choices and decide that because they don't match up with the Catechism that they are sinning more than you whose life appears TO YOU to conform itself.
Marie, Concepts can be
Marie,
Concepts can be interesting, but life comes as examples, not mere academic "issues". In life we must apply valid moral concepts to our own subjective life-examples - and we are not free to so "subjectivize" our own examples that we can set aside valid and universal moral truths.
Because an unplanned pregnancy interferes with my life, I am not therefore free to set aside the moral principle that life is sacred, and replace that moral principle with a false "priority" of personal convenience and ease. Thus the Catechism rightly insists that there are absolute moral truths, and absolute ontological truths, and absolute sacramental truths - these truths have been entrusted to His Church by the good Lord. We are not free to replace His Truth with our own. It is better to suffer from injustice, than to become unjust.
Please let me know when things "not as simple" have the power to change universal truth. Moral truth is not determined by circumstance except in this instance: the circumstance of an action can make the act an evil one, even when the moral object chosen was in itself morally good. But circumstance cannot ever make an objectively evil act into a good one. "We may not do evil, so that good may result," as St. Paul taught.
Methinks the claws are out.
Methinks the claws are out.
My, thomas, how closed and
My, thomas, how closed and righteously certain you are in your judgments. I don't mean to be judgmental, but you appear to exhibit the classic symptoms of the Religious Paralysis Syndrome (RPS).
No, I fear it may be worse:
No, I fear it may be worse: a doctrinology superation...
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." (John 20:21)
Little Bear isnt saying he
Little Bear isnt saying he doesnt need anyone or anything, he is expounding on what those of us on the mystic path have learned and are practicing ... that the Holy Spirit within us will guide us to make wise choices, wise decisions, guide us with a level and degree of wisdom that can never be condensed and consolidated into a literary work. (1Cor 12:8)(Eph 1:17)(1Cor 2:6)NIV
The reason the new testament is so full of parables is the Jesus recognized the limitations of the written word in conveying wisdom. The parables are an attempt to convey the wisdom that cannot be conveyed by legalistic prose. (Col 2:23)NIV
While the catechisms are valuable to a point, and while the scriptures are valuable to a point, they are the beginning, only the beginning of wisdom. To attempt to carry them beyond that point invites legalism, which utlimately stifles the spiritual growth of the individual and the community.
The scribes and pharisees are the example Jesus gave us to show the danger of legalism carried to the extreme, legalism that ultimately destroyed the community instead of enhancing it.
An extreme modern example of the failing of legalism:
According to catechism:
Abortion is wrong.
Abortion is also acceptable in some cases. -- no way you say???
Killing an enemy combatant in war is acceptable
When the enemy killed is a pregnant woman
The person who killed her also aborted her unborn child
The abortion in this case is unfortunate, but acceptable
The same thing would apply in a defense of self or family situation where deadly force was necessary.
How can one deplore the medical abortion of an unborn, and not deplore these cases with equal fervor? To the mystic, both are deplorable, to the legalist, only one is.
On a side note, in many articles the magisterial justification for the anti-abortion stance has been "what are you going to say to that soul that was aborted when you get to heaven". Indeed, using that thread of logic, what will our soldiers say to all of those unborn whose lives they aborted? What will those who approve of the war say to all of those unborn whose lives were aborted? What will the magisterial authorities who have taken no action against the war say to those unborn lives who were aborted?
Wisdom cannot be found in a book. Never has, never will.
I want to applaud
I want to applaud the author of this article, and the wisdom and maturity he expresses in it.
Newhope, thank you. I
Newhope, thank you. I appreciate your kindness, and am always happy to hear if something I write reaches others.
William D. Lindsey
what do you think of the
what do you think of the code of cannon law?
Since it is only applied to
Since it is only applied to those below the rank of bishop ....
not much.
i guess you missed the
i guess you missed the sections in there on the hierarchy of the church sections of bishops, priests, deacons, their conduct
No, I did not miss it.
No, I did not miss it. Neither did I miss the fact that they frequently ignore it and do whatever suits them in the moment, then use "infallibility" and "in Gods name" to justify their actions.
like perhaps some choose to
like perhaps some choose to ignore doctrines of the faith.
WEll, let's see here...Let's
WEll, let's see here...Let's just weigh those two for a minute. Hierarchy and clergy that use power and privilege to distort the message of Christ to the point where some of them attack children and young people sexually and others cover it up so that the culture will be protected from the "world".....or people who go about their lives trying to figure out how to live them out well and happily who don't know or accept all the doctrines of the church in all their massive verbiage (do you claim to even understand all that talk?).
I don't think there's much similarity in those two, do you really, mavfan46?
The more one emphasizes "the
The more one emphasizes "the laws" or code of "canon law" the more one resembles a Pharisee and denies the teachings of Jesus Christ to "love one another."
Mavfan, if you're asking me
Mavfan, if you're asking me as the author of the posting that started this thread what I think of the code of canon law, I truly don't know what you mean by that question.
I don't want to ignore a direct question, but would need some elucidation of the question even to know how to begin answering.
William D. Lindsey
I am closing this table. The
I am closing this table. The thread of conversation is too difficult to follow.
Dennis Coday, NCR cafe management