"Catholic social teaching finds Church teaching lacking." by Bishop Dowling

[CMatt25]

Would Jesus wear a cappa magna?

Well maybe if His bishop ordered a dress code of suits only with a solid tie but gave Him a dispensation to wear one of these instead. Nah on 2nd thought wouldn’t go with the sandals.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

Well maybe if His bishop ordered a dress code of suits only with a solid tie but gave Him a dispensation to wear one of these instead. Nah on 2nd thought wouldn’t go with the sandals.

Not even Birkenstocks!

 

[Tigg]

At some level, it matters little what Jesus would do, but more what He allows. Personally, I think the cappa magnum looks kind of silly and if I were a Cardinal, I would likely choose not to wear one, but where is the sin in the Cardinal wearing it. The Church allows it for processional/“in choir” dress.

Also, the Second Vatican Council was ecumenical, but not dogmatic. It was ecumenical and pastoral.

My problem with some of the people who fixate on ‘social justice’, is that it is almost like: well, as long as we are helping the less fortunate, blah blah blah, we can do/believe whatever else we want. Want actively gay and female Priests? Go ahead. Want to ignore or downplay elements of Catholic doctrine? Sure, go ahead. I mean, who needs the Real Presence, obedience to ecclesiastical superiors, proper liturgy, etc. It seems like some (NOT ALL, MAYBE NOT EVEN MANY) of them would just as soon see the Catholic Church become a mere social/social service organization, say the Rotary Club or Red Cross with a bit more ceremony.

I hear ya! At what point did ministry to the poor become more important than Divine Truth?

Do you have a source you might give me for the finer points in defining ecumenical and pastoral? I did a quick search but was not successful. At any rate, everyone seems to be in agreement that there was no dogma defined.

 

[lynnvinc]

I have to disagree with “When thinking people of all persuasions look at church leadership, they raise questions about, for example, real participation of the membership in its governance and how in fact church leadership is to be held accountable, and to whom.”

I think the real problem is that the priests and clergy are so shaking in their boots re the laity, they don’t feel free to preach the Gospel or Church Social Teachings.

When I asked a priest why he never mentioned anything about global warming, he said he was afraid of the Rush Limbaugh Catholics. In Rush they trust. They are a Rush fearing people.

Basically the the laity have hijacked the Church, because they’d rather follow their gluttonous, anti-Christian way of life, and only want to hear about how it’s the other people who are the sinners – the abortion women and providers, the gays, the mass murderers, etc. They only want to hear they they are bound for heaven, no matter how many people they harm through their environmental harms, or by upholding systems of injustice/mercilessness.

The Church may be lacking in leaders with a backbone to speak the Gospel and the Church Social Teachings, but it has an over abundance of strong, participating laity who detest the truth.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It appears to me the typical kind of extremist ‘either-or’ argument that passes for ‘thinking’ among far too many today.

The idea that somehow things like robes on cardinals are ‘taking food from the mouths of the poor.’

The idea that ONLY ‘food for the poor’ matters. . .and only food for the body, at that. Where are the teachings that 'man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God?"

It appears that the Bishop and his compadres are rather selectively cherry picking Scripture and ignoring the context. . .ignoring the old testament and its prefiguration, and above all, ignoring the Church itself. . .UNLESS it ‘conforms’ to what the bishops deem ‘fit’.

We live in a world of spirit and flesh.

To me, it appears Bishop Dowling is solid on wanting to care for the flesh. . .he wants the bodies of the poor to be fed, clothed, sheltered, and indeed for them to have their wants and desires met in all earthly ways.

Well and good. Nothing wrong with that so far as it goes. But that is where the Bishop STOPS.

What of the spiritual lives of the poor? Those are neglected. Not only that, the spiritual lives of the clergy and of all whom Bishop Dowling deems too ‘rich in goods’ are to be truncated and stripped as well.

We are not to feed the poor only because they are hungry for earthly food. We are above all to feed their spirits, and to be aware that one could be surfeited with earthly food yet starved of spiritual food.

When the bishop develops the kind of healthy attitude whereby he knows that the importance of ‘feeding the poor’ is above all in feeding their spirits, and that this food is necessary for rich and poor alike:

IOW:** When the bishop aligns himself with good, solid Catholic teaching as the Church has given us for 2000 years, and stops trying to reinvent the wheel and to ‘skew’ the teachings to ONE area by taking AWAY from another. . . he will be pleasing Christ TRULY, and not just THINKING that he does so while in reality he is in danger of displeasing our Savior by neglecting the very poor he wants to help. . .**

 

[nsper7]

I hear ya! At what point did ministry to the poor become more important than Divine Truth?

Do you have a source you might give me for the finer points in defining ecumenical and pastoral? I did a quick search but was not successful. At any rate, everyone seems to be in agreement that there was no dogma defined.

I think ‘ecumenical’ in this case just means that it applies to the whole Church. ‘Dogmatic’ means that declarations/definition of Dogma were made (no such declarations/definitions were made is what Pope Benedict XVI and others have claimed). I suppose ‘pastoral’ would mean the Council was not ‘dogmatic’.

 

[nsper7]

I have to disagree with “When thinking people of all persuasions look at church leadership, they raise questions about, for example, real participation of the membership in its governance and how in fact church leadership is to be held accountable, and to whom.”

I think the real problem is that the priests and clergy are so shaking in their boots re the laity, they don’t feel free to preach the Gospel or Church Social Teachings.

When I asked a priest why he never mentioned anything about global warming, he said he was afraid of the Rush Limbaugh Catholics. In Rush they trust. They are a Rush fearing people.

Basically the the laity have hijacked the Church, because they’d rather follow their gluttonous, anti-Christian way of life, and only want to hear about how it’s the other people who are the sinners – the abortion women and providers, the gays, the mass murderers, etc. They only want to hear they they are bound for heaven, no matter how many people they harm through their environmental harms, or by upholding systems of injustice/mercilessness.

The Church may be lacking in leaders with a backbone to speak the Gospel and the Church Social Teachings, but it has an over abundance of strong, participating laity who detest the truth.

This maybe the case in certain areas, but I think the issue is that many clerics were affected by modernist ideas that have been highly destructive. Remember that liturgical abuse starts with the clergy as does certain leaders within the Church acting “in the Spirit of Vatican 2”. The proof of this is that when the laity want the liturgical norms be followed, that Priests not preach heterodoxy I.e. “spirit of Vatican 2” type of stuff) and that a more “Traditional” (as opposed to “Progressive”/liberal) form of Catholicism be promoted, they often fight an uphill battle against progressive Priests and Bishops. Those progressive Priests and Bishops rarely seem to be quaking in their boots.

 

[rlg94086]

Ineresting article. From a social justice standpoint, I applaud the bishop’s emphasis on subsidiarity early in the article - it stands in contrast to what the progressive Catholics in the US favor (i.e. large, bureaucratic programs at the federal level). I find the quote in the title a little misleading since most of the article is about the grandeur of the more traditional liturgies versus the progressive preference for touchy-feely Protestantism. That is far removed from Social Justice issues, as taught by the Church.

The bishops comments regarding the last two popes masterminding " the carefully planned dismantling of the theology, ecclesiology, pastoral vision…", is wildly off the mark. I would challenge anyone to point out any specific thing from V2 that has been dismantled by our popes. What they have rolled back is the destruction of the liturgy that occurred after V2 through the efforts of progressives. If you actually read the documents of V2, Latin still has a prominent place, along with Gregorian Chant. There is nothing in the documents which say that vestments should be stripped down to the basics, statuary removed, bells and incense removed, etc.

I pray that we continue a return to the rich liturgy of the Church.

 

[manygift1spirit]

It appears to me the typical kind of extremist ‘either-or’ argument that passes for ‘thinking’ among far too many today.

…]

IOW:** When the bishop aligns himself with good, solid Catholic teaching as the Church has given us for 2000 years, and stops trying to reinvent the wheel and to ‘skew’ the teachings to ONE area by taking AWAY from another. . . he will be pleasing Christ TRULY ** …]

This was a very important and discerning analysis.

The both/and nature of Catholicism is one of its most ignored or misunderstood natures. The idea that Satan loves false dichotomies is one that C.S. Lewis understood (so when one rejects one option, one tends to hold to the other ever more fervently). The whole usurpment of the term “social justice” to mean only those ideologies of a particular brand of secular political thought (at the expense of additional, and bonafide, social justice issues such as the proper understanding of the family, the protection of the unborn and utilitarianistically frowned upon persons, and the inconsistency with the dignity of the human person and with its commodification) is a prime example of the bipolar intellectual climate which fosters such confusion. It is no surprise that so many fall into this trap, trying to pick one of two illusory sides of an arbitrary secular conflict (one whom the Evil One is an ardent cheerleader of, however).

In other, more playful, contexts I actually have entertained a cartoon (say) of Moses holding a third tablet, with the inscription

“XI: Thou shalt not have false dichotomies. Take it or leave it.”

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Would Jesus wear a cappa magna?

http://ncronline.org/files/imagecache/leadimage_full/Slattery.cappa_.jpg

http://ncronline.org/files/images/more.slattery.cappa_.jpg

I’m sure Christ’s splendor in heaven far exceeds the cappa magna. The beauty and splendor in the liturgy aren’t there to glorify the person presiding, but rather the person *represented *by the celebrant. Using those robes in the liturgy is a way of worshipping and glorifying Christ, who the bishop represents.

Would you prefer to dress up Christ’s representative in rags?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The good Bishop makes an excellent point, that the Church’s social teaching on subsidiarity is undermined when the Church fails to observe the principle of subsidiarity in its own internal governance.

What a great shame it is, then, that the experiment of collegiality after Vatican II was abused by so many false leaders who wanted to do their own thing. They forced the Vatican’s hand. Many of the sheep were left with shepherds who wanted to throw out the faith of the apostles in exchange for something made up by hippies. Rome had no choice but to assert its authority and crack down on those wolves.

 

[rlg94086]

The good Bishop makes an excellent point, that the Church’s social teaching on subsidiarity is undermined when the Church fails to observe the principle of subsidiarity in its own internal governance.

What a great shame it is, then, that the experiment of collegiality after Vatican II was abused by so many false leaders who wanted to do their own thing. They forced the Vatican’s hand. Many of the sheep were left with shepherds who wanted to throw out the faith of the apostles in exchange for something made up by hippies. Rome had no choice but to assert its authority and crack down on those wolves.

Self-governance ala subsidiarity doesn’t mean that priests and bishops get to change the rules and standards as they see fit. It means that local stuff (e.g. schools) shouldn’t be governed by the Vatican…which they aren’t. You can’t apply subsidiarity to dogma, such as the non-possibility of ordaining women, or discipline, such as priestly celibacy. Lower levels (priests and bishops) can’t have that authority, or our Church would fragment.

 

[GratefulFred]

Subsidiarity: Centeralized & Decentralized Control: Who calls the shots?

In some Catholic terms: “I am THE way,” “Thou art Peter and upon THIS rock I will build my Church,” “What ever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven.” The NT has story after story where the Apostles sought out Paul and Paul sought out Peter for decisions they then would follow. Some local church leaders could not accept a higher authority than themselves and left.

It seems the language is SINGULAR and PERSONAL.

Council after council over 2,000 years debate issues and advise the Pope but it is the POPE who decides. We follow his leadership.

IN military terms: We learned and follow US Air Force Regulations whereever we were in the world. Major Air Commands could provide details for their area of responsiblity but they could not countermand Air Foce Regs. Same with lower level Wings and Squadrons where we actually carried out the mission.

So I am comforted with a Chain of Command and achieving WITHIN the bounds set by higher authority, both spiritually and professionally.

I’ve also attended Mass in several countries; our daughter was confirmed by a Japanese Bishop. We could follow the Mass, albeit in a lanuage we did not know, becuase the order of the Mass is UNIVERSAL. I’d rather NOT have the universal Mass redesigned by local bishops or priests or lay people.

I do agree that the Church is to do social good in each local area. What and how IS a local decision. Africa is different from Austria and from Alabama. But we must be very careful that the Church stays WITHIN bounds and not go too far in local politics. We are concerned with souls and spiritual life first and foremost. So I see the need for the Vatican to set limits.

Finally, the Church is made up of humans. Humans love to exercise power, claim improvement from THEIR PERSONAL effort. This is true at all levels. But in the end, the limits are rightly set by the POPE who does listen to the advice of local bishops as well as the Curia.

I trust the Pope, Christ’s Vicar on earth, guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[CMatt25]

I hear ya! At what point did ministry to the poor become more important than Divine Truth?

At the point He revealed the importance a ministry to the poor is in the Truth. Certainly no later than about 1980 yrs ago.

 

[Brendan]

Would Jesus wear a cappa magna?

http://ncronline.org/files/imagecache/leadimage_full/Slattery.cappa_.jpg

http://ncronline.org/files/images/more.slattery.cappa_.jpg

Most Certainly!!! He has recieved Kingship and Rules at the Right of the Father on the Throne of Glory.

 

[CMatt25]

I think the real problem is that the priests and clergy are so shaking in their boots re the laity, they don’t feel free to preach the Gospel or Church Social Teachings.

When I asked a priest why he never mentioned anything about global warming, he said he was afraid of the Rush Limbaugh Catholics. In Rush they trust. They are a Rush fearing people.

Basically the the laity have hijacked the Church, because they’d rather follow their gluttonous, anti-Christian way of life, and only want to hear about how it’s the other people who are the sinners – the abortion women and providers, the gays, the mass murderers, etc. They only want to hear they they are bound for heaven, no matter how many people they harm through their environmental harms, or by upholding systems of injustice/mercilessness.

The Church may be lacking in leaders with a backbone to speak the Gospel and the Church Social Teachings, but it has an over abundance of strong, participating laity who detest the truth.

Now I know why I heard a priest in his homily a few mos ago say his answer to the poor is to get a job. And I was sitting there thinkng, man was that Jesus’s only answer? Now I know Rush has his hand in it. :doh2: Still saddens me :sad_yes: but at least I understand. Good pt.

 

[CMatt25]

It appears to me the typical kind of extremist ‘either-or’ argument that passes for ‘thinking’ among far too many today.

The idea that somehow things like robes on cardinals are ‘taking food from the mouths of the poor.’

Tantum, got a calculator right here. Now if you can let me know how much one of those robes costs, I’ll try to figure how many more loaves of bread it would buy. Every little bit more helps! Peace.

 

[St_Francis]

Would Jesus wear a cappa magna?

Can you imagine Christ Transfigured?

The priests and bishops wore clothing like that to honor *God, *not to honor themselves. This is one reason I disagree with the ad populum position of the priest: previously the priest was leading the congregation in prayer as a part of the congregation; now it has become a show with the priest at the center, as your own comment shows.

For many people around the world, the church is the place where they experience beauty and magnificance, where their hearts and minds can be easily lifted to God. To see what people have offered in service to glorify God, as when the priest or bishop wears magnificent clothing, is to show that we are more than material beings; we are spiritual beings as well.

A Mass is in no way reduced by being served by a priest in sandals or even barefoot, in a plain church building or outside, but it is not increased either. Think of a movie without a musical soundtrack–would the scary scenes be as scary? Would the point at which the climax arrives be as aniticpatory and exciting? In the same way, the Mass is best serves by having not only a musical soundtrack but a visualtrack as well.

To give our best to God is precisely what Christ would have done, and what Christ would have us do.

 

[St_Francis]

Here are my comments from the other thread:

Having read the other article first (don’t bother–it’s totally irrelevant!), I was already somewhat upset about NCR when I read the second.

I can see his point, but otoh, I can totally see Rome’s point. We are in the process of moving on from the bishops who gave us everything from folk and rock Masses to the abuse scandal, and an utter breakdown of the Church!

Christ did not make the bishops Pope–He made *one man *Pope. Each level if the hierarchy of the Church is responsible not only for the material workings of the lower levels, but for the spiritual workings, and that is something which Bishop Dowling seems to be overlooking.

The higher levels are responsible for the souls in their care. If they personally are very saintly but are neglectful of their flock, the sins of the flock can be laid at their feet on judgement day.

And that whole thing about conscience? It’s supposed to be a *well-*developed conscience: a conscience in line with the moral truths which Christ teaches through the Church. Bishop Dowling has called upon the Church to “change its teaching” on the use of condoms, at least vis a vis AIDS… which shows that he does not understand the nature of truth, of Church teaching, or a well-formed conscience.

His Holiness (the Pope) obviously stayed true to Church teaching, and has in fact been proven correct, as the nations which emphasized abstinence have actually reduced their rates of AIDS transmissions. Meanwhile in South Africa, HIV rates continued to climb, to 30%, altho they may have reached a plateau as in the two following years there was a slight reduction.

 

[CMatt25]

I’m sure Christ’s splendor in heaven far exceeds the cappa magna. The beauty and splendor in the liturgy aren’t there to glorify the person presiding, but rather the person *represented *by the celebrant. Using those robes in the liturgy is a way of worshipping and glorifying Christ, who the bishop represents.

Would you prefer to dress up Christ’s representative in rags?

Whatever simple attire and footwear or lack thereof Christ walked the earth in would suit me fine for his representatives. If it was good enough for our Lord should be good enough for His representatives. Well at least until a bishop walks on water wearng his cappa magna, transfigures himself, resurrects on the third day.