Is Catholicism A Democracy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JReducation
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
catharina said:
In reference to the title of this thread, surely one factor that has led to the notion that the Church (here in the States) is more reflective of democracy (and painfully so) is the very new habit of criticism of both Popes and Magesterium - as if they were elected officials who should/must be more responsive (knee-jerk) to their “constituencies.” It’s a sad and “new” kind of abuse, when in fact we are always called to pray for the Pope, not to stone him.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. Americans and Europeans have been spoiled by political democracy. We often try to bring this to play into the Church and it doesn’t work that way.

The Church doesn’t operate this way. Look at how they pulled off the Good Friday Liturgy at the Vatican.
  1. They introduced some elements from the Tridentine liturgy
  2. The theme of a Good Friday Liturgy was ecumenism and the Pope’s obligation to pursue it.
  3. They repeated the words of John Paul II, that Christ’s saving grace can save those who are not in communion with the Church, even though union is desperately needed.
  4. They used a Capuchin Brother to preach and did not require him to vest in priestly garb, but allowed him to wear the Brother’s habit of his order to avoid the clericalism that his order has always tried to avoid. They didn’t even ask him to wear a stole over his habit. They allowed the rule of St. Francis to override the practice that is traditional in liturgy, priests must wear a stole when they preach.
As you can see, the Church does not operate as democracies and is not as legalistic as many of us may think. Popes and their delegates can and do make decisions that we may consider less than acceptable, but that’s why they have the keys of the Kingdom and the power to bind and unbind, I guess.

You’re right Catherina. We are too free with our criticism, rather than being free with our love.

JR 🙂
 
catharina said:
In reference to the title of this thread, surely one factor that has led to the notion that the Church (here in the States) is more reflective of democracy (and painfully so) is the very new habit of criticism of both Popes and Magesterium - as if they were elected officials who should/must be more responsive (knee-jerk) to their “constituencies.” It’s a sad and “new” kind of abuse, when in fact we are always called to pray for the Pope, not to stone him.
Click to expand...
Hi Catharina,

It is duly noted that one cannot criticize the Magisterium as that would involve criticizing revealed dogma such as the sinfulness of artificial birth control or homosexual acts. Nor can one criticize a Pope when he speaks Ex Cathedra, such as when Pope Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary as that would involve criticizing the dogma itself.

However, criticizing prudential decisions of a Pope or the Vatican is not equivalent to criticizing the Magisterium or a Pope’s Ex Cathedra pronouncements. Nor would I say one is a more faithful Catholic just because they never criticize a Pope’s or the Vatican’s prudential decisions. A case in point would be Dietrich von Hildebrand who was a very faithful son of the Church (Pope Pius XII even called him a “20th Century Doctor of the Church”) and yet he did not refrain from sounding an alarm when he believed the situation warranted it. As he said:

“On account of my deep love for and devotion to the Church, it is a special cross for me not to be able to welcome every practical decision of the Holy See, particularly in a time like ours, which is witnessing a crumbling of the spirit of obedience and of respect for the Holy Father.”

(From Belief and Obedience: The Critical Difference).

When some Catholics criticize a fallible prudential decision of a Pope or the Vatican it can be not because they just want to complain, or think the Vatican should just install purple drapes in the Papal apartments if that’s what they prefer, but because, as good Catholics, they care deeply about how well the Faith is thriving in our country and elsewhere.
 
Brennan
I believe that critique is healthy. I also believe that it can be a sign of love and concern. We critique our spouses, parents and children, don’t we?

Critique with a bite to it is not critique, it is defiance. I’m not saying that you personally engage in this. I’m saying about those who do it. Critique with a bite is like the rebellious adolescent who does not get his way, even when he’s right and his parents are wrong, be he resorts to defiance and disrespect. When you go there, you have now raised the problem to another level. The original issue is now less important than your attitude. Even when you’re right, authority is still authority. A parent does not cease to be a parent, because he or she makes a mistake. Parents must still be loved and treated with respect. According to moral theology, if the matter is not evil, you even have an obligation to obey.

One may argue that this is not right, but one must obey, unless it’s evil. To say that one is not going to obey to prevent an evil can be speculation. Unless one is absolutely certain that evil will result from an action that one believes is less than prudent, one may not disobey. To speculate and act according to a speculation is not admissible in moral theology.

I’ll give you an example. John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger both condemned the invasion of Iraq. They said that the invasion was based on speculation. The USA felt it was a pre-emptive strike. The Church said that you can’t do this, unless you have certitude. If all you have his speculation, then you are acting without moral certainty. Please, I don’t want to get into the Iraq thing. I just use that example, because it is recent.

There are too many people who disobey based on speculation. Also, there are many who cite over and over Pius V and Pius XII, but where are their citations of John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II. Didn’t these popes have papal authority and something valuable to say about some of these issues? One often gets the impression that some people believe that Papal authority and Papal leadership stopped in 1958. That’s not a fair and balanced presentation.

We have to put everything side by side and see how it adds up.

JR 🙂
 
PS Those who watched the Good Friday Liturgy from the Vatican will have noticed several interesting details
  1. The Pope and Deacons wore the Tridentine vestments
  2. The readings were in Latin
  3. The ritual was the NO
  4. The preacher was a Capuchin Brother who is the Pope’s personal preacher, not a Cardinal or the Pope.
  5. Although the Brother is ordained, he wore the habit of his order and did not wear the stole over the habit, which the Church requires that priest wear when they preach. He followed the wishes of St. Francis that those Brothers who are priests NOT distinguish themselves except when celebrating the sacraments.
  6. The theme of the Good Friday homily was ecumenism.
  7. The Brother used much of what Pope John Paul II wrote on ecumenism.
  8. The Brother also stated that Christ’s redemptive act on the cross is not limited or impaired by the separation between Christians or other peoples, but Christ does use their circumstances to save. The communion needs to be established, but we have to work with what we have and Christ does just that. He also added that those who are not in communion with the Church are still part of the Mystical Body and that there have been misinterpretations and poor applications of this concept in the past that must be corrected and he challenged the Pope to correct the interpretation to include everyone in the Mystical Body, not just Catholics.
  9. The Vatican would not have allowed such a sermon to be preached from the Basilica unless it was comfortable with the content. They know that this sermon is going to be heard around the world.
  10. The combination of elements from the EF, the NO and the Franciscan tradition tells us where the Holy Father stands without saying a word.
  11. After all the speculation by the laity on this forum, the prayer for the Jews was only slightly changed. Unless you were paying very close attention, you wouldn’t have noticed. It added that they would discover Christ, but left the other elements of the NO in it and did not include the old working of “perfidious Jews”. It referred to them as “our Jewish brothers and sisters”.
This reminds me of something that our Holy Father Francis once said to his brothers, “Say nothing and preach a good sermon.” I believe this is what the Vatican did today. The Pope let someone else speak for him. The fact that he selected is personal preacher and confessor says a great deal. This is not usually the case. It is the case that the Pope must have a Capuchin as a personal preacher and confessor, that was established by John XXIII, but not that this Brother preaches the Good Friday homily for the world to hear. I am wondering if this was deliberate. The Vatican rarely does anything by accident.

JR 🙂
 
JReducation said:
Brennan
I believe that critique is healthy. I also believe that it can be a sign of love and concern. We critique our spouses, parents and children, don’t we?

Critique with a bite to it is not critique, it is defiance. I’m not saying that you personally engage in this. I’m saying about those who do it. Critique with a bite is like the rebellious adolescent who does not get his way, even when he’s right and his parents are wrong, be he resorts to defiance and disrespect. When you go there, you have now raised the problem to another level. The original issue is now less important than your attitude. Even when you’re right, authority is still authority. A parent does not cease to be a parent, because he or she makes a mistake. Parents must still be loved and treated with respect. According to moral theology, if the matter is not evil, you even have an obligation to obey.

One may argue that this is not right, but one must obey, unless it’s evil. To say that one is not going to obey to prevent an evil can be speculation. Unless one is absolutely certain that evil will result from an action that one believes is less than prudent, one may not disobey. To speculate and act according to a speculation is not admissible in moral theology.

I’ll give you an example. John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger both condemned the invasion of Iraq. They said that the invasion was based on speculation. The USA felt it was a pre-emptive strike. The Church said that you can’t do this, unless you have certitude. If all you have his speculation, then you are acting without moral certainty. Please, I don’t want to get into the Iraq thing. I just use that example, because it is recent.

There are too many people who disobey based on speculation. Also, there are many who cite over and over Pius V and Pius XII, but where are their citations of John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II. Didn’t these popes have papal authority and something valuable to say about some of these issues? One often gets the impression that some people believe that Papal authority and Papal leadership stopped in 1958. That’s not a fair and balanced presentation.

We have to put everything side by side and see how it adds up.

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
Hi JR,

I agree with much of what you say. To further quote from von Hildebrand in Belief and Obedience: The Critical Difference:

“The situation is different when positive commandments of the Church, practical decisions, are at stake. Here we are not faced with the infallible Church. While we must obey such decisions and submit to them in reverence and deep respect, we need not consider them felicitous or prudent. Here the maxim Roma locuta: causa finita does not apply. If we are convinced that any practical change or decision is objectively unfortunate, noxious, compromising, imprudent, or unjust, we are permitted to pray that it may be revoked, to write in a respectful manner about the topic, to direct petitions for a change of it to the Holy Father–to attempt, in a variety of ways, to influence a reversal of the decision.”

I do agree that attitude is critical when speaking about prudential decisions of Popes or the Vatican. That is one reason why I quoted von Hildebrand above where he wrote:

“On account of my deep love for and devotion to the Church, it is a special cross for me not to be able to welcome every practical decision of the Holy See…” Thus we can see von Hildebrand’s attitude is not one of mocking or disrespect.

The example of the Iraq war you brought up is interesting (and no, I’m not trying to start a debate about it either). I do believe Cardinal Ratzinger did say one was free to disagree with the Vatican’s position on the Iraq war and/or he said the same about capital punishment. I would think that the stronger the case is made against the Iraq war being just, and tying it to Just War principles, the more a Catholic would have to agree that the war is unjust.

For me personally I probably struggle more with Pope John Paul II’s statements regarding capital punishment and how it should be practically non-existent if one has the ability to punish the criminal in other ways such as a lifetime of incarceration.

I know I tend to cite Popes depending on my area of concern. So I cite Pope Pius XII’s encyclical “Mediator Dei” far more than I have ever cited Pope John Paul II. And thus I will cite Pope John XXIII’s “Veterum Sapientia” because it praises the use of Latin. Honestly I have not read Pope John Paul II as much and so I do not cite him as much as some other Popes.
 
Brennan_Doherty said:
Honestly I have not read Pope John Paul II as much and so I do not cite him as much as some other Popes.
Click to expand...
His writings are truly beautiful. You can see the mystic writing when you read him. He’s much more a mystic than a legislator. My favourite is Crossing the Threshold of Hope.

His encyclical on ecuminism, Et Unum Sint is very beautiful. Many have criticized him for his ecumenism, without reading his theology on ecumenism. When you put it into the context of his mystical experience, many things make sense.

Also his encyclical on the priesthood is very good. I can’t remember its name in Latin. But I do remember that he says “the priesthood flows from the Eucharist.”

There is a wonderful biography that I just finished by Peggy Noonan, John Paul The Great; Remembering a spiritual father. She’s a journalist and approaches it as a reporter. She herself is converted to a deeper faith by studying him.

You may want to buy it. The encyclicals are on line.

JR 🙂
 
catharina said:
DD -

Rather I keep in mind that the Popes of my lifetime were the Holy Fathers Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and now, Benedict XVI. I truly thank God for the blessing of all of them, for their selfless lives and their papacies in His Church. For today, Good Friday, we might simply thank God for all of His gifts, from salvation through Peter’s recent successors.
Click to expand...
But of course. I was merely trying to respond with charity to JR’s post #313.

And what better time that Good Friday than to pray for the respose of the soul of the late Pope John Paul II - and for all the faithful departed.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
JReducation said:
His writings are truly beautiful. You can see the mystic writing when you read him. He’s much more a mystic than a legislator. My favourite is Crossing the Threshold of Hope.

His encyclical on ecuminism, Et Unum Sint is very beautiful. Many have criticized him for his ecumenism, without reading his theology on ecumenism. When you put it into the context of his mystical experience, many things make sense.

Also his encyclical on the priesthood is very good. I can’t remember its name in Latin. But I do remember that he says “the priesthood flows from the Eucharist.”

There is a wonderful biography that I just finished by Peggy Noonan, John Paul The Great; Remembering a spiritual father. She’s a journalist and approaches it as a reporter. She herself is converted to a deeper faith by studying him.

You may want to buy it. The encyclicals are on line.

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
Thanks for the references. And I do like Peggy Noonan, I’ve read some of her columns before.
 
Brennan_Doherty said:
Thanks for the references. And I do like Peggy Noonan, I’ve read some of her columns before.
Click to expand...
I believe that it’s important to understand some of these leaders as people, as much as we can. This is what took me to get a degree in Theology. I had heard so much about Catholicism, because I went to Catholic schools all my life and I heard many of these names. I wanted to learn who they are. I went for Mystical Theology.

But that created another problem in my head. I then wanted to know how logical and reasonable all this was. 😛 So I went forward for another degree in Philoosophy of Theology. I must have been out of my mind. :confused:

JR 🙂
 
JReducation said:
I believe that it’s important to understand some of these leaders as people, as much as we can. This is what took me to get a degree in Theology. I had heard so much about Catholicism, because I went to Catholic schools all my life and I heard many of these names. I wanted to learn who they are. I went for Mystical Theology.

But that created another problem in my head. I then wanted to know how logical and reasonable all this was. 😛 So I went forward for another degree in Philoosophy of Theology. I must have been out of my mind. :confused:

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
As a Protestant, I was first attracted to the Church through reading some of the writings of the Mystics. I remember reading some of “An Anthology of Christian Mysticism” which is excellent.
 
catharina said:
In reference to the title of this thread, surely one factor that has led to the notion that the Church (here in the States) is more reflective of democracy (and painfully so) is the very new habit of criticism of both Popes and Magesterium…
Click to expand...
I couldn’t disagree more strongly. The real rejection and criticism of the pope came not regarding unorthdox practices - such were celebrated by many within the church (and of course by those outside the church if that tells you anything), but was in regard to his orthodoxy on moral issues such as abortion, contraception, etc.

Such rejections and criticisms went for the most part unaddressed - and in some circles (even among alot of clergy) - were celebrated vocally and publically.

On the other hand, criticism of unorthodox practices (traditional concerns that is) were never given such leeway…such were demonized instantly. Such concerns would get one thrown out of seminaries, off of parish councils, out of teaching PSR, etc. In fact, even criticizing those who criticized the pope on these matters was frowned upon as not being in line with the “Spirit of Vatican II”.

Only now are we beginning on a larger scale to realize such “traditional” concerns were and are legitimate. Thank you Pope Benedict XVI!

No my friend, if you are concerned with the “democratization” of the Church, your concern does not lie with “traditionalist” catholics. Not by a long shot. The very idea of “democratization” is a modern - “liberal” - phenomena. You won’t find it among traditionalists.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
DustinsDad said:
No my friend, if you are concerned with the “democratization” of the Church, your concern does not lie with “traditionalist” catholics. Not by a long shot. The very idea of “democratization” is a modern - “liberal” - phenomena. You won’t find it among traditionalists.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you. Not only will you not find it among traditionalist, you wont find it in the church period.
Deacon Ed B
 
DustinsDad said:
I couldn’t disagree more strongly. The real rejection and criticism of the pope came not regarding unorthdox practices - such were celebrated by many within the church (and of course by those outside the church if that tells you anything), but was in regard to his orthodoxy on moral issues such as abortion, contraception, etc.

Such rejections and criticisms went for the most part unaddressed - and in some circles (even among alot of clergy) - were celebrated vocally and publically.

On the other hand, criticism of unorthodox practices (traditional concerns that is) were never given such leeway…such were demonized instantly. Such concerns would get one thrown out of seminaries, off of parish councils, out of teaching PSR, etc. In fact, even criticizing those who criticized the pope on these matters was frowned upon as not being in line with the “Spirit of Vatican II”.

Only now are we beginning on a larger scale to realize such “traditional” concerns were and are legitimate. Thank you Pope Benedict XVI!

No my friend, if you are concerned with the “democratization” of the Church, your concern does not lie with “traditionalist” catholics. Not by a long shot. The very idea of “democratization” is a modern - “liberal” - phenomena. You won’t find it among traditionalists.

DustinsDad
Click to expand...
I’m going to disagree with some of this. There are traditionalists who refuse to bend. A good example was witnessed today.

The Good Friday Liturgy at the Vatican had elements from several sides. I have already seen some posts by traditionalists complaining about the following:
  1. The sermon was on Ecumenism
  2. The preacher said that Christ can and does save beyond the Catholic Church
  3. The preacher said that the writings on previous popes on the Mysitical Body was misunderstood and misapplied.
  4. The preacher is an ordained priest. Why didn’t he wear at least a stole to preach? How does the rule of St. Francis overrule the rule that priests must wear stoles to preach?
  5. They used Arabic during the service.
  6. They gave communion in the hand to those who put out their hands.
  7. The prayer for the Jews did not condemn their lack of faith in Christ.
  8. The preacher said that Christ did not wear a seamless garment.
These people failed to see the other elements from the Tridentine form that were present. It seems they wanted to see the service the way THEY believe it should be. We can call this democratization or simply fundamentalism. But it is very critical of things that were good and holy. It misses the entire message of Good Friday that the Liturgy from Vatican was trying to send. Christ died for all, including those who are not Catholics.

This kind of person never sees the good. They only see the cup half empty. This is dangerous, because people begin to make up their own reality and their own truth rather than receiving what the Church offers.

JR 🙂
 
Brennan_Doherty said:
As a Protestant, I was first attracted to the Church through reading some of the writings of the Mystics. I remember reading some of “An Anthology of Christian Mysticism” which is excellent.
Click to expand...
This is an awesome book. We read it in our into course.

Then we moved on to each of the writings and the theology of the different mystics. After that, we moved into the Church’s theology on mysticism. From there we moved into mysticism as found in scripture and finally the mysticism of the liturgy and sacraments. It’s a four year MA program, but worth it. There are several good schools of Mystical Theology in the USA and abroad. You may want to get such a degree if you like Mystical Theology. It’s very psychological, liturgical, and systematic.

JR 🙂
 
JReducation said:
This is an awesome book. We read it in our into course.

Then we moved on to each of the writings and the theology of the different mystics. After that, we moved into the Church’s theology on mysticism. From there we moved into mysticism as found in scripture and finally the mysticism of the liturgy and sacraments. It’s a four year MA program, but worth it. There are several good schools of Mystical Theology in the USA and abroad. You may want to get such a degree if you like Mystical Theology. It’s very psychological, liturgical, and systematic.

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
Sure, I’d love to get a degree in Mystical Theology. You want to give me a full ride scholarship? 😉 .
 
Brennan_Doherty said:
Sure, I’d love to get a degree in Mystical Theology. You want to give me a full ride scholarship? 😉 .
Click to expand...
I can point you toward some good schools and even tutor you via internet, the rest is up to you. Did I mention there is no money to be made in theology? 😃

Details details.

JR 🙂
 
JReducation said:
I can point you toward some good schools and even tutor you via internet, the rest is up to you. Did I mention there is no money to be made in theology? 😃

Details details.

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
Sure, go ahead and point me if you have any info. I’d appreciate it. Thanks.
 
JReducation said:
PS Those who watched the Good Friday Liturgy from the Vatican will have noticed several interesting details
  1. The Pope and Deacons wore the Tridentine vestments
  2. The readings were in Latin
  3. The ritual was the NO
  4. The preacher was a Capuchin Brother who is the Pope’s personal preacher, not a Cardinal or the Pope.
  5. Although the Brother is ordained, he wore the habit of his order and did not wear the stole over the habit, which the Church requires that priest wear when they preach. He followed the wishes of St. Francis that those Brothers who are priests NOT distinguish themselves except when celebrating the sacraments.
  6. The theme of the Good Friday homily was ecumenism.
  7. The Brother used much of what Pope John Paul II wrote on ecumenism.
  8. The Brother also stated that Christ’s redemptive act on the cross is not limited or impaired by the separation between Christians or other peoples, but Christ does use their circumstances to save. The communion needs to be established, but we have to work with what we have and Christ does just that. He also added that those who are not in communion with the Church are still part of the Mystical Body and that there have been misinterpretations and poor applications of this concept in the past that must be corrected and he challenged the Pope to correct the interpretation to include everyone in the Mystical Body, not just Catholics.
  9. The Vatican would not have allowed such a sermon to be preached from the Basilica unless it was comfortable with the content. They know that this sermon is going to be heard around the world.
  10. The combination of elements from the EF, the NO and the Franciscan tradition tells us where the Holy Father stands without saying a word.
  11. After all the speculation by the laity on this forum, the prayer for the Jews was only slightly changed. Unless you were paying very close attention, you wouldn’t have noticed. It added that they would discover Christ, but left the other elements of the NO in it and did not include the old working of “perfidious Jews”. It referred to them as “our Jewish brothers and sisters”.
This reminds me of something that our Holy Father Francis once said to his brothers, “Say nothing and preach a good sermon.” I believe this is what the Vatican did today. The Pope let someone else speak for him. The fact that he selected is personal preacher and confessor says a great deal. This is not usually the case. It is the case that the Pope must have a Capuchin as a personal preacher and confessor, that was established by John XXIII, but not that this Brother preaches the Good Friday homily for the world to hear. I am wondering if this was deliberate. The Vatican rarely does anything by accident.

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
Link to the Good Friday homily.

zenit.org/article-22128?l=english
 
JReducation said:
I’m going to disagree with some of this. There are traditionalists who refuse to bend. A good example was witnessed today.

The Good Friday Liturgy at the Vatican had elements from several sides. I have already seen some posts by traditionalists complaining about the following…
Click to expand...
I saw neither the Good Friday Liturgy at the Vatican, only your description of it (which parts to my ears sound troublesome as you describe and interpret it), so can’t comment on it fairly. Nor did I see the “complaining”, only your complaining of this complaining. It seems to me, and don’t take this the wrong way, ygat you seem to have an “issue” here with some fellow catholics’ voicing a concern for the Church. Something about removing the plank from one’s own eye comes to mind…hmmmm.

Christ’s promise to the Church does not guarantee that every single homily issued from a pulpit at the Vatican is going to be an excellent rock solid homily. Heck, if documents of a Council can be ambiguous, certainly a homily can be - and thus be prone to misinterpretation. I will look for the text of the homily online and comment on it/your comments later.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top