The Attractiveness of the Christian Message

Howard Duncan

I know this is old news now, but so is the resurrection of Jesus. The Extraordinary Synod on the Family that ended on October 19, 2014, was extraordinary not only because of it’s session being a necessary preliminary discussion of issues in preparation for the Ordinary Session next year, but for the extraordinary difference in the mid-term and the final report of the Synod.

The Vatican stated the agenda for this Synod and clearly indicated that it was searching for ways to be more effective in teaching doctrinal messages while recognizing the problems that, in my view, are not new, but only intensified and popularized in our current age.

The challenge for this synod is to try to bring back to today’s world, which in some way resembles that of the early days of the Church, the attractiveness of the Christian message about marriage and the family, highlighting the joy which they give, but, at the same time, respond, in a true and charitable way (cf. Eph 4:15), to the many problems which have a special impact on the family today and emphasizing that true moral freedom does not consists in doing what one feels or living only by one’s feelings but is realized only in acquiring the true good.  (Synod14 – First General Congregation)

The early Synod report, in many cases ignoring this documented intention, produced a flurry of secular and Catholic writing activity throughout the world. Most of this writing emanated from the writer or publisher’s worldview. This is not because Catholic writers do not produce articles and posts out of their worldview, which is Catholic, it is because the secular media outnumbers the Catholic media and it rarely understands the Church well enough to report objectively or to a meaningful and truthful depth. If you primarily immerse yourself in the secular media’s stories, you are fed the blow by blow account of the mano a mano confrontation or given limp superficial reporting.

For example, these sentences from this New York Times story I happened upon, which cloaks it’s subjective and secular worldview in muted English sentences, headlined A Shift In Tone. This story on the first day of the mid-term report, the Relatio post disceptationem (Report after debate)  .

…released a preliminary document on Monday calling for the church to welcome and accept gay people, unmarried couples and those who have divorced,…

…The synod has pitted those bishops who are in accord with Francis’s vision against those who insist that the church is at risk of betraying its definitive doctrines on marriage and homosexuality.

…However, the document reflects what appears to be a definite consensus among most bishops against same-sex marriage. (bold is mine, Elisabetta Povoledo & Laurie Goodstein NYT)

This is certainly not news. It is not even analysis or opinion. It is the who, what, when, where and why, but not much beyond that. It is just little tid-bits of information paraphrased according to the writers interest. The readers could have benefited from reading the actual report, or paragraph excerpts, instead of two writers trying to attach imminent doctrinal meaning or political like confrontation to issues that were meant to be topics to discuss.

The Times acknowledges in the same story that, “The bishops’ report…does not change church doctrine or teaching”, but the Times does not attempt to examine the apparently contradictory infamous error in translation about homosexuality that questioned if Catholics are capable of, “…accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine”.

An obvious conflict with doctrine, as valuing should have been translated as evaluating. Awkward language still, even with the correction. This was picked up and described as a “stunning shift” or “seismic shift” from Rome hoping that secular ways have finally overcome one of it’s last oppositions in the post-modern world!

With the emphasis on the particular sins committed by certain individuals and the dominance of “consensus” and “for or against” language, the larger more important story is completely lost. Asking such questions as:

  • Why are these particular sins being given a prominent position in Synod discussions?
  • How exactly have these people not been welcomed?
  • Questioning what “gifts and qualities” unique to homosexuals can “offer to the Christian community”, or what is there in being “gay” that is valuable that does not exist in those who are not same sex attracted?
  • How can adultery be ignored if a previous marriage is valid?
  • The most pressing of all questions; given that Church doctrine cannot change, does not the English translation and the exuberance of the gay community indicate that it is about to change, or is the translation suspect?

This article could have been written by another of the Times’ religious writers, Michael Paulson, but he too is spread thin by the need to understand all religions in an attempt to write in depth about Catholicism. That is shown here in this later corrected story regarding a basic and major understanding of priestly marriage.

Or, the Huffington Post (or  the HufPoo as I like to call it):

…without reaching a consensus on a number of hot-button topics. So where does that leave Francis’ papacy? And the church?

…Hard-liners claimed victory, and headlines spoke of Vatican “backtrack”

Change is especially hard for the Roman Catholic Church, which likes to present itself — and its teachings — as immutable.

(bold is mine, HufPoo)

The HuffPoo’s worldview (same thing as it’s editorial policy) has apparently reached a consensus and claimed a victory of ignorance over understanding the Catholic Church. But I realize that to change would be especially hard on readership statistics. Further analysis of this kind of trailer park journalism is not necessary.

What About the Catholic Media?

Rely on authoritative Catholic sources of opinion that truly dug into the story and not just applaud the possibility of fundamental change!

Not that disagreements were ignored or that fear of abandonment by the Magesterium was absent from Catholic bloggers, but the discussion  focused on the importance of doctrine and the cardinals involved as presenters of that discussion giving us a lesson in human fallibility – with language primarily.

One of my favorite writers, Sandro Magister, already started to analyze last March, one of the key issues that would dominate the Synod – Marriage and the Eucharist put forth by Cardinal Kasper and supported enthusiastically by Pope Francis. This kind of analysis was continued by the Catholic author and blogger Amy Welborn on October 4, just before the Synod began.

Another person along with Sandro Magister who is close to the action in Rome is Dr. Robert Moynihan, editor-in-chief of Inside the Vatican magazine. His newsletters about goings-on in the Vatican are a valuable insight for us so far away from the action. He analyses the very significant press conference of October 13 when the Relatio mentioned above was released. He reports in his newsletter:

Midway through the press conference, the American Catholic, Michael Voris, of ChurchMilitant.TVchallenges the prelates on this section.”Are the Synod Fathers proposing that ‘gifts and qualities’ flow from the sexual orientation of homosexuality?” he asks. “Is the Synod proposing that there is something innate in the homosexual orientation that transcends and uplifts the Catholic Church, the Christian community, and if so, what would those particular gifts be?”

In response, Archbishop Forte says: “I guess that what I want to express is that we must respect the dignity of every person, and the fact to be homosexual doesn’t mean that this dignity must be not recognized and promoted… I think it is the most important point, and also the attitude of the Church to welcome persons who have homosexual orientation is based on the dignity of the person they are.”

Cardinal Erdo was asked to answer the very last question of the press conference. The question was about Paragraph 52 and whether the language there  signified a shift in the Church’s attitude toward homosexual unions and their acceptance in society.

Father Lombardi gestured toward Erdo to answer, but Erdo declined to answer the question. Then he did more. Erdo gestured toward Archbishop Forte, and, almost as an aside, smiling broadly, said: “Quello che ha redatto il brano deve sapere cosa significa.” (“He who drafted that passage ought to know what it means.”)

In other words, that Forte had drafted those passages, and ought to answer the journalist’s question. At this precise moment, we understood something that we had not understood before, something that the Synod’s proceedings and the press conference had not revealed. We understood — if we may trust the accuracy of Erdo’s words — that Forte was “responsible” for those three paragraphs which were then inserted into the text Erdo edited.

Another interesting viewpoint I found in The Catholic Thing article by Fr. Mark A. Pilon making a comparison of this Synods topics of deliberation with to the same topics considered at the 1920 Lambeth Conference. The 20th century Anglican Church conferences are regarded as the turning point where secular desires began to overcome God’s desires. This was an inevitable outcome for Protestants, given the premise of allowing the individual to deduce what the bible says (to decide what is sinful) as opposed to following the teachings of the Church Christ founded.

What Does it all Mean?

These are Catholic Bishops along with the Bishop of Rome. What does that mean? The same thing it has meant historically. It means that unless anyone can show a heretical consensus appearing from these men because they have rejected the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we should expect the final results next year to uphold doctrine. It also will come out of a gathering destined to be described again borrowing the same words as in the concluding Remarks of Pope Francis about the work of this Synod’s participants:

…a journey of human beings, with the consolations there were also moments of desolation, of tensions and temptations

The temptation to come down off the Cross, to please the people, and not stay there, in order to fulfil the will of the Father; to bow down to a worldly spirit instead of purifying it and bending it to the Spirit of God.

The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei” [the deposit of faith], not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters [of it];…

The official translation of the final report is here.

Deo Gratias.

 

 

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest

50 thoughts on “The Attractiveness of the Christian Message”

  1. If the bishops come up with anything that would amend Church doctrine, it is assumed that they have neglected to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit because presumably doctrine is immutable and if the bishops were ever inspired to change it, such inspiration could not be from the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit would never inspire anyone to change an immutable doctrine. Interesting.

    1. Yes, a fundamental doctrine.

      The new Archbishop of Sidney explains it this Way:

      Guided by the Spirit, the entire Church is brought into the fullness of the truth and empowered to bear witness to that truth. She reads the signs of the times, discerns how best to proceed and transmits the faith as best she can. Laypeople, and not just the hierarchy, play a crucial part here. But that doesn’t mean deriving doctrine from opinion polls.

      Speaking of this new Abp. of Sidney, Anthony Fisher, was just appointed by Pope Francis in
      the same time frame as the new Abp. Cupich of Chicago we have been talking about here.

      For those who wish to promote their favored interpretation of “messages” from Pope Francis, this new Abp.of Sidney was foundation director of the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and
      the Family in Melbourne, Australia, where he remains a professor of moral theology and bioethics.

      How will the “message” pundits twist that into support for same sex marriage?
      Hummmm.

    2. “Guided by the Spirit, the entire Church is brought into the fullness of the truth and empowered to bear witness to that truth.”

      If the Church has always been guided by the Holy Spirit then any correction to its teachings would be an admission that the Church can be wrong. There is nothing wrong with being wrong, admitting you were wrong and changing your teaching. What is wrong is being wrong and refusing to admit it because you cannot be wrong because you are guided by the Holy Spirit.

    3. Seems like a paradox as you state it.
      You reject the existence of the Holy Spirit so the church can be wrong because it is only mortal.
      But, if you accept the HS then it make sense.
      Your lack of belief guides your judgment.

    4. Howard. Let’s be serious. Do you think it is right that any institution proclaim to all others and to all people that it is guided by the Supreme Being of the universe and cannot be wrong about what we must believe (faith) and how we must behave (morals)?

    5. But that means that the Catholic Church is always right when teaching us what we should believe and how we should behave. If I ask how that can be you say it is a matter of faith. The Church depends on people believing it and teaches, therefore, how important it is for people to believe it. That is a ploy.

    6. I get my beliefs from multiple sources, CNN, FoxNews, library books, the Internet. Not from the Catholic Church. That is misinformation. Hardly any of it is factual.

    7. You have decided what sources you will accept for information about the world. But, where did this BELIEF

    8. Howard,

      I am sure that of the things I believe, you also believe. There may be rare instances where you doubt something I believe such as maybe Oswald acted alone or OJ really did kill his wife. I’m sure you believe those too but it would not be a big deal if you didn’t.

      What I believe is for the most part accepted by secular people and religious people. An exception would be that I believe that religions contain a lot of information that has been fabricated. We might agree on that for every religion but yours.

    9. Howard,

      You and I could sit and watch CNN and I doubt either one of us would say that we don’t believe something they report. I would be shocked if they all of a sudden reported that a certain person went to a healing mass, was smitten by the Holy Spirit and when she went for X-rays her tumor was gone. I would have to check and see if the channel had been changed to EWTN. So let’s just say that I am more likely to believe what I hear on CNN than on EWTN.

    10. Gee, Bill, because i have little respect for CNN and value my privacy are you
      saying that the healing, slaying, scenario above didn’t happen to me ? I’d send
      you my medical records but am ABSOLUTELY convinced you would never let yourself believe due to a sin known as pride.

    11. With CNN it would be pearls before swine, with you it would be pearls tossed on the ground. What I will say is that my very worst fear, totally consuming me as
      I walked up to that altar was how in God’s name was I going to fake being slain
      in the spirit. I do have enough faith to know God works through others. It didn’t matter if i was healed or not because Hope is the operating virtue here. But I honestly thought the falling back as the others did was phony at best – until I became aware of lying on the floor. When I got back to my seat the person
      – ex Catholic and still – who brought me there had to move away because there was so much heat radiating from my bod it was discomforting. Anyway, good
      luck debating..

    12. Oh. I thought you knew the answer to where we get our propensity to believe or not believe. I just have a policy of disbelieving anything supernatural, period.

    13. Well, the general idea is that we all come to conclusions based on reasoning about what we see and experience. We don’t always come up with independent judgments. Others can influence us. High School socializing is an example. The strong need to blend with the crowd. There are lots of influences.

  2. Let us not forget that one of the most prominent critics of the synod mid-term report was Raymond Cardinal Burke; one of the highest ranking Americans in the Vatican. He was the head of the Apostolic Signatura. Gee, Pope Francis demoted him and appointed him to a ceremonial position as chaplain of the Knights and Dames of Malta. We know what Pope Francis’ agenda is in focusing on mercy and compassion, Also the same inferential message was given in appointing Blase Cupich as Archbishop of Chicago…Cupich was clear that Obamacare and Catholicism were not incompatible. And appoint Sean Cardinal O’Malley of Boston as one of his trusted, close advisers. Media can say which ever side of the story they want, Pope Francis’ actions speak loud. Cupich like O’Malley will also forsake life in a mansion for a rectory room … Francis is hand picking a new breed of pastoral clerics to lead. Also, Muller…..

    1. Cupich was clear that Obamacare and Catholicism were not incompatible.

      The idea of improved health care is not incompatible with the concerns of Catholicism but he supported other bishops in objecting to being forced to provide morally objectionable healthcare. What source are you reading?

      He is not a confrontational personality. Maybe too reserved for current American issues.

    2. Your characterization of his views on Obamacare is not supported by this link. Reaching too far for too little.

      Why would you care that a Catholic bishop is a weak leader?

    3. Your assertion is based upon a writer with
      an axe to grind just like yourself – and using irresponsible language and
      opinion. Such as:

      while a vocal segment of conservative bishops went on a rampage
      against Obamacare,

      Hardly!

      Being weak on confrontation (or rampage) he followed the law and let other
      organizations bring suits, but, that does not mean that he didn’t have
      objections to it on moral grounds along with his fellow bishops. This was not a faction of bishops that your link is trying to say, but the will of the USCCB.

      His letter to employees of the diocese last year on the newly proposed HHS
      rule:

      Second, the objections the bishops raised last year about the
      Affordable Care Act were about the way the government proposed to grant
      exemptions to the mandated insurance coverage of services we have long
      considered morally objectionable. In an action that was unprecedented, the HHS created its own definition of a religious organization for the purpose of
      determining who would be exempt based on the following criteria.
      – the inculcation of religious values is their purpose;

      – it primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets;

      – it primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and,

      – it is a non-profit church, integrated auxiliaries, or conventions or
      associations of churches, or religious order in accord with IRS rules.

      During the comment period, the bishops and others submitted suggestions on ways to improve the proposed rules. Our position was that the four-part
      definition of a religious organization had to be removed, as it defines
      religious activity in a way that excludes that outreach to the poor, the
      marginalized and the stranger that Catholicism and virtually all religious
      communities consider to be a central part of their religious mission. A rule
      exempting all of our religious institutions had to be made available.

      http://www.dioceseofspokane.org/bjc_2013/hhs.htm

      You haven’t answered my question. Why do you care what a Catholic bishop does? You are not Catholic are you?

    4. I care what a Catholic bishop does because he/she purports to be representing the Highest Truth. I like Cupich, Muller, O’Malley. I will in all probability like the new hierarchical appointments that Francis will make in the future. I also believe that the last two Popes appointed men who thought like them, Francis will appoint a different type of person. You will see a transition from a Church of rules to a Church of inclusion, mercy and compassion. You will find a Church in the future that talks less about sex and women’s bodies and much more on the corporal works of mercy. Have you read Evangelli Gaudium?

      Yesterday, Cupich said clearly; “The pope is saying some very challenging things for people,” Bishop Cupich said in an interview Tuesday. “He’s not saying, this is the law and you follow it and you get to heaven. He’s saying we have to do something about our world today that’s suffering, people are being excluded, neglected. We have a responsibility, and he’s calling people to task.” NYT, November 12, 2014 Clear?

      To answer your other question: I was baptized, confirmed and was a member of a Roman Catholic religious order for 8 years…once a Catholic, always a Catholic as you can’t be unbaptized, can you? So I have quite an interest in Catholics and Christians, especially in the challenges coming from the new resurrection of the theology of liberation. Again, windows will open…the Spirit is breathing Life into the Church…hopefully people will listen, see…

    5. I presume when you say “representing the highest truth” you mean that they are more than just teaching what is true. I suspect your interest is more that that also. Many people claim to know truth in politics, schools, homes, newspapers, television stations…

      You have been aggressively attacking the Church for several
      years, do you also attack other groups with the same confrontational tone and zeal?

      Evangelli Gaudium expresses also the title of this article. How that is translated pastorally is the effort of this pope. What is hoped by many (I hope you are not one of those), is that the laws given to us by Our Lord will be ignored and replaced by placation in an effort to evangelize – sell the Church to gain members. This has been done in the Protestant world by the “positive faith” TV evangelists.

      Cupich also said in his press conference with Card. George that the pope did not send a message, he sent a pastor.

      I don’t think that presenting a legalism about baptism answers my question. The obvious question was do you claim to be a Catholic? The next question is do you attend Mass? From your past comments here and other places I would guess your are a disgruntled non-practicing ex-Catholic.

    6. No to the Mass part; no to the claim to be Catholic part; yes to the non-practicing part; and a big NO to the disgruntled part…I am quite happy, involved, loving and at peace!

    7. Well then, you really have presented an interesting dilemma.

      Since you have abandoned Catholicism you must believe then that it is merely an ideology that can evolve which ever way we wish it to go. But you seem to have a respect for our current pope. Does that mean you believe the pope is nothing more than a philosopher and his attachment to the faith is a delusion? Isn’t he mad to be talking about God and things like the Holy Spirit.

      But, how could you have any respect for a delusional person? How could you trust the thinking of that kind of person?

    8. Quite the contrary, I am a big fan of God and try to work in unison with his magnificent energy which pulses through all of creation ! His Spirit is everywhere and in ALL of us. I don’t have an issue with Francis talking about God; what I admire is his refocusing mankind on Matt 25…that is the point where we all meet God and His Christ. We have all strayed from Matt 25: We have long focused on issues of human sexuality to the detriment of the corporal works of mercy. Everyone knows the RC’s position on sexual issues; few have grasped the re-emergence of the theology of liberation. Francis’ predecessors were theologians; he is a pastor and that I love.

      Here is the most brilliant piece of writing by Francis and best expresses what I feel:

      “The other is the self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism of those who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past. A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism, whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying. In neither case is one really concerned about Jesus Christ or others. These are manifestations of an anthropocentric immanentism. It is impossible to think that a genuine evangelizing thrust could emerge from these adulterated forms of Christianity.” (#94) Gaudium Evangelii, P. Francis

    9. I presume you mean Matthew 25:31-46, The Judgment of the Nations. Then also I presume you believe that Christ was divine.

      I am glad to find out that you do not deny the existence of God. And since you are using the Christian bible as a source of your morality and action I will quote Pope Francis, also from Evangeli Gaudium:

      15. In first place, we can mention the area of ordinary pastoral ministry, which is “animated by the fire of the Spirit, so as to inflame the hearts of the faithful who regularly take part in community worship and gather on the Lord’s day to be nourished by his word and by the bread of eternal life”.[11] In this category we can also include those members of faithful who preserve a deep and sincere faith, expressing it in different ways, but seldom taking part in worship. Ordinary pastoral ministry seeks to help believers to grow spiritually so that they can respond to God’s love ever more fully in their lives.

      A second area is that of “the baptized whose lives do not reflect the demands of Baptism”,[12] who lack a meaningful relationship to the Church and no longer experience the consolation born of faith. The Church, in her maternal concern, tries to help them experience a conversion which will restore the joy of faith to their hearts and inspire a commitment to the Gospel.

      You said you admire Francis and you see brilliance in his writing. Do you also see these words as meaningful in your life? The availability of the sacraments is necessary for a faithful Catholic to live fully.

      Or, again I ask, do you only view Pope Francis as a philosopher and not your spiritual leader? It is that you Identify with his seeming chastisement of the church?. Is he just says things you agree with along with many other people in the world? One among many, the rest of what they say has no place in your life?

    10. Yes, Howard, you got the right Matthew, the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. I see Francis as neither a philosopher nor my spiritual leader. I see him as a pastor who leads a good and worthy life, seeks to embrace the marginalized of our species and whose words are matched by his actions…a man of God.
      For the past 16 years I have cared for a son 24/7 without a days vacation. He was a near drowning victim in a summer camp in 1998, 25 minutes under water. He is non verbal, cannot communicate, cannot move a muscle. He is my son and a pathway to unconditional, unrequited love…that is what is Jesus/God is all about as is Matthew 25. I frankly do not have time for sacraments and pieties…others may. I also spend a few moments of free time intensively involved in a number of groups for near down parents and parents of disabled kids …supporting grief, chronic sorrow, and mundane aspects of keeping our kids alive.
      So, Howard, I believe that I am living Matthew 25, every minute of every day. I love Francis’ life because he is a man who lives his words. He lives a life worthy of life, as do I. I do not need a Mass to encounter God every minute of every day, I do. I agree with Catholics sometimes and I disagree when they are wrong (in my opinion). And I do this at 67 years old and commit to do this until I die. How about you Howard, your turn….do you live Matthew 25? How on a daily basis? Let’s level this field of interaction?

    11. I figured that you would ask me a question when I wrote my last comment so am not afraid to answer – it is your turn.

      Which of us can judge ourselves fairly? I will have to rely on my teachers to
      tell me. I don’t mind telling you that I go to Mass on a regular basis and often in a month not on Sunday, I volunteer at my parish, I write in defense of the
      Church.

      As far as direct aid to others, I don’t like to detail those things because it seems to me to be merely competition and can lead to boasting. I have taken care of a dependant loved one for 36 years with a progressively worsening condition leading to almost total dependence. I have befriended a person who sexually attacked me, until his death. These things are expected of a Christian. I tell you here only to let you know that I am in the game.

      I have been aware of your son’s condition for a long time now and do not take that devotion away from you, it is a worthy example.

      Our differences lie not in our mutual respect for the pope, but in your attacking the Church. You have given it up, I have not.

      The example our mutual sage has given is to point out a direction he wishes us to go and gives reasoning for his counsel. You want to use abusive words and promote people who write against the Church because they wish to destroy it. Pointing out the obvious about individual sinners is a cheap way to try and demean the Church.

    12. To challenge and to question is hardly equatable with a desire to destroy….abusive words? I think not…I’ like yourself, will state the truth as we perceive it….the Truth is after all a perception, a Catholic perception, an Islamic perception, a Buddhist perception, a Jewish perception…the only Truth is to live a life consistent with our perception and internalization of that Truth…I believe your words and actions are true to your nature and your beliefs of that Truth….grant me the same privilege.

    13. Truth is after all a perception, a Catholic perception, an Islamic perception, a Buddhist perception, a Jewish perception

      Truth is not something unique to yourself. I once again quote the man you admire writing in Evalgelii Gaudium, or, do you only admire him when he appears to be criticizing the church?

      64. The process of secularization tends to reduce the faith and the Church to the sphere of the private and personal. Furthermore, by completely rejecting the transcendent, it has produced a growing deterioration of ethics, a weakening of the sense of personal and collective sin, and a steady increase in relativism.

    14. I never said, Howard, that Truth is unique to myself….I did say that it is a perception. To add, a perception based upon religion of birth and upbringing, a perception based upon reflection and scholarship and reading, a perception based upon meditation and personal experiences…many people share my perception of Truth, many share your perception and acceptance of Truth…yet all of our perceptions are shaped by an acceptance of the transcendent.
      Secondly, I do not think Francis is criticizing the Church…he is calling the members to be open, welcoming, merciful and compassionate to all humans…that is his definition of true evangelization. And yes, I agree, that there is a deterioration of ethics, weakening of personal and collective sin and an increase of relativism. Matt 25 is the key….the world, including Catholics, suffer from the angst of human indifference and so we have rampant poverty, 1.5 million people starving each year, health epidemics, racism, classism, ableism, homophobia. misogyny, unjust imprisonment, abandonment of widows and the disabled. These are the fruits of narcissim and indifference. This is personal and collective sin, narcissim is tantamount to relativism (we owe no obligation to the marginalized). Sorry for the rant, but nether does Francis nor I criticize the Church….the Church is an institution, the members of faith are the ones called to a new action. To criticize an institution is meaningless and unproductive…to challenge its membership to think, return to its roots and to focus on corporal works of mercy is crucial and constructive if we want humanity to pay attention to each and every member of our species.

    15. You have created two main points to answer.

      The definition of perception in English:
      noun
      1The ability to see, hear, or become aware of something
      through the senses:‘the normal limits to human perception’

      http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/perception

      We all perceive, and our perceptions are as unique to us as our consciousness is unique to each one of us. That is not to say that they are
      always different, but to say that when you are in China and I am in Nevada, we are perceiving some of the same things and some quite different things. If you are saying that Truth is a perception then it is unique to yourself.

      But, Truth is not recognized by the senses. It can be considered as a lexical concept but it is not a physical thing. What does it smell like? What color is it? We can relate metaphorically to it, but not physically.

      Truth is also not yours or unique to you – it is objective.

      CCC 2467 Man tends by nature toward the truth. He is obliged to honor and bear witness to it: “It is in accordance with their dignity that all men, because they are persons… are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth.

      Francis is most certainly criticizing the Church as it’s temporal leader when he writes things like:

      Eg25-26
      ““Mere administration” can no longer be enough. Throughout the world, let us be “permanently in a state of mission”….This vivid and lively self-awareness inevitably leads to a comparison between the ideal image of the Church as Christ envisaged her and loved her as his holy and spotless bride (cf. Eph 5:27), and the actual image which the Church presents to the world today… This is the source of the Church’s heroic and impatient struggle for renewal: the struggle to correct those flaws introduced by her members which her own self-examination, mirroring her exemplar, Christ, points out to her and condemns””

    16. First, Howard, let me say that I am honored and enjoy having this respectful discussion, although we disagree on much. Let me deal with a few points from my perspective.
      I do not believe that Truth is objective, but rather it is an evolutionary, ever expanding reality that we all (mostly) strive to grasp. I will explain…and I beleive it is a perception. Our only ability to perceive anything is through experience of the senses and, of course, I believe that we have more than the obvious 5 senses, we have a sense of the supernatural, a type of clairvoyance of the spiritual, which we can grasp. What forms our perception of our Truth?
      If I were brought us as a Catholic, trained in the Catholic tradition, schooled and read Catholic documents, took the Bible and Church documents and teaching uncritically…my Truth would be that that the Catholic God and Jesus were the Truth. If my sensory experience was orthodox Jewry only, Yahweh would be the Truth. If my life experience was in the Islamic tradition, Allah would be the Truth. The Truth is a function of upbringing, schooling, reading and and meditation of related documents, etc…..all appended by my senses, natural and supernatural. I do not believe that my Truth and the way I live it is better or inferior to your perception and acceptance of your Truth.
      As for Francis, I still maintain he does not criticize the Church…surely he is furious with the Institute for Religious Works and its laundering of money and lack of transparency; he was certainly irritated by the revisionism of Cardinal Burke and his refusal to live in the past Vatican world; he is certainly critical of clericalism and a capitalism which breeds income inequality. These are practices of people, practices of clergy, not the Church as a whole. Francis is calling membership back to the authentic message of Christ as given in the Gospels; the message of Matt 25. He is leading us to a brighter future, one marked by simplicity, lack of pretense, mercy and compassion for ALL…that is what Christ is all about.

    17. I am happy that you view this conversation that way.

      Let me respond reasoning from your understanding.

      To describe Truth as an “ever expanding reality” and to then claim that it is not objective is contradictory. This reality has existed before you were born, isn’t that so? That certainly does not make it subjective, or subject to our senses in order to be. We grasp what; something.

      To claim that our different perceptions of “Truth” do not matter is to deny the very meaning of Truth. Something that is true, is true for me and you at the same time. It cannot be different. Your belief can be incorrect (not true) your undersatanding can be faulty, but the truth of a matter cannot change to accommodate an individual. True is true and false is false to everyone. The Law of the Excluded Middle tells us that.

      He criticizes what? That is a quibble. What portion of it in percent is he criticizing? 100% is an impossibility because he would be criticizing Christ himself! What I see in criticism from those opposed to the Church is trying to degrade the whole Church using the failure of individuals; for example the priest scandal. Guilt by association is a common ploy.

    18. To continue the dialogue: there are absolute Truths and there are relative Truths. Absolute Truths usually lie in the realm of the scientific. One and one is always two. Water is a union of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, anything else would not be water. Water boils at 212F of a relative truth, depending on atmospheric pressure. Stealing is wrong is a relative truth because it’s wrongness can be mitigated by a need to feed a starving family. Murder is wrong is a relative truth because self-defense, protection of coutry, and on order from God (OT) make it ok.
      So in the realm of religion….65,000 years ago humans worship nature and mother Earth (goddess Gaia); they were sincere and good and believed what their senses and traditions revealed. Later religion evolved to be astrotheological in nature, Sun worship; what their senses and traditions revealed. Again the Egyptian mystery religions worshiped multiple deities, ieHorus, son of Isis (virgin) and Osirus born on 12/25 surprisingly; it is what the teachers, mystics and tradition taught these people. Then came Judaism and monotheism and rabbinical traditions, what people were taught and what their senses revealed to be true. And then Jesus, the God-Man, again what people were taught and perceived with their senses. The same story can be told of Islam, Buddhism, Suffism, Taoism, Afrro-Carribean religions, etc. They all combine elements of belief which evolved over the tens of thousands of years of good and just humans searching for the Truth. This Truth is relative to what we perceive by our senses, what we have been taught, what we have read, what we discern, what we believe…over all ages, 65000 years, humanity has sought to live a good and worthy life and that search is evolutionary as is the Cosmos and is a function of the Sacred revealing itself to us ALL. As evolution of consciousness continues, the Truth evolves more and more and we do not know it’s direction. While water will always by H2O….absolute vs relative truth.

    19. An interesting, popular, and dangerous point of view.

      I think that you are using language incorrectly and I know why you don’t care for Pope Benedict 16. There is no such thing as relative truth.

      What you are saying to me is this:

      The statement that water boils at 212F is only true at sea
      level pressure and other considerations such as dissolved solids.

      To leave out pertinent facts only makes the statement incorrect and conditional. It makes it untrue as stated but useful. The water either boils or it does not. The statement is either true or false with no middle choice. Finding truth can be easy as boiling water, or taking a chemistry class, or as difficult for some as finding God.

      Indeed, we do not not know the truth of all things and we may be wrong in our assessment, but that does not mean that truth of something is not our goal. It does not change the meaning of what truth is. What truth is in essence, is an objective assurance for understanding ourselves and the world in which we were created.

      This understanding leads us to this statement about truth, ““I am the way, and
      the truth, and the life.”

      Any other understanding leads us away.

  3. Pingback: What Everyone Is Really Thinking in the Cry Room - Big Pulpit

  4. A good job of threading the needle. Of course, ” we should expect the final results next year to uphold doctrine.” – and at the same time find room to maneuver within it.

    1. Arianism learned from its first heavy defeat at Nicaea to
      compromise on forms, on the wording of doctrine, so that it might
      preserve, and spread with less opposition, its heretical spirit.

      – Hilaire Belloc

    2. And today that heretical spirit has morphed (I presume ) into what Hilaire must have been around for – the rise of Jehovah Witnesses and those modern religions that reject Jesus as God

  5. By one account, 97% of the bishops at the time accepted and espoused the Arian heresy – that did not change its status as heresy. Blest John Henry Newman made the point that, but for a few courageous bishops like St Athanasius [Athanasius Contra Mundum], it was the laity who kept the true faith alive until this heresy and its adherents were history. Check out how God chose to end The life of Arius. Is there going to be a Ministry Of Welcome For Murderers or An Apostolate For Those Who Regularly Engage In Bestiality, without repeating Christ’s words “Go and Sin no more” ? The forces who are hell-bent on implicitly changing doctrines better write their plans in pencil – Almighty God has the eraser. Guy McClung, San Antonio

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.