Redefining the Catholic Centre

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mark_Marilyn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mark_Marilyn

Guest
It has been written recently by certain columnists that there is an “Effort to redefine the Catholic Centre,” which “must be resisted,” according to Rev. Richard P. McBrien. (Essays in Theology; Prairie Messenger, July 27, 2005; p. 15)
 
It’s in ‘Essays in Theology’; Rev. Richard P. McBrien; headed, “Tentative Signals…”; Prairie Messenger; May 4, 2005; p. 15:
“…Already, via e-mail and other means of communication, ultra-conservative Catholics have launched an informal campaign of taunts and personal insults, inviting fellow Catholics who remain committed to the teachings and reforms of Vatican II to reconsider their place in the Church and to think seriously
about leaving it.
“That is exactly how William Donahue, head of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and a frequent guest on cable television programs, has put it in a recent interview with USA Today (4/21/05)
“ ‘The malcontents really have to make up their minds now,’ he declared, ‘Are they going to accept the official teachings of the Church, or continue their whining, or are they going to walk? Why stay where they are not wanted?’ (McBrien’s emphasis)”

An alarming passage… Is this not in contradiction to the Sermon on the Mount, in which Our Lord criticized debaters who personally vituperate or revile others? (see Matthew 5)
–Mark

In the words of His Holiness Pope John XXIII :
“In these modern times, they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They behave as though before all these councils everything was a triumph of the Christian ideal. We must disagree with these prophets of gloom. Divine providence is leading us to a new order of things.”
–Pope John XXIII ‘with astonishing candor’],
October 11, 1962.
 
It has been written recently by certain columnists that there is an “Effort to redefine the Catholic Centre,” which “must be resisted,” according to Rev. Richard P. McBrien. (Essays in Theology; Prairie Messenger, July 27, 2005; p. 15)
Click to expand...
'Nuff said. The only reason that man is still teaching is due to the power of tenure. As a general rule, I take the exact opposite stance of anything that heretic says; his works are under censure by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, after all. If we still had the Index of Banned Books, his stuff would undoubtedly be on it.

Peace and God bless!
 
Ghosty said:
'Nuff said. The only reason that man is still teaching is due to the power of tenure. As a general rule, I take the exact opposite stance of anything that heretic says; his works are under censure by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, after all. If we still had the Index of Banned Books, his stuff would undoubtedly be on it.

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...

While I know the USCCB has “asked” the professor to correct his book Catholicism, I was unaware that any of his writings have been censured by the CDF. Could you let me know where to find documentation for that? As an ND alum, I would like to have a firmer case to present against Prof. McBrien.

For the OP:
I’d like to know just what the “teachings of Vatican II” are that Prof. McBrien feels the radicals are pushing out of the center. Considering that he hasn’t even seen the center in decades, I’d like to know how he’s been able to observe the phenomenon.
 
Hmmm. I do seem to recall that Jesus made a whip of cords and used it to drive moneylenders from the Temple, saying, “My Father’s House is a house of prayer, and you have made it a den of thieves”. Strong words, strong actions, needed for a great offense against God. Wouldn’t you have expected more understanding from almighty God? I mean, were these people greater sinners than MURDERERS or ADULTERERS, whom He appeared to “let off the hook” with a “go and sin no more” and no physical punishment?

Methinketh that there are some who feel that any sort of “criticism” is somehow, shall we say, “anti-Christian”, as though Jesus in saying “love thy neighbor” was saying, “even if thy neighbor is doing wrong which will send him or her to hell, don’t even THINK about saying anything to thy neighbor which will HURT HIS OR HER FEELINGS”. . . as though FEELINGS were the ONLY criterion that mattered. While I note duly that Jesus did not condemn, say, the woman caught in adultery, He DID tell her to “go and sin no more”. Not, “there, there, those nasty patriarchical hypocrites are gone, so go on back and do what you FEEL you need to do, I’m in your corner, you’ll be forgiven”.

So. . .when it comes to sin (it is still around though sadly many people seem to have lost a sense of it), it is indeed profoundly UNCHRISTIAN and UNLOVING of a Christian person to pretend that it doesn’t exist, to make all sorts of excuses NOT to talk about it, to act as though there will be no consequences and that somehow God isn’t really interested in justice or truth, but just in having us all “be happy”, whether that happiness causes pain, physical death, or eternal damnation for that person or for others.

The Christian center is exactly that, a center. The central teachings in the Church are, and remain, what Jesus taught us, which is far more than “don’t worry, be happy” or even “turn the other cheek”. Love is the key–it’s just that we have forgotten that sometimes love means having to deny someone something that could hurt him. Do you let your two year old eat candy until his teeth rot? Do you let your teen have sex at 14 because he or she WANTS TO? Do you allow your coworker to drink two sixpacks and then drive because, “hey, it’s HIS choice”, etc.?

Well, golly gee, why NOT? Well, the answer is that it is more important to love your child or your friend by denying them what they WANT, in order to keep them healthy and safe. And guess what. . .sometimes you have to be the “judger”, because sometimes there ARE really really bad consequences, even fatal consequences, for people wanting what is bad for them, even if they are yelling that it is their CHOICE, and who are YOU to tell them that they are WRONG? This is not, God forfend, a question of “uppity Catholics” beating up on poor defenseless people who have “differing viewpoints”, but heaven knows that a sizeable number of people in the media, and sadly even in Christian circles themselves, are trying to make it appear to be.

Here’s a saying to ponder: A person who will not stand up for something winds up falling for everything.
 
Mark & Marilyn:
It has been written recently by certain columnists that there is an “Effort to redefine the Catholic Centre,” which “must be resisted,” according to Rev. Richard P. McBrien. (Essays in Theology; Prairie Messenger, July 27, 2005; p. 15)
Click to expand...
Avoid Richard McBrien and the rubbish he writes, as he’s not a trustworthy source of Catholic teaching.

For example, according to canon law…

Can. 812 “Those who teach theological disciplines in any institutes of higher studies whatsoever must have a mandate from the competent ecclesiastical authority.”

After reading *****Why I Shall Not Seek a Mandate *****by Richard P. McBrien in *America Magazine, *it is clear that he lacks a mandate and defiantly refuses to obey canon law. Rather shameful behavior for a priest.

Consequently, he’s nothing more than a defiant criminal and his opinions aren’t worth your time.
 
I may have been thinking of the USCCB’s statements, but I’m pretty sure I recall reading a review of it by the CDF in some way. I’ll see what I can dig up, as any ammunition against that man is worth its weight in cyber-gold, IMO.

Peace and God bless!

EDIT: It appears I may have confused the USCCB’s “Commitee on Doctrine” for the CDF in my readings. I’ll keep digging, though 🙂
 
Re: Redefining the …Centre; Tatum Ergo, #5, re. arbitrary wants

Right! 👍 Most of your argument is sound. The fact that the Rev. disagrees with the Catholic Right, and “resists…Redefining the Catholic Centre” does not mean “anything goes” or that just any “want, pleasure, ego-trip” is not a sin. Nonsense.
There simply cannot be a Church or Faith or morality in which “anything goes” and no discipline at all. It would be meaningless. Father Thomas Merton said that an arbitrary pseudo-“morality” based on self-indulgence is not a morality, forgiveness or compassion or God’s will at all. Other great religions critique the consequences of indulging.
See also, “The Culture of Complaint: the Fraying of America” by Robert Hughes, who says a lot about “correctness” fads.
Blessings, M&M
 
I would also like to know what the “teachings of vatican II” he refers to are. I have not noticed conservative Catholics suggesting people who support Church teachings ought to leave; usually this is said to those who oppose and attempt to change Church teachings.
 
From Prairie Messenger, Essays in Theology, July 27, ’05:
Code: 
“Effort to Redefine Catholic Centre Must Be Resisted” by Rev. Richard P. McBrien:  [The vast majority of Catholics, not an alleged “Left wing,”] “…have a built-in aversion to extremism of any kind, including manifestations at official levels.
 “The Second Vatican Council…[was] shaped and fashioned, not by its defeated minority, but by its working majority of bishops and by the two popes, John XXIII and Paul VI, who presided over it.
“These [essentially normal] true centrists expressed themselves most emphatically when the sordid details of the Church’s sexual abuse scandal began to surface in 2002. …The Catholic laity directed their anger and frustration more toward the bishops who had covered up the behaviour of the predatory priests, transferring them form place to place, than towards the predatory priests themselves. For the broad centre of the Church, from moderately liberal to moderately conservative… the key line of division is not ideological…but psychological, between the healthy and the unhealthy.
 “As healthy people themselves, they have an instinctive awareness of pathological or dysfunctional behaviour when they experience it. Without benefit of advanced degrees in psychology, they recognize individuals who lack a healthy self-image, who are defensive and self-righteous, who are rigid and judgmental toward others, and who place undue emphasis on rules narrowly applied and on “orthodoxies” simplistically interpreted. [It] is unfair, inaccurate and injurious to the Church…because it places…too many Catholics under a cloud. These Catholics are being told by some of the more militant members of the old Right that they should leave the Church, to which they have belonged all their lives, because “they are no longer wanted” there…. And it deprives the Church of the ministerial gifts of so many highly qualified and deeply motivated lay persons, not to mention hundreds of excellent candidates for the episcopate – pastorally sensitive and effective priests who are written off as “Left wing” or “dissenters.”
 “This effort to usurp and redefine Catholicism’s traditional centre needs to be named for what it is and openly
resisted.” --by Rev. Richard P. McBrien
 
Mark & Marilyn:
“As healthy people themselves, they have an instinctive awareness of pathological or dysfunctional behaviour when they experience it. Without benefit of advanced degrees in psychology, they recognize individuals who lack a healthy self-image, who are defensive and self-righteous, who are rigid and judgmental toward others, and who place undue emphasis on rules narrowly applied and on “orthodoxies” simplistically interpreted.
Click to expand...
Do I detect an attempt to redefine mental health, labeling anyone who professes any type of absolutism as mentally ill for their failure to embrace relativism? Anyone with an absolute conviction of any kind can be labelled “self-rightous”, “defensive”, “rigid” and “judgemental” by those who disagree; if believing in absolutes constitutes mental illness, than those who absolutely believe absolutism is mental illness are themselves mentally ill, by their own definition.
“Lacking a healthy self image” is an assertion without any basis in evidence. There is no reason to conclude that orthodox Catholics lack a healthy self image, except through circular reasoning: “if they had a healthy self image, they wouldn’t be so JUDGEMENTAL and SELF-RIGHTEOUS”, ie, absolutist, and there is no evidence that absolutists lack a healthy self image either.
“Undue emphasis” is a subjective judgement which begs the question.
 
This effort to usurp and redefine Catholicism’s traditional centre needs to be named for what it is and openly
resisted
Click to expand...
Resist away Reverend. But since you openly disregard canon law, you are nothing but a deliberately disobedient child who complains that others don’t see you as the “center” of Catholicism.
 
Mark & Marilyn:
From Prairie Messenger, Essays in Theology, July 27, ’05:

“Effort to Redefine Catholic Centre Must Be Resisted” by Rev. Richard P. McBrien: [The vast majority of Catholics, not an alleged “Left wing,”] “…have a built-in aversion to extremism of any kind, including manifestations at official levels.
“The Second Vatican Council…[was] shaped and fashioned, not by its defeated minority, but by its working majority of bishops and by the two popes, John XXIII and Paul VI, who presided over it.
“These [essentially normal] true centrists expressed themselves most emphatically when the sordid details of the Church’s sexual abuse scandal began to surface in 2002. …The Catholic laity directed their anger and frustration more toward the bishops who had covered up the behaviour of the predatory priests, transferring them form place to place, than towards the predatory priests themselves. For the broad centre of the Church, from moderately liberal to moderately conservative… the key line of division is not ideological…but psychological, between the healthy and the unhealthy.
“As healthy people themselves, they have an instinctive awareness of pathological or dysfunctional behaviour when they experience it. Without benefit of advanced degrees in psychology, they recognize individuals who lack a healthy self-image, who are defensive and self-righteous, who are rigid and judgmental toward others, and who place undue emphasis on rules narrowly applied and on “orthodoxies” simplistically interpreted. [It] is unfair, inaccurate and injurious to the Church…because it places…too many Catholics under a cloud. These Catholics are being told by some of the more militant members of the old Right that they should leave the Church, to which they have belonged all their lives, because “they are no longer wanted” there…. And it deprives the Church of the ministerial gifts of so many highly qualified and deeply motivated lay persons, not to mention hundreds of excellent candidates for the episcopate – pastorally sensitive and effective priests who are written off as “Left wing” or “dissenters.”
“This effort to usurp and redefine Catholicism’s traditional centre needs to be named for what it is and openly
resisted.” --by Rev. Richard P. McBrien
Click to expand...
After reading this I can’t help but think he has a few items in mind. Can we all name those few items?
 
:cool: You guys have every right to say what you seriously believe. We are simply presenting Rev. McBrien’s arguments and inviting commentary.
No. Not all “absolutists” are mentally ill; some are very sober and level-headed, with very cogent arguments. (e.g.–God as a Necessity) …even though some mental patients might preach some form of “absolutism” fabricated from their own private world.
Some other philosophers argue from a calm, polite, impersonal philosophical view for relativism or some theory mid-way between absolutes and relativism, which can be very complex. 😉
–Truly, Mark.
 
Mark & Marilyn said:
:cool: You guys have every right to say what you seriously believe. We are simply presenting Rev. McBrien’s arguments and inviting commentary.
No. Not all “absolutists” are mentally ill; some are very sober and level-headed, with very cogent arguments. (e.g.–God as a Necessity) …even though some mental patients might preach some form of “absolutism” fabricated from their own private world.
Some other philosophers argue from a calm, polite, impersonal philosophical view for relativism or some theory mid-way between absolutes and relativism, which can be very complex. 😉
–Truly, Mark.
Click to expand...

What is that old saying? All heresy begins below the belt? The relativists want to bend the moral law particularly as it relates to genital sexuality. That makes Christ an abosolutist.
 
Mark & Marilyn said:
:cool: You guys have every right to say what you seriously believe. We are simply presenting Rev. McBrien’s arguments and inviting commentary.
Click to expand...

I can only ask WHY you would choose what he has to say and not someone who truly is centered in the Church. The center is Christ, the God-Man whose birth we are about to celebrate… while the good Rev McBrien provides “solid” Catholic interpretation to things like the DaVinci Code Movie.

He is not only off base of some things… he is playing in a different ballpark. His position gives him credibility I guess. But then, that only makes one question ND itself. Guess the teachers there can’t all be like Charlie RIce.

As for William Donahue… 👍
 
Mark & Marilyn said:
:cool: You guys have every right to say what you seriously believe. We are simply presenting Rev. McBrien’s arguments and inviting commentary.
No. Not all “absolutists” are mentally ill; some are very sober and level-headed, with very cogent arguments. (e.g.–God as a Necessity) …even though some mental patients might preach some form of “absolutism” fabricated from their own private world.
Some other philosophers argue from a calm, polite, impersonal philosophical view for relativism or some theory mid-way between absolutes and relativism, which can be very complex. 😉
–Truly, Mark.
Click to expand...

I say absolutism because the words used in the article: judgemental, self-righteous, rigid etc. are used to invalidate the opinions of those who disagree with the author, not by addressing those opinions, but by attacking the opposition’s belief that they are right, implying that it is pathological to consider oneself right and others wrong (which is, of course, self-refuting!).
 
Father McBrien needs to stop dealing in vague generalities and start talking specifics. All this vagueness is just a cowardly way to hide from the consequences of what he believes.

If he were referring to certain ‘old right’ folks who think there hasn’t been a valid pope since Pius XII, then he’s got a certain point that can be validly made (and I’ll heartily agree with him). But Bill Donohue has never, to my knowledge associated with such a crowd.

How about it, Father? Name your issues. Then cite Vatican II passages that support your dissenting position. He won’t. The reason is that Vatican II DOES NOT support dissent from magesterial teachings regarding faith and morals. Quite the opposite.

The reality is that folks like Father McBrien have been appallingly successful at redefining the meaning of Vatican II away from what the council REALLY said towards a mythical suggestion that the council really intended us to move towards a relativistic morality when this was never articulated in council documents. (Let’s be clear: the idea that culpability for sin can be reduced due to certain cultural and personal factors DOES NOT mean that the actual activity is less sinful!)

If anybody is guilty of deceptively portraying catholic teaching, it is Father McBrien, not Bill Donohue. But Mr. Donohue’s comment CAN be seen as excessively harsh. We shouldn’t want sinners to leave the church. We should want them to repent! Pray for Father McBrien instead of anathematizing him folks!
 
Why is it even important what the so-called Catholic center is? In the day’s when Arianism was thriving in the Catholic Church, I’m sure the “Catholic center” was quite heretical.

I don’t learn Catholicism from the “Catholic center.” On the contrary, I learn Catholicism from the authentic teachings of the magisterium.
 
40.png
BlindSheep:
I would also like to know what the “teachings of vatican II” he refers to are. I have not noticed conservative Catholics suggesting people who support Church teachings ought to leave; usually this is said to those who oppose and attempt to change Church teachings.
Click to expand...
I am not sure terms like “conservative” or “centre” even apply when talking about our Faith . You either adhere to the teachings of the Church or you dont. When i hear those who support abortion , homosexuality, woman Priests, etc described as “liberal Catholics” I always think the correct terminology is “nonCatholics”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top