Article on Fear-Based Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter sungirl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sungirl

Guest
I just stumbled on this article and I’m interested to know what people here think about it: huffingtonpost.com/rev-james-martin-sj/a-fear-based-church-why-a_b_640884.html

Here’s one of the main paragraphs: “Today in the Catholic Church almost any disagreement to almost any degree with almost any church leader on almost any topic is seen as dissent. And I’m not speaking about the essentials of the faith – those elements contained in the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed – but about less essential topics. Even on those topics – for example, the proper strategy for bishops to deal with Catholic politicians at odds with church teaching, the new translations of the Mass, the best way for priests to address complicated moral issues, and so on – the slightest whiff of disagreement is confused with disloyalty.”

Do you think he’s right? Thanks in advance for any (name removed by moderator)ut! 🙂
 
yep. the devil is really raging against the Church. the liberals are really trying to destroy all that which God has tought us.

who cares about dissents. if they dont want to comply they are free to go. the sheep must be protected from those who err and are trying to steal the sheep from the Truth.

all this is really against God Himself and not just the Church. the Church must not answer these criticisms. these liberals are the ones putting fear on the Church by criticizing all that she teaches. the devil is really raging against the Church.

this is the big battle.
 
It comes from the Huffington Post, so it’s already lost quite a bit of respectability in my mind, but I read it anyway.

I don’t agree with Father (hey, there’s that disagreement he wants to promote), but he may see more of it than I do. For one he’s wrong on the fact that “the essentials” are contained in the Nicene Creed. The Immaculate Conception isn’t in any creed, nor papal infallibility, transubstantiation, The Assumption, or a bunch of other things that we are required to believe as Catholics.

The fact that we censer those who preach heresy has nothing to do with fear, and everything to do with wasting time, IMO. Someone’s preaching Christ wasn’t born of a virgin? Well that’s been settled, and there’s no room for disagreement. None. Move on.

I think a big problem a lot of lay people and religious are facing is that The Church has settled a great many things. When The Church settles on something, that’s it really. It could change if it’s law or something but that takes a while and after 2,000 years we’ve gotten to the point where most of our solutions are good ones. I find those who want to theorize about areas in which we are free to speculate have ample space and audience to do so. Those who want to preach heresy hit a wall, as they should, and then go whine and complain that we’re don’t practice ‘tolerance’ or support ‘freedom’ or some other claptrap. Frankly I don’t put up with fools. If you want to be Catholic (and I’ll be the first to remind anyone it is a choice) then BE Catholic. Don’t parade as Catholic and expect me to give you the same empathy I give Protestants or nonChristians.
 
Rawb said:
It comes from the Huffington Post, so it’s already lost quite a bit of respectability in my mind, but I read it anyway.
Click to expand...
Certainly the comments were typical for the Huffington Post, but I wanted to make sure I wasn’t overlooking an important point that the article itself was trying to make. Thanks again!
 
Interesting that Bishop Dowling’s talk begins with his recent experience of a Tridentine Mass which he alleges in conflict with teachings of Vatican II.

Does he think this mass should be banned? Is it not acceptable for others to dissent from his personal interpretation of Vatican II?

Dissenters on both the right and left complain that their own freedoms are being crushed, but would like to see the other side being crushed.
"Today in the Catholic Church almost any disagreement to almost any degree with almost any church leader on almost any topic is seen as dissent.
Click to expand...
Weasel words. If he really means “almost any”, then show us a real life case, or ten.

He mentions:
for example, the proper strategy for bishops to deal with Catholic politicians at odds with church teaching, the new translations of the Mass, the best way for priests to address complicated moral issues, and so on
Click to expand...
But doesn’t give one example of almost any disagreement to almost any degree with almost any church leader on almost any topic being seen as dissent

It’s because he doesn’t have **one **example of what he claims is a universal trend!

Obedient Catholics don’t always agree with everything their heirarchy do. Sometimes we politely continue our disagreement, and sometimes we accept out of obedience and love. I have personally disagreed with my bishop. Our diocese decided to adapt the liturgy to be “gender inclusive”. I don’t like it, and I don’t agree with it, and I wrote him a protest letter, but I accept it because it has come from my bishop. I accept it out of love and for the sake of unity, not out of “fear”.
 
sungirl said:
I just stumbled on this article and I’m interested to know what people here think about it: huffingtonpost.com/rev-james-martin-sj/a-fear-based-church-why-a_b_640884.html

Here’s one of the main paragraphs: “Today in the Catholic Church almost any disagreement to almost any degree with almost any church leader on almost any topic is seen as dissent. And I’m not speaking about the essentials of the faith – those elements contained in the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed – but about less essential topics. Even on those topics – for example, the proper strategy for bishops to deal with Catholic politicians at odds with church teaching, the new translations of the Mass, the best way for priests to address complicated moral issues, and so on – the slightest whiff of disagreement is confused with disloyalty.”

Do you think he’s right? Thanks in advance for any (name removed by moderator)ut! 🙂
Click to expand...
That sounds like a ridiculous article. That excerpt alone is enough for me.

Dissent on matters of faith and morals, as well as canon law, is dissent. Modern folks are all caught up with making room for as many differing opinions as possible, but right order does not depend on making room for every possible notion or feeling. The Catholic Church didn’t bring order out of chaos in the aftermath of the Roman Empire’s fall by taking a casual attitude towards order and discipline; if modern folks were charged with restoring civilization, barbarism would have reigned, instead.

Also, what’s wrong with being fear-based? There are things to be rightly afraid of, and eternal torment is one of them. Are “fear-based” roadsigns that warn of washed-out bridges or falling rocks wrong because they’re “fear-based”? Of course not; it’s common sense to warn of dangers, and that’s all the “fear-based” element in Catholicism is - warnings about the dangers of Hell. Those are wonderful things to have; without warnings, only calamity ensues.

But, this is the fallout of cultural liberalism and relativism. I’d never expect the media to treat the Church fairly.
 
Dale_M said:
Yes, I don’t consider the Huffington Post to be a respectable news source. However, at the bottom of the article, it states that the article was adapted from one published in the Jesuit publication America. Here is the original article:
americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=3098
Click to expand...
Worth noting, though it’s debatable whether or not the Jesuits are much better these days.

I’m curious, Dale, as a former Catholic if you feel similar to this priest. Feel free to PM your answer to me if you feel you feel like you might get jumped in public (and I promise not to jump you in private either).
 
Rawb said:
I’m curious, Dale, as a former Catholic if you feel similar to this priest. Feel free to PM your answer to me if you feel you feel like you might get jumped in public (and I promise not to jump you in private either).
Click to expand...
While I do agree with your assessment that people who disagree with the prevailing thought here at CAF tend to get jumped and villainized, that is not a worry for me, so I don’t mind responding publicly.

Honestly, I don’t fully understand Fr. Martin’s or Bishop Dowling’s position. I think they are coming from a position that Truth is within the Church, but that it may not be fully expressed in official positions, but sometimes within a minority of believers. If so, it seems a rather hazardous position.
 
I didn’t read the whole article, but when I hear about “spirit of Vatican II” types being full of “fear” when they speak, I feel so happy! 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top