Is there a conflict between being spiritual and being political?

[Bartolome_Casas]

Lately I have been thinking about the difference between the “Political Catholic” and the “Spiritual Catholic.” I have based these conjectures and descriptions based on what I read in Pope Benedict’s XVI’s first and third papal encyclicals, Deus caritas est (2005) and Caritas in veritate (2009). I don’t see this as a post about “politics,” but a comment on two different ways lay Catholics endeavor to apply the Church’s teachings in the world.

I wonder how valid you see following categories as being. I consider the following a “work in progress.” I would welcome constructive comments and feedback.

ABOUT POLITICAL CATHOLICS

POLITICAL CATHOLICS want to elect conservatives (of any religion, virtually) to government office and kick liberals out of government office, so that conservative, libertarian, and free market laws can be passed, and so that liberal, progressive, and socialist laws can repealed. The POLITICAL CATHOLIC thinks the key to saving and reforming America and the World is to have, and strictly enforce, a system of secular government laws and court decisions based on conservative principles. POLITICAL CATHOLICS, of both the Liberal Variety and the Conservative Variety, see changing the secular government as the key to saving the nation. POLITICAL CATHOLICS thus have a largely “top down,” materialist, and government force-based view of salvation. POLITICAL CATHOLICS spend a lot of time denouncing, criticizing, shaming, and exposing their political enemies (whether Liberals or Conservatives), and they long for the joy of bringing devastating defeat and humiliation upon their political enemies. POLITICAL CATHOLICS are huge consumers of political news and political news commentary on TV, radio, and the Internet. Because, for them, capturing the offices of government is practically everything, they constantly monitor the political news reports and political news commentators to see who is winning, their side or the other side. Political news is kind of like sports news for them, a way of seeing who’s up and who’s down in the battle for the soul of the nation (sometimes this is called the “Culture War”). The heroes of POLITICAL CATHOLICS are often powerful and popular political commentators who constantly, eloquently and sometimes humorously “give Hell” to their political enemies. POLITICAL CATHOLICS are very nationalistic. They believe their country is the best country in the world, and believe that their nation has a special ordination from God to be dominant in the world. POLITICAL CATHOLICS are generally very committed and attached to their political party. POLITICAL CATHOLICS also have a keen interest in ongoing conflicts within the Church between theological liberals and theological conservatives. For them, this is just another dimension of the larger “Culture War” going on in Society, involving the Church, secular government, schools, courts, and the mass media (TV, movies, music, novels, etc.). POLITICAL CATHOLICS are not generally antagonistic towards SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS, because they generally don’t even have any awareness of their existence or activities since they, the SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS, are not “in the game” of politics at all, and so are deemed irrelevant. POLITICAL CATHOLICS are generally hostile towards, are unaware of, or try to minimize the Church’s teachings on Ecumenism as found in the documents of the Vatican II Council and in the writings and preaching of Blessed John Paull II and Pope Benedict XVI. POLITICAL CATHOLICS can’t quite bring themselves to really agree with the Vatican II Council when it says, “all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church” and “ the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church…" POLITICAL CATHOLICS tend to hold to the pre-Vatican II Council view that non-Catholic Christians are members of a different religion and that there is a desperate need for them to convert to only true Church, the Roman Catholic Church. Their fierce pro-Catholic, anti-Ecumenism stance is similar to their fierce nationalistic pro-American stance. However, ironically, paradoxically, in secular political matters, POLITICAL CATHOLICS generally don’t care about the religious affiliation of a conservative, so long as he or she subscribes to principles of conservatism, libertarianism, and free market economics. POLITICAL CATHOLICS of the Liberal Variety tend to downplay the sins of involving the appetite for sexual pleasures (represented by the Golden Calf in the Bible). POLITICAL CATHOLICS of the Conservative Variety tend to downplay the sins involving the appetite for material wealth and luxuries (called Mammon in the Bible). POLITICAL CATHOLICS expect to eventually win and see conservatism become permanently dominant in America and perhaps in the world at large too.

In my next post, following, I will describe the category I am calling “SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS.”

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

ABOUT SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS

SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS do vote in secular government elections, for the best candidates that they can find. But SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS believe firmly that it makes little or no difference for the well-being of souls whether the national and state governments offices are dominated by conservatives or liberals, and whether liberal or conservative laws are passed or repealed. SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS believe that only by winning souls, one by one, over to the love of God, the love of Christ, and love of the practice of the Theological Virtue and Cardinal Virtues, can souls be saved and grow in holiness. SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS see that the only “campaign” that matters is the campaign of evangelization to win souls to the bosom of God. SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS, thus have a “inside out” and and spiritual view of salvation. SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS spend no time denouncing, criticizing and exposing their political enemies, but rather spend all their time talking about and showing the greatness of God, the greatness of the Christ, and the greatness of the Government of God. “Kingdom of God” is the Biblical idiomatic term for the Government of God. Thus, it can be said that SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS are focused government, just not on the worldly secular government. For SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS, the only thing that matters is getting individual souls to voluntarily submit to the rulership of Christ in the Kingdom (Government) of God. SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS think it makes little or no difference what secular laws are passed or repealed. The laws that matter are the unchangeable ones that God has ordained or created as part of nature and that individual souls voluntarily embrace as life giving food. SPRITUAL CATHOLICS believe that if the citizens of a nation don’t love God above all (especially more than money, sex and freedom), and don’t love their neighbor, strangers and enemies just as much as they love themselves, then no scheme of laws or court decisions can make a nation’s people righteous. SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS are not big followers of the news, since they view the really important activity of life to be that which occurs between persons who know and deal with each other in person. SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS have no interest in any “Culture War” going on in the general society. They focus on the internal battle between good and evil, between Christ and Satan, between Mammon (money) and Christian Love, between Flesh and Spirit, going on in each person’s individual soul, and they focus on the means supplied and recommended by Jesus Christ for souls to ascend upwards to God, namely the Word of God, the Sacraments, and the sound Preachers and Teachers of the Faith. The heroes of SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS are Father God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, and the many Saints (mostly unknown beyond their little neighborhood) who love God above all (especially more than money, sex and freedom), and love their neighbor, strangers and enemies just as much as they love themselves. For SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS, it is virtually a matter of indifference to them what nation they live in; they strive be good citizens, but don’t have a single “nationalist” bone in their body. They remember the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: “My kingdom (nation) is not of this world.” (John 18:36). SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS have no strong attachment to any political party. SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS have no interest in ongoing conflicts within the Church between theological liberals and theological conservatives; they just tune it all out and focus on the spiritual work of God that they find themselves able to carry out. SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS are not generally antagonistic towards POLITICAL CATHOLICS, but they do view POLITICAL CATHOLICISM as a false path that does no good for anyone, and so are saddened by all the Catholics who get sucked into the frenetic and alluring vortex of POLITICAL CATHOLICISM. They think this, but they hardly ever say anything along these lines, since such talk would only stir up conflict and resentment and accomplish nothing. Rather, they just keep doing the work of God that they find themselves able to carry out, with whomever God sends their way. SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS are embrace the Church’s teachings on Ecumenism as found in the documents of the Vatican II Council and in the writings and preaching of Blessed John Paull II and Pope Benedict XVI. They are happy to quote the Vatican II Council when it says “all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church” and “ the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church…" SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS tend to be equally attentive to the temptations to indulge in the sins of involving the appetite for sexual pleasures (represented by the Golden Calf in the Bible) and the sins involving the appetite for material wealth and luxuries (called Mammon in the Bible). SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS don’t expect to win, don’t expect to be dominant, in this world. They expect to always be a minority, to always be mocked, rejected and dismissed by the Powers That Be. They recall the words of Our Lord Jesus: “If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also.” (John 15:20), and “Blessed are those who are persecuted" (Mathew 5:10). SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS expect the Kingdom (government) of God to be dominant only after the Second, Glorious Coming of Christ.

 

[littlenothing]

I think you’ve made some excellent points there. I don’t think, though, that political catholics, to use your term, are so legalistic in their views of other Christians. Im sure some are, but so are some spiritual catholics. I also think that spiritual catholics are interested in the culture war, as sin is one of the main points in it.

I haven’t read those documents you mentioned. It will be interesting to shear what others have to say about this topic. Good post!

 

[SusansChoice]

You’ve obviously given this a great deal of thought, but, wow, talk about generalizations.
There are so many points to address…it will be interesting to hear how others respond.
Blessings

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

When people blend religion and secular government they end up ceasing the preaching of the true Gospel of repentance, righteous living, faith, hope and love as found in the Bible and the Catechism, and instead focus on gaining the power to use worldly laws and force to attempt to impose righteousness on their neighbors and enemies.

This World is a tricky place.

I have gradually learned from experience that many people (I must add myself into this sorry lot) who profess to be working for the well-being of everyone in Society are in reality only or mainly working for their own personal pleasures, power and glory.

Lots of people have learned that they can get more of what they want if they pretend to have altruistic motives. Ironic, isn’t it?

As a result, almost everyone in government, the churches, the charities, the schools, the universities, and even in many businesses, pretend to have only one motive: to unselfishly serve others. Some business persons claim to be practicing “Servant Leadership.” Sound so good!

And so, this pretense of altruism becomes like a fig leaf over the shame of their (I should say “our”) rampant greed, selfishness, self-centeredness, competitiveness, aggressiveness, licentiousness, lust, envy, pride, sloth, gluttony, and hatred.

I believe that all this counterfeit Christian brotherly love is what causes people to have no idea what true Christian brotherly love is, and leads others to assert or doubt that the practice of consistent Christian brotherly love in all things is simply impossible.

Perhaps this is what the Bible means by people getting “blinded" or are blinded by God such that they can no longer see the Truth.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

christiancentury.org/blogs/archive/2011-09/constantinianism-all-bad

Is Constantinianism all bad?

Sep 27, 2011 by David Heim

“Constantinian” has lately been a favored pejorative in theological circles. The term–an allusion to the fourth-century Roman emperor whose conversion to Christianity turned a marginal sect into a state religion–has been used to deplore any alliance between the church and the state or, more broadly, between the church and the dominant political culture.

Thanks to the influence of John Howard Yoder and Stanley Hauerwas, among others, anti-Constantinianism has provided an edge of energy to much mainline preaching and theology and has fueled a healthy suspicion about ways that churches can lose their identity by aligning themselves with power or the mindset of modernity.

But is Constantinianism entirely wrongheaded? Don’t Christians want people in power to embrace Christianity and Christian values? Is it a bad thing if they do? Is it impossible or meaningless for them to try?

Oliver O’Donovan in The Desire of the Nations offered, in direct conversation with Hauerwas, a learned defense of the idea of “Christendom,” or Constantinianism. O’Donovan’s writing is dense and his arguments elliptical, however, and my sense is that his book hasn’t made much impact on the conversation, at least not outside graduate schools.

Peter Leithart’s Defending Constantine has also deepened the discussion, both about what Constantine actually did and about the reputed perils of Constantinianism. That Hauerwas himself (reviewing the book for the Century) finds Leithart persuasive on a number of points suggests that battle between Constantinians and anti-Constantinians is not the black-and-white contest that popular theology often suggests it is.

The Journal of Lutheran Ethics has extended this important discussion with Timothy Furry’s critical summary of Leithart and Leithart’s reply. Furry, like Hauerwas, notes that the debate over Constantine involves both historical and theological issues, which can be distinguished, even if they can’t be fully disentangled. Was the church pacifist before Constantine? Did Constantine’s faith reshape the empire as well as revise the church? Does that matter for how we evaluate Constaninianism?

Leithart concludes that Christians can’t reject out of hand the idea of a Christian civilization and a Christian political order–unless they believe that the world is impervious to the gospel.

 

[ACCT]

Here is a quote from Bishop Sheen on politics:

“Our Constitution puts politics under theology, democracy under God. But today, politics denies its divine foundation. Politics is today the supreme and absolute science. We once lived in the age of the Theological Man; then cam the age of the Economic Man; now we are in the age of the Political Man. The Theological Man lived for God; the Economic Man lived for profit; the Political Man lives for the State…So important has politics become, that now men judge religion by its attitude toward politics, rather than politics by its attitude toward religion.”

 

[St_Francis]

christiancentury.org/blogs/archive/2011-09/constantinianism-all-bad

Is Constantinianism all bad?

The Church has long taught that the Church has authority over civil government, as the Vicar of Christ, *Lord of Lords, Lord of the World; altho Church and state should remain separate entities–the Church does not want an actual theocracy.

The apparent changes of V2 seem to have been more along the lines of how to handle pluralistic or non-Catholic nations on a practical level–I have no idea why they allowed the Catholic nations to change their Constitutions to reflect what was meant for non-Catholic nations.

But “separation of Church and state” was an error condemned in the Syllabus of Errors, I believe, or maybe the Decree Against Modernism.*

 

[St_Francis]

I agree with you that there are different kinds of Catholic, and that for some, politics seems to trump the Faith in terms of what they concentrate on and what forms their political views. In fact, reading what you are writing prompts me to think that I may be still to far in that category.

Lately I have been thinking about the difference between the “Political Catholic” and the “Spiritual Catholic.” I have based these conjectures and descriptions based on what I read in Pope Benedict’s XVI’s first and third papal encyclicals, Deus caritas est (2005) and Caritas in veritate (2009). I don’t see this as a post about “politics,” but a comment on two different ways lay Catholics endeavor to apply the Church’s teachings in the world.

Just to be clear–you’re not saying these are the only two ways a Catholic can be, are you?

[You wrote as the second paragraph (btw, I think you might have to hit the return/enter key twice to get your paragraphs to show up.)] POLITICAL CATHOLICS, of both the Liberal Variety and the Conservative Variety, see changing the secular government as the key to saving the nation. POLITICAL CATHOLICS thus have a largely “top down,” materialist, and government force-based view of salvation. POLITICAL CATHOLICS spend a lot of time denouncing, criticizing, shaming, and exposing their political enemies (whether Liberals or Conservatives), and they long for the joy of bringing devastating defeat and humiliation upon their political enemies.

This (above) I agree with. It took me a while to understand this, but what you are describing is someone who may or may not be Catholic, but who politically follows one of the several Enlightenment-derived ways of thinking.

POLITICAL CATHOLICS are huge consumers of political news and political news commentary on TV, radio, and the Internet. Because, for them, capturing the offices of government is practically everything, they constantly monitor the political news reports and political news commentators to see who is winning, their side or the other side. Political news is kind of like sports news for them, a way of seeing who’s up and who’s down in the battle for the soul of the nation (sometimes this is called the “Culture War”). The heroes of POLITICAL CATHOLICS are often powerful and popular political commentators who constantly, eloquently and sometimes humorously “give Hell” to their political enemies.

Applies to both US-Conservatives and US-Liberals, again, they don’t have to be Catholic!

POLITICAL CATHOLICS want to elect conservatives (of any religion, virtually) to government office and kick liberals out of government office, so that conservative, libertarian, and free market laws can be passed, and so that liberal, progressive, and socialist laws can repealed. The POLITICAL CATHOLIC thinks the key to saving and reforming America and the World is to have, and strictly enforce, a system of secular government laws and court decisions based on conservative principles.

POLITICAL CATHOLICS are very nationalistic. They believe their country is the best country in the world, and believe that their nation has a special ordination from God to be dominant in the world. POLITICAL CATHOLICS are generally very committed and attached to their political party. POLITICAL CATHOLICS also have a keen interest in ongoing conflicts within the Church between theological liberals and theological conservatives. For them, this is just another dimension of the larger “Culture War” going on in Society, involving the Church, secular government, schools, courts, and the mass media (TV, movies, music, novels, etc.).

To me, this would describe only one kind of Political Catholic–the Conservative (US) Political Catholic. It does not describe the Liberal (US) Catholic. But actually, this is a whole way of thinking which applies, one might say, to Conservative (US) Political PEOPLE, not just Catholics, by any means!

In fact, this whole way of thinking about the world and the US and US politics is kind of a political philosophy derived very much from the early English settlers, who were strongly Calvinistic. There is a sort of drive to “convert” other nations to this way of thinking (I am trying to remember where I found out about this idea, because I think you would be very interested. I will link it when I remember.)

continued below

 

[St_Francis]

continued from above

POLITICAL CATHOLICS are not generally antagonistic towards SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS, because they generally don’t even have any awareness of their existence or activities since they, the SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS, are not “in the game” of politics at all, and so are deemed irrelevant. POLITICAL CATHOLICS are generally hostile towards, are unaware of, or try to minimize the Church’s teachings on Ecumenism as found in the documents of the Vatican II Council and in the writings and preaching of Blessed John Paull II and Pope Benedict XVI. POLITICAL CATHOLICS can’t quite bring themselves to really agree with the Vatican II Council when it says, “all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church” and “ the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church…"

POLITICAL CATHOLICS tend to hold to the pre-Vatican II Council view that non-Catholic Christians are members of a different religion and that there is a desperate need for them to convert to only true Church, the Roman Catholic Church. Their fierce pro-Catholic, anti-Ecumenism stance is similar to their fierce nationalistic pro-American stance. However, ironically, paradoxically, in secular political matters, POLITICAL CATHOLICS generally don’t care about the religious affiliation of a conservative, so long as he or she subscribes to principles of conservatism, libertarianism, and free market economics.

Here, to me, you are conflating Conservative (US) Political Catholics with Strongly Traditional (to Ultra-Traditional) Catholics. A lot of the latter *are *politically conservative, but not all, and conversely, not all politically conservatives are Traditional.

The issue of ecumenism is a very tricky one, very nuanced, as so many things are in the Church! and many err on *each *side.

POLITICAL CATHOLICS of the Liberal Variety tend to downplay the sins of involving the appetite for sexual pleasures (represented by the Golden Calf in the Bible). POLITICAL CATHOLICS of the Conservative Variety tend to downplay the sins involving the appetite for material wealth and luxuries (called Mammon in the Bible). POLITICAL CATHOLICS expect to eventually win and see conservatism become permanently dominant in America and perhaps in the world at large too.

Here you acknowledge the existence of Politically Liberal (US) Catholics. I do not think it is accurate to call only conservatives Political Catholics–I have seen the same tendencies you ascribe to conservatives in liberals, so I think for the sake of accuracy, you would have to differentiate between them. If this is for a project of some sort, you may want to delve as deeply into the problems of the Politically Liberal (US) Catholic as you do for the Politically Conservatice (US) Catholic, and give them each their own name

 

[St_Francis]

SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS do vote in secular government elections, for the best candidates that they can find. But SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS believe firmly that it makes little or no difference for the well-being of souls whether the national and state governments offices are dominated by conservatives or liberals, and whether liberal or conservative laws are passed or repealed.

I am not sure I agree with your putting such a demarcation between Political and Spiritual Catholics. Some of the Spiritual Catholics do think it is very important to elect a person who wants accomplish both care for those in poverty and for those in danger, or not having a candidate who seems interested in both, thinks one or the other is more important in general. So many Spiritual Catholics who concentrate on one set of issues over the other do so more out of their spiritual lives than out of holding a secular political philosophy. But I agree with you that for the Spiritual Catholic, politics is not all-encompassing, and that they consider politics through the lens of their Faith rather than separate their faith from their political thinking as do many Political Catholics.

So sometimes it might be hard for another person to see the difference between a Political Catholic and a Spiritual Catholic.

SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS believe that only by winning souls, one by one, over to the love of God, the love of Christ, and love of the practice of the Theological Virtue and Cardinal Virtues, can souls be saved and grow in holiness. SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS see that the only “campaign” that matters is the campaign of evangelization to win souls to the bosom of God. SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS, thus have a “inside out” and and spiritual view of salvation.

Agree.

SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS spend no time denouncing, criticizing and exposing their political enemies, but rather spend all their time talking about and showing the greatness of God, the greatness of the Christ, and the greatness of the Government of God. “Kingdom of God” is the Biblical idiomatic term for the Government of God. Thus, it can be said that SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS are focused government, just not on the worldly secular government.

I don’t entirely agree with this, along the same lines as my comments above.

And in fact, the Church does not want us to be so spiritual that we are *divorced *from politics; we must be *in *the world, after all.

For SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS, the only thing that matters is getting individual souls to voluntarily submit to the rulership of Christ in the Kingdom (Government) of God. SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS think it makes little or no difference what secular laws are passed or repealed. The laws that matter are the unchangeable ones that God has ordained or created as part of nature and that individual souls voluntarily embrace as life giving food. SPRITUAL CATHOLICS believe that if the citizens of a nation don’t love God above all (especially more than money, sex and freedom), and don’t love their neighbor, strangers and enemies just as much as they love themselves, then no scheme of laws or court decisions can make a nation’s people righteous. SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS are not big followers of the news, since they view the really important activity of life to be that which occurs between persons who know and deal with each other in person. SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS have no interest in any “Culture War” going on in the general society. They focus on the internal battle between good and evil, between Christ and Satan, between Mammon (money) and Christian Love, between Flesh and Spirit, going on in each person’s individual soul, and they focus on the means supplied and recommended by Jesus Christ for souls to ascend upwards to God, namely the Word of God, the Sacraments, and the sound Preachers and Teachers of the Faith. The heroes of SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS are Father God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, and the many Saints (mostly unknown beyond their little neighborhood) who love God above all (especially more than money, sex and freedom), and love their neighbor, strangers and enemies just as much as they love themselves. *For SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS, it is virtually a matter of indifference to them what nation they live in; they strive be good citizens, but don’t have a single “nationalist” bone in their body. *

I hope that you are not equating nationalism with patriotism, which is a virtue.

continued below

 

[St_Francis]

*continued from above *

They remember the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: “My kingdom (nation) is not of this world.” (John 18:36). SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS have no strong attachment to any political party. SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS have no interest in ongoing conflicts within the Church between theological liberals and theological conservatives; they just tune it all out and focus on the spiritual work of God that they find themselves able to carry out. SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS are not generally antagonistic towards POLITICAL CATHOLICS, but they do view POLITICAL CATHOLICISM as a false path that does no good for anyone, and so are saddened by all the Catholics who get sucked into the frenetic and alluring vortex of POLITICAL CATHOLICISM. They think this, but they hardly ever say anything along these lines, since such talk would only stir up conflict and resentment and accomplish nothing. Rather, they just keep doing the work of God that they find themselves able to carry out, with whomever God sends their way.

SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS are embrace the Church’s teachings on Ecumenism as found in the documents of the Vatican II Council and in the writings and preaching of Blessed John Paull II and Pope Benedict XVI. They are happy to quote the Vatican II Council when it says “all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church” and “ the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church…" SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS tend to be equally attentive to the temptations to indulge in the sins of involving the appetite for sexual pleasures (represented by the Golden Calf in the Bible) and the sins involving the appetite for material wealth and luxuries (called Mammon in the Bible). SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS don’t expect to win, don’t expect to be dominant, in this world. They expect to always be a minority, to always be mocked, rejected and dismissed by the Powers That Be. They recall the words of Our Lord Jesus: “If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also.” (John 15:20), and “Blessed are those who are persecuted" (Mathew 5:10). SPIRITUAL CATHOLICS expect the Kingdom (government) of God to be dominant only after the Second, Glorious Coming of Christ.

I would say that among Spiritual Catholics, you will also find Traditional Catholics (who tend to lean the other way on ecumenism) and what we call Liberal Catholics (as opposed to Catholics who are liberal politically) who go beyond what the Church teaches about ecumenism to an easy universal salvation which ignores the dangers of being outside the Church, or even lax within the Church.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

The Church has long taught that the Church has authority over civil government, as the Vicar of Christ, *Lord of Lords, Lord of the World; altho Church and state should remain separate entities–the Church does not want an actual theocracy.

The apparent changes of V2 seem to have been more along the lines of how to handle pluralistic or non-Catholic nations on a practical level–I have no idea why they allowed the Catholic nations to change their Constitutions to reflect what was meant for non-Catholic nations.

But “separation of Church and state” was an error condemned in the Syllabus of Errors, I believe, or maybe the Decree Against Modernism.*

The Vatican II Council overrules certain portions of the Syllabus of Errors. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) admitted that directly.

The Catholic Church REQUIRED Catholic States to revise their constitutions to allow full religious liberty for all non-Catholics mainstream religions. That is documented FACT.

All this was disturbing to me when I first discovered it. But, now later, I see it all as for the good. In any case, this IS what the Church now teachers. To resist it is to become a rebel or dissenter against the Magisterium.

Forcing or pressuring people to be Catholic does no good for anyone.

If you doubt what I’ve said, get a meeting with any bishop and they will confirm all of it.

I admit some apologists will not tell you all this. Some of them are in a kind of covert war against Ecumenism and Inter-faith Dialogue. They want to go back to pre-Vatican II theology, in my view.

Best wishes.

 

[Brendan]

In addition, ‘spirtual’ is meaningless in this context.

Satan is pure spirit, Satan is 100% ‘spiritual’; so being a ‘spiritual’ Catholic says nothing of any consequence about the person.

What Satan is not is Holy, and that is what we are called to be.

A Holy Catholic would care about civil laws. A Holy Catholic would seek to have civil law conform to the Natural Law given by God.

That was emphasized by St. Thomas Aquinas, so there are very few Catholics who would be in a position to teach otherwise.

The Church today speaks on such matters when it objects to that which is intrincally evil, such as any murder of innocents, both by governments and by abortion. And on the status of marriage and of the natural dignity of man.

A Holy Catholic then, would give support to any law that bring civil laws into accord with the Natural Law.

For that is where true Justice is, in the person of God Himself. And where His laws are inforced, there is only Justice.

 

[St_Francis]

The Vatican II Council overrules certain portions of the Syllabus of Errors. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) admitted that directly.

A Cardinal is not protected by infallibility, even if he later becomes Pope. Since the SoE taught the perennial teaching of the Church, and since V2 was a pastoral council which did not purport to promulgate any teachings, I am not sure what could be meant by this.

The Catholic Church REQUIRED Catholic States to revise their constitutions to allow full religious liberty for all non-Catholics mainstream religions. That is documented FACT.

Could you please document this, as I am unable to find information related to this?

All this was disturbing to me when I first discovered it. But, now later, I see it all as for the good. In any case, this IS what the Church now teachers. To resist it is to become a rebel or dissenter against the Magisterium.

Forcing or pressuring people to be Catholic does no good for anyone.

Since the perennial teaching of the Church has been *against *forced conversions, I think any good Catholic would agree with this statement.

If you doubt what I’ve said, get a meeting with any bishop and they will confirm all of it.

Sorry, I am not going to bother a bishop about this. I’m sure that if what you say is true that the information will be easily available.

I admit some apologists will not tell you all this. Some of them are in a kind of covert war against Ecumenism and Inter-faith Dialogue. They want to go back to pre-Vatican II theology, in my view.

As Pope Paul IV said, V2 was a pastoral and not a doctrinal council. There should therefore be *no *difference between pre- and post-V2 theology.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

A Cardinal is not protected by infallibility,… Since the SoE taught the perennial teaching of the Church, and since V2 was a pastoral council which did not purport to promulgate any teachings, I am not sure what could be meant by this.

Could you please document this…?

As Pope Paul IV said, V2 was a pastoral and not a doctrinal council. There should therefore be *no *difference between pre- and post-V2 theology.

I read several scholarly books examining the issue as to whether the pre-Vatican II teaching on religious liberty was the same as the Vatican II teaching on that. Catholic universities have good books on this subject. I don’t recall the names of the books I read. But this should not be so hard to find in good, scholarly book. I think think it is well know that after Vatican II the Vatican forced Catholics States to recognize the full religious liberty of all religions.

You can read the Vatican II Declaration on Religious Liberty, to see if it says anything about its teachings being limited to states in which Catholicism is not the dominant or state religion. Here’s the document: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

Pope Benedict XVI has written about the " hermeneutic of continuity." “Continuity” does not mean unchanging. It just means a certain consistency of the essence of things, and just means that the New Doctrine developed out of the Former Doctrine in a way that is recognized as being legitimate and having integrity. The whole doctrine of the “development of doctrine” does allow for New Doctrines to appear that really are not exactly the same as Former Doctrines. Benedict XVI has written a lot about this, and so have many other cardinals and theologians who are fully approved by the pope and the Vatican. The idea that the doctrines of the Catholic Church never change is not something that serious scholars say anymore. Yet, apologists on the radio and Internet do say this, since their job is to simplify things and provide reassurance for those who have little or no theological education.

Example of a change of Catholic doctrine: Prior to the era of Blessed John Paul II, it was really forbidden to say that we may hope that no one is in Hell and that no one may end up in Hell. Yet, as a result of the writings and preaching of John Paul II (which he based on Vatican II) it is now acceptable for Catholics to expressed state their hope that Hell is empty (except for Satan and demons) and will always be empty. A pretty good summary of this was written and published by Cardinal Avery Dulles in 2003. It is found here: firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-population-of-hell-23

In 1988, Pope John Paul issued a document pertaining to a Archbishop who continued to object to the new teachings of Vatican II on Religious Liberty. That 1988 document says this:

Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

The above quotation explicitly speaks of “points of doctrine which…are new.” Doesn’t that mean “new doctrines.” John Paul II does NOT flatly state there are no differences between pre-Vatican II doctrines and the post-Vatican II doctrines. He could have said that. But he didn’t.

He goes on to call for theologians to carry out “deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition.” If it is so obvious that the teachings of Vatican II are the same as prior to Vatican II, why would this “deeper study” need to be carried out?

It seems that John Paul II recognized that there truly was a problem here in reconciling the pre-Vatican II doctrines with the Vatican II doctrines. I think, however, he had faith and optimism that some way would be found to show the “continuity” (term he uses above) between the pre- and post-. Even so, as dictionary definitions show, “continuity” does not mean “not different.”

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/continuity
Definition of CONTINUITY

1 a : uninterrupted connection, succession, or union
b : uninterrupted duration or continuation especially without essential change

Examples of CONTINUITY

The art historian is studying the continuities between the painter’s works and those of her followers.

To me, all this points to the confusion sowed by some apologists on the radio and the Internet who either don’t really know the Catholic Faith very well, or who intentionally aim to mislead people about Vatican II.

To me, what we need on the radio and the Internet is not apologists, but theologians, and especially bishops. Then the Catholic people would be getting truly accurate information about their faith.

I myself probably disseminate, unintentionally, lots of inaccurate information. I wonder if these Catholic forums do more harm than good.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

America Magazine (a Jesuit magazine) published this in 2009:

“…the statement of then-Cardinal Ratzinger that Gaudium et Spes, Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate represented a revision of the Syllabus, a kind of counter-syllabus…an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new age inaugurated in 1789. These texts, Ratzinger said, rightly left behind the one-sided and obsolete stances adopted under Pius IX and Pius X; it was time for the church to ‘relinquish many of the things that have hitherto spelled security for her and that she has taken for granted. She must demolish long-standing bastions and trust solely to the shield of faith’.”

The whole article is at: americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11375

 

[Abu]

St Francis #15
V2 was a pastoral council which did not purport to promulgate any teachings, I am not sure what could be meant by this.
As Pope Paul IV said, V2 was a pastoral and not a doctrinal council.

This persistent confusion in some quarters must be refuted.

In The Pope, the Council, and the Mass, by James Likoudis and Kenneth D. Whitehead:
"The term ‘pastoral council’ as applied to Vatican II is merely a popular description and does not refer to any specific type of council recognized by the authority of the Catholic Church (the teachings and decisions of which would presumably somehow not be as binding upon members of the Church as those of a ‘dogmatic’ council). In the Church there are traditionally councils, or synods, which are styled ‘national councils,’ ‘provincial councils,’ or ‘general (ecumenical) councils,’ but none styled specifically a ‘pastoral council.’ ”(p 33).

“Pope John XXIII, in calling the Council, stated that the reasons he was doing so were of a character that could be broadly termed ‘pastoral,’ although Pope John himself, in using the word, merely spoke of the need today of a Church Magisterium ‘which is predominantly pastoral in character.’ Pope Paul VI similarly spoke of the ‘pastoral nature of the Council’ in his Weekly General Audience of January 12, 1966, but he didn’t call it a ‘pastoral council’ as if this were some new species of Church gathering which the faithful might go along with or not, as they chose” (p. 33).

“Pope Pius IX taught on this subject in a letter to the Abbot of Solesmes: " '…the Ecumenical Council is governed by the Holy Spirit…it is solely by the impulse of this Divine Spirit that the Council defines and proposes what must be believed…’ Not only what the Council ‘defines’ – it should be noted – but what it ‘proposes.’ " (Op cit. P 38-39).

“In his book, *Sources of Renewal *Karol Cardinal Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) wrote: ‘It may be said that every Council in the Church’s history has been a pastoral one, if only because the assembled bishops, under the Pope’s guidance, are pastors of the Church. At the same time every Council is an act of the supreme Magisterium of the Church. Magisterium signifies teaching based on authority, a teaching which is the mission of the Apostles and their successors, it is part of their function and an essential task.’ The Cardinal goes on: ‘All this has been signally confirmed by Vatican II, which, while preserving its pastoral character and mindful of the purpose for which it was called, profoundly developed the doctrine of faith and thus provided a basis for its enrichment.’ ” (Ibid, p 38-39).

 

[St_Francis]

I read several scholarly books examining the issue as to whether the pre-Vatican II teaching on religious liberty was the same as the Vatican II teaching on that. Catholic universities have good books on this subject. I don’t recall the names of the books I read. But this should not be so hard to find in good, scholarly book.

I live an hour and a half from Walmart. The nearest Catholic libraries are several hours away, driving.

If you could at least supply a title of one of the several books you read, it would be very helpful–I could ask our local library to get it for me, but I can’t do that without a title.

I think think it is well know that after Vatican II the Vatican forced Catholics States to recognize the full religious liberty of all religions.

I know the constitutions changed but don’t know anything about the Vatican’s forcing them to do so. If it is so well-known, I am sure it would be easy for you to provide a source, because I cannot find this.

You can read the Vatican II Declaration on Religious Liberty, to see if it says anything about its teachings being limited to states in which Catholicism is not the dominant or state religion. Here’s the document: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

As I said, the teaching against forced conversions has always been in force and is not at issue here.

Pope Benedict XVI has written about the " hermeneutic of continuity." “Continuity” does not mean unchanging…

Yes, the teachings of the Church *develop, *but they do not *change. *The Church does not teach something one day and then something entirely different the next.

I understand about the subtlty of Church teaching; I liken it to teaching my children to drive. First I tell them not to drive so far to the left. The next thing they know, I am telling them not to drive so far to the right! But this is not a contradiction, merely a clarification on both sides of the issue. It is also like virtue, where one can go too far in the direction of having or of not having–that doesn’t mean to abandon virtue altogether but to have right virture.

The question at hand is whether the state is subordinate to the Church, to Christ Himself. The Decree on Religious Freedom itself states: Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.

Example of a change of Catholic doctrine:

Prior to the era of Blessed John Paul II, it was really forbidden to say that we may hope that no one is in Hell and that no one may end up in Hell. Yet, as a result of the writings and preaching of John Paul II (which he based on Vatican II) it is now acceptable for Catholics to expressed state their hope that Hell is empty (except for Satan and demons) and will always be empty. A pretty good summary of this was written and published by Cardinal Avery Dulles in 2003. It is found here: firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-population-of-hell-23

Thank you for providing a source. I think that it is clear that there is a difference between saying that no one is in Hell and merely hoping that no one is in Hell.

In 1988, Pope John Paul issued a document pertaining to a Archbishop who continued to object to the new teachings of Vatican II on Religious Liberty. That 1988 document says this:
Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
The above quotation explicitly speaks of “points of doctrine which…are new.” Doesn’t that mean “new doctrines.” John Paul II does NOT flatly state there are no differences between pre-Vatican II doctrines and the post-Vatican II doctrines. He could have said that. But he didn’t.

First, the MP was written in 3 days. Secondly, it has been translated. This does not mean that the Pope was saying that the doctrines of V2 were new, but could have referred solely to the fact that old doctrines had been “refreshed” by being cast in different words.

 

[St_Francis]

He goes on to call for theologians to carry out "deeper study

in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition." If it is so obvious that the teachings of Vatican II are the same as prior to Vatican II, why would this “deeper study” need to be carried out?

Because so many priests and bishops had characterized what came out of V2 as a *break *from what had gone before and had held out the hope to the people that there really were new teachings in the Church. Look at what happened with birth control, almost all the bishops told the Pope that abc should be allowed, but Huamnae Vitae did not say it should be allowed but that it would not be moral to use.

So, yes, a deeper study was (and still is) necessary to clarify the confusion caused by the apparent ambiguity of the documents and the radical interpretation put on the documents by some people.

It seems that John Paul II recognized that there truly was a problem here in reconciling

the pre-Vatican II doctrines with the Vatican II doctrines.
I think that there was a problem reconciling some interpretations of V2 with the 1965-year-old Tradition of the Church, but I certainly hope that he did not think that there were problems in reconciling the V2 doctrines with the 1965-year-old teachings of the Church!

Apologies for any formatting problems–at least one of which I tried several times to get rid of!