B
bones_IV
Guest
Nope. Not even close.
- Status
F
fix
Guest
The difference being Ignatius is Catholic.
M
mike182d
Guest
I feel nauseous all of a sudden…
F
felra
Guest
Exactly. Count how many times the author of this article states “I think …” when questioning the basis for the development of Church doctrine.
M
msproule
Guest
That’s not just an article…It is the Sunday homily of one of our Bishops who also happens to be a NCR darling.
D
Detroit_Sue
Guest
Don’t forget that upstanding Bp. Gumbleton!
C
chicago
Guest
Like NCR, Ignatius certainly has it’s biases. Even some on the Catholic far right are heartily critical of some of the stuff printed by Ignatius Press. Catholicism has a lot of room for divergence of perspective,
B
Brendan
Guest
Like what? Do you mean all that stuff from that Ratzinger guy??
C
chicago
Guest
Actually, yes, there are some Catholics who think that he is too “new Church”.Like what? Do you mean all that stuff from that Ratzinger guy??
But, moreso, I know some very good and certainly orthodox types who don’t like Fr. Fessio’s dedication to the likes of Henri DeLubac and Hans Urs Von Balthasar.
F
fix
Guest
Chi,
Do you really think that is equivalent to the type heterodox nonsense that is so often a part of NCR?
C
chicago
Guest
I never claimed that it was. Though I think that some hard right Catholics would argue that it is.
L
Les_Richardson
Guest
Pardon my ignorance, but what does that expression “new church” mean? This is the first time I’ve seen it.
Thanks
C
chicago
Guest
Les Richardson:
Some Catholics of a certain perspective become frustrated at what they criticize as a man-centered way of the Church which has been emphasized during the 20th century, and seemingly ratified with the Second Vatican Council and contemporary theologians emphais. (They would see Ratzinger as being a part of that general movement). Since this approach seems novel (rather than traditional) to them, they would consider it to be part of a new Church movement rather than what they see as the ways from the Church of old with which they are more comfortable.
L
Les_Richardson
Guest
The first thing I noticed about the Bp. Gumbleton article is that it sounds like a homily written for young children, in its tone and style. That’s not wrong itself, of course, but if that is his normal homiletic style, I think I would find it difficult to listen without thinking; condescension. Just my reaction.
As to God being mother, I heard Fr. Mitch Pacwa answer a question the other day about that.
We know that God created all that is, including motherhood, so that all that is good about femininity, motherhood and that very specific kind of love comes from God, is a part of God. No question.
But God chose, in revealing Himself to mankind, to use the language of Fatherhood. His choice, not ours.
IMHO, regardless whether a society is organized as a patriarchy or matriarchy, fatherhood and motherhood are two distinct things, that don’t change in their essence.
In catering to the feminist ideology I think Bp. Gumbleton has missed, just like our society, the real meaning of fatherhood. And, in Chicago, as in every other large city, it is very easy to see women and children where bio-donors have run from fatherhood.
But just that fact alone tells us much about what real fatherhood is, and perhaps part of the reason God chose to speak to us as Father. Fatherhood is an act of the will. The biological/physical link is not so imposing(it is there) to a father as motherhood is to the woman who carried the baby and suffered through the pain of giving birth. To her, the physical, emotional, maternal love for that child are all intertwined. She almost has no choice.
(Incidentally, that is why radical feminists are so enamoured of abortion. That is why it is called pro-choice. It severs that physical link, they hope, and puts women on an equal footing with men. What they won’t admit is that many/most women mourn their lost children)
The father, however, loves that child biologically second-hand, but mentally, emotionally, paternally by a choice of the will. He makes that child his own. He loves by an act of the will, and to some extent (IMHO) it is that understanding that God wants us to have about His love for us.
As to God being mother, I heard Fr. Mitch Pacwa answer a question the other day about that.
We know that God created all that is, including motherhood, so that all that is good about femininity, motherhood and that very specific kind of love comes from God, is a part of God. No question.
But God chose, in revealing Himself to mankind, to use the language of Fatherhood. His choice, not ours.
IMHO, regardless whether a society is organized as a patriarchy or matriarchy, fatherhood and motherhood are two distinct things, that don’t change in their essence.
In catering to the feminist ideology I think Bp. Gumbleton has missed, just like our society, the real meaning of fatherhood. And, in Chicago, as in every other large city, it is very easy to see women and children where bio-donors have run from fatherhood.
But just that fact alone tells us much about what real fatherhood is, and perhaps part of the reason God chose to speak to us as Father. Fatherhood is an act of the will. The biological/physical link is not so imposing(it is there) to a father as motherhood is to the woman who carried the baby and suffered through the pain of giving birth. To her, the physical, emotional, maternal love for that child are all intertwined. She almost has no choice.
(Incidentally, that is why radical feminists are so enamoured of abortion. That is why it is called pro-choice. It severs that physical link, they hope, and puts women on an equal footing with men. What they won’t admit is that many/most women mourn their lost children)
The father, however, loves that child biologically second-hand, but mentally, emotionally, paternally by a choice of the will. He makes that child his own. He loves by an act of the will, and to some extent (IMHO) it is that understanding that God wants us to have about His love for us.
L
Les_Richardson
Guest
Sorry for the digression.
L
Les_Richardson
Guest
I understand. It is sort of the way any political ideology can be considered “reactionary” if it has been dominant for long enough that a generation or two to believe it to be the norm.
In essence it depends from what point in the history of the Church you start. “New” or “old” is relative.
Interesting. I hadn’t heard that expression used in that way.
Thanks.
F
felra
Guest
Les Richardson:
The radical feminist took the road to emancipate themselves from the confines of womanhood. Their male supporters likewise tried to follow and transcend the limitations of their own gender role identity. However, much to their denial and confusion, they ended up not with emancipation but with emasculation.
L
Les_Richardson
Guest
Indeed.
C
chicago
Guest
Les Richardson:
Don’t apologize. It was an excellent reflection and right on the mark!
- Status