Is it acceptable to disagree with the Church?

[Black_Rose]

I primarily disagree with the Church on abortion and don’t subscribe to some of its teachings currently.

I posted this because I recently read an article about Brad Lidge, written about a year ago, and how he disagrees with the Catholic Church, similar to my situation. Would he be a Catholic? His views seem legitimate although they may be arguing from incomplete information.

The pitcher’s Christianity defies common classification and is subject to constant revision.

“If I had to define myself now I would be nondenominational with a heavy appreciation for and leaning theologically toward Catholicism,” Lidge said. “But there are some things in Catholicism that I don’t subscribe to.”

That perspective hardened when Lidge and his wife, Lindsay, visited the Vatican.

“If you’ve seen the Sistine Chapel and you see the amount of wealth amassed there . . . if they decide there is a time when they really want to use that for God and Jesus’ cause, they could spread that,” Lidge said.

“They could sell all those things, auction them off and probably feed half that world’s starving population. There is that much wealth stored in the Sistine Chapel. For it just to be sitting there I think is a crime. It just doesn’t make sense anymore. People have given well-deserved gifts to the church, but Jesus said, ‘Store for yourself not treasures on earth but treasures in heaven.’ These are treasures on earth. That’s not what we’re supposed to be doing.”

Raised in a Catholic household near Denver, Lidge attended Mass every Sunday and served as an altar boy. But religion hardly defined his younger days.

“I don’t think that I was necessarily big on religion then,” he said. “I was more a philosophical, rationalize-things- out type of guy.”

philly.com/philly/sports/20091028_The_education_of_Brad_Lidge.html

 

[Bookcat]

I primarily disagree with the Church on abortion and don’t subscribe to some of its teachings currently.

I posted this because I recently read an article about Brad Lidge, written about a year ago, and how he disagrees with the Catholic Church, similar to my situation. Would he be a Catholic? His views seem legitimate although they may be arguing from incomplete information.

philly.com/philly/sports/20091028_The_education_of_Brad_Lidge.html

I invite you to embrace the Faith…to as scripture says “hand oneself over” …for in this Faith…in Jesus…is true life.

No one may not “disagree”…one must have the “obedience of Faith” as Paul says…in matters of Faith and even in other matters (depending on the thing…if it s taught by the Church or just opinion of say theologians etc…) one needs to give religious submission of mind and will…

Abortion is very clearly something one must reject as a Catholic …as a Follower of Jesus.

We are to follow him …and set about the renewal of our minds…

I propose to you reading this homily by Pope Benedict XVI…please read is carefully all the way through…it was from the end of the year of St. Paul so they way it starts off may may you think I posted the wrong one…but keep reading:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090628_chius-anno-paolino_en.html

PS: As to his observation about “wealth” etc…the Church does prob more for the poor than anyone…and the treasures of art are for the poor…if they were sold they would be for the private homes of the rich etc…beauty is important…and it is being actually used for God and his people…

 

[Black_Rose]

PS: As to his observation about “wealth” etc…the Church does prob more for the poor than anyone…and the treasures of art are for the poor…if they were sold they would be for the private homes of the rich etc…beauty is important…and it is being actually used for God and his people…

Poor people don’t visit the Vatican.

 

[VetA]

Poor people don’t visit the Vatican.

you sure about that? is it a stretch to assume that a poor person may save money form his daughter is born for two reasons to send his daughter first to college and then to the vatican

 

[LDNCatholic]

Poor people don’t visit the Vatican.

Maybe not poor Americans, but poor Europeans frequently do.

Besides, Church run charities are amongst the largest, if not THE largest charitable cause on the face of the planet.

Whining about all the wealth in the Vatican and all the holdings the Church has is pointless.

OK, so the Church sells off everything she safeguards, raises a few billion, gives that to the poor. That disappears just as countless billions have, lost in a sea of bureaucracy and corruption. Now the Church has nothing and the poor have even less, now that the Church is no longer in a position to help.

Alternatively the Church could continue on teaching, feeding, clothing and sheltering, just as she has for millennia, and still give glory to God with awe inspiring structures and artwork.

You might be happy to see your cultural heritage, including many holy items sold off into the hands of private collectors. I am not.

 

[mtnmikeblue]

I primarily disagree with the Church on abortion and don’t subscribe to some of its teachings currently.

I posted this because I recently read an article about Brad Lidge, written about a year ago, and how he disagrees with the Catholic Church, similar to my situation. Would he be a Catholic? His views seem legitimate although they may be arguing from incomplete information.

philly.com/philly/sports/20091028_The_education_of_Brad_Lidge.html

Just watched this speech yesterday from Abp. Burke. Its a little lengthy but it addresses your question.

realcatholictv.com/documents/vort-2010-10-21.php

‎"We find self-professed Catholics, for
example, who sustain and support the right of a woman to procure the death of the infant in her womb, or the right
of two persons of the same sex to the recognition which the State gives to a man and a …woman who have entered
into marriage. It is not possible to be a practicing Catholic and to conduct oneself publicly in this manner".

 

[mommamaree]

This disagreement actually reminds me of the conflict between Judas and Jesus in the last days of Jesus’ ministry. Judas was angry that Jesus allowed a woman to anoint His feet with precious oil, which could have been sold and the money given to the poor. Jesus chastised Judas, and reminded him that the poor will always be with us. Jesus’ ministry, His life and death and resurrection, these all point to much greater things than the imbalance of wealth that exists in the world. The building of God’s kingdom has very little to do with thoughtless redistribution of wealth. Being good stewards of the blessings God gives to us is important, however, and we should all be willing to share and to serve as often as we are able.

Edited to Add:
I somehow missed your first statement about disagreeing with the Church’s teaching on abortion. I don’t see how one can simultaneously be pro-choice and call oneself a practicing Catholic. Dissenting on such an important teaching, which addresses the sanctity of life, leaves one outside of the communion of the Catholic church. From what I was informed during RCIA, one should not approach to receive communion if one is pro-choice, until such a time when prayer and study and reflection has led to a change of heart and one goes to confession first. But you don’t really say how or why you disagree with the teachings that say abortion is always wrong, so I cannot respond to you in anything other than a most general way. I hope you are able to find some answers that bring you peace.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I direct you and the writer of that article to read Mathew 26: 7-11,

A woman came up to him with an alabaster jar of costly perfumed oil, and poured it on his head while he was reclining at table. When the disciples saw this, they were indignant and said, “Why this waste? It could have been sold for much, and the money given to the poor.” Since Jesus knew this, he said to them, "Why do you make trouble for the woman? She has done a good thing for me. The poor you will always have with you; but you will not always have me. In pouring this perfumed oil upon my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. Amen, I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be spoken of, in memory of her."

“Always, always the best for Jesus.” --Mother Teresa, a blessed soul who dedicated her life to serving the poorest of the poor.

And let’s remember a few things that are key

• Look at any faith in the world and you will see that they too have “earthly treasures” set aside as part of their tradition.
• The Catholic Church is the largest and most generous religious organization in the world
• The Catholic Church is also the most targeted religious organization as being “uncharitable” … do you know why?
• Feeding and clothing the poor is what we are called to do as Christians, but are we not also called to “give them the words of eternal Life”? EWTN, the Eternal Word Television Network, would not be able to witness to those thirsting for the Word of God without funds to do so.

Now, my question to you is, what exactly do you disagree with the Church on the topic of abortion?

 

[mommamaree]

I direct you and the writer of that article to read Mathew 26: 7-11,

A woman came up to him with an alabaster jar of costly perfumed oil, and poured it on his head while he was reclining at table. When the disciples saw this, they were indignant and said, “Why this waste? It could have been sold for much, and the money given to the poor.” Since Jesus knew this, he said to them, "Why do you make trouble for the woman? She has done a good thing for me. The poor you will always have with you; but you will not always have me. In pouring this perfumed oil upon my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. Amen, I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be spoken of, in memory of her."

“Always, always the best for Jesus.” --Mother Teresa, a blessed soul who dedicated her life to serving the poorest of the poor.

And let’s remember a few things that are key

• Look at any faith in the world and you will see that they too have “earthly treasures” set aside as part of their tradition.
• The Catholic Church is the largest and most generous religious organization in the world
• The Catholic Church is also the most targeted religious organization as being “uncharitable” … do you know why?
• Feeding and clothing the poor is what we are called to do as Christians, but are we not also called to “give them the words of eternal Life”? EWTN, the Eternal Word Television Network, would not be able to witness to those thirsting for the Word of God without funds to do so.

Now, my question to you is, what exactly do you disagree with the Church on the topic of abortion?

Wow, lil_flower_luv, so well put! Thank you for saying so eloquently what I was trying to convey.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

This disagreement actually reminds me of the conflict between Judas and Jesus in the last days of Jesus’ ministry. Judas was angry that Jesus allowed a woman to anoint His feet with precious oil, which could have been sold and the money given to the poor. Jesus chastised Judas, and reminded him that the poor will always be with us. Jesus’ ministry, His life and death and resurrection, these all point to much greater things than the imbalance of wealth that exists in the world. The building of God’s kingdom has very little to do with thoughtless redistribution of wealth. Being good stewards of the blessings God gives to us is important, however, and we should all be willing to share and to serve as often as we are able.

Edited to Add:
I somehow missed your first statement about disagreeing with the Church’s teaching on abortion. I don’t see how one can simultaneously be pro-choice and call oneself a practicing Catholic. Dissenting on such an important teaching, which addresses the sanctity of life, leaves one outside of the communion of the Catholic church. From what I was informed during RCIA, one should not approach to receive communion if one is pro-choice, until such a time when prayer and study and reflection has led to a change of heart and one goes to confession first. But you don’t really say how or why you disagree with the teachings that say abortion is always wrong, so I cannot respond to you in anything other than a most general way. I hope you are able to find some answers that bring you peace.

Looks like we posted at the same time and I missed your post! I think you worded that very well, mommamaree!
And thank you. :hug1:
God Bless you+

 

[Victorious]

Besides, Church run charities are amongst the largest, if not THE largest charitable cause on the face of the planet.

Whining about all the wealth in the Vatican and all the holdings the Church has is pointless.

Quite. And as a matter of fact, the Church’s gold and jewels come in pretty handy in times of crisis. When St. Alphonsus Liguori was bishop of the Diocese of St. Agatha of the Goths, he off-loaded some of his church’s treasures in order to relieve a famine. And when the Nazis occupied Rome and threatened to deport all the city’s Jews unless they handed over a million lira and 100 lbs. of gold, Ven. Pius XII promptly came up with the gold. Not a moment’s hesitation; never revealed what he had to melt down to get it.

As to the original question: no, it is not acceptable to disagree with the Church in matters of faith and morals. To disagree with the Church in these matters is to say that one does not believe either that the Church was founded by Jesus Christ or that she speaks with His authority.

 

[Bookcat]

Poor people don’t visit the Vatican.

You have not been to the Vatican it seems…for of course they can…and do…

(I have been several times…)

 

[Bookcat]

Q.
I’m sure you hear this all the time, but I’m looking for a concise and convincing way of answering objections to the wealth of the Church.
”
A:

Most objections about the Church’s alleged wealth is in regard to the art in the Vatican. Most of the art represents the work of Christians who wanted to place their talents at the service of God through the Church. The artwork is an example of their religiosity and is not for sale. Had the Church not preserved the art, much of it would have been destroyed through the ages. Such art is part of our heritage as Christians and indeed as human beings, and few people of any persuasion who appreciate such world culture would truly prefer that these treasures have been put into the control of secular commerce.

In Matthew 26:6ff we read,

A woman came up to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head as he sat at table. But when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, "Why this waste? For the ointment might have been sold for a large sum and given to the poor." But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, "Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me."

Likewise, many of the great cathedrals of Europe were built with donations and labor from the poor, who wanted to build such monuments to God’s goodness and sovereignty. The Vatican does not control enormous liquid wealth, and its annual operating budget has been compared to that of a large archdiocese such as that of Chicago.

In spite of this, the Catholic Church is still one of the most giving institutions on earth, running and supporting countless charities, relief organizations, hospitals, and similar enterprises at great cost to the Church." From catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/apologetics/page4

 

[Soler]

Poor people don’t visit the Vatican.

Um… there are poor people in Rome too, you know…
Sorry, but it is true.

The Vatican Museums cost about €10 to enter, but they’re free once a month.

(Besides, what would selling the art accomplish other than a feeding few people for a decade, and making some very rich and very greedy people even more satisfied than they already are? If the Church keeps it, it will most likely be public for centuries.)

St. Peter’s is free, as are the other basilicas in Rome. I presume you don’t object to spending money to make church buildings, you know, beautiful. “To the greater glory of God.”

Suppose I were on the streets, and my bishop were building a new cathedral. Suppose the bishop decided to cut the budget for the cathedral to help the city’s homeless, including myself. I don’t claim I’d be saintly enough to refuse the money. I do claim I’d be embarrassed and uncomfortable taking it, all things being equal.

Off topic: My diocese is the only one in Ireland not to have a cathedral, and it’s the one with the biggest city and the most people. We used to have two in the Middle Ages, but Harry 8 and his cronies stole both. Say a prayer for his soul.

 

[PJM]

I primarily disagree with the Church on abortion and don’t subscribe to some of its teachings currently.

I posted this because I recently read an article about Brad Lidge, written about a year ago, and how he disagrees with the Catholic Church, similar to my situation. Would he be a Catholic? His views seem legitimate although they may be arguing from incomplete information.

philly.com/philly/sports/20091028_The_education_of_Brad_Lidge.html

NO! You may NOT! Here is why…

**THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER III. DE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI **[Current Code of Canon Law]

Can. 747 §1. The Church, to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the deposit of faith so that with the assistance of the Holy Spirit it might protect the revealed truth reverently, examine it more closely, and proclaim and expound it faithfully, has the duty and innate right, independent of any human power whatsoever, to preach the gospel to all peoples, also using the means of social communication proper to it.

§2. It belongs to the Church always and everywhere to announce moral principles, even about the social order, and to render judgment concerning any human affairs insofar as the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls requires it.

Can. 748 §1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.

§2. No one is ever permitted to coerce persons to embrace the Catholic faith against their conscience. [Which in no way lessons ones GRAVE obligation to 1. Seek truth, 2. adhere to Catholic Teaching or 3. face God’s judgement. Hell and heaven are our Personal choices!..PJM]

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

**§2. **The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

**§2. **Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

**Can. 752 **Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

B]Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.

 

[Rolltide]

Poor people don’t visit the Vatican.

You’ve clearly never been to the Vatican then. Poor pilgrims by the hundreds of thousands visit the Vatican every year.

 

[Rolltide]

This has already been stated, but I’ll reiterate it to start:

Matthew 26:6-13
Now when Jesus was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper,
a woman came up to him with an alabaster jar of costly perfumed oil, and poured it on his head while he was reclining at table.
When the disciples saw this, they were indignant and said, “Why this waste?
It could have been sold for much, and the money given to the poor.”
Since Jesus knew this, he said to them, “Why do you make trouble for the woman? She has done a good thing for me.
The poor you will always have with you; but you will not always have me.
In pouring this perfumed oil upon my body, she did it to prepare me for burial.
Amen, I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be spoken of, in memory of her.”

 

[Rolltide]

1. The Catholic Church always has been, and remains, the largest charitable organization on the planet, by a wide amount. Much of the Vatican’s wealth has been donated to it by the great artists of the world for the glorification of God. Even that art which has been commissioned by the Vatican was still done for the glorification of God, because as Christians, we realize that the things of this Earth are fleeting. We give our best to God, but in the end, money doesn’t really mean anything. It’s our relationship with God. Jesus is saying in the passage from Matthew above that one can honor God with fine things AND help the poor at the same time.
2. The people actually living at the Vatican are not living a magnificent lifestyle. In fact, the pope’s apartment is quite modest. It consists of just ten rooms. The layout includes a vestibule, the library, a small studio for the papal secretary, and the pope’s private studio, from which he blesses the crowd every Sunday. The other rooms include the pope’s bedroom, the medical studio (which has surgical equipment, in case he’s attacked, just like Air Force One has), his private chapel, a small living room, a dining room and kitchen. Further, the pope does not actually own any of this. It’s no different than asking the question of whether the President of the United States lives in too much opulence because he gets to use the White House, Air Force One, Marine One, Camp David, and so on. All of these things serve a purpose, and NONE belong to him. They belong to the people, which let him use it.
3. The Vatican also serves as a museum for many of the world’s great treasures. As such, it protects them in museums. In reality, these objects have no objective value, because they cannot be sold. For example, let’s say the Vatican was to give up all of it’s wealth. How, precisely, would you sell off the Sistine Chapel? Is there really anything else you can do with it? You can’t give it to a private collector, or build a Starbucks, or something. That said, let’s do an experiment. Let’s say that the art that it WOULD be possible to sell at the Vatican is worth, say, a trillion dollars. That would indeed be a large sum of money. Now, let’s sell it all and donate the money to the poorest one-third of the world. The Catholic Church would then be able to give those two billion people exactly… $500. That’s it! Now, while the average income of those 2 billion impoverished people is around $300 per year, and while this would help them for a very short time, in about a half a decade, they would all likely go right back to being poor, and the world would have lost access to many of the world’s greatest treasures, as they’d be in private hands. Is the United States of America fabulously wealthy because it has the treasures of the Smithsonian Institution? I mean, wouldn’t it be better if they sold off all of those artifacts and donated the money to the poor? Of course not.

continued…

 

[Rolltide]

1. You must also remember that while Vatican City is an independent nation, most tiny countries like Monaco, Luxembourg, and Lichtenstein are far wealthier due to their tremendous banking industries, and they are comparable in size… Granted, the Vatican is probably slightly more wealthy than Andorra, and I’ll grant that it is definitely more wealthy than San Marino. That said, even many tiny Caribbean nations are wealthier than the Vatican. In fact, it operates on a budget smaller than Harvard University. It simply happens to have an abnormally large amount of museums.

You also must remember that the Vatican has only been a tiny principality since around 1860. Before then, the Vatican was part of the “Papal States”, which was a fairly substantial nation, consisting of much of the middle of Italy. It was probably larger and wealthier than Belgium, The Netherlands, and Luxembourg put together. Much of what remains was inherited from this much larger, more substantial state. It could never afford to build such buildings today.

This is typical of all European nations. For example, the French government did an investigation into insuring the palace of Versailles a few years back, as it is such an important national heritage site. After various insurance agents looked at it, they determined that Versailles is uninsurable, and it’s value is $0. Why? Simply put, if anything were to happen to the palace, it would be irreplaceable. The building is so expensive, that if even a fraction of it were to be destroyed, it would be impossible to replicate without bankrupting the whole of France. Now, does this mean that France is irresponsibly wealthy? Not at all. It’s simply a part of it’s cultural heritage. ALL relatively old countries have this problem. It has nothing to do with the Vatican per se.

1. The Vatican, like many great churches, dates to the late Middle Ages / early Renaissance. A cathedral was actually one of the best investments a medieval town could make. Despite their great expense, a large cathedral could take hundreds of years to complete. It could become an industry unto itself. Large cathedrals employed thousands, and generated huge amounts of highly skilled jobs… jobs that were sorely lacking in the period. When the cathedral was complete, they would still need to be maintained, so many workmen would still remain. The pilgrims that would come to visit the cathedral needed to be fed, clothed, and housed, and this provided a virtual tourism industry, bringing in much needed revenue to both the church and the community. Churches were also the only medieval centers of learning, and every major university in Europe split off from a cathedral. If you had a cathedral school in your town, opportunities for trade would skyrocket, since learning about math, geography, cartography, astronomy, business, and law was all required by merchants. Further, most towns only even needed to have one large church, since there were no denominations. Everyone was Catholic, so all the effort could go into one splendid building rather than many smaller ones. Almost all medieval cities with a cathedral were FAR better off than their counterparts without them. This is why the cathedral is often called the greatest innovation of the Middle Ages.
2. There is an old legend (which is probably true) that in the late 10th century Grand Prince Vladimir, seeking a national religion to help unify his lands and peoples, sent out envoys to inspect the various faiths of the surrounding nations. Accordingly, they attended the Muslim rites of the Bulgars, the Catholic mass of the Germans, and the Orthodox liturgy of the Greeks. When they returned and were questioned by their Prince as to which of the religions they thought the best, they answered boldly that whereas they found neither joy nor glory in the ceremonies of the Bulgars and the Germans, when they entered the sanctuary of the Greeks, they did not know whether they were in heaven or on earth. “For on earth,” they explained, “there is no such splendor or such beauty, and we are at a loss how to describe it. We only know that God dwells there among men, and their service is fairer than the ceremonies of other nations. For we cannot forget that beauty” (the Primary Chronicle). Vladimir accepted their testimony, and the Russian Orthodox Church (which in 1988 celebrated its Millennium) was born.

clarionreview.org/templates/print.php?article_id=1

That idea of splendor, awe, and the sacred (more successfully accomplished by the Orthodox in the story above since Germany was a backwater at the time) is what is trying to be captured at the Vatican. If you come away with “it’s almost as if God is dwelling among men” at the Vatican, then you got the point.
By the way, have you ever noticed how the Orthodox Church NEVER receives this same question, and yet has churches equal in opulence to the Catholic Church (and in many cases, more opulent)?

The Biblical basis for this idea comes in part, from Revelation, as discussed above. It also is the successor to the Levitical priesthood, which also had splendid things, such as the Temple of Solomon.

continued…

 

[Rolltide]

1. This issue (the wealth of the Church) has been addressed in one way or another at least four times in church history already. First was the Iconoclastic controversy. People asked, “Why do we have all these expensive graven images in our churches? We should do away with them!” Well, this was in the Dark Ages, and statues, stained glass, and paintings were necessary because people couldn’t read. Priests had to teach the Gospel orally, using the images as aids. This heresy (and it WAS declared a heresy) was shot down pretty fast. A painting of Jesus is NOT the same as bowing down before a golden calf. Granted, the expense was not the ONLY issue, it was primarily about graven images, but this WAS a factor. The second time this was addressed was around the year 1000. Many Catholic priests were married, and they were living opulent lifestyles with their families, using nepotism to promote the ecclesiastical careers of their children, and building large houses by taking from the collection plate. A small abbey in the French city of Cluny began a highly successful reform movement that cleaned up most of the corruption in the Church. They used the twin principles of vows of poverty for religious orders, and mandatory celibacy for priests, which became SO popular, that the pope eventually mandated it for the Western branch of the church. (Eastern Catholics can still be ordained priests even if they are married. They are not bound to celibacy.) The third time was during the Council of Trent. During this famed council that dealt with the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church was attacked for its wealth. Many churches in Europe were gutted and stripped by Protestants, although the money didn’t go to the poor, but to line the coffers of kings like Henry VIII. As a result, the Catholic Church came up with the Baroque style, the over-the-top, almost gaudy style of decorating you see from that period, which used paintings, statues, gold, marble, stained glass, and almost anything else they could find, crammed it all together, and covered every single conceivable inch of free space in a church in an intentional political statement to show that there was nothing wrong with it. Since the Vatican dates from this era, that’s why you see most of this type of thing there. Some of the world’s greatest Christian art dates from this period as well. Finally, there was Vatican II. This council changed some things, partly with the intent of encouraging ecumenism with Protestants. They reduced the number of statues within churches (generally no more than one per saint, except where already present) for example. Some changes that occurred later cause things like altar rails which separated the congregation from the sanctuary to be ripped out. Some things were simplified. The results of this ecumenism have been mixed at best, since it hasn’t really brought any of those groups much closer to reunion with the Catholic Church. In fact, I would argue that we’re nearing a new interpretation of Vatican II, the “reform of the reform” so to speak. Like any church council, it takes about 100 years or so to implement. Most change comes like a pendulum. You want it in the middle, but it tends to swing to the extremes from time to time. Many believe that we’ve reformed TOO much already, and given up too much. The pendulum seems to be swinging back now, first with John Paul II, and now with Benedict. The ecumenical talks that have been having the most success have actually been with Orthodox groups, so I think that’s one reason why you’re seeing a return to tradition (like the Extraordinary Form of the Mass). I would predict that you’ll actually see MORE opulence, not less, in the coming years, as Catholics are becoming less concerned with what outside groups think of them, and are becoming more confident in their own tradition. This return to tradition and splendor would go a long way at repairing the damages between Catholics and Orthodox, and if those groups united, it would send a HUGE signal to the Christian world, as 2/3 of Christendom would be together. Already this has borne fruit, as an entire diocese of the Assyrian Church of the East, including the bishop and all the parishoners, recently reunited with the Catholic Church. The rest of this Orthodox group is also very close to reunification. A couple of other groups are also in talks. It is indeed a hopeful time!

continued…