The question is: what caused such a major departure from the teaching of the true meaning of the Good News? Where did the selection of the Church leadership (bishops/priests) go wrong, and why was it allowed to happen to such a drastic degree? Top business/organizational leadership teachers say, “everything rises and falls on leadership”. Does that same philosophy apply to our Church leadership?
It seems to me that in the Church’s desire to stay relevant to the cultures it attempted to evangelize, the power of the Gospel was diluted and distorted by trying to stay sensitive to ongoing cultural practices (one example is the Mexican culture’s “day of the dead” tradition).
From a human nature perspective, practicing the rules and laws of a religious system is so much easier than allowing yourself to undergo life-altering conversion (which to some degree is what is expected to happen to every new believer).
That is why the Holy Spirit insisted in so many New Testament writings to distinguish ourselves not by our ability to keep laws/rules, but by our loving, godly, holy conduct and HEARTFELT worship and love of God & neighbor. Scripture CLEARLY points to this as the way to be saved (so many examples in all the Gospels & Epistles), and as the deposit of the faith reiterates… yet, why is it so lacking in fervent practice/teaching and example of so many of our bishops/priests?
Sometimes I dream that God could do a Church leadership cleansing-- the same way many Americans hope for a political cleansing… no offense to the many good bishops/priests!
Hopefully something made sense in all this rambling…
I don’t know how old you are New Day but I have a slightly different perspective. I don’t think it is a choice between keeping laws and rules, and the heartfelt worship etc.
When the young man asked Jesus what must he do to gain eternal life, Jesus replied: “Keep the Commandments” and when the young man said he had done that since his youth, Jesus told him that there was one thing lacking: “Sell everything you have and come follow me.” So it is really both/and: or as the Church says: evangelization and catechesis.
When I was in school we learned our faith from the penny catechism.
Question 1: Who made you?
Answer: God made me.
Question 2: Why did God make you? Answer: God made me to know him, love him and serve him in this world, and to be happy with him forever in the next.
And so on. They were quick easy answers to remember, all through the Creed, the Sacraments, the Ten Commandments, the Commandments of the Church, Gifts of the Holy Spirit, Spiritual and Corporal works of mercy, 4 Cardinal Virtues etc. etc. Including the four last things.
They stayed with you for a lifetime and were learned at an age when children love to learn facts, and when it is easy for them to remember and recite such things. We were also taught by nuns and lay teachers who believed what they were teaching and who practiced the faith. We also knew that they cared about us and had our best interests at heart, they were good people.
By contrast when my children were in school they had a much wordier “workbook”, and they were not required to learn anything by heart. (Learning by heart was frowned on). Modern theology stressed a loving God, in fact that was practically all they heard. The possibility of Hell was never mentioned.
The modern answer to Question 2 above would be: God made me because he loves me.
That was missing from the first version and should have been there.
But look what was missing from the modern version - any need for a response from them towards God. As if children would naturally respond to a loving God. Any parent knows that children do not naturally respond to love in the sense that they realize it requires something in return. Some children get it, but most have to be taught, because they can be lazy, selfish, defiant etc etc.
God became a permissive parent, loving us no matter what we did. And in a sense that is true we can never exhaust the love of God. But that doesn’t mean there are no consequences to bad behaviour, or that he doesn’t expect us to use our talents in his service whatever our vocation in life. (Vocation was another word that was dropped; years ago teaching was also considered a vocation).
We had the permissive 60’s; people rebelled against authority, including the authority of the Catholic Church. Vatican II was often misinterpreted, throwing the doors and windows open to let in the fresh air, also let in other things not so desirable, to the point where Pope Paul VI said that the smoke of Satan had entered the Church.
We went through a very confusing time.
And perhaps Church leaders like parents were struggling to make sense of what was happening. We knew there were things wrong with the old way we were taught, but we threw out a lot of the good things as well.
It’s a testament to the Church that things are going as well as they are. I think Pope John Paul laid the groundwork for a change and Pope Benedict with his emphasis on the need for reevangelizing the west is continuing it.
But why wait for Church leaders to do all the work? There is a lot that lay people can do especially by witnessing to the faith in their own circle. There are lots of people we can learn from. And we don’t have to wait for Church leaders to tell us how to lead good and holy lives, we know how. And if we don’t there are plenty of ways to learn.
