Polarity in the Church today

  • Thread starter Thread starter OneSheep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t see the purpose of addressing the polarity as a means of influencing hierarchy.
No, I’m saying that polarity - not addressing polarity - is what stems from thinking we have influence.
If I remember right, there was somewhat a consensus model in the early Church, that’s pretty democratic.
It’s not how our Church works. You and I don’t vote on doctrine.
I don’t recall any prohibition of speech.
Neither do I. We just tend to voice off with our opinions when the Vatican’s is the only one that matters.
Consumer choice?
Yep. There’s a website out there - which I won’t share for fear of giving it publicity - that encourages taking an Angie’s List-approach to bishops and church-shopping.
Part of the objective may very well be that the Church wants to “bring into the fold” those who feel alienated by current teachings. Would it be prudent to address that somehow at the parish level? If so, how?
It depends on what you mean by “address.” The best that parishes can do is to educate the flock on Church teaching. I’m not sure how to assuage the personal feelings of those who take issue with it.
 
American Catholicism, especially, is weird. I see this dynamic play out every day on CAF. And I argue that this is the source of the polarity mentioned in the original post:
We take our otherwise laudable, red-blooded advocacy for principles like free speech, democracy, and consumer choice . . . and we try to apply these principles to an ancient Church in which they’re entirely irrelevant.
I would take it a step farther and say that ideals have superseded faith to become the means through which the faith is understood. In essence, faith is subordinated to ideals that had become adopted in an earnest effort to realize and manifest justice in this world by our own power. One person, seeing in a party support against the injustice of abortion, while another person, seeing in a party support for universal healthcare, would each adopt these parties as their own. Each are worthwhile ends for a Catholic to pursue in politics, but the division occurs when only two viable parties exist, each party is inherently opposed to the other’s principles, and both parties support their share of good and evil principles.

Neither party is wholly compatible with Catholic Social Doctrine, and so the party one believes upholds the principles and ideals that serve the greatest form of justice necessary today is the party that is chosen, despite the incompatibilities with the faith. However, since the opposing party stands against you in your quest for justice, it cannot be that they are mere opponents: they become bitter enemies. One cannot simply support a party for its fight against abortion or its support for universal healthcare. One is called to support with zeal the entire party platform, in order to best overcome the opposing party and gain political dominance (or else nothing could get done) and squash the injustices of your adversaries. Politics becomes a war in which principles, ideals, and your fellow citizens are used against each other to realize their vision of which justice takes precedence.

Because the Church is neither liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, but finds some–not all-- of its social doctrine in them both, one is left to reconcile the faith with the party ideals or cast aside elements of the faith that are incompatible. How else can one make sense of a pro-life Republican who opposes abortion but supports the death penalty and anti-immigration policies, or a pro-choice Democrat who supports universal healthcare except for the most vulnerable? Faith becomes an extension of politics and politics becomes the new means to understand conflict within society and the Church instead of the faith. The Church is then left vulnerable from people of both parties to hostility for either failing to be true to the party ideals or true to its Tradition.

It seems to me the polarity exists where faith in the Church is lost to faith in politics, and from there politics aims to reshape the Church in its own image to better realize its goals and reconcile its contradictions.
 
Anyway, I do not think we will be able to start unifying until we stop screaming at each other and start listening, and this applies to both sides of the aisle.
Yes, and I am wondering what might be the means by which such listening is fostered in parishes. I’m looking @TheLittleLady, her post.
We Are Salt and Light

Civilize It

I just pledged to #CivilizeIt with civility, clarity, and compassion this election year. Join me in committing to dignity beyond the debate: CivilizeIt.org #CivilizeIt2020
I just pledged also. I look forward to more of what they have to post on that website!
 
How do we move beyond the grudges?
State you point of view/side of the argument/reasons etc., respectfully. If the other does not concur, then “shake the dust from beneath your sandals” and agree to disagree and move on. Let the topic go, because neither side is going to change from their position because in their eyes they hold the right position, and the other is wrong.

Prayer, to God to heal your own heart and your neighbors, and as we pray every time we pray the Our Father - “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us …”

Love thy enemies. Matthew 5:43-48 and Luke 6:27-35
 
Have I had good experiences with patriotism? No, that is, I have often felt dislike for the worldviews of those who expressed patriotism. That is why I want to claim it for myself and for the side of good. Granted, my idea of patriotism might look very different from those of people I grew up around.

I often think of the Langston Hughes poem containing the lines:
“America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath–
America will be!”

I think some of us need to let go of the idea of some hallowed overall past. But Christians could come together in celebrating many hallowed moments in the past. Then Christians in each country could try to unite around a general patriotism directed especially towards the future. And that would fulfill the Bible’s urgings towards loyalty.

What I meant is that true virtues, when directed with God’s grace, can be unstoppable in accomplishing good. But any virtue can be corrupted, some more easily than others, and that does apply to any form of patriotism that attempts to “glorify” a nation yet harms people or animals without direct provocation.
 
State you point of view/side of the argument/reasons etc., respectfully. If the other does not concur, then “shake the dust from beneath your sandals” and agree to disagree and move on. Let the topic go, because neither side is going to change from their position because in their eyes they hold the right position, and the other is wrong.
I think we can do better now. For example, the approach can begin with the objective of simply understanding one another rather than trying to change the mind of the other. Then we can simply listen, and understanding is “good enough”.

We’re going to see more coming from We are Salt and Light mentioned a few posts back. It is being put forth by the USCCB, and they certainly don’t want people to walk away from each other, they want people to be in communion. If we approach others with open hearts and minds, this can happen.
But any virtue can be corrupted, some more easily than others, and that does apply to any form of patriotism that attempts to “glorify” a nation yet harms people or animals without direct provocation.
Yes, this is my outlook also.
 
If we approach others with open hearts and minds, this can happen.
Agreed. But it doesn’t happen as often as it should - e.g. the various threads I gave as an example earlier on. And extrapolate this out to the wider world, even just concerning which rite of the Mass, not to mention following private revelations or not, or politics which the divide between parties I think is a distance too far.

I will do my best to listen and try to see the others point of view, but as a different example e.g. abortion and euthanasia I will never ‘see’ the oppositions side, and capitulate to that thinking. Though I can understand how people may come to believe that is the only/right option for them. So I choose to be salt to their wrong thinking, and light to show them the truth.
Then we can simply listen, and understanding is “good enough”.
Is it ever? Those who oppose the Catholic Church beliefs and teachings don’t want to leave it ‘there’, but want and continue to apply pressure through various means in order to get the Church to capitulate and change those very teachings. Whilst we may understand where they are coming from, on various topics I don’t believe we should leave it there either. But as Jesus said - go and teach all nations (paraphrasing), which can’t happen if we leave it at the point of simply “listening and understanding.”

We are Salt and Light . For anyone not aware, ← have a pdf assessment tool which is very good and can be downloaded.

I’ll get off my soapbox now.
 
Last edited:
I will do my best to listen and try to see the others point of view, but as a different example e.g. abortion and euthanasia I will never ‘see’ the oppositions side, and capitulate to that thinking.
Support for abortion and euthanasia at their “worst” involves a blindness, a denial, that is protected by some kind of pain, fear, or hurt, so the seeing or understanding involves being able to identify the times when we ourselves are in denial. It is painful to admit our own denials, but is also very freeing and unifying.

Capitulation is not to be a goal in this, I think, or even an expected outcome. The outcomes we can hope for are a mutual love, respect, and reconciliation.
So I choose to be salt to their wrong thinking, and light to show them the truth.
That also, hopefully, will lead to a good outcome. I think it depends on the delivery, though.
Those who oppose the Catholic Church beliefs and teachings don’t want to leave it ‘there’, but want and continue to apply pressure through various means in order to get the Church to capitulate and change those very teachings.
Good point. We can “leave it there” in terms of reconciling and accepting. When it comes to changing teaching, though, there is a place for awareness. If there is something new coming forth, it is to be based on truth. For example, the Church may begin ordaining married deacons as priests in parts of the world, and while there is resistance, the fact is that for nearly a thousand years there were married priests, the Spirit guided that way. It was need that stopped the practice, and it may be need that restarts it. The fact is that God does not tell us that it is “always wrong” or something like that, even though people afraid of change would resist it.

Now, if I were to deliver that teaching in a belligerent way, putting down those who resist, I don’t think people would be receptive.

Denial has to be explored, not confronted head-on. “Do you recall when you first began believing in that way?” “What experiences have you had that underlie the importance of your belief?” “When you think of what might happen if people of the other opinion had their way, what feelings stir in you?” The person who listens accepts whatever comes, but there is no need for capitulation.
We are Salt and Light . For anyone not aware, ← have a pdf assessment tool which is very good and can be downloaded.
Yes, this is a very good start!
I’ll get off my soapbox now.
Do you think that it would be fruitful for parishes to have “discussion meetings” where such conversations take place? For people not caught up in the polarity, the meetings would only serve to expand awareness, but for those people truly caught up in the us v. them affiliations, it could bear fruit.
 
Support for abortion and euthanasia at their “worst” involves a blindness, a denial, that is protected by some kind of pain, fear, or hurt,
I understand that, having family members who have had abortions for various reasons. I understood why they chose that option.
so the seeing or understanding involves being able to identify the times when we ourselves are in denial.
In relation to these examples - I disagree with you here. But that doesn’t mean I don’t understand where they are coming from. But being human there are areas in which I, like all other living human have our own blind spots or just grey areas.
The outcomes we can hope for are a mutual love, respect, and reconciliation.
Whilst that may be true, looking from the other side we see “it’s my choice, you have to respect me and my choice and I’ll do with my body as I want!” - type of hysterical response. Reconciliation can only come about when they recognize their blindness/denial/pain/fear/hurt and accept other options/solutions, even if they are not perfect. So whilst we continue to love them as people being created in the image and likeness of God and loved by Him, we cannot accept evil in order to do good (maintain peace). Instead we must continue to speak up whether they want to hear the Truth or not.
I think it depends on the delivery, though.
Agreed.
We can “leave it there” in terms of reconciling and accepting.
As in resignation and accepting that they will not accept the Truth and change their hearts and minds (though I pray, please God, that He will touch their hearts and minds in such a way that they’ll change).

The Church does not need nor should it change. People need to change their thinking and behaviors, and obey God through His Church and Her teachings.
 
When it comes to changing teaching, though, there is a place for awareness.
Only some things may be changed - e.g. the discipline for fasting before communion. A lot of the teachings cannot be changed because they come from God and are not man-made - contraception/abortion and euthanasia are two hot button issues that the Church cannot and should not change just to “get with the times”. Obviously there are many more.
For example, the Church may begin ordaining married deacons as priests in parts of the world, and while there is resistance, the fact is that for nearly a thousand years there were married priests, the Spirit guided that way. It was need that stopped the practice, and it may be need that restarts it.
I’ll respectfully disagree with you here. Already married before becoming a deacon or already married Priest and convert to Catholicism - welcome!

Having married deacons ordained as priests will not solve the shortage. Even if the Church did begin doing so, this is not an automatic sure fire guarantee that we’ll be overrun with applicants and the shortage will be solved, nor will having married priests solve the abuse problems. Why Can’t Catholic Priests Get Married?: A Short Defense of the Celibate Fatherhood

A google search will bring up various articles explaining why married priests won’t solve the problem, including from some Bishops.
“Do you recall when you first began believing in that way?” “What experiences have you had that underlie the importance of your belief?” “When you think of what might happen if people of the other opinion had their way, what feelings stir in you?”
Accepting the other persons point of view on the matter, is praiseworthy, as your example opens the way to dialogue.
The person who listens accepts whatever comes, but there is no need for capitulation.
They would be expecting the Church to accept ‘whatever comes’ - that is the change they are lobbying for - and not, that they accept ‘whatever comes’ from this dialogue ie the Church teaching as their expectation is that the Church is wrong and must change. So the expectation that the ‘other side’ will indeed capitulate is expected and demanded.
Do you think that it would be fruitful for parishes to have “discussion meetings” where such conversations take place?
That would depend on the topic first off, then the scheduling of these discussions - so whether it be fruitful or not is highly variable. For example - I’ve witnessed these ‘discussions’ when a parish wanted to introduce the EF Mass - result figuratively speaking WW3. Those against were adamant "NOT in MY parish!!!" , and those who wanted the EF to be introduced - could not understand the vehement backlash (to put it mildly).
 
A google search will bring up various articles explaining why married priests won’t solve the problem, including from some Bishops.
The point I am making is that there is a place for awareness, teaching about Church history. While it may be true that ordaining married deacons as priests does not solve the problem, the notion that God would not allow married priests goes against what has happened in Church history. That’s all I am saying with that example. If a person says “God doesn’t want that, ever”, there is some Church history that says otherwise.

What stirs in you when you think about having married deacons become priests?
Accepting the other persons point of view on the matter, is praiseworthy, as your example opens the way to dialogue.
Thank you. It looks like you are also comfortable with this type of dialogue.
So the expectation that the ‘other side’ will indeed capitulate is expected and demanded.
What I am saying is that it does not have to be “demanded” even if it is expected. We can have 2 objectives at once, 1. Catechize. 2. Invite to communion with the Church, to come to the water. A person who thinks they have a good conscience can still believe something profoundly untrue.

So, how do we be a part of conscience formation? Catechesis. But if our catechesis is unaccepting of a person “where he is at”, then the invitation to communion goes out the window. There is a gentleness called for, charitable stances as we catechize. None of us is perfect. We are all sinners, and all of us have some misperceptions.
That would depend on the topic first off, then the scheduling of these discussions
What if the topic were one of these?:
The death penalty
Guns in society
Illegal immigrants
Care for the environment
Universal health care
Antisemitism
Antimuslimism

IMO, what would be needed are people on both sides of the issues, and there would have to be some ground rules, such as we are not there to proselytize or convince, but to hear people of differing opinions. The more justice and aware positions, if they are careful about being kind and accepting, will be sure to “win” in the long run, but not if people are impatient and condemning of others (on either “side”).
 
aching about Church history. While it may be true that ordaining married deacons as priests does not solve the problem, the notion that God would not allow married priests goes against what has happened in Church history. That’s all I am saying with that example. If a person says “God doesn’t want that, ever”, there is some Church history that says otherwise.
Apologies for not realizing it was the historical aspect that was involved. I thought it was more of what is appropriate to today, and todays current issues. But even if in the past they were permitted, it was discontinued for good reasons.
What stirs in you when you think about having married deacons become priests?
Divided time, divided loyalties, costs of supporting a family compared to support a single person, housing, health care costs etc etc as has been hashed over in previous threads by various posters. Plus all the same reasons why I’ve read it’s not a good idea for latin rite married deacons to progress to being married priests.
  1. Catechize. 2. Invite to communion with the Church, to come to the water.
Agreed. Here I’m not referring to married deacons as to me that really only pertains to Catholics. But how do you catechize and change the hearts of those who adamantly support abortion and euthanasia and demand the church change its’ ‘rules’ on not only these but also on co-habitation, and LGBTQI lifestyle choices/acts? Nothing we say or do ie listen, respect, dialogue, etc is going to change their viewpoint. Thus we have a stalemate, except they continue to agitate with the goal of ‘reforming’ the Church, and financially ruining the lives of Christians who refuse to compromise their conscience and support these choices.
What if the topic were one of these?:
I hope I can put into words properly to explain my meaning, so here goes - these are whilst important for life, the issue of married deacons progressing to married ordained priests affect the Sacraments, so to my way of thinking they are two completely different set of issues.
 
what would be needed are people on both sides of the issues, and there would have to be some ground rules, such as we are not there to proselytize or convince, but to hear people of differing opinions.
Agreed. I just don’t hold much hope considering my experience when such were held concerning the introduction of the EF Mass in my parish. The existing parishioners were adamant that it should not be in their parish yada yada yada. They weren’t interested in listening. They just wanted it to ‘go elsewhere’, not in their parish and all the usual “going back in time, nostalgic, we’re an Easter people now etc etc etc” were given as reasons why it should not be permitted, regardless of what the Church Herself actually said!
if they are careful about being kind and accepting, will be sure to “win” in the long run
Didn’t happen in the instance above.

ETA - and by accepting the demands of the LGBTQI lobby as an example, the Church hasn’t won, but lost, and not just in this life, but the souls of all these persons who identify as such and want their lifestyles to be approved, accepted and lauded as being normal and equal. Being kind and accepting is not opening the door to them, for them to listen and take on board the reasonings etc, because they’re not interested in such as a group. Granted there may be exceptions on an individual level.
but not if people are impatient and condemning of others (on either “side”).
Agreed.
 
Last edited:
@CRV and @OneSheep
This is an interesting back and forth. If the Magesterium made a clear statement regarding several of these issues and Catholics were still vocally disagreeing, do you think it would be appropriate for the Church to state that they will deny them communion? If the bickering is breaking the unity of the followers, what steps, if any should the Church do to rein it in? Should they just allow the malcontents to hurt the rest?

Curious on your thoughts!
 
If the Magesterium made a clear statement regarding several of these issues and Catholics were still vocally disagreeing, do you think it would be appropriate for the Church to state that they will deny them communion?
The Church has issued clear teachings e.g. Humanae Vitae, and as we read on these threads, there is still opposition and even dissent from the teaching. People are given many chances to recant, turn back to God etc. You only have to look at various positions of politicians and see that it isn’t often they are denied Communion.

And communion is not some prize to be withheld until obedience is obtained. Nor is the Blessed Sacrament a bargaining tool (I know you did not mean it in that way). It is denied for grave reasons, and to those persisting in manifest grave sin/s.

There are various canon laws regarding the application for penalties. Sanctions, Penalties, Punishments, Penances, Application & Cessation of - in the Church
If the bickering is breaking the unity of the followers,
Occurred between the Apostles and since then. Due to concupiscence.

The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin Authored By: Most Rev. Raymond L. Burke 2007

Why the Church Restricts Access to Communion According to a Professor of Sacramental Theology and Ecumenism ROME, 15 JULY 2004
 
Divided time, divided loyalties, costs of supporting a family compared to support a single person, housing, health care costs etc etc as has been hashed over in previous threads by various posters.
It sounds like you are saying that there might be a lessening of care for ministry and/or sacraments, as well as a cost burden to the parishes. Is this coming from a place of anxiety, a place of resistance to change, a place of experience, all the above, or somewhere else?

The tone of my question is not meant to be accusatory. It is a matter of exploration, of discovery. I am not going to criticize your answer. Whatever your answer is, I will accept it as coming from a respectable position.
how do you catechize and change the hearts of those who adamantly support abortion and euthanasia and demand the church change its’ ‘rules’ on not only these but also on co-habitation, and LGBTQI lifestyle choices/acts?
Or how about people like me, who do not give enough to the poor? What will it take to get me to let go of more of my bank account? If someone just demands it from me, I question their standing and resist. Instead, if someone shows me, right in front of me, the suffering I can diminish by giving, I have been motivated through awareness.
I hope I can put into words properly to explain my meaning, so here goes - these are whilst important for life, the issue of married deacons progressing to married ordained priests affect the Sacraments, so to my way of thinking they are two completely different set of issues.
Do you agree, though, that those issues I brought up are some of the sources of polarity, just as the possibility of married priests is also a source of polarity?
 
Do you see a way of addressing the polarity? Have you checked out “Civilize it”?
If the Magesterium made a clear statement regarding several of these issues and Catholics were still vocally disagreeing, do you think it would be appropriate for the Church to state that they will deny them communion?
Personally, I would feel very uncomfortable denying communion to any mature person who truly believes they know the meaning of the sacrament. I am not perfect; I have sin that I persist in, that I mentioned above. People who believe they are of good conscience (basically everyone) can have a large range of opinions about things. Some of these opinions are based on huge lack of awareness, on untruth, but people embrace the untruths out of fear, desire for affiliation, and many other sources of blindness. I am not looking at these issues in a relative way, I am describing my own reaction regardless of the stances.

I cannot step in the way of a person who sincerely wants to be in communion, in relationship with the Father. If the person is living in sin in some way, I should address it, but not at the altar.
If the bickering is breaking the unity of the followers, what steps, if any should the Church do to rein it in?
So what it comes down to is that since we are all eating from the same body, as a family, how do I feel about sinners, even the most persistent, coming to the table with me, claiming to be in communion with me as well as God? That is something to address in prayer, is it not?
Should they just allow the malcontents to hurt the rest?
The malcontents have grievances, and from my catechesis I am recalling that Jesus gives us guidelines to deal with our grievances. We are to address the other take them to the Church, etc, and we are to forgive.

What I am addressing in this thread are when groups of people have a grievance, grievances against other groups or “poles”.

Do you see polarity as an issue in your parish?
 
a lessening of care for ministry and/or sacraments,
No.
as well as a cost burden to the parishes.
Potentially, based on other posts in other threads and which is also logical. Costs involved in a parish supporting a single person compared to the costs involved in supporting a family - which will eventually occur as this couple will in most cases have children.
Is this coming from a place of anxiety, a place of resistance to change, a place of experience, all the above,
Not me. Just my observation of comments from other posters and their opinions.

It is my opinion primarily based on the fact that Jesus was single - so should all priests be (excepting converts who are already married priests e.g. Anglicans) - as well as the usual reasons given by various clergy if you google the subject of ‘permitting married priests’.
The tone of my question is not meant to be accusatory. It is a matter of exploration, of discovery. I am not going to criticize your answer. Whatever your answer is, I will accept it as coming from a respectable position.
As we all should - charity in all things. Thank you.
Instead, if someone shows me, right in front of me, the suffering I can diminish by giving, I have been motivated through awareness.
Perhaps because you have a good heart. In the examples I gave, demonstrating the suffering of e.g. abortion is not enough to sway the majority of people from their decision or point of view. Because they are not interested in ‘seeing’. The same goes for the LGBTQI lifestyle choices, they are not interested in changeing, instead they want the world esp Christians to accept and support and approve that lifestyle - so no amount of reasoning, explaining, graphs, etc etc. will make any difference, because they resort to emotionalism.
Do you agree, though, that those issues I brought up are some of the sources of polarity,
If you are referring to "anxiety, a place of resistance to change, a place of experience etc. - then yes, of course these may be some factors for some people. Even if you were to explain to people in an effort to relieve this anxiety, or provide reassurance to their concerns, I do not think this is going to change their point of view/mind to one of acceptance. Example the hostile backlash when the EF was being introduced in my parish - no amount of quoting Church documents, having the Archbishop answer questions, explaining what will happen, what will not happen - did not one iota change their point of view of those who were resisting the introduction.
 
The same goes for the LGBTQI lifestyle choices, they are not interested in changeing, instead they want the world esp Christians to accept and support and approve that lifestyle - so no amount of reasoning, explaining, graphs, etc etc. will make any difference, because they resort to emotionalism.
Doubtful it is emotionalism, any more than your beliefs are. People believe different things. It is uncharitable and dismissive to just assume their beliefs are expressions of them are based in emotion.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top