Social Justice groups such as JustFaith, CCHD, IAF

[ljpgoodwin]

Well, I will have to read these documents to see what you are saying, because my reading of things so far is what I said before. From what I have learned so far, it seems that movement in the Church is either towards God or away from God, not to the left or to the right. Sure, both sides have some good ideas, but both sides also are coming from a point which is antagonistic to God.

It’ll probably take a bit of time for me to read those encyclicals, so I may not have anything intelligent to say for a while

Well, I am a revert… baptized but not raised Catholic, I returned to the Church when my oldest were young, and have been learning ever since. I have read several encyclicals over the years and now find myself reading more and more of them more studiously. You may think that I have made slow progress, but my life is way too full even without this type of studying!

I think I might say that a little differently. I would say that there is movement to the right or the left in the Church throughout history. However, I don’t think the Church, as in the institutional body, ever moves closer of further from God.

The institutional body cannot be close or far from God in the same way that my body cannot be far or close to me. My body is the physical manifestation of me. The same holds true of the institutional body of the Church. Through the Eucharist, the Church is the physical manifestation of God. So that is to say that I can move from left to right and so can the Church, but the Church cannot move closer or farther from itself.

This idea of that the institutional aspect of the Church is part of Revelation, is wonderfully and uniquely Catholic. This is, in part, what we mean when we say that the Eucharist is the real presence of God. There are all sorts of long and boring philosophical and theological arguments that are going on behind this idea. But what it boils down to is that in order for the real presence of God to be made real in the Eucharist, the thing that is making it real, has to be real itself. Therefore, the priest, who is the institutional representative of the Church, is able to make the real presence of Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist.

There is a difference in “weight” between a “Constitution” of the Church and a “Papal Encyclical”. The Constitutions are more authoritative that an encyclical. Encyclicals are papal teachings based of the constitutions. So, if a pope what to give some teaching on a specific issue that he feels is important in the world today, he will write an encyclical.
The Constitutions give us the general theological framework and encyclicals are glosses on the Constitutions. There are from the Second Vatican Council:

4 Constitutions: Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation) Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) Gaudium et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World) Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on Sacred Liturgy)

9 Decrees: Ad Gentes (Mission Activity) Apostolicam Actuositatem (Lay People) Christus Dominus (Bishops in the Church) Inter Mirifica (Social Communication) Optatam Totius (Priestly Training) Orientalium Ecclesiarum (Eastern Churches) Perfectae Caritatis (Renewal of Religious Life) Presbyterorum Ordinis (Life of Priests) Unitatis Redintegratio (Ecumenism)

3 Declarations: Dignitatis Humanae (Religious Freedom) Gravissimum Educationis (Christian Education) Nostra Aetate (Relations with Non-Christians)

These documents, along with the Bible and the Sacraments (Revelation) are the primary sources of how are to come to know Jesus. All papal encyclicals are glosses on these things. Work toward learning these and then the encyclicals will make a lot more sense. Ask your priest to offer classes to the parish on at least the Constitutions. That’s his job.

 

[yayi238]

Where is it written that all change is good or has value?

Haven’t we all heard of taking a change for the worse?

Is the “left” interested in change for change’s sake?

Reform on the other hand strives to KEEP what is good and focus on that–and not on deviation. Uncontrolled change seems to be what led to Protestantism–I’m not saying Protestants are bad but it did cost them the priesthood and the Eucharist. Luther didn’t even mean to break away, just reform–and then it got out of control.

By the way, I was taught that the Eucharist IS Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity. Jesus’ words say that in John’s gospel and in others.
What is the point in one of the comments of saying it is an “institution”?

By the way–St. Francis—I applaud you for homeschooling.

 

[St_Francis]

I think I might say that a little differently. I would say that there is movement to the right or the left in the Church throughout history. However, I don’t think the Church, as in the institutional body, ever moves closer of further from God.

The institutional body cannot be close or far from God in the same way that my body cannot be far or close to me. My body is the physical manifestation of me. The same holds true of the institutional body of the Church. Through the Eucharist, the Church is the physical manifestation of God. So that is to say that I can move from left to right and so can the Church, but the Church cannot move closer or farther from itself.

Well naturally I was talking about the actions of the members of the Church and not the Church herself. Sometimes they need correction, no? And that would be because they have moved away from God, not because they have moved right or left.

This idea of that the institutional aspect of the Church is part of Revelation, is wonderfully and uniquely Catholic. This is, in part, what we mean when we say that the Eucharist is the real presence of God. There are all sorts of long and boring philosophical and theological arguments that are going on behind this idea. But what it boils down to is that in order for the real presence of God to be made real in the Eucharist, the thing that is making it real, has to be real itself. Therefore, the priest, who is the institutional representative of the Church, is able to make the real presence of Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist.

There is a difference in “weight” between a “Constitution” of the Church and a “Papal Encyclical”. The Constitutions are more authoritative that an encyclical. Encyclicals are papal teachings based of the constitutions. So, if a pope what to give some teaching on a specific issue that he feels is important in the world today, he will write an encyclical.
The Constitutions give us the general theological framework and encyclicals are glosses on the Constitutions. There are from the Second Vatican Council:

4 Constitutions: Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation) Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) Gaudium et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World) Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on Sacred Liturgy)

9 Decrees: Ad Gentes (Mission Activity) Apostolicam Actuositatem (Lay People) Christus Dominus (Bishops in the Church) Inter Mirifica (Social Communication) Optatam Totius (Priestly Training) Orientalium Ecclesiarum (Eastern Churches) Perfectae Caritatis (Renewal of Religious Life) Presbyterorum Ordinis (Life of Priests) Unitatis Redintegratio (Ecumenism)

3 Declarations: Dignitatis Humanae (Religious Freedom) Gravissimum Educationis (Christian Education) Nostra Aetate (Relations with Non-Christians)

I don’t really understand what you are saying here. V2 was called as a pastoral council, not a dogmatic one. All the documents are to be interpreted in light of Tradition. You seem to be saying that we can totally ignore 1960 years of history.

These documents, along with the Bible and the Sacraments (Revelation) are the primary sources of how are to come to know Jesus. All papal encyclicals are glosses on these things. Work toward learning these and then the encyclicals will make a lot more sense. Ask your priest to offer classes to the parish on at least the Constitutions. That’s his job.

Why these documents? Again, what about the other 1960 years of the Church’s existence?

 

[ljpgoodwin]

Where is it written that all change is good or has value?

Haven’t we all heard of taking a change for the worse?

Is the “left” interested in change for change’s sake?

Reform on the other hand strives to KEEP what is good and focus on that–and not on deviation. Uncontrolled change seems to be what led to Protestantism–I’m not saying Protestants are bad but it did cost them the priesthood and the Eucharist. Luther didn’t even mean to break away, just reform–and then it got out of control.

By the way, I was taught that the Eucharist IS Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity. Jesus’ words say that in John’s gospel and in others.
What is the point in one of the comments of saying it is an “institution”?

By the way–St. Francis—I applaud you for homeschooling.

yayi238 The point that is made in De Verbum is that the Church (institutional Church) is necessary for salvation. It even goes on to say that the institutional Church, being part of Tradition, is part of Revelation.

For the purposes of the conversation in my last post to St. Francis, change and reform are synonymous. I do understand your point about the distinction between reform and change. So, knowing that I was not making a distinction between the words reform and change, perhaps you might be able to see what I was saying in a different light.

The other possibility is that no matter what I write, you will not like it because of some of the assumptions you may have about who I am. I’m not saying that that is the case for sure. I’m only speculating that that might be the case.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

Well naturally I was talking about the actions of the members of the Church and not the Church herself. Sometimes they need correction, no? And that would be because they have moved away from God, not because they have moved right or left.

Well, that’s a good point. Are we talking about individuals or the Body of Christ as the Church (institutional Church)? The way I look at it, is that the institutional Church throughout history has made moves left and right. These moves have come through councils, encyclicals, the rise and fall of religious orders, loosing and regaining a hold in nations and the like. These moves are in fact responses or you could say corrections to individuals or groups of people as the result of the humanity, so to speak, of human history.

I’m not sure how else we can correct individuals or groups other than to look to what the Magisterium is saying about the journey of the Church through history.

I don’t really understand what you are saying here. V2 was called as a pastoral council, not a dogmatic one. All the documents are to be interpreted in light of Tradition. You seem to be saying that we can totally ignore 1960 years of history.

Yes that is right. It was a pastoral council. It did not define any doctrine. I am not in the slightest way suggesting that we ignore anything. My understanding is that the documents of V2 are the continued development of the previous 1960 years. The V2 documents do not replace nor are they in any way in opposition to the previous 1960 years. They are a further development of our understanding of Revelation, who is Jesus Christ.

I’m not sure what you mean by the light of “Tradition”. I think I might say that we need to interpret the documents in the light of faith, rather than Tradition. I would say that we need the Catholic faith tradition to interpret the documents and Scripture. Are you talking about capital “T” Tradition or small “t” tradition?

Why these documents? Again, what about the other 1960 years of the Church’s existence?

Again, the previous 1960 years of the Church are contained in the documents of V2. Or you could say that V2 is the beneficiary of the previous 1960 years.

So now we have these documents that were written in the 1960’s that contain a trans-temporal truth. But at the same time they contain some cultural elements of their time and place. Papal encyclicals are the Church’s way of helping us keep the documents of V2 contemporary and meaningful in our own time and place.

P.S. I don’t know how to do the multi-quote thing yet…but I’m trying to learn.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

I think that there is a difference between scholarly writing where the credentials matter, and journalism where they do not matter so much. The information given in this particular report can be easily verified, which would establish the truth or lack thereof of the writer/analyst.

I agree with you St. Francis. The problem here is that in this forum, we are talking about very scholarly things. We are not talking about what we think of the Met’s vs the Blue Jays.

People are making very heady statements about whom or what is or is not Catholic. When I hear things like CCHD is not Catholic, I want to hear also on what people are basing these kinds of statements. Otherwise it is just a meaningless opinion that can perpetuate really bad theology or ecclesiology. Then we end up no better than the Fundamentalists brothers and sisters. I love my Church too much to not say anything when I see this kind of thing. Being Catholic is not easy. We need to hold each other’s feet to the fire.

It may be ture…CCHD could be “un-Catholic”. But you have to show me why you say that using universally accepted Catholic sources…not web schlock.

 

[Stylite]

I agree with you St. Francis. The problem here is that in this forum, we are talking about very scholarly things. We are not talking about what we think of the Met’s vs the Blue Jays.

People are making very heady statements about whom or what is or is not Catholic. When I hear things like CCHD is not Catholic, I want to hear also on what people are basing these kinds of statements. Otherwise it is just a meaningless opinion that can perpetuate really bad theology or ecclesiology. Then we end up no better than the Fundamentalists brothers and sisters. I love my Church too much to not say anything when I see this kind of thing. Being Catholic is not easy. We need to hold each other’s feet to the fire.

It may be ture…CCHD could be “un-Catholic”. But you have to show me why you say that using universally accepted Catholic sources…not web schlock.

The Bellarmine report nowhere says that the CCHD is un-Catholic. It merely lists several grantees which support abortion and other things we all agree are bad, gives proof, and asks that the CCHD reform its grants process.

I don’t understand how that is a scholarly issue. You are misrepresenting the report.

 

[St_Francis]

I agree with you St. Francis. The problem here is that in this forum, we are talking about very scholarly things. We are not talking about what we think of the Met’s vs the Blue Jays.

People are making very heady statements about whom or what is or is not Catholic. When I hear things like CCHD is not Catholic, I want to hear also on what people are basing these kinds of statements. Otherwise it is just a meaningless opinion that can perpetuate really bad theology or ecclesiology. Then we end up no better than the Fundamentalists brothers and sisters. I love my Church too much to not say anything when I see this kind of thing. Being Catholic is not easy. We need to hold each other’s feet to the fire.

It may be ture…CCHD could be “un-Catholic”. But you have to show me why you say that using universally accepted Catholic sources…not web schlock.

I think that you misunderstood the intent of the poster who originally posted the link to that article. He seems to have been trying to give some evidence for his saying that the CCHD was not acting in a Catholic way, and assumed that those groups’ support of things like homosexual “marriage” and abortion would be understood as not Catholic.

 

[St_Francis]

Again, the previous 1960 years of the Church are contained in the documents of V2. Or you could say that V2 is the beneficiary of the previous 1960 years.

So now we have these documents that were written in the 1960’s that contain a trans-temporal truth. But at the same time they contain some cultural elements of their time and place. Papal encyclicals are the Church’s way of helping us keep the documents of V2 contemporary and meaningful in our own time and place.

I really find it much easier to understand what was written before the Council than those documents which they were trying to make more “contemporary and meaningful in our own time and place.”

P.S. I don’t know how to do the multi-quote thing yet…but I’m trying to learn.

Yeah, it’s tricky. What you have to do is what has been written in red, leaving out the astericks, which I put in so you can see what’s happening:

[QUOTE=ljpgoodwin;5760031]Quoted text, deedle deedle dumplings, etc, etc.[/quote]

Here’s your comment.

[quote]And the continuation of the previous poster’s comments.[/QUOTE*]

Once I got the hang of it, it was very easy except for that I often misspell qutoe

 

[fultonfish]

Hey Fultonfish. This isn’t real helpful. Instead of just saying “Social Security, broke”, tell me what you mean by broke and where you see the implications of this in our lives as Catholics and back that up with some kind of Vatican document.Perhaps “Economic Justice for All” might be a good place to start. It has Magisterial authority.

One idea in that I think is helpful when talking about these issues is the idea that “a budget is a moral document”. It is a moral document because it has implications on how people live.

If you don’t tell me what you are thinking, it’s kinda hard to have a conversation. I’m more than happy to have a conversation or not if you don’t want. But give me some full thoughts

What part of the expression “Ponzi Scheme” do you not understand?

Illustration of budget as a meaningless expression: I’m going to budget $100 million to buy myself a jet.

Unfortunately, my cash flow this week is a little light. So, the budget doesn’t really mean anything. Budget is merely a number; nothing more.

In the Federal system, congress first approves spending [budget] and then it has to find the money [appropriation]. And their cash flow is a little light, as well.

If the money ain’t there, then you can’t spend it.

Get back to me on your understanding of “Ponzi Scheme”.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

What part of the expression “Ponzi Scheme” do you not understand?

Illustration of budget as a meaningless expression: I’m going to budget $100 million to buy myself a jet.

Unfortunately, my cash flow this week is a little light. So, the budget doesn’t really mean anything. Budget is merely a number; nothing more.

In the Federal system, congress first approves spending [budget] and then it has to find the money [appropriation]. And their cash flow is a little light, as well.

If the money ain’t there, then you can’t spend it.

Get back to me on your understanding of “Ponzi Scheme”.

Great! Thanks for the in depth, insightful and well researched ideas here. I’ll get back to you on the Ponzi Scheme as soon as soon as Mr. Madoff returns my call.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

I really find it much easier to understand what was written before the Council than those documents which they were trying to make more “contemporary and meaningful in our own time and place.”

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that you would rather understand were the Church was from the Council of Trent to the First Vatican Ecumenical Council because you don’t like the language of V2? I’m not trying to be a smart ***. I’m just trying to understand what you just wrote.

Is it the language you don’t like or is it some of the ideas of V2 you don’t like?

 

[ljpgoodwin]

Social Security is bad. Evironmental protections (within reason) and the GI bill are properly a part of the government. The voting thing… there are problems with that. G&S, DCE–presumably Catholic and therefore neither left nor right. JFK, LBJ, FDR, only good if you already are on the left. Arlo Guthrie, don’t know. Karl Rahner–immanentist? Not good! Popes–all Catholic, shouldn’t be either left or right. Beethoven!!! Mother Theresa–Catholic, not left or right. Teresa of Avila??? Declaration of Independence–prolematical.

testing quote thingy

The main problem is that both the left and the right are part of the so-called Enlightenment, when people suddenly got the idea that they didn’t really need God, and life would be easier if He were not in the picture.

testing quote thingy

To me, the right tends to be somewhat closer to Catholic thinking, in terms of social protections and subsidiarity, and the left, well, it is true that they proclaim that they want to help the poor, but they always seem to choose the way to help the poor which will mess things up.

testing quote thingy

The fact that the ideas of right and left have entered into the Church is a serious problem because it shows that there is a division of thinking within the Church. What I see is that those on the left exhibit less and less Catholicism the further left they go. (A person on the extreme end of the left in the Church is to me a person who calls for women priests and an “end” to prohibitions against homosexual actions.) What can I say about those who are on the “right” in the Church? They tend to be concerned with orthodoxy and the Church’s maintaining a Catholic identity. Some have gone so far as leaving the Church, but they would be more recognizable as Catholic to the popes of old than would those on the left.

and testing quote thingy

 

[ljpgoodwin]

Social Security is bad. Evironmental protections (within reason) and the GI bill are properly a part of the government. The voting thing… there are problems with that. G&S, DCE–presumably Catholic and therefore neither left nor right. JFK, LBJ, FDR, only good if you already are on the left. Arlo Guthrie, don’t know. Karl Rahner–immanentist? Not good! Popes–all Catholic, shouldn’t be either left or right. Beethoven!!! Mother Theresa–Catholic, not left or right. Teresa of Avila??? Declaration of Independence–prolematical.

The main problem is that both the left and the right are part of the so-called Enlightenment, when people suddenly got the idea that they didn’t really need God, and life would be easier if He were not in the picture.

To me, the right tends to be somewhat closer to Catholic thinking, in terms of social protections and subsidiarity, and the left, well, it is true that they proclaim that they want to help the poor, but they always seem to choose the way to help the poor which will mess things up.

The fact that the ideas of right and left have entered into the Church is a serious problem because it shows that there is a division of thinking within the Church. What I see is that those on the left exhibit less and less Catholicism the further left they go. (A person on the extreme end of the left in the Church is to me a person who calls for women priests and an “end” to prohibitions against homosexual actions.) What can I say about those who are on the “right” in the Church? They tend to be concerned with orthodoxy and the Church’s maintaining a Catholic identity. Some have gone so far as leaving the Church, but they would be more recognizable as Catholic to the popes of old than would those on the left.

The Bellarmine report nowhere says that the CCHD is un-Catholic. It merely lists several grantees which support abortion and other things we all agree are bad, gives proof, and asks that the CCHD reform its grants process.

I don’t understand how that is a scholarly issue. You are misrepresenting the report.

You would have to go back a bit in this thread to see that many people called CCHD un-Catholic.
I really wasn’t thinking of the BVM report specifically when I was answering St. Francis.

 

[Tigg]

Here is another RED ALERT! The video below was made this past December (just before Obama took office.) This is one group of The Gamaliel Foundation shown worshipping and praising and praying to Obama for deliverance. It’s creepy because it is in the prayer form of a Catholic Litany.

I am suspicious of some YouTube postings, but, again, with a little research it is simple to determine here is yet, another group that promotes abortion rights for the poor and same-sex marriage.

blip.tv/file/2658666

The Catholic Campaign for Human Development between 2007 and 2009 gave $50,000. to this foundation. Here is the list of grantees, direct from the USCCB webpage:

2007 $25,000.

2009 $25,000.

I did not find their name on the ’08 list. (You will need to scroll down the page to “Recently Funded Initiatives” and open up the pdf file.)

usccb.org/cchd/grants/index.shtml

 

[St_Francis]

St Francis;5760307:

I really find it much easier to understand what was written before the Council than those documents which they were trying to make more “contemporary and meaningful in our own time and place.”

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that you would rather understand were the Church was from the Council of Trent to the First Vatican Ecumenical Council because you don’t like the language of V2? I’m not trying to be a smart ***. I’m just trying to understand what you just wrote.

Is it the language you don’t like or is it some of the ideas of V2 you don’t like?

The ambiguity and general nebulouness of the language used in V2 opens the documents up to more than one interpretation. I see that as a *huge *problem.

If I knew nothing of Catholicism, I would not be able to understand Catholic teaching from the documents, and to me this idea turns everything upside down. It’s like they just took the very edges of Catholic teaching and left out the core, and that’s fine for those who know and understand the core. The problem is that so many don’t know the core, and the current emphasis on the V2 documents, the implication that they are all one needs, simply contributes to people’s lack of understanding about the Church.

 

[fultonfish]

Great! Thanks for the in depth, insightful and well researched ideas here. I’ll get back to you on the Ponzi Scheme as soon as soon as Mr. Madoff returns my call.

Well, great!

When you promise people money you don’t have and entice them into your financial scheme by paying off the early participants with money from later participants, (basically) that’s a Ponzi Scheme. It will collapse of its own weight.

And, unhappily, Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme.

As are Medicare, Medicaid, and Fannie & Freddie.

They only survive by constant infusions of fresh money.

Doomed to financial collapse.

And these are brilliantly miserable innovations by the Left. Socialism.

Financial catastrophe.

And that is something you have stated to be positive contributions.

Financial catastrophe.

 

[St_Francis]

You would have to go back a bit in this thread to see that many people called CCHD un-Catholic.
I really wasn’t thinking of the BVM report specifically when I was answering St. Francis.

I wasn’t thinking specifically of the CCHD when I wrote what you quoted; I was thinking more about the topic of the thread which is groups like JustFaith and other “social justice” groups.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

ljpgoodwin;5761029:

The ambiguity and general nebulouness of the language used in V2 opens the documents up to more than one interpretation. I see that as a *huge *

problem.

If I knew nothing of Catholicism, I would not be able to understand Catholic teaching from the documents, and to me this idea turns everything upside down. It’s like they just took the very edges of Catholic teaching and left out the core, and that’s fine for those who know and understand the core. The problem is that so many don’t know the core, and the current emphasis on the V2 documents, the implication that they are all one needs, simply contributes to people’s lack of understanding about the Church.

I think you are hitting on an important issue. One of the great things about the Roman Catholic Church is the fact that we have perhaps the richest academic tradition as any religious or non-religious tradition in the world. Our Tradition, which includes the Sacraments, hospitals, schools, religious vocations and so on, has produced some of the best thinkers and prayers the world has ever know and done so for a very long time. It is both as you seem to be pointing to a blessing and in some way a curse.
The curse part is that one could study this most beautiful Tradition’s academic and spiritual deposits for an entire life time and only scratch the surface. But the good news is that when we study our wonderful religion it almost always raises one’s mind and heart to God. Just like the parable of the land owner who goes out and hires people to work in his field and pays the one who worked all day the same as the one who worked only an hour; it doesn’t matter when or where you start to study our religion, just start and it will pay.
I don’t think the documents of V2 are unnecessarily dense or unintelligible. I think they reflect the fact that being Catholic is not easy. It should be a challenge to understand our faith because we are ultimately trying to understand the mystery of all that it means that Jesus came as equally human and divine, He was born of a Virgin, He died and was raised again. This kind of learning takes lots of study and lots of prayer.
One of the other things that I think is wonderful about our tradition is that it is best studied in groups. Catholicism is the most relational religion in the world. That is because our Church is Incarnational and Trinitarian.
What that means is that our Church, being Incarnational reflects that Jesus came as a person with a real body and Jesus is mediated through our bodies’ senses and our minds. But we are also Trinitarian which means that things are best done in relationship. Our Church reflects these two principles in all we do, including catechesis and evangelization.
The teaching of the Church is not something that really can be taught or understood in isolation or outside of a relational environment. We need each other to help us understand the meaning. That’s what priests, catechetical leaders, professors and your parish are for. Our parishes are much more than places to receive the Sacraments as important and central as that is. They are also places of learning and questions.
We cannot learn Catholicism in isolation. That is good news, because it reflects the fact that God is Love and love is what is shared at our parishes.

 

[Tigg]

Good news…looks like RealCatholic TV has picked up on the Bellarmine story. I don’t see how they can now have this annual collection for CCHD. Does anyone know the scoop if parishes are tithed a percentage anyway (above the actual collection?) If this is the case in our diocese, we will stop giving a weekly tithe and donate to our Building Fund instead!

youtube.com/watch?v=VeaGgcMhAm8