Poll Finds Rift Between U.S. Catholics and Church

[Seeker1961]

Dissenters provide a valid service. First of all, they help clarify teachings and secondly they give everyone else a reason to feel superior.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Dissenters provide a valid service. First of all, they help clarify teachings and secondly they give everyone else a reason to feel superior.

How judgmental of you.

What gives you any evidence that (a) those who are not dissenters “feel superior” about that, and that (b) those who are not dissenters currently were never dissenters themselves?

Experience illuminates.

 

[fix]

…and if their church doesn’t change to their liking, they simply move to another more attuned to their own opinions. The Catholic dissenters must know, however, in the deepest recesses of their disobedient hearts just how formidable Truth really is and the impossibility of their goal. That doesn’t stop them from trying though, through political liberalism to bring us into the modern world so that we may become “enlightened” with the rest of the secular humanists.

They want affirmation and they want the mantle of legitimacy.

 

[Seeker1961]

How judgmental of you.

What gives you any evidence that (a) those who are not dissenters “feel superior” about that, and that (b) those who are not dissenters currently were never dissenters themselves?

Experience illuminates.

Good grief, this place takes itself entirely too seriously sometimes. It’s healthy to have a sense of humor about ourselves.

We do like to feel superior, it’s a human thing- let’s just admit it-and laugh at ourselves for it.

 

[BackToTheRock]

Yikes! I leave for a couple of days and look at what I find!

Then apparently you’ve never heard of graduate school. People have majors or concentrations in undergraduate school. People tend to have specialties (sometimes called concentrations, but less often) in graduate school.

Actually, I earned my masters degree nearly 30 years ago. Nobody was using the term “speciality” back then so I checked the web pages for some of the theological institutions in the Boston area. The schools such as Boston University, Boston College, Episcopal Divinity School, and Gordon-Conwell refer to “concentration”. None refers to “specialty” (except for Gordon Conwell but that’s only in a reference to the food served in their dining hall). However, I trust that your experience in different and that you have a masters with a speciality in Matthew 5. Perhaps it’s a regional difference.

No, he did not “go in a different direction.” What he did was elucidate what the original direction was. Don’t take my word for it. Take the word of the Roman Catholic Church and its rich history of scripture scholarship, combined with the leading scholars in the field from Protestant traditions (experts on Matthew), and Jewish traditions, who also agree with what I independently studied, and what the Church affirms.

Jesus took things in a very different direction from the religious establishment of his time. If not he would have been seen as a reinforcement of the status quo rather than a threat. Additionally, the rich history of scripture scholarship in the RCC is a very broad field. There is traditionalist scripture scholarship, but also feminist scripture scholarship, third world scripture scholarship, black scripture scholarship, etc. Ditto for the Protestant traditions and Jewish traditions. There isn’t one definitive perspective. Each has some important things to inform the overall scholarship of the Church.

It’s clear that you don’t understand the process of scriptural interpretation and oral commentary as Jesus and rabbis before him practiced it.

You have absolutely no basis upon which to make such a statement. This is simply the sort of immature attack employed by people who are frustrated in their efforts to make a convincing point.

Biblical scholarship is not for amateurs, particularly not Matthew 5. It has been studied for centuries. That’s why there are experts.

Except Jesus didn’t entrust his message (including Matthew 5) to the experts; he entrusted it to fisherman, tax collectors, outcasts, women, and Gentiles. Jesus often pointed to the experts as people who were missing the point. Studying scriptures in academia is an important aspect of theology but the gospel truly comes to life when it is experienced by people trying to live it in the day to day struggles on this world. You’ll no doubt remember from your seminary years the idea put forth by the Augustinian monk Martin Luther that it is by living and dying that one becomes a theologian. After years of studying, reflecting, and interacting with people in a variety of settings, I’ve come to believe that people who have wrestled with the gospel in the midst of pain, loss, illness, injustice, addiction, etc. have far more to teach me than those acknowledged as the experts.

And I think this brings this back to the original topic of this thread. I speak with informed, educated Catholics who are very concerned about their faith and Church but see a major disconnect with our leadership. One way to relate is to see these people as dissenters who should just go away and leave the “faithful” alone. But another possibility would be for the Bishops to adopt a more pastoral stance and begin

 

[BackToTheRock]

Yikes - I knew I shouldn’t have checked back in on this forum. In the words of Michael Corleone in The Godfather III: " Just when I thought I was out…they pull me back in!"
Just a few points to clarify from a previous post and then I’m off for a night on the town with the Nuns On The Bus.

Then apparently you’ve never heard of graduate school. People have majors or concentrations in undergraduate school. People tend to have specialties (sometimes called concentrations, but less often) in graduate school.

Actually, I earned my masters degree nearly 30 years ago. Nobody was using the term “specialty” back then so I checked the web pages for some of the theological institutions with which I’m familiar in the Boston area. I saw references to “concentration” but none to “specialty” (except for Gordon Conwell but “specialty” was used only in a reference to the food served in their dining hall). However, I trust that your experience is different from mine and that you earned a graduate degree with a specialty in Matthew 5. This might just be a regional difference in academic jargon. Let’s extend respect to each other’s sojourn in academia and move on to some issues of substance. Perhaps we’ll agree on some things.

No, he did not “go in a different direction.” What he did was elucidate what the original direction was. Don’t take my word for it. Take the word of the Roman Catholic Church and its rich history of scripture scholarship, combined with the leading scholars in the field from Protestant traditions (experts on Matthew), and Jewish traditions, who also agree with what I independently studied, and what the Church affirms.

Allow me to clarify: Jesus took things in a very different direction from the religious establishment of his time. If not he would have been seen as a reinforcement of the status quo rather than a threat. Perhaps I didn’t originally state this as clearly as I could have.

Biblical scholarship is not for amateurs, particularly not Matthew 5. It has been studied for centuries. That’s why there are experts.

The problem I see here is that Jesus didn’t entrust his message (including Matthew 5) to the experts; he chose to entrust it to fisherman, tax collectors, the poor, outcasts of various types, women, and Gentiles. In fact, Jesus often pointed to the experts as people who were missing the point. Studying scripture in academia is one aspect of the large realm of theology but the gospel truly comes to life when it is experienced by people trying to live it in the day to day struggles in this world. After years of working, worshipping and sharing with people in a variety of settings I’ve come to appreciate that people who have wrestled with the gospel in the midst of pain, loss, illness, injustice, addiction, etc. have far more to teach me about theology than those who are considered the experts.

And this brings us back to the original topic of this thread. I often speak with informed, educated Catholics who are very dedicated to the Church but see a major disconnect with some of its direction. One way to relate is to see them as dissenters who should either get back in line or go away. But another possibility would be to adopt a more collegial stance and begin dialoguing with them. We don’t have to agree with everything they say but, if we treat them with dignity and respect, we might find the life of our Church is enhanced.

OK - gotta run. The bus is out front beeping the horn!

 

[BackToTheRock]

Yikes - I knew I shouldn’t have checked back in on this forum. In the words of Michael Corleone in The Godfather III: " Just when I thought I was out…they pull me back in!"
Just a few points to clarify from a previous post and then I’m off for a night on the town with the Nuns On The Bus.

Then apparently you’ve never heard of graduate school. People have majors or concentrations in undergraduate school. People tend to have specialties (sometimes called concentrations, but less often) in graduate school.

Actually, I earned my masters degree nearly 30 years ago. Nobody was using the term “specialty” back then so I checked the web pages for some of the theological institutions with which I’m familiar in the Boston area. I saw references to “concentration” but none to “specialty” (except for Gordon Conwell but “specialty” was used only in a reference to the food served in their dining hall). However, I trust that your experience is different from mine and that you earned a graduate degree with a specialty in Matthew 5. This might just be a regional difference in academic jargon. Let’s extend respect to each other’s sojourn in academia and move on to some issues of substance. Perhaps we’ll agree on some things.

No, he did not “go in a different direction.” What he did was elucidate what the original direction was. Don’t take my word for it. Take the word of the Roman Catholic Church and its rich history of scripture scholarship, combined with the leading scholars in the field from Protestant traditions (experts on Matthew), and Jewish traditions, who also agree with what I independently studied, and what the Church affirms.

Allow me to clarify: Jesus took things in a very different direction from the religious establishment of his time. If not he would have been seen as a reinforcement of the status quo rather than a threat. Perhaps I didn’t originally state this as clearly as I could have.

Biblical scholarship is not for amateurs, particularly not Matthew 5. It has been studied for centuries. That’s why there are experts.

The problem I see here is that Jesus didn’t entrust his message (including Matthew 5) to the experts; he chose to entrust it to fisherman, tax collectors, the poor, outcasts of various types, women, and Gentiles. In fact, Jesus often pointed to the experts as people who were missing the point. Studying scripture in academia is one aspect of the large realm of theology but the gospel truly comes to life when it is experienced by people trying to live it in the day to day struggles in this world. After years of working, worshipping and sharing with people in a variety of settings I’ve come to appreciate that people who have wrestled with the gospel in the midst of pain, loss, illness, injustice, addiction, etc. have far more to teach me about theology than those who are considered the experts.

And this brings us back to the original topic of this thread. I often speak with informed, educated Catholics who are very dedicated to the Church but see a major disconnect with some of its direction. One way to relate is to see them as dissenters who should either get back in line or go away. But another possibility would be to adopt a more collegial stance and begin dialoguing with them. We don’t have to agree with everything they say but, if we treat them with dignity and respect, we might find the life of our Church is enhanced.

OK - gotta run. The bus is out front beeping the horn!

 

[Elizabeth502]

Perhaps we’ll agree on some things.
Allow me to clarify: Jesus took things in a very different direction from the religious establishment of his time.

But not in the direction you’re implying, because you misunderstand what that ‘wrong direction’ was. The ‘religious establishment’ had in fact gutted the moral code by trivializing it, and reordering the importance of the supplemental regulations versus the core moral code. They had also replaced externals with internals, and Jesus reordered them to their original - yes, their original – content, meaning, and purpose. Jesus embodied and proclaimed a return (t’shuvah), NOT something “new.”

The problem I see here is that Jesus didn’t entrust his message (including Matthew 5) to the experts; he chose to entrust it to fisherman, tax collectors, the poor, outcasts of various types, women, and Gentiles. In fact, Jesus often pointed to the experts as people who were missing the point. Studying scripture in academia is one aspect of the large realm of theology but the gospel truly comes to life when it is experienced by people trying to live it in the day to day struggles in this world. After years of working, worshipping and sharing with people in a variety of settings I’ve come to appreciate that people who have wrestled with the gospel in the midst of pain, loss, illness, injustice, addiction, etc. have far more to teach me about theology than those who are considered the experts.

We’re not talking about “the gospel coming to life.” This is a phony distraction on your part. We’re talking about the doctrinal meaning within Matthew. The fishermen, etc. who were listening to that kerygma understood it precisely because they had the context to understand it, because they were acquainted with oral scriptural interpretation which was a mainstay of the average practicing Jew in the ancient Mediterranean. It is not the mainstay of the average practicing Catholic in the 21st century, and thus we do need those who have studied both the ancient texts and the culture anthopology of the ancient Mediterranean to explain what was second-nature to the hearers of Jesus’ words. The terms, the figures of speech, and the contexts of Jesus’ words was a language which was second-nature to his hearers and is not second nature to the modern era. And that’s precisely why trained & educated experts are necessary as translators.

It is just another one of your false dichotomies. Nothing which the revered and authentic experts on Matthew say contradicts the experience of the Gospel. Nothing. There is nothing heterodox or inauthentic in their understanding of Jesus’ words in Matthew.

We don’t have to agree with everything they say but, if we treat them with dignity and respect, we might find the life of our Church is enhanced.

Except that if “what they say” is factually inaccurate, then entertaining their inaccuracy, no matter how good it makes you feel or them feel, does not promote living the Gospel because in that case it’s a fraudulent Gospel.

I will note that the points of “rift” in the article are not about supposedly:

people who have wrestled with the gospel in the midst of pain, loss, illness, injustice, addiction, etc.

From the article:

Roman Catholics in the United States say that their church and bishops are out of touch, and that the next pope should lead the church in a more modern direction on issues like birth control and ordaining women and married men as priests, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

However, Catholics who like to sidestep the uncomfortable doctrines of the Church or are apologists for dissenters often do change the subject.

Have a nice escape to the bus again, or wherever your most recent escape is.

 

[Tigg]

And this brings us back to the original topic of this thread. I often speak with informed, educated Catholics who are very dedicated to the Church but see a major disconnect with some of its direction. One way to relate is to see them as dissenters who should either get back in line or go away. But another possibility would be to adopt a more collegial stance and begin dialoguing with them. We don’t have to agree with everything they say but, if we treat them with dignity and respect, we might find the life of our Church is enhanced.

In our parish we have tried to speak kindly, and trust me, they are not as a rule, interested in any dialogue. Case in point, as a catechist, I am required to uphold Church teaching. When a student in my class began to tout the merits of a female priesthood, I was obligated to instruct her and the class in accordance with what the Church has said. Her mother, a day later, called our DRE, dropped her from the class and the family left the parish.

I’m sorry, but I believe *your *thoughts are the ones really out of touch. Treat them with respect and dignity? When have we not done that? Oh, I remember now…the time over coffee and donuts after Mass when the comments of the pastor were negatively critiqued because he upheld Humanae Vitae and I turned away to speak with someone else.

Except that if “what they say” is factually inaccurate, then entertaining their inaccuracy, no matter how good it makes you feel or them feel, does not promote living the Gospel because in that case it’s a fraudulent Gospel.

Absolutely and we would be remiss if they took our feel good gesture of not “rocking the boat” as compromise.

Should I post this just one more time? I think we all know it by heart, but I just can’t resist!

Real love involves real hatred: whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth. We must love the sinner and hate the sin; we must be merciless to the error in his mind.

~ Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen ~

 

[BackToTheRock]

Ezekiel 16:49 “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.”

I wondered if anyone was going to get around to mentioning this one.

 

[BackToTheRock]

In our parish we have tried to speak kindly, and trust me, they are not as a rule, interested in any dialogue. Case in point, as a catechist, I am required to uphold Church teaching. When a student in my class began to tout the merits of a female priesthood, I was obligated to instruct her and the class in accordance with what the Church has said. Her mother, a day later, called our DRE, dropped her from the class and the family left the parish.

I appreciate both your taking the time to respond to a previous post of mine and, even more, your work as a catechist in your parish.

I also appreciate that it can be very frustrating to attempt to relate to others with civility only to find that they don’t reciprocate. From what you wrote above it looks like you were on the receiving end of that attitude. A challenge for each of us is, how do we go on extending respect and civility to others even when they don’t reciprocate?