H
HagiaSophia
Guest
As those who follow Catholic news abroad probably are aware, Pell has faced serious opposition from the liberal diocese he was assigned to. It kind of paralleled the midwest archdiocese in the US who elevated their primate to “demi god” status and who left behind him an almost “do it yourself” church base: His (Pell’s) own priests publicly lash out in print every so often and do what they can to paint him as autocratic ruler and when you read the stories they usually boil down to the same thing, he is trying to enforce normal church administration and liturgy. The latest salvo was widely replayed internationally and has been responded to by a Dominican, and I post an excerpt as follows because to many in the US it will have a resonance:
By Ephraem Chifley --Dominican friar
"The question is whether or not the church has a divine origin with a set of structures and teachings that are unchangeable. Pell holds to that view with intelligence and tenacity. For him the church is far more than an institution - it represents God to the world.
His opponents emphasise the human and cultural elements of Catholicism, often to the exclusion of what others see as integral aspects of belief and practice. If religion is a mostly human invention then it can be radically re-interpreted: scripture, creeds, the moral law, worship, priesthood, even the very notion of God himself. Often all that remains are the liberal super-dogmas of tolerance and inclusivity - the only doctrines that Jesus taught according to their rewrite of scripture.
The history of the past 40 years of the Catholic Church in Australia has yet to be written. But the view that theological liberals have had some sort of monopoly on the high moral ground of inclusivity and tolerance will not cut much ice with future historians.
There are too many well-documented instances of systematic abuse of human rights when liberals have had their hands on the levers of power: seminarians being forbidden by seminary authorities from saying the rosary or thrown out because they disliked sensitivity sessions involving middle-aged nuns and massage oil.
Then there are those progressive priests who “renovated” churches by demolishing well-loved marble monuments and removing icons and statues in scenes reminiscent of Cromwell’s purges during the Reformation. There is a famous photograph of the then dean of one Catholic cathedral actually at the controls of a bulldozer doing a Lazlo Toth on the High Altar.
What about those who have refused communion to worshippers choosing to kneel to receive Holy Communion or, worse, bishops calling in the police to evict them as happened in Quebec? Even this may be reckoned a question of management, but it throws into relief complaints by liberal clergy about being “on the outer” and inflexible styles of church leadership. While superficially irenic, the churchspeak employed by Pell’s opponents conceals a specific theological agenda that historically has not tolerated any opposition or difference of opinion.
The unstated objection to Pell is that he is a bishop who promotes and defends the Catholic faith that they have sought radically to re-interpret if not to reject. Theological liberalism is a sterile project that will be seen in a century’s time as the regrettable aberration of a few troubled decades.
I just wish it would hurry up and die."
smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/25/1093246615896.html?oneclick=true
By Ephraem Chifley --Dominican friar
"The question is whether or not the church has a divine origin with a set of structures and teachings that are unchangeable. Pell holds to that view with intelligence and tenacity. For him the church is far more than an institution - it represents God to the world.
His opponents emphasise the human and cultural elements of Catholicism, often to the exclusion of what others see as integral aspects of belief and practice. If religion is a mostly human invention then it can be radically re-interpreted: scripture, creeds, the moral law, worship, priesthood, even the very notion of God himself. Often all that remains are the liberal super-dogmas of tolerance and inclusivity - the only doctrines that Jesus taught according to their rewrite of scripture.
The history of the past 40 years of the Catholic Church in Australia has yet to be written. But the view that theological liberals have had some sort of monopoly on the high moral ground of inclusivity and tolerance will not cut much ice with future historians.
There are too many well-documented instances of systematic abuse of human rights when liberals have had their hands on the levers of power: seminarians being forbidden by seminary authorities from saying the rosary or thrown out because they disliked sensitivity sessions involving middle-aged nuns and massage oil.
Then there are those progressive priests who “renovated” churches by demolishing well-loved marble monuments and removing icons and statues in scenes reminiscent of Cromwell’s purges during the Reformation. There is a famous photograph of the then dean of one Catholic cathedral actually at the controls of a bulldozer doing a Lazlo Toth on the High Altar.
What about those who have refused communion to worshippers choosing to kneel to receive Holy Communion or, worse, bishops calling in the police to evict them as happened in Quebec? Even this may be reckoned a question of management, but it throws into relief complaints by liberal clergy about being “on the outer” and inflexible styles of church leadership. While superficially irenic, the churchspeak employed by Pell’s opponents conceals a specific theological agenda that historically has not tolerated any opposition or difference of opinion.
The unstated objection to Pell is that he is a bishop who promotes and defends the Catholic faith that they have sought radically to re-interpret if not to reject. Theological liberalism is a sterile project that will be seen in a century’s time as the regrettable aberration of a few troubled decades.
I just wish it would hurry up and die."
smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/25/1093246615896.html?oneclick=true
