Archbishop Chaput sees 'subtle hopelessness' in message of Synod working document [CC]

[Thomas_White]

I was hoping you would say the first part of your post that I put in bold. In certain alternative communities that I used to be involved in this concept was taken to far and the reality of good and evil was not accepted and that led to all sorts of immoral and harmful behavior in the name of transcendence…

I can only try to explain: Good and evil are realities in the temporal world. It is where we are and who we are, and one must be careful not to lose sight of it. Think of St. Therese of Avila. I am not aware of a Catholic saint who was inclined toward mysticism that made the error you mention, and it seems counter-intuitive to me if the experience is genuine. What is more, and this is very difficult to explain, is that it is not the ‘self’ in the sense of ego that has this spiritual experience. I only know that this false concept of ‘self’ is also something to let go off during the experience but otherwise not advisable, particularly at first.

The second part is very interesting to me-- how do you reconcile that with Church teaching on morality and mortal sin separating one from God? not that I am reading to much into one sentence you’ve written.

I would say that a person who is a willfull sinner would not likely have the mystical experience nor be inclined toward it in the first place, but don’t give too much weight to the descriptive word ‘willful’. There are probably better words. This takes care of itself, I think. The main point here is it seems doubtful Christ would turn away a sinner who is seeking him–very doubtful–and the reverse would seem more likely true.

The monk I go see does a lot to help improve peoples understanding of the “accuracy” of mystical experience- that ones life can be more or less in harmony with it. He speaks of the early mystical experiences that God gives a person as being there to get your attention, bring you to a deep conversion and make you willing to go through necessary purification and difficulties to enter more deeply into Christ and the Trinity. This purification then leads to deeper more permanent penetrations into the mystery of God- more intimacy.

I would not disagree with what the monk you go to see has said, not at all. There does seems a commonality to the mystical experience. It involves transcendence, and it is probably better to leave it at that. But even though the ‘self’ is transcended a person remains who they truly are. This, I think, provides insight and is why errors involving a judgmental attitude and the like are transparent. This realization is usually a gradual devevelopment, I think, and one begins too see the impediments to spiritual growth. This too is non-judgmental. Mercy and compassion emerge from understanding. A person also realizes that this is not the path for everyone and not the only path either. It is also easily misunderstood, I think.

 

[Thomas_White]

I was hoping you would say the first part of your post that I put in bold. In certain alternative communities that I used to be involved in this concept was taken to far and the reality of good and evil was not accepted and that led to all sorts of immoral and harmful behavior in the name of transcendence…

The second part is very interesting to me-- how do you reconcile that with Church teaching on morality and mortal sin separating one from God? not that I am reading to much into one sentence you’ve written. The monk I go see does a lot to help improve peoples understanding of the “accuracy” of mystical experience- that ones life can be more or less in harmony with it. He speaks of the early mystical experiences that God gives a person as being there to get your attention, bring you to a deep conversion and make you willing to go through necessary purification and difficulties to enter more deeply into Christ and the Trinity. This purification then leads to deeper more permanent penetrations into the mystery of God- more intimacy.

Well, we are wandering way off topic. I could reply with a private message or you could start a new threat for discussion.

 

[Thomas_White]

Um…‘thread’ I meant.

 

[DlandFan06]

Agreed.

The pope keeps talking about making people feel more welcome and using words that are less harsh; the church is losing followers and new joiners because the church feels overly judgmental to many.
There is nothing wrong with having a more gentle approach–then people feel welcome and comfortable, and they will* listen* to you.

.

So allow the sin to happen right? Just look the other way?

 

[franklinstower]

So allow the sin to happen right? Just look the other way?

Did you read this whole thread? that is not what is being suggested at all.

 

[DlandFan06]

Did you read this whole thread? that is not what is being suggested at all.

I was talking to Daddygirl.

 

[pnewton]

I was talking to Daddygirl.

She didn’t suggest this either.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

She didn’t suggest this either.

And yet if she was making the rules, I guarantee that would be her attitude. Look at people’s posts and what they believe. She doesn’t see an issue with many things God does, and as such, that WOULD likely be her suggestion.

 

[clem456]

And yet if she was making the rules, I guarantee that would be her attitude. Look at people’s posts and what they believe. She doesn’t see an issue with many things God does, and as such, that WOULD likely be her suggestion.

It seems to me that crosses the line into “soul whispering”.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

It seems to me that crosses the line into “soul whispering”.

Oooooooooooooh.

No.

It is called reading people’s posts.

Stop being so dramatic and click a person’s profile now and then. This ain’t hard.

 

[DlandFan06]

Oooooooooooooh.

No.

It is called reading people’s posts.

Stop being so dramatic and click a person’s profile now and then. This ain’t hard.

The whole “look the other way” post is what I got from her when I responded to her post. I don’t know some hierarchy in the Church want water down our faith. Why don’t you just become Protestant and leave?

 

[clem456]

Oooooooooooooh.

No.

It is called reading people’s posts.

Stop being so dramatic and click a person’s profile now and then. This ain’t hard.

It’s called speculation and using the speculation to assume the worst, or least, intentions of the poster.
So yea, let’s skip the drama…

 

[pnewton]

. Why don’t you just become Protestant and leave?

Where in Catholic teaching do you find this solution, possibility, doctrine, or even off-handed remark?

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

It’s called speculation and using the speculation to assume the worst, or least, intentions of the poster.
So yea, let’s skip the drama…

If you want to pick nits, we can leave it at certain posters disagree with Church teachings, on a number of issues to include same-sex marriage, abortion, euthansia and a variety of others. We know this because they say so, in posts, listed in their history, on this website. It is not a commentary on anyone’s soul, nor is it thyinking thw worst of them as you seem to infer, but a statement of professed beliefs, quite matter of factly. It is no more soul-whispering than saying “Sally doesn’t like celery” because in fact, Sally has said she doesn’t like celery.

If you think it is too far a field to assume they believe the Church would do better (or be more “correct” as it were) to have different teachings (which has been posted on more than one occasion under the guise of “the Church would attract more followers if only…”), or that if they had a Church, its beliefs would likely conform to their own, so be it. I don’t think it is a quantum leap by any stretch, nor do I suspect do most who read these boards.

Ultimately, I don’t much care either way. What the Church teaches, I endorse. What is left to prudential discernment, I try and do my best to discern. Beyond that, our concerns should be inward looking by and large.

That goes for anyone posting about anything that isn’t related to their own failing, though, and on a public message board meant for discussion, this would eliminate the majority of topics.

 

[DlandFan06]

Where in Catholic teaching do you find this solution, possibility, doctrine, or even off-handed remark?

I was referring to some in the Church hierarchy that want to allow communion for the divorced. If you keep watering down the faith, you have nothing.

 

[pnewton]

I was referring to some in the Church hierarchy that want to allow communion for the divorced.

IF they do, it will be what is allowable by Church doctrine. It will not reduce the faith to nothing. In light of the doctrine that one can die in a state of mortal sin for willfully and with full knowledge rejecting the Catholic Church, telling a Catholic to go be a Protestant is akin to telling them to go to Gehenna. It is not part of our faith that one should be told to leave because they do not agree with another person, even if it is something they only believe out of ignorance. Few Catholics I know (outside of CAF) hold doctrinal perfection as a standard of being a Catholic.

 

[Ender]

The pope keeps talking about making people feel more welcome and using words that are less harsh; the church is losing followers and new joiners because the church feels overly judgmental to many.
There is nothing wrong with having a more gentle approach–then people feel welcome and comfortable, and they will* listen* to you.

So, who can argue with this? The devil, however (as usual), is in the details. If being kinder and gentler means changing the way church teaching is presented, that would surely be reasonable. If it means, however, changing the teachings to make them easier to live by, this is another thing entirely. It is the latter sense that concerns Abp Chaput. This is his sense of the subtle hopelessness he found in the document: that it "does not convey confidence that Catholics, with the help of grace, can resist the pressures that are undermining marriage and family life." This omission “leads to a spirit of compromise with certain sinful patterns of life.”

This is the problem: the *Instrumentum *seems to assume that church teaching is too hard, and rather than expect people to achieve what is difficult we should set the bar lower to a level of sanctity that can be reached with less sacrifice.

Ender

 

[DlandFan06]

IF they do, it will be what is allowable by Church doctrine. It will not reduce the faith to nothing. In light of the doctrine that one can die in a state of mortal sin for willfully and with full knowledge rejecting the Catholic Church, telling a Catholic to go be a Protestant is akin to telling them to go to Gehenna. It is not part of our faith that one should be told to leave because they do not agree with another person, even if it is something they only believe out of ignorance. Few Catholics I know (outside of CAF) hold doctrinal perfection as a standard of being a Catholic.

It’s frustrating that Catholics do not follow the doctrine if they are not ignorant of it. And allowing communion for divorced Catholics will be sacrilege since you are giving people in a state of mortal sin communion which you just can’t do. We’ve gotta appeasing people.

 

[pnewton]

It’s frustrating that Catholics do not follow the doctrine if they are not ignorant of it.

How can one follow something of which they are ignorant? It is hardly a child’s fault if sometime from infancy to early childhood the parents do not take them to Mass and they have no exposure to the Catholic Church except an infant baptism, and maybe First Communion, with an occasional Ash Wednesday. A child like this could be converted in another faith and never know the first thing about being Catholic. Without knowledge, there is no mortal sin, or maybe any sin at all.

 

[DlandFan06]

How can one follow something of which they are ignorant? It is hardly a child’s fault if sometime from infancy to early childhood the parents do not take them to Mass and they have no exposure to the Catholic Church except an infant baptism, and maybe First Communion, with an occasional Ash Wednesday. A child like this could be converted in another faith and never know the first thing about being Catholic. Without knowledge, there is no mortal sin, or maybe any sin at all.

I was talking about the people who know the Church teachings but still reject them. That’s who I’m talking about. If someone has recently learned that getting remarried without an annulment is adultery then finds out that they can have communion but they haven’t remedied their situation so coming up to communion mortal sin. That would be sacrilege.