U
utunumsint
Guest
Greetings and happy Advent,
I was recently reading a book by an author who claimed that Pope John Paul II’s encyclicals were overly dualistic in tone although if one looked really hard, one could find areas where he admits a natural source for truth. The encyclicals dealing with social doctrine tended be the most favourable towards naturally attainable truth, while the other more theological and moral encyclicals tended to put the focal point of all truth in revelation as mediated through the Bible, the Church, and Jesus Christ.
I guess my question is, where to draw the dividing line? I mean, we have had some evil Pope, pedophile priests, power hungry religious leaders (Fr. Maciel Macier), etc… Clearly these people cannot represent truth.
Then there are more controversial issues, for example, whether one accepts the church’s position on the war in Iraq, or in Afganistan. Is the church’s judgement on these issues purely one among many, which we can choose to ignore, or to accept? I mean, our leaders, including our bishops, and the pope, are human beings.
Let me try to narrow down what I am attempting to discuss:
1-To a certain extent, there are two ways in life, one that leads to death and perdition, and one that leads to life. I accept this. But can we equate this with the church versus everyone else?
2-If the answer is no to the question I pose in point 1, then what should our attitude towards our spiritual leaders be? Should we display a docile tendency and refuse to hold our spiritual leaders to account? What should our relationship as laity be with regard to the hierarchy? Should we be completely uninvolved in the church’s magisterium? Is there no room for lay oversite?
Don’t get me wrong, I am totally opposed to that sort of democratic lay run church that some people want. I believe that the bishop should be the one in authority over the church. But what are the limits? The same thing goes for the local parish priest. I mean, honestly, some priests have no leadership abilities at all. Some are great administrators, but poor preachers. Some are great at pastoral outreach and evangelization, but will eventually bankrupt a parish if left unchecked. Who am I, as a lay person, to hold them to account? On the other hand, the parish is left with the disastrous bill afterwards. Does the priest hold any personal debt?
Then, also, what about those who seem to be holding clearly heretical beliefs? If you read Vatican II’s proclamations on the role of the bishop, I wonder if anyone can fulfil the role these men are called to incarnate, let alone ones who are clearly in opposition to the church’s teachings…
Anyway, I am going to end my ramblings. The jist of what I am asking is summarized in my two points.
God bless,
Ut
I was recently reading a book by an author who claimed that Pope John Paul II’s encyclicals were overly dualistic in tone although if one looked really hard, one could find areas where he admits a natural source for truth. The encyclicals dealing with social doctrine tended be the most favourable towards naturally attainable truth, while the other more theological and moral encyclicals tended to put the focal point of all truth in revelation as mediated through the Bible, the Church, and Jesus Christ.
I guess my question is, where to draw the dividing line? I mean, we have had some evil Pope, pedophile priests, power hungry religious leaders (Fr. Maciel Macier), etc… Clearly these people cannot represent truth.
Then there are more controversial issues, for example, whether one accepts the church’s position on the war in Iraq, or in Afganistan. Is the church’s judgement on these issues purely one among many, which we can choose to ignore, or to accept? I mean, our leaders, including our bishops, and the pope, are human beings.
Let me try to narrow down what I am attempting to discuss:
1-To a certain extent, there are two ways in life, one that leads to death and perdition, and one that leads to life. I accept this. But can we equate this with the church versus everyone else?
2-If the answer is no to the question I pose in point 1, then what should our attitude towards our spiritual leaders be? Should we display a docile tendency and refuse to hold our spiritual leaders to account? What should our relationship as laity be with regard to the hierarchy? Should we be completely uninvolved in the church’s magisterium? Is there no room for lay oversite?
Don’t get me wrong, I am totally opposed to that sort of democratic lay run church that some people want. I believe that the bishop should be the one in authority over the church. But what are the limits? The same thing goes for the local parish priest. I mean, honestly, some priests have no leadership abilities at all. Some are great administrators, but poor preachers. Some are great at pastoral outreach and evangelization, but will eventually bankrupt a parish if left unchecked. Who am I, as a lay person, to hold them to account? On the other hand, the parish is left with the disastrous bill afterwards. Does the priest hold any personal debt?
Then, also, what about those who seem to be holding clearly heretical beliefs? If you read Vatican II’s proclamations on the role of the bishop, I wonder if anyone can fulfil the role these men are called to incarnate, let alone ones who are clearly in opposition to the church’s teachings…
Anyway, I am going to end my ramblings. The jist of what I am asking is summarized in my two points.
God bless,
Ut