1. **This constant dependence upon the Church Fathers to somehow establish eternal truth is questionable.** I have read many of them and find that many of their writings are filled with false data of all kinds, based on the era in which they lived. Without modern telescopes they believed all sorts of nonsense about the heavens - basically the three tier idea that there was a heaven up there, an earth here, and a hell down there. Their concept of the universe was myopic when today we know that there could be a million or a billion solar systems. And disease. Many of them dealt with illness as caused by demons or God's punishment or some other superstition.
Just one comment about St. Thomas Aquinas. I wrote my undergraduate thesis on him so became rather well-acquainted with his thought. He was a remarkable thinker and writer. But, for example, he argued that 'heretics' should be turned over to the state to be executed! That statement, among others of his, undercut my willingness to view his total work as that reliable.
Abelard, as I recall, wrote a whole book entitled *Sic et Non *in which he showed how Popes contradicted one another. St. Jerome sided with the Protestant and Jewish view on the canonical books of the Old Testament. And we could go on. Yes, the Church Fathers are to be admired for their thinking considering their era, perhaps, but they aren't all that helpful today.
2. **I ran across a quote somewhere that goes somewhat like this: "Doubt comes in the window if inquiry is denied at the door**." A basic problem of an iron-fist version of Catholicism is that it can suffocate those who want to think for themselves in various areas of theology and religious practice. Was it Hans Kung who was 'disciplined' by the Church because he indulged in some 'incorrect' thinking? One of my favorite magazines had been "America" published by the Jesuits. As I understand it, its editor was replaced because of his 'dangerous' ideas. True? It's hard to convince Americans accustomed to an attitude of 'think and let think' to accept handed-down beliefs and practices that must be accepted just because they have been approved by the Papacy and Magisterium. I know that expressing such an opinion leads to criticism like 'who do you think you are?' or 'diversity of views leads to dissension and division' (like the Protestants!), But what is one to do if his/her conscience leads him/her to take issue with the church? What, for example, if a faithful Catholic couple feel they have all the children they can properly care for well and use 'artificial' birth control? I have friends who faithfully tried the approved method and it failed them twice! Lots of Catholics have had chinks made in their shield of faith because of that issue. Once we question one church policy it becomes quite easy to question others. Catholic doctrine is built on the requirement that we accept it all or the whole thing can come crashing down. How about a 'big tent' church that permits more independent inquiry and a wider range of conclusions?
3.** In posting #6 I noted that some elderly Protestant kinfolk (now deceased) had regarded Hitler, Mussolini and Franco as Catholics, which helped undergird their suspicion of Catholicism**. This was contested and justifiably to some degree. Their arguments, as I recall, included the fact that all three were baptized Catholics, none was excommunicated by the Pope, both Pius XI and XII signed treaties with Hitler and Mussolini, certain key Italian, German and Spanish Catholics gave their full and public support to the three, Hitler in his speeches sought to rally Christian support by stressing his effort to 'save Christian civilization from the Bolsheviks', Hitler and Mussolini aided Franco in the Spanish Civil War, Hitler's earliest base of strong support was in Bavaria, a strongly Catholic area - and we could go on. Hitler once was quoted as saying that he was and always would remain a Catholic.
Now, we know that Hitler was actually opposed to Christianity because he thought it promoted meekness instead of toughness, and we also know that a number of key Christians (Catholics and Protestants, both) were executed, some of whom were deeply involved in the plot to assassinate Hitler. As to whether the Popes should have been more direct in their criticism of the three dictators - that will be debated on and on. They certainly favored Franco in a Civil War where both sides (my view) became anti-democratic as that war went on. Interestingly, since Franco, Spain quickly has become one of the most liberal countries in Europe, with same-sex marriage. This suggests that the Catholic Church has lost the immense influence it had when he was in power.
I can become garrulous. Sorry. May religion become a bridge and not a barrier. God bless his children of every creed, color and country.
