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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Via_Dolorosa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have to disagree with your comments. You’ve simply read your prejudices into what Bishop Dowling was talking about and in the process ignored what the entire article is really all about.

Speaking from a South African perspective which I suspect none of us on this thread knows the least about, he rails against centralized authority that is so rigid that local churches (i.e. national synods) aren’t given enough freedom to address issues of concern for their countries or their dioceses. The tools are there - principles of Catholic social teaching. What’s apparently lacking in Dowling’s view is the freedom to apply them to their own situation.

It’s viritually impossible for people in this country to grasp what issues are of significant concern in other countries. That’s what Catholic social teaching is there for - to provide the local church with the means to read the signs of the time in their context.

His introductory comments are intended to call into question a form of traditionalism that fails to recognize the tremendous damage done in many countries by the sex abuse scandal. Unfortunately, the bishops in many countries lost all kinds of moral credibility because of it. To pretend that wearing elaborate liturigcal vestments will translate into authentic worship is absurd - that’s his point.

Another thread on this post seems to discount what young adults are searching for. On one hand Dowling speaks of his pastoral experience in Europe where young, well-educated adults are profoundly aware of grave injustices in the world and are searching for something or someone to help rally support for their concerns. On the other hand he also mentions the other phenomenon of the attraction of young adults to the more traditional spiritual and moral guidance of the church. He didn’t dismiss it. He simply implies that Catholic social teaching will be a draw for many. And from my experience that is definitely true. We really have a lot to offer for young adults, their interests and their passions. Young adults are the future of the church. To simply dismiss their concerns is to shoot Christ’s church in the foot.

His comments re: the prohibition of discussion by the Vatican of topics like married clergy or the ordination of women were intended as examples of where there has been a reactionary backlash in the church starting from the Roman curia who are apparently unable or unwilling to listen. Somehow some in the curia believe that talking about such things is going to stop people from discussing them. It’s as one person observed “the battered wives syndrome”…beat somebody down long enough to silence them and then pretend there is no problems.

For those on this thread who dismiss such concerns that he raises then you are challenged to offer a way of drawing a wide group of people - young adults - into the church. Wearing elaborate liturgical garments is hardly appealing on any score.

Re: rags - hmmm - one of the few persons to recieve a stigmata Francis of Assisi was not known to concern himself with elaborate liturgical dress. While respectful liturgical garments are necessary - a retreat into the past with greater concern for outlandish liturgical wear - and it doesn’t matter whether its donated or not (BTW - I wonder what the person’s intentions and priorities are in paying such elaborate sums for liturgical wear - it wouldn’t be the first time that weathly donors tried to control the church and undermine its’ spiritual and moral leadership) does very little to lead a person to authentic holiness.

Finally, as Dowling notes at the conclusion of his talk - the real crisis is bridging the gap between traditionalists and so-called progressives. Talking past each other has unfortunately become an ingrained habit. Belittling or pointing accusatory fingers at those who believe a whole host of issues are not being addressed constructively does nothing. It only becomes yet another way of pretending to live in an stable church when in fact deeper questions (and here I’m not simply talking of ordination issues) are left unattended.

Marriages on the rocks don’t suddenly fix themselves when the couple involved don’t talk to each other. Bumpy roads in the life of the church aren’t going to disappear because significant matters are no longer talked about either.
Thank you for your informative synopsis. Can anyone argue with this?
 
I can’t speak for the Church, but I believe you are free to hold that opinion. However, I don’t believe it has any bearing on on anyone’s salvation. What I would recommend, if it is a big concern for you, is to take a vow of poverty yourself. This is what St Francis did (not the poster…the saint :p), so I’m certain there is good precedence for that.
God knows the heart so indeed I certainly don’t judge there won’t be someone in heaven who wore a cappa magna next to someone who wore cargos next to someone who wore flip flops to Mass.
 
Thank you for your informative synopsis. Can anyone argue with this?
I’m not sure. Since tpw starts out with “Speaking from a South African perspective which I suspect none of us on this thread knows the least about,” so I’m assuming tpw doesn’t know either. 🤷
 
God knows the heart so indeed I certainly don’t judge there won’t be someone in heaven who wore a cappa magna next to someone who wore cargos next to someone who wore flip flops to Mass.
Okay then, I guess there is no reason for you to continue complaining about cappa magnas in that case. 🤷
 
I have to disagree with your comments. You’ve simply read your prejudices into what Bishop Dowling was talking about and in the process ignored what the entire article is really all about. Interesting that ‘disagreement’ when it comes from YOU is purposeful and informative; disagreement from those who disagree with the Bishop shows PREJUDICE and IGNORANCE.

Speaking from a South African perspective which I suspect none of us on this thread knows the least about, he rails against centralized authority that is so rigid that local churches (i.e. national synods) aren’t given enough freedom . . .One man’s ‘rigid’ is another man’s ‘firm foundation’. Catholic social teaching doesn’t ‘stand on its own’.

It’s viritually impossible for people in this country to grasp what issues are of significant concern in other countries. I suppose that’s because we’re so ignorant. :DThat’s what Catholic social teaching is there for - to provide the local church with the means to read the signs of the time in their context. Because naturally, local churches need to be able to contravene the ‘core’ teaching if it doesn’t mesh with the current social needs or views of its local people. The Church has to ‘change’ to adjust itself to the people — heaven forbid that the people need to change to adjust to the Church!

His introductory comments are intended to call into question a form of traditionalism that fails to recognize the tremendous damage done in many countries by the sex abuse scandal. How in God’s name are you dragging ‘traditionalism’ into the sex scandal? Unfortunately, the bishops in many countries lost all kinds of moral credibility because of it. So? You mean that unless a bishop can APPEAR to be sinless, he can’t have authority? To pretend that wearing elaborate liturigcal vestments will translate into authentic worship is absurd - that’s his point. But nobody is arguing that the reason one wears ‘elaborate vestments’ CAUSES authentic worship. If people erect strawmen to bash down, shouldn’t we point that out?

Another thread on this post seems to discount what young adults are searching for. On one hand Dowling speaks of his pastoral experience in Europe where young, well-educated adults are profoundly aware of grave injustices in the world and all us older people aren’t. Yeah. And only young and well eduated people are profoundly aware of grave injustice. . And since when are liturgical vestments ‘dismissive’ of social concerns?

His comments re: the prohibition of discussion by the Vatican of topics like married clergy The Church does have married clergy in certain rites or the ordination of women The Church has NO AUTHORITY TO ORDAIN WOMEN ANYMORE THAN IT HAS TO CONFECT BEER AND PRETZELS AS THE EUCHARISTwere intended as examples of where there has been a reactionary backlash in the church starting from the Roman curia who are apparently unable or unwilling to listen. Because ‘listening’ somehow means ‘agreeing’. If you don’t agree with someone on something, you aren’t disagreeing, you aren’t LISTENING. I see. Somehow some in the curia believe that talking about such things is going to stop people from discussing them. It’s as one person observed “the battered wives syndrome”…beat somebody down long enough to silence them and then pretend there is no problems. Yep, first they’re pedophiles, then they cover up, and now they’re out to batter women. Guilt by association.

For those on this thread who dismiss such concerns that he raises then you are challenged to offer a way of drawing a wide group of people - young adults - into the church. Wearing elaborate liturgical garments is hardly appealing on any score. Funny how so many young seem to be flocking to the TLM where the vestments are more elaborate than most–and how the dioceses where more traditional practices (including vestments) are in place ARE THE ONES HAVING HIGHER NUMBERS OF THOSE SEEKING THE PRIESTHOOD AND RELIGIOUS VOCATIONS.

Re: rags - hmmm - one of the few persons to recieve a stigmata Francis of Assisi was not known to concern himself with elaborate liturgical dress. You know who ELSE had the stigmata? PADRE PIO. WHO WORE ELABORATE VESTMENTS AT MASS and was concerned with modest dress in women., , , it wouldn’t be the first time that weathly donors tried to control the church and undermine its’ spiritual and moral leadership) does very little to lead a person to authentic holiness. Yes, how lovely to speculate on the way another person must have been totally VENAL to offer something to God.

. It would help if the bishop actually refrained from throwing gasoline on the fire.

Marriages on the rocks don’t suddenly fix themselves when the couple involved don’t talk to each other. Bumpy roads in the life of the church aren’t going to disappear because significant matters are no longer talked about either.
No matter how much you talk about men getting pregnant, it’s not going to happen. How helpful is it to men–or women-- and to their children–to endlessly discuss how great it will be when men get pregnant?
 
**I also find it telling that the Scripture where a man actually complains that a rich ointment ‘should have been sold and the money given to the poor’ was rebuked by Jesus. REBUKED! Because what was offered was offered to Him. He didn’t say, “I don’t NEED this ointment” (though certainly He did not need it). . .He didn’t say that He could not accept it because it TOOK FOOD FROM THE POOR. **

I’d be AWFULLY leery, myself, of siding with anybody other than Jesus–and Jesus, Matt, is not telling us what YOU are telling us, that priests and bishops are guilty of ‘luxury’, that their ‘robes’ and the art in Church’ takes away from the poor. The person in Scripture who DID align with your views isn’t Christ but Judas. . .
You have hit upon a very important point. Why do we do this? Why are we so petty when giving the honor and glory and worship to God that is without question HIS due and our first obligation to Him? For that matter, why do we now, through the “social justice teaching of the day,” (please note quotes and accompanying sarcasm) idolize the poor and place them upon a pedestal as if they were virtuous only because they are poor?
 
You have hit upon a very important point. Why do we do this? Why are we so petty when giving the honor and glory and worship to God that is without question HIS due and our first obligation to Him? For that matter, why do we now, through the “social justice teaching of the day,” (please note quotes and accompanying sarcasm) idolize the poor and place them upon a pedestal as if they were virtuous only because they are poor?
It’s not about “honor and glory and worship” apparently. It is about showing up in cargos and flip flops to hang out with our buddy, the Lord, and have some fast food. 😦
 
It’s interesting that you would compare your “nice clean cargos” to “a person in shabby clothes.” If the best clothes someone has to wear are “shabby,” then they shouldn’t be judged. However, by showing up to Mass in your “nice clean cargos,” it is equivalent to showing up to a wedding in your “nice clean cargos.” Would you do that? Would you tell the bridegroom, “don’t judge me?”

The question is not “what are you wearing?” Rather, it is “why are you wearing what you wear?”

btw…why are you allowed to judge our priests/bishops on their garments, but no one is allowed to judge you based on your garments? Seems like a double standard to me. 🤷
Ok so good. Then you or Tantum won’t be disturbed next Sunday if someone comes in and flops down beside of you in shabby clothes or in nice clean cargos or in flip flops and they won’t keep you from focusing on Him. The same as when I go to Mass I can worship Him regardless of what the priest has on.

I’ve already discussed what I have worn to a wedding on another thread.

And I’m not judging anyone’s heart by what they wear. I’m not as monetarily wealthy as the Church. I’m merely saying the Church has over done it with appearances and at some expense to the poor. That’s my belief. You can have yours. We can agree to disagree. Peace.
 
Ok so good. Then you or Tantum won’t be disturbed next Sunday if someone comes in and flops down beside of you in shabby clothes or in nice clean cargos or in flip flops and they won’t keep you from focusing on Him. The same as when I go to Mass I can worship Him regardless of what the priest has on.

I’ve already discussed what I have worn to a wedding on another thread.

And I’m not judging anyone’s heart by what they wear. I’m not as monetarily wealthy as the Church. I’m merely saying the Church has over done it with appearances at some expense to the poor. That’s my belief. You can have yours. We can agree to disagree. Peace.
Then prove it, Matt.

You believe the Church has 'overdone it with appearances at some expense to the poor.'


**PROVE IT. **

**Show us exactly what has been ‘overdone’ by the Church with appearances and exactly how it has been at the expense of the poor. **

**How the cappa magna of Bishop DiLorenzo, say, has come about at the expense of the poor in Virginia. **

**Primary sources, please. **
 
Oh, and Matt, make **sure you post exactly how ‘monetarily wealthy’ the Church is. **
 
Ok so good. Then you or Tantum won’t be disturbed next Sunday if someone comes in and flops down beside of you in shabby clothes or in nice clean cargos or in flip flops and they won’t keep you from focusing on Him. The same as when I go to Mass I can worship Him regardless of what the priest has on.
I didn’t say I agree with you, so you are making a huge assumption. I will find it disturbing if someone is inappropriately dressed to Mass, and I know they have the wherewithall to dress properly. However, I don’t let such embarrasingly uncouth actions by others take my focus off of the Lord.

Recently, at a daily Mass, a woman showed up in her bathrobe. She was obviously distressed, and parishioners offered help and attended to her. She wasn’t judged.
 
I can’t speak for Via. But yes I disagree with the degree the Church has gone in Her extravagance.
Well, having seen the brilliance of those in the Church, I am humbly grateful for their guidance and do my best to follow the Church. I admit that sometimes I have struggled over certain teachings but through prayer and study God allowed me to see clearly.

One of the interesting things about the Church as compared to so much else I have run into in my life is the balance. The Church looks out not only for the material well-being of those in need but the spiritual well-being of all. And there is a balance there, maybe not always perfectly maintained, but overall, yes, balanced.

There are those for whom concern for the liturgy or the state of this or that within the Church overwhelms the message from the Church wrt social justice.

And there are those for whom the message of social justice is so overwhelming that they neglect the moral and spiritual teachings (not saying you are one, I have no clue).
 
Well someone said the priest acts in place of Christ. So I was just trying to see how good an actor he was. 🙂
These" humorous" little quips of yours serve only to confuse others who may not be as clear as you are regarding the teaching of in persona Christi.
 
Tantum, I presented verses but they didn’t satisfy you. See you can’t truly prove faith. Peace in yours Tantum. God bless!
Um, Matt, with respect, ‘verses’ do not prove your belief.

You said, quite specifically, that you believed that the Church has ‘overdone it with appearances’ at some expense to the poor.

Now Matt, if you believe that, prove it.

Show us exactly how the Church has overdone it at some expense to the poor.

Or admit that your ‘belief’ can’t be proven.

That has nothing to do with your FAITH Matt.


**Your personal (and erroneous belief) that the Church has somehow ‘denied the poor’ while ‘overdoing appearances’ is a belief of OPINION, Matt, it is not your ‘faith’. **

So prove your ‘belief’ or admit that you only ‘feel’ this way but have absolutely no ‘proof’ to back up your belief.
 
:hmmm: Social justice was afterall a particularly large aspect of Christ’s teachings along with love and peace. NCR must be mimicking Christ’s emphasis on social justice then, Tantum. He taught us a way on how to express our love for Him in righteousness in Matt 25:35-46. Basically He said if you are attentive to the social justice issues, you serve Him and shall have eternal life. 🤷 Those folks at NCR must be in good shape! 👍 Peace.
But not to the extent of ignoring issues like abortion and same sex marriage. Abortion particularly is not an option, as the Pope has pointed out, where some of the social teachings of a particular bishop may be only his opinion, and not of the whole group.

Personally, I’m looking for a bishop to be responsible to his sheep and excommunicate those who advocate same sex marriage and particularly abortion.

Immigration does need to be addressed, but the millions of babies that are being aborted EACH DAY needs to be dealt with first.
 
Hey now, they were just pointing out that the NCR regularly spins articles to fit their own view point, which does not always match up with Church teachings.

I did read the article, and it looks like that is exactly what’s happening here. It claims that priestly celibacy and the ordination of women are wide open for discussion and laments the fact that the Vatican dares to give out orders to the faithful. It says that the Vatican is afraid to let people think for themselves, and says that it should allow individuals and parishes to do and believe what they want. He says he does not like that the Vatican is powerful enough to tell the Church what it believes.

The basic message of this piece is that the author thinks the Vatican is too “conservative,” and the author resents the fact that the Church is not open to changing its mind on things and becoming more secular and liberal. He does not understand that the Church does not follow the whims of the world, but God.
And if this is what the bishop said he should AT THE LEAST BE reprimanded AND if he really believes this nonsense he himself is committing heresy and also putting the souls of his diocese in peril.
 
These" humorous" little quips of yours serve only to confuse others who may not be as clear as you are regarding the teaching of in persona Christi.
St Francis, I deleted the post because the priest is believed to be reinacting Christ in the Last Supper for instance so not to confuse. But glad you saw my humor. Peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top