Bad teaching

[Contarini]

This is unfortunately related to my earlier thread, “What must be believed?”.

I just went to Mass. The priest gave a homily where he said among other things:

• The American bishops are taking the wrong view on sexuality – they are saying that certain things are right and wrong, black and white, when life isn’t like that; they should instead focus on the formation of conscience. They are promoting a “poor version of Catholicism”.
• Bishop Olmsted (who excommunicated someone for allowing an abortion) is an “embarrassment to the church” and he “doesn’t understand”. The priest then quoted a ‘professor of moral theology’ who recently came to our Catholic student center as saying that that bishop “should resign”. He went on to say that we should all listen to this professor, because “he’s right and the Church needs to hear it”, despite some of the students who talked with him not liking what he said.
• Today’s Gospel where Jesus says that our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, who followed the law, means that we must go “beyond the law” (i.e. not take the moral law as absolute, because that’s not what God wants from us).

At the end of the homily the congregation burst into applause.

Unlike a lot of folks on this forum, I don’t find your story hard to believe or particularly surprising. There’s a good deal of denial that goes on here, and many folks may be from more conservative areas. I’d be unlikely to hear such a thing in the RC parishes in my present area either, but in North Carolina (Diocese of Raleigh, in the 90s), where I first started looking into Catholicism, I encountered this sort of thing quite a bit in one way or another. The priest you describe is definitely on the liberal end of the spectrum, but he’s not an anomaly, much as some on here might wish it. (Another point to consider is that college campus ministries often–not always–seem to get the more liberal priests, and to be populated by relatively liberal Catholics. Furthermore, Catholics don’t respect parish boundaries that much these days, so that both very liberal and very conservative parishes/chapels tend to attract likeminded people who are delighted to find their relatively non-mainstream views affirmed–hence the applause.)

By the way, it’s interesting that so many conservative Catholics take great delight in pointing out the age of liberal priests. Shouldn’t age be respected? Why does the fact that a view is typically held by older folks make it less likely to be true? I understand, of course, that the priests in question typically “cut their teeth” in the 60s and that their values come from that era, so conservative Catholics find it ironic that these once-youthful radicals are now the old fogeys. Still, I think that such remarks are tasteless, disrespectful, and ultimately subversive of the orthodoxy they purport to uphold.

This was distressing to me. I am “Interested in Catholicism” in part because I thought that Catholicism had unity of belief, in contrast to all the problems of protestantism.

Well, there’s a sense in which that is true. There is a discernible common body of teaching that must be believed, though it’s fuzzy round the edges. I don’t think that this fuzziness around the edges is as big a problem as either Protestant/Orthodox critics or some conservative Catholics (who try to deny it) think. As Chesterton said in a different context, I don’t need to know precisely where on the Isthmus of Panama the line between North and South America is to be drawn in order to know that Alaska and Peru are on different continents (or something like that).

Furthermore, Catholics do have an authority structure that can express itself pretty firmly. Again, this isn’t as clearcut as some apologists make it sound, and it is relatively slow and cautious, at least these days, so a lot of dissent goes on without being disciplined. And again, I don’t find this relative laxity (relative to what theoretically you might expect) to be the bad thing some conservatives both inside and outside the Roman Communion think it.

 

[Contarini]

Question 1 would be, am I missing something – is my assessment that this homily was not a good thing wrong or uncharitable?

I don’t see how it’s uncharitable to criticize a sermon. If you made judgments about the priest’s personal character, it would be different.

I would hope (vainly, given the tone on these forums) that a Catholic would respond to a homily like this with respect for the priest’s office and a willingness to hear what God might have to say to them even through this rather muddled instrument! But as a non-Catholic with certain expectations, it’s reasonable for you to say that this doesn’t correspond to these expectations!

Question 2 is, should I just not go to this chapel/parish?

My view is that one should attend one’s local parish. A college chapel is a somewhat special case, though. When I was investigating Catholicism in NC, I initially attended RCIA at the local campus ministry, was dissatisfied, dropped out, and then investigated the local parish instead. The local parish was if anything more programmatically liberal (it was run by Franciscans who had established a flagship liberal parish in Raleigh and then were invited by the diocese to take over a downtown parish in Durham), and I eventually opted for the Episcopal Church, in part because the local Episcopal parish seemed more orthodox in many ways. (The story is more complicated than that, but no need to encumber this post with all the details.) Many of my conservative Catholic friends urged me to attend a more conservative parish in Raleigh or Cary (in particular, there was a wonderful Byzantine Catholic parish in Cary), but I took the view that if the RCC was the true church, I ought to be able to attend the local parish. Also, I was beginning to question some parts of the conservative Catholic program, and I didn’t want to select for a parish based on its conservatism, when even then I thought the liberals might have some valid points. (I think this much more strongly now.)

Question 3, how am I supposed to believe that Catholicism is universal and true and united, when there is such dissent? It seemed just like liberal protestantism.

It is a lot like liberal Protestantism–which is one of the reasons I didn’t become Catholic back in the 90s. I don’t think, however, that the existence of dissent disproves Catholicism. It does prove that Catholic unity is something quite different from what conservative Protestants think of, or what some conservative Catholics would have you believe exists.

I don’t know what kind of Protestantism you are coming from. I do know that many fundamentalist and conservative evangelical Protestants look for a certain kind of absolute certainty and clarity within Protestantism, and when they realize that sola scriptura won’t deliver, they are drawn to Catholicism. Much contemporary Catholic apologetics is produced by people who come from this background or cater to it. And you have just discovered that this way of looking at things stands in considerable tension with the reality “on the ground” in Catholicism. You can do three things:

1. Reject Catholicism because it can’t deliver what you hoped it might.
2. Become Catholic and fight to make it the kind of thing you thought it was. That is what the folks on this forum would mostly like you to do.
3. Accept that maybe the unity of the Church isn’t about everyone saying the same thing, or even about no one saying things that are off the wall, but rather about personal communion with Christ through union with the bishops throughout the world gathered around the bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor. That doesn’t mean that doctrinal truth is irrelevant–Christianity is an irreducibly dogmatic religion and the only reason Catholicism can offer true unity is that it is a relentlessly dogmatic church. But it does mean that not everyone in the Catholic Church is orthodox, and that you don’t have to be sure at all times of just what the orthodox position is on a given point.

This is the line I would take if I became Catholic. My reasons for not becoming Catholic are, at this point, not primarily theological, though I have plenty of theological reasons for not being the kind of Catholic of whom folks on this forum would generally approve, and I have some reservations about being a dissenting liberal Catholic when I can just go on being a dissenting conservative Episcopalian (Actually, on a lot of points I wouldn’t be a particularly liberal Catholic–certainly I’m a lot more conservative than the priest you are describing, or than the Franciscans I knew in NC!)

I then went to a solemn mass with Gregorian chant at another parish, which was within walking distance and conveniently scheduled. It was amazing to see the difference. How can this all be the same thing?

There’s a lot of diversity in Catholicism. I see that as a good thing, on the whole.

 

[Contarini]

A final point about the priest you describe. I don’t defend what you say he said (and as I remarked, I have no problems believing that he said these things), but he’s reacting to a very real problem which has been commented on in much more thoughtful and orthodox ways by many Catholic theologians–see for instance Servais Pinckaers, The Foundations of Christian Ethics. Much Catholic ethical thought for centuries was extremely rule-based. This has begun to change. But unfortunately, the reaction to traditional legalism led a lot of folks (especially in the 60s, 70s, and 80s) into a kind of feel-good situation ethics. Pope JPII did a lot to address this–see his encyclical Veritatis Splendor for a repudiation of what you heard the priest say. He upheld the substance of traditional Catholic ethics while putting things on a different footing, looking at how moral or immoral behavior affects our development as human persons. I think that this is an immensely fruitful approach and that a lot still remains to be done. To liberal Catholics, though, JPII’s approach was just a sugar-coated version of the old legalism–and to some traditionalists, it’s a more moderate version of feel-good modern mush. In other words, there’s a huge debate going on about how Catholic ethics should be interpreted and applied. You heard a rather silly, shallow statement of the liberal end of that debate. But I think it’s not enough just to say “this priest is a heretic–he shouldn’t be a priest at all.” I initially responded very badly to liberal Catholicism, and I still have little sympathy for much of it. But I’ve come to appreciate better just what it is they’re reacting against, and as I see the conservative resurgence in Catholicism I’m not sure I want to see a Catholicism where the touchy-feely “spirit of Vatican II” is dead.

If you want to understand what I’m talking about, browse the “Moral Theology” forum and read some of the anguished questions by scrupulous young people. Yes, they get told that they’re scrupulous, but the approach to moral questions fostered by traditional Catholicism positively invites scrupulosity. Relativism isn’t the answer, of course. But the problem is real.

Edwin

 

[beafedor]

Michael my brother, only one thing to do: attend Mass at another Catholic church. That’s what my husband and I would do if we heard such a homily on Sunday.

 

[Contarini]

Michael my brother, only one thing to do: attend Mass at another Catholic church. That’s what my husband and I would do if we heard such a homily on Sunday.

Clearly the Protestants have won:shrug:

 

[Ender]

The local parish was if anything more programmatically liberal (it was run by Franciscans who had established a flagship liberal parish in Raleigh and then were invited by the diocese to take over a downtown parish in Durham), and I eventually opted for the Episcopal Church, in part because the local Episcopal parish seemed more orthodox in many ways. (The story is more complicated than that, but no need to encumber this post with all the details.) Many of my conservative Catholic friends urged me to attend a more conservative parish in Raleigh or Cary (in particular, there was a wonderful Byzantine Catholic parish in Cary), but I took the view that if the RCC was the true church, I ought to be able to attend the local parish. Also, I was beginning to question some parts of the conservative Catholic program, and I didn’t want to select for a parish based on its conservatism, when even then I thought the liberals might have some valid points. (I think this much more strongly now.)

Incredible as it may seem, I spent time in Raleigh and know exactly which Church you are referring to … and your friends were giving you sound advice. Your expectation that every parish within the Church should be as good as any other has never been true, and the theology being pushed at that particular church was that of the particular Franciscan in charge; it certainly wasn’t what the Church teaches. He led prayers to “Abba father, amma mother”, and to “Our mother and father in heaven”. Two young priests assisting him left the priesthood in the few years I was there, one of whom left the Church. He did a lot of damage.

There’s a lot of diversity in Catholicism. I see that as a good thing, on the whole.

There is not a lot of diversity in what the Church teaches despite the fact that a lot of Catholics feel free to pick and choose which teachings to accept.

Ender

 

[Michael_N_1]

Contarini has raised a lot of points that I think help this discussion, although they only reinforce my uncertainty. I think it’s a good thing to examine everything to try to find the truth, rather than just the viewpoint that is predominant on these forums. Thank you.

Contarini:

My view is that one should attend one’s local parish. … I took the view that if the RCC was the true church, I ought to be able to attend the local parish.

This is what I was thinking too. Logically, it means you could attend any parish (whether or not it is your local parish) and they all should be OK. Conservative Catholics: I understand that there will be differences, but how is it that some particular parts of the one true church could be so… untrue? Or aren’t they untrue at all? – which seems to be what Contarini is arguing later.

Contarini, why do you hold a view on what Catholic parish one ought to go to if you are not Catholic?

Contarini:

It is a lot like liberal Protestantism–which is one of the reasons I didn’t become Catholic back in the 90s. I don’t think, however, that the existence of dissent disproves Catholicism. It does prove that Catholic unity is something quite different from what conservative Protestants think of, or what some conservative Catholics would have you believe exists.

I don’t know what kind of Protestantism you are coming from. I do know that many fundamentalist and conservative evangelical Protestants look for a certain kind of absolute certainty and clarity within Protestantism, and when they realize that sola scriptura won’t deliver, they are drawn to Catholicism. Much contemporary Catholic apologetics is produced by people who come from this background or cater to it. And you have just discovered that this way of looking at things stands in considerable tension with the reality “on the ground” in Catholicism. You can do three things:

1. Reject Catholicism because it can’t deliver what you hoped it might.
2. Become Catholic and fight to make it the kind of thing you thought it was. That is what the folks on this forum would mostly like you to do.
3. Accept that maybe the unity of the Church isn’t about everyone saying the same thing, or even about no one saying things that are off the wall, but rather about personal communion with Christ through union with the bishops throughout the world gathered around the bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor. That doesn’t mean that doctrinal truth is irrelevant–Christianity is an irreducibly dogmatic religion and the only reason Catholicism can offer true unity is that it is a relentlessly dogmatic church. But it does mean that not everyone in the Catholic Church is orthodox, and that you don’t have to be sure at all times of just what the orthodox position is on a given point.

This is the line I would take if I became Catholic. My reasons for not becoming Catholic are, at this point, not primarily theological, though I have plenty of theological reasons for not being the kind of Catholic of whom folks on this forum would generally approve, and I have some reservations about being a dissenting liberal Catholic when I can just go on being a dissenting conservative Episcopalian (Actually, on a lot of points I wouldn’t be a particularly liberal Catholic–certainly I’m a lot more conservative than the priest you are describing, or than the Franciscans I knew in NC!)

I am no longer under the impression that the Church “on the ground” is like I sort of vainly hoped it would be, with everyone perfectly orthodox at least in outward appearance. I saw this coming to a certain degree since these forums sometimes complain about liturgical abuses, etc., but my experience was still a shock. The problem isn’t that I found one dissident priest out of thousands, it’s that there are probably a lot of them, which undermines the notion of orthodoxy.

The three alternatives make a lot of sense to me. However, I am honestly confused as to why you are offering an argument for how one could reconcile everything and be Catholic, when that argument doesn’t do it for you.

Contarini:

There is a discernible common body of teaching that must be believed, though it’s fuzzy round the edges.

Getting to the point of dogma: Does the acceptability that you see in a certain degree of non-orthodox beliefs include beliefs that are in direct opposition to official Catholic teaching, or are we talking about the fuzziness around the edges of the teaching? Are you reluctant to be a dissenting liberal Catholic because your beliefs are officially not allowed, or because they just aren’t totally conservative?

Referencing further above: While I don’t exactly come from a conservative protestant background, it is true that I am looking for some kind of absolute certainty. I believe that there is an fundamentally an answer to every question, and God knows the answers. It’s very attractive and soothing to believe that the Church can tell me some of those answers with certainty, so that I don’t have to strike out on my own for everything (and perpetually doubt my conclusions).

Contarini:

… In other words, there’s a huge debate going on about how Catholic ethics should be interpreted and applied. …

I see. I don’t know what to make of it, clearly.

Contarini:

Clearly the Protestants have won:shrug:

What do you mean by that?

 

[Ender]

I am no longer under the impression that the Church “on the ground” is like I sort of vainly hoped it would be, with everyone perfectly orthodox at least in outward appearance. I saw this coming to a certain degree since these forums sometimes complain about liturgical abuses, etc., but my experience was still a shock. The problem isn’t that I found one dissident priest out of thousands, it’s that there are probably a lot of them, which undermines the notion of orthodoxy.

The fact that there are unorthodox priests who preach their own opinions is no more meaningful than the undisputed fact that huge percentages of Catholics reject some of the Church’s teachings. Orthodoxy is not challenged by the number of people who reject it just as it is not determined by the number who believe it. If the Church teaches “A” but a local priest teaches “not A”, while his teaching may lead many astray it has no effect at all on what is true; that exists independently of his teaching.

While I don’t exactly come from a conservative protestant background, it is true that I am looking for some kind of absolute certainty. I believe that there is an fundamentally an answer to every question, and God knows the answers. It’s very attractive and soothing to believe that the Church can tell me some of those answers with certainty, so that I don’t have to strike out on my own for everything (and perpetually doubt my conclusions).

I think you can find much of what you seek if you search for it yourself; the resources of the Church are available on line. Pick a topic and research it. The search for what the Church teaches differs in kind from a search to discover “truth.” As you recognize:

“… there comes for everyone the moment when personal existence must be anchored to a truth recognized as final, a truth which confers a certitude no longer open to doubt.” (Fides et Ratio)

Contarini: In other words, there’s a huge debate going on about how Catholic ethics should be interpreted and applied.
Michael_N: I see. I don’t know what to make of it, clearly.

It is surely true that there are huge and justifiable debates about how to apply Church teaching in real life in areas like immigration, health care, etc, but this is very different from saying there are any justifiable debates involving the Church’s position on (e.g.) contraception or homosexuality. Prudential judgment exists in the determination of specific solutions to some real life problems, but there is no room for personal interpretation when the solutions involving acts that are intrinsically evil. I may disagree with my bishop on the best solution to illegal immigration but I may not (legitimately) disagree with him on whether abortion is ever licit. It’s important to be able to distinguish between expressions of doctrine and statements of prudential opinion. This is why there could never be such a thing as a Catholic political party: the teaching of the Church does not include solutions to social ills. It provides guidelines, their application is left to us.

Ender

 

[Michael_N_1]

I think you can find much of what you seek if you search for it yourself; the resources of the Church are available on line. Pick a topic and research it. The search for what the Church teaches differs in kind from a search to discover “truth.” As you recognize:

“… there comes for everyone the moment when personal existence must be anchored to a truth recognized as final, a truth which confers a certitude no longer open to doubt.” (Fides et Ratio)

I think this is the most interesting thing in your post, but I don’t understand what you mean by it. I know that the Internet makes it pretty easy to find out what the Catholic Church teaches about X. That part is easy to do. Why do you say that “the search for what the Church teaches differs in kind from a search to discover ‘truth’”? If one believes on principle that everything the Church teaches is true, then if the Church teaches anything about a subject, learning what it teaches is the way to discover truth. This is logical if you start with the belief that what the Church teaches is true. What I meant was that this attribute makes me want to believe in Catholicism, because just as in that quote, we all need to recognize an undoubtable truth or else we are lost wanderers. If you believe the Church, the Church is a very good source of undeniable truths, due to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in all the teaching.

But I don’t quite believe that yet, necessarily. And the fact that neither do most Catholics isn’t helping me to. I’m not saying it proves anything, just that it doesn’t provide a very good witness to the idea.

 

[MtnDwellar]

I am “Interested in Catholicism” in part because I thought that Catholicism had unity of belief, in contrast to all the problems of protestantism.

Unfortunately, unity within a church seems to be only wishful thinking. I have concluded that whenever two or more are gathered together, there is dissension

Let’s not forget the Winnipeg statement published shortly after Humanae Vitae. The thrust of this statement, approved by the majority of Canadian bishops, was supremacy of consciousness. The statement was met with strong opposition, but a retraction took 40 years.

Bishops and priests who support this type of heresy are committing a grave error. They have been entrusted by the Church to lead her members. Their duties, in accordance with their state in life, require far more responsibility than an ordinary Church member.

 

[Contarini]

Incredible as it may seem, I spent time in Raleigh and know exactly which Church you are referring to … and your friends were giving you sound advice. Your expectation that every parish within the Church should be as good as any other

That’s not my expectation at all. And the fact that you put it this way shows just how far you and other American Catholics have been shaped by American Protestantism. The idea of shopping for a “good” parish is ridiculous. The parish, and still more the diocese, is supposed to be an organ of the Body of Christ.

has never been true, and the theology being pushed at that particular church was that of the particular Franciscan in charge; it certainly wasn’t what the Church teaches. He led prayers to “Abba father, amma mother”, and to “Our mother and father in heaven”. Two young priests assisting him left the priesthood in the few years I was there, one of whom left the Church.

Interesting. I should PM you about that.

There is not a lot of diversity in what the Church teaches despite the fact that a lot of Catholics feel free to pick and choose which teachings to accept.

Well, I just can’t see that you’re right historically. Lots of things that were considered dubious or heretical at one time have come to be accepted, usually after being seriously modified to make them more orthodox. That’s the point I’m trying to make–not that “anything goes” in Catholicism, but that orthodoxy is a dynamic process of development that involves a push and pull between more conservative and more liberal interpretations. The priest we are talking about was clearly outside the pale–I overheard him once presenting what was essentially a Zwinglian view of the Eucharist–but as I said in my earlier post, the questions liberal Catholics are raising are questions that need to be raised. The conversation needs to happen, so that the orthodox view can be further developed and refined. (So, for instance, the priest we’re talking about was speaking of Christ “present in the community” in a way that seemed to exclude a traditional understanding of the Real Presence–that’s obviously wrong, but the emphasis on Christ present in the community is a needed corrective to the “prisoner of the Tabernacle” piety that was dominant in much Catholicism between Trent and Vatican II.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

This is what I was thinking too. Logically, it means you could attend any parish (whether or not it is your local parish) and they all should be OK.

Depends on what you mean by OK.

Contarini, why do you hold a view on what Catholic parish one ought to go to if you are not Catholic?

I am not in full communion with Rome, and I would agree that this means that in some sense I’m not “Catholic.” I’m not 100% sure that anyone is fully Catholic, though, but that’s another issue. . . .

I wish to adhere to the Catholic Faith handed down from the Apostles and maintained throughout the world. So of course I have views about what that Faith implies. One of them is that one should belong to the local expression of the Church and not church-hop or contribute to the detestable practice of setting up altar against altar. Within several blocks of my house there are at least four places where the Eucharist–at least in the broad Protestant sense–is celebrated every Sunday (and more, of course, where it’s celebrated less frequently). One of them (Central Christian Church) certainly does not have the historic succession, most likely does not use the elements generally acknowledged by the Catholic Church as ordained by Christ (fermented wine), and probably doesn’t believe in the Real Presence. Another (Christ the King Episcopal Church) has dubious apostolic succession (Rome denies that we have it), but I am unwilling to say that it is in no sense a local expression of the Catholic Church, in part because I have found a home there and am deeply involved in the community. So that’s where I participate on a Sunday morning. Two more (St. Peter and Paul Catholic Church and St. Mary Catholic Church) are unquestionably local expressions of the Catholic Church–but they too do not express fully the unity of the Body of Christ, if only because they stand over against each other within a couple of blocks, having been established as separate parishes for reasons of ethnicity (which is as blatant a violation of the unity of the Body as I can think of, even though, astoundingly, many Christians in communion with Rome seem to find it unproblematic).

In other words, I don’t think in terms of “denominations” or rival churches one of which must be true. I think in terms of local communities which express more or less perfectly the unity and purity of the Catholic Church. In my own locality–and no doubt in others as well–no one congregation seems to do so perfectly. That may be part of what it means to be “in via” and not yet “in patria.” That does not rule out the possibility that I’m disobeying God by not seeking to be received into one of the two parishes in my neighborhood that are in union with Rome.

The three alternatives make a lot of sense to me. However, I am honestly confused as to why you are offering an argument for how one could reconcile everything and be Catholic, when that argument doesn’t do it for you.

Be confused. I’m confused.

I’m laying out the options to help you think through stuff and maybe do a better job of it than I did. If staying where you are is an option for you, do it. In my case it wasn’t, because I really had no stable church home at all. I wound up becoming Episcopalian, but if I had it to do over again I don’t think I’d take that route.

 

[Contarini]

Getting to the point of dogma: Does the acceptability that you see in a certain degree of non-orthodox beliefs include beliefs that are in direct opposition to official Catholic teaching, or are we talking about the fuzziness around the edges of the teaching?

The latter–I just see the area of fuzziness as a lot larger than conservative Catholics do, and I also see value even to those views that pretty clearly are in opposition to official teaching, because they help the Church refine its teaching in the long run.

As to the area of fuzziness–to take the geographical example again, we can say with certainty that, say, Wyoming is on the continent of North America. What about Mexico? Well, if we’re dividing the Americas into two, Mexico is pretty certainly in North America, though not as certainly as Wyoming. But we could divide them into three and say that Mexico is in Meso-America. in that case, what about Texas? What about Southern California? And so on.

Similarly, we can say with certainty that the Nicene Creed expresses the Catholic Faith and cannot be questioned or changed. But what about the Christological formulations? Certainly the Church is not going to stop calling Mary Theotokos or repudiate the Chalcedonian Formula. But the Catholic Church seems willing of late to say that the “Oriental Orthodox” who reject Chalcedon, and maybe even the Church of the East which rejects Ephesus and the Theotokos title, are not actually heretical. In other words, the essential teaching was correct, but the people who rejected it may have been trying to express the same truth and may not have been rejecting the truth as obviously as was thought at the time. This of course may also apply to Protestants. And thus, by extension, perhaps also to liberals. It’s hard to be sure just how things will pan out in the end, though one can be confident that the core doctrines of the Faith will be reaffirmed and further refined.

Are you reluctant to be a dissenting liberal Catholic because your beliefs are officially not allowed, or because they just aren’t totally conservative?

Mostly it’s psychological–becoming Catholic would have a high personal cost for me in several ways, and given my skeptical disposition and my questions about certain points of the Catholic package I’ve never quite managed to work myself up to the necessary degree of fervid certainty.

Referencing further above: While I don’t exactly come from a conservative protestant background, it is true that I am looking for some kind of absolute certainty. I believe that there is an fundamentally an answer to every question, and God knows the answers. It’s very attractive and soothing to believe that the Church can tell me some of those answers with certainty, so that I don’t have to strike out on my own for everything (and perpetually doubt my conclusions).

I think that this is a false dichotomy. Rather, I’d suggest that the universal Church is on a pilgrimage toward the eschatological banquet where we will know as we are known. Absolute certainty isn’t possible short of that point, but that doesn’t mean that we are all wandering around in the dark. We come to know the truth more and more fully, and we do not repudiate earlier understandings of the truth as we grow into a richer understanding.

What do you mean by that?

I mean that we have “conservative” Catholics recommending church-hopping, which is one of the most reprehensible practices of American Protestantism.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

]
It is surely true that there are huge and justifiable debates about how to apply Church teaching in real life in areas like immigration, health care, etc, but this is very different from saying there are any justifiable debates involving the Church’s position on (e.g.) contraception or homosexuality.

Well, I can’t see that you are right there. The historical evidence is squarely against your clear-cut division. The Fathers would have been pretty horrified to find Catholics advocating NFP. That doesn’t mean that the present position of the Catholic Church is wrong, only that it is in fact the present position and is somewhat more liberal than the view dominant in both theory and practice in the past.

Note: I am not arguing that Catholic claims of infallibility are incoherent because “the Church has changed,” or that one can’t have any certainty as to what the Church will teach in the future. I’m just saying that it’s not true that there are no justifiable debates about contraception. Clearly there are.

Prudential judgment exists in the determination of specific solutions to some real life problems, but there is no room for personal interpretation when the solutions involving acts that are intrinsically evil. I may disagree with my bishop on the best solution to illegal immigration but I may not (legitimately) disagree with him on whether abortion is ever licit. It’s important to be able to distinguish between expressions of doctrine and statements of prudential opinion.

Yes, it’s very important. Otherwise the surrender of conservative Catholics to the political agenda of the Republican right wing would be a lot harder.

Edwin

 

[simspt]

Lots of things that were considered dubious or heretical at one time have come to be accepted, usually after being seriously modified to make them more orthodox. That’s the point I’m trying to make–not that “anything goes” in Catholicism, but that **orthodoxy is a dynamic process of development that involves a push and pull **

between more conservative and more liberal interpretations. Edwin

I think that many assume that this implies a lack of divine providence in one way or another. They see too much diversity in teaching as evidence against a Spirit guided Church. The early writings of the relationships between the Father and the Son or the Spirit during the third and fourth centuries point to an extremely dynamic process of development. How do you defend or support the idea that this process was more than just a human endeavor to the skeptic?

 

[beafedor]

Contarini, about the “Church hopping” issue, I think that I understand what you mean now. That’s what I call “shopping Churches” and it is absolutely not what I was advising Michael to do.
Some of my best friends are Baptists and they told me about that their Pastor wanted people to dress up to Church, was preaching against drinking wine. My friends said that they don’t agree with him and they want to wear flip flops and jeans in Church. So they went Church shopping and they found one where you can wear whatever you want, there is a bar, the music is “awesome” and so on. So in short, some people are looking for a Church that makes them feel good.
Now, I’m a member of a Parish Church that makes me feel uncomfortable sometimes. There are altar girls, the music is not to my taste and the homilies don’t mention sin very often. But I’m not going to shop Churches, even though there are more conservative ones 15 miles away because this is my neighborhood church and I support it. I haven’t seen anything in my Church that goes against Church teachings. Now if as Michael has experienced, there was a dissident Priest in my Church who taught that the Church is wrong on such issue and we should listen to such liberal theologian who has it all figured out, I can tell you that I will change Parishes. There is a big difference between little things that are not to your taste and false teaching that go against the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. I can patiently do with the former, I refuse to do with the later. That’s why my advice to Michael is not to be discouraged and to attend Mass in another Parish.

 

[Contarini]

I think that many assume that this implies a lack of divine providence in one way or another. They see too much diversity in teaching as evidence against a Spirit guided Church. The early writings of the relationships between the Father and the Son or the Spirit during the third and fourth centuries point to an extremely dynamic process of development. How do you defend or support the idea that this process was more than just a human endeavor to the skeptic?

I’m not sure I would try to do so. I think the question is whether the developed dogma is compelling or not. I certainly find it so–I think that Trinitarian Christianity is a rich narrative that makes sense of the world and is supported by various kinds of evidence (historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, the transformation wrought in people’s lives and in society, the artistic and intellectual glories of the tradition, etc.). None of them are wholly conclusive on their own, but cumulatively I think there are very good reasons to believe it. But in the end it takes faith. The main point is that the “humanness” of the process does not discredit it. If the skeptic said that it did, I’d ask for an argument showing this. In fact I’ve had this argument with fellow Christians! I guess, as a church historian, I expect a messy process and I don’t find the politics and so on to be a serious challenge to my faith, as long as the ultimate result seems compelling. Athanasius’s doctrine of the Incarnation is powerful and beautiful, even if Athanasius was a bit of a jerk (not saying he was, but some would see him that way). St. Cyril’s doctrine of the hypostatic union–same thing.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Contarini, about the “Church hopping” issue, I think that I understand what you mean now. That’s what I call “shopping Churches” and it is absolutely not what I was advising Michael to do.
Some of my best friends are Baptists and they told me about that their Pastor wanted people to dress up to Church, was preaching against drinking wine. My friends said that they don’t agree with him and they want to wear flip flops and jeans in Church. So they went Church shopping and they found one where you can wear whatever you want, there is a bar, the music is “awesome” and so on. So in short, some people are looking for a Church that makes them feel good.
Now, I’m a member of a Parish Church that makes me feel uncomfortable sometimes. There are altar girls, the music is not to my taste and the homilies don’t mention sin very often. But I’m not going to shop Churches, even though there are more conservative ones 15 miles away because this is my neighborhood church and I support it. I haven’t seen anything in my Church that goes against Church teachings. Now if as Michael has experienced, there was a dissident Priest in my Church who taught that the Church is wrong on such issue and we should listen to such liberal theologian who has it all figured out, I can tell you that I will change Parishes. There is a big difference between little things that are not to your taste and false teaching that go against the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. I can patiently do with the former, I refuse to do with the later. That’s why my advice to Michael is not to be discouraged and to attend Mass in another Parish.

I understand where you’re coming from, and as Michael pointed out, I’m not Catholic. So I probably don’t have a right to an opinion.

The closest I came to being in these boat was in New Jersey, where I lived in between two local Episcopal congregations. Actually, I lived right next to the county line, which happened to be the line between two dioceses (in the Catholic Church as well, as a matter of fact–Paterson/Newark for your Communion, Newark/NJ for mine–and weirdly enough, the county that was in our diocese of Newark was in your diocese of Paterson, and the county that was in our diocese of NJ was in your diocese of Newark. . . . .). Technically I lived in the Diocese of Newark and my parish church was in Chatham. But I actually lived closer to the parish church in the town of New Providence across the diocese/county line, which is the one I attended. I mention all this because the Diocese of Newark is one of the most liberal in the Episcopal Church, and the Chatham parish had a very liberal priest. However, had that been my only local Episcopal option, I would have been more likely to consider leaving the Episcopal Church altogether. I know that that may seem illogical, but one of the things that has kept me in the Episcopal Church is the quality of the local parishes I’ve found, and I actually have more ecclesiological problems with going to a more distant parish than with switching communions! In other words, I believe that there is one Catholic Church made up of all baptized Christians, and one local church in each place made up of all Christians in that place. The present sad divisions of Christians are regrettable and we should try to act so as to bring about their end.

I understand that this ecclesiology probably seems very weird to you, but it’s informing what I’ve been saying. And the point I made about parishes earlier wasn’t that every parish in the Catholic Church should be good, but that no parish should be so unorthodox as to preclude attending it, if the Catholic Church’s claims are true. If the local parish is really contradicting the teachings of the Magisterium, then that’s surely the job of the bishop. And if the bishop isn’t doing his job, then that’s surely the job of the Pope. If the Pope and bishops fail to do their job in a way that results in a local parish being “un-attendable,” then I see that as grounds for questioning the claims of Catholicism altogether. Since I’m more liberal (or maybe just more moderate) than you are, I probably wouldn’t make a case for this being true, at least on strictly doctrinal grounds. But in my personal experience, the comparison of local Episcopal and RC parishes (the “RC” is deliberate here–Eastern Catholics are a different story in several ways) has made it very hard to accept the claim that your Communion embodies the fullness of the Truth.

Edwin