The Danger of Criticizing Bishops and Priests

[Luke65]

The danger of not criticizing bishops and priests:

“The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their sign posts.” ~ St. John Chrysostom (traditional)

Of course, this is also the danger of the flock not praying for them.

For our bishops and priests:

Come Holy Spirit, come by means of the powerful intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Your well beloved spouse.

Outpouring of Spirit

Holy Spirit,
we ask for an outpouring of your graces, blessings and gifts,
upon those who do not believe, that they may believe;
Upon those who are doubtful or confused, that they may understand;
Upon those who are lukewarm or indifferent, that they may be transformed;
Upon those who are constantly living in the state of sin, that they may be converted;
Upon those who are weak, that they may be strengthened;
Upon those who are holy, that they may persevere.
Amen.

 

[JReducation]

The danger of not criticizing bishops and priests:

“The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their sign posts.” ~ St. John Chrysostom (traditional)

Of course, this is also the danger of the flock not praying for them.

For our bishops and priests:

Come Holy Spirit, come by means of the powerful intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Your well beloved spouse.

Outpouring of Spirit

Holy Spirit,
we ask for an outpouring of your graces, blessings and gifts,
upon those who do not believe, that they may believe;
Upon those who are doubtful or confused, that they may understand;
Upon those who are lukewarm or indifferent, that they may be transformed;
Upon those who are constantly living in the state of sin, that they may be converted;
Upon those who are weak, that they may be strengthened;
Upon those who are holy, that they may persevere.
Amen.

I don’t think that the goal of the saints was to critizise the clergy, but to work with the clergy. The saints were always very humble before the clergy, even those who were sinners. I’m reminded of two events in history, one involving St. Francis and the other involving St. Teresa of Avila. Both of them learned of a priest who was living in sin. The priest was living with a woman, in both cases. In both cases, the saints asked the priest to hear their confession. It was through their own humility that they brought both of these priests back to the moral life.

St. Ignatius made the formation of priests one of his priorities. He did not criticize the clergy. He offered to work with them. As he worked with them, his fidelity and his holiness had an impact and he converted may priests and trained many holy priests.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[s4angel]

Br. JR,

Thank you that was beautiful! May god bless you and yours.

 

[RobbyS]

I don’t think that the goal of the saints was to critizise the clergy, but to work with the clergy. The saints were always very humble before the clergy, even those who were sinners. I’m reminded of two events in history, one involving St. Francis and the other involving St. Teresa of Avila. Both of them learned of a priest who was living in sin. The priest was living with a woman, in both cases. In both cases, the saints asked the priest to hear their confession. It was through their own humility that they brought both of these priests back to the moral life.

St. Ignatius made the formation of priests one of his priorities. He did not criticize the clergy. He offered to work with them. As he worked with them, his fidelity and his holiness had an impact and he converted may priests and trained many holy priests.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Part of the problem is that just as orders such as the Augustinians abandoned their calling to promote the ideas of the Reformers, so we have the Jesuits et al, who have supported what sometimes seems to be a new Reformation. In each case, a falling away of the clergy and those in the religious life.

 

[Luke65]

I don’t think that the goal of the saints was to critizise the clergy, but to work with the clergy. The saints were always very humble before the clergy, even those who were sinners. I’m reminded of two events in history, one involving St. Francis and the other involving St. Teresa of Avila. Both of them learned of a priest who was living in sin. The priest was living with a woman, in both cases. In both cases, the saints asked the priest to hear their confession. It was through their own humility that they brought both of these priests back to the moral life.

St. Ignatius made the formation of priests one of his priorities. He did not criticize the clergy. He offered to work with them. As he worked with them, his fidelity and his holiness had an impact and he converted may priests and trained many holy priests.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well, of course the goal is not criticism. The goal is that our clergy and all Catholic teachers teach sound doctrine, and protect the flock from the wolves. But sadly, many of them are the wolves. And just living holy lives is not going to change that fact, as history bears witness to. The Saints most certainly did criticize bishops and priests, often times with language that today would be called “uncharitable”. And as lay Catholics, it is not only our right to criticize the clergy for heterodoxical teachings, it is our responsibility; as it is our responsibility to do so respectfully and charitably. In point of fact, it was actually the laity, moved by the Holy Spirit, who played a major role in the victory over the worst heresy to hit the Church - Arianism. And they did so by quoting Scripture:

“I and the Father are one.” ~ Jesus Christ (John 10:30)

And history is being repeated in our time with the “synthesis of all heresies” - Modernism. And you can find me on the front lines in this battle, because that is where my Master wants me. But I certainly appreciate your guidance, wisdom and love. God bless.

 

[THERE_IS_A_GOD]

No, I don’t buy that we have to accept responsibility of a priest downloading child porn on his computer. I hate porn. I don’t look at it, I don’t search for it, I have never accidently downloaded it on my computer despite having Internet access for over 10 years.

That bishop, a leader of priests and parishioners, knew what he was doing. He was involved in a law suit regarding sexual abuse of alter boys. He has to bear full responsibility for exposing himself to child porn. I am angry because he has done such a thing, despite being a leader of his faith. I wonder what Jesus would say to him? That porn involved children who were victimized. That is who we should be concerned about, not some lecherous hypocrite.

After all the arguments about receiving communion in the hand or on the tongue here at CA, surely my hands are no less tainted than this bishop?

As for criticism of the clergy, there are many saints besides St. Francis who did indeed criticize the clergy directly. Some of them suffered greatly for doing so and were martyred for the Church.

I agree with you. I believe it is an error to think that any priest, bishop or other clergy are above criticised. This fear of correcting a priest, or questioning the actions of any of the clergy is part of the reason we have such a terrible problem with such things as the sex scandals. Perhaps if folks had been more willing to call certain men into question the problem would not be as bad.

We are called to correct and admonish each other, not to remain silent and look the other way. Sin is sin. Confront it head on, even if it is your priest. We are to hold each other responsible, not just ourselves.

 

[JReducation]

I agree with you. I believe it is an error to think that any priest, bishop or other clergy are above criticised. This fear of correcting a priest, or questioning the actions of any of the clergy is part of the reason we have such a terrible problem with such things as the sex scandals. Perhaps if folks had been more willing to call certain men into question the problem would not be as bad.

We are called to correct and admonish each other, not to remain silent and look the other way. Sin is sin. Confront it head on, even if it is your priest. We are to hold each other responsible, not just ourselves.

No one says that sin should be ignored and that a person who is doing something sinful should not receive fraternal correction. What I was pointing out, when I posted the story about St. Francis and St. Teresa of Avila, was that the saints should serve as our models on how to do so. These two in particular are of special significance, because their spirituality and their lives did move many men and women to conversion away from sin, including priests. However, they did it in a manner that was neither condescending nor aggressive. They were excellent models of fraternal correction, because they corrected with a great deal of love and clarity in their words and their actions. The best part about them is that they truly believed that every human being could commit such grave sins, even though neither of them ever did. They reminded themselves that they were capable of such sin. In this way, they were able to speak to the sinner without sounding as if they were holier than the sinner. I believe this is what has made them so attractive to sinners for so many hundreds of years. They are role models, gentle and very focussed on what is right. While they are gentle, they are not blind, naive or relativisist either. They are firm in their moral convictions and in the advise that they give to others.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[recidite_plbs]

I’ll give you a personal example. I’m in solemn vows. If I became a non believer tomorrow and said that I no longer believe in those vows, they would not go away. I would still be a Franciscan until the Church dispensed me from my obligation to those vows. But since I’m an unbeliever, the Church can’t dispense me, because I don’t recognize the authority of the Church. The vows remain in place and I remain a Franciscan, albeit a heretic or apostate.

That’s the kind of circular argument the RCC uses to keep a grip of its power. The fact is, if you chose to believe that God doesn’t exist, that Francis was a lunatic of gargantuan proportions, and that we are ruled by Lizard People and the Jedi are their representatives on Earth, it doesn’t become impossible for the RCC church to dispense you as it is not what the RCC thinks that matters, but what you think. Just like in contract law, the RCC can’t bind a third party. In this instance, no matter what the RCC church may think or say, you are not a undischarged heretic or apostate but a Lizard worshiping Jedi and the RCC becomes an irrelevance.

You must have studied paradigm as part of Rhets and Divs surely?

Going to the subject of the article, what bothers me is this. You have someone within the establishment telling you it is wrong to criticise the hierarchy of the establishment. It’s the self-serving paradigm that the clergy would wish the “faithful” to do - subject themselves to the unquestioned authority of the church so that control and dominance is maintained. I’ve had this out with a bishop before. He told me that I was subject to his authority because I was baptised as a Catholic. His presumption was that because of a decision taken by my parents when I was a 4 week old infant I was eternally bound to do as I was told by the men in pointy hats and dog collars. I politely invited him to re-evaluate his position, and his suggestion was that I was mentally defective, the proof of which was my refusal to accept his authority. I believe I made my counter argument by inviting him to place that authority somewhere in the hidden regions of his anatomy. I may have suggested he place his mitre in the same location. I can’t recall exactly…

I’ve experienced a priest making up Canon Law as they go along to throw their weight around. When I quoted the relevant piece of Canon Law back to him correctly, he turned to threats in order to make his point. The fact is, he was wrong. Am I to respect that? Am I to humbly write to the bishop and bow and scrape in the hope he listens as I touch my fore-lock for having dared bother him? Is, as the article suggests, he my “superior”? Are there ranks of people in the church? In the eyes of God? or are men created equal? Perhaps some are more equal than others?

The fact is, taking any belief in transubstantive and absolutive powers as aside from this argument, priests and bishops are administrators and managers in a body corporate who are dealing with better educated and more intelligent people than in generations past who have access to the rules of governance of the church who are quite capable, and in fact empowered to challenge, question, and where need be, decide for themselves how the clergy should behave towards them. Too often clergy have taken advantage of this “Father knows best” mentality and have abused their positions. I’m not just talking in the sexual sense either. Too much bullying, decision making on the hoof, making things up as they go along, and then blowing their stack when the “faithful” stand up to them has been the church of the past, and indeed the present. I’m sure the clergy would like to have that authority back, irrespective of whether they see themselves as “liberal” or “conservative” the one thing they all agree on is this: they are the ruling class, the faithful are the ruled and governed. It has nothing to do with salvation and everything to do with status. Certainly with diocesan clergy, less so with religious who seem to impose authority on themselves but are less energetic in trying to impose it on others outside of their resepctive communities.

I’ve often thought that the constant battles fought by people on the right and left wings of the church are being defrauded by clergy on both ends of the spectrum who are complicit in using the liturgy and the disagreements over how it is “performed” as a way of distracting people from the true fight for who controls whom and who serves whom. It is convenient to both to rally their troops around a cause so that control is maintained through the smokescreen of liturgy and people are blind to the real issue. The last laugh, therefore, is going to remain with the clergy until the “faithful” get together and turn their attentions to fighting a united front. The clergy, unfortunately, have a better grasp of the 3-block war than the people do.

 

[Luke65]

That’s the kind of circular argument the RCC uses to keep a grip of its power. The fact is, if you chose to believe that God doesn’t exist, that Francis was a lunatic of gargantuan proportions, and that we are ruled by Lizard People and the Jedi are their representatives on Earth, it doesn’t become impossible for the RCC church to dispense you as it is not what the RCC thinks that matters, but what you think. Just like in contract law, the RCC can’t bind a third party. In this instance, no matter what the RCC church may think or say, you are not a undischarged heretic or apostate but a Lizard worshiping Jedi and the RCC becomes an irrelevance.

You must have studied paradigm as part of Rhets and Divs surely?

First of all, it’s not a circular argument - it’s simply a fact. The rest of this is unnecessary and unhelpful.

Going to the subject of the article, what bothers me is this…

And here you conflate criticism with disobedience, as if the one follows the other - it does not…

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.” (Matthew 23:2)

This is the Law of Christ, which you are under whether you like it or not. I have no problem believing all that the Church of Christ has defined for our belief, and obeying all the Church’s laws, but at the same time criticizing Churchmen and lay teachers who don’t teach the Catholic faith correctly. I don’t criticize them for their personal sins, even when they bring scandal to the Bride of Christ, because, as has been pointed out, we are all sinners in need of mercy. And besides that, there is no shortage of criticism of the Catholic Church when one of Her members causes scandal. You can be an obedient child of God, and fight the good fight of faith at the same time. God bless.

 

[JReducation]

That’s the kind of circular argument the RCC uses to keep a grip of its power. The fact is, if you chose to believe that God doesn’t exist, that Francis was a lunatic of gargantuan proportions, and that we are ruled by Lizard People and the Jedi are their representatives on Earth, it doesn’t become impossible for the RCC church to dispense you as it is not what the RCC thinks that matters, but what you think. Just like in contract law, the RCC can’t bind a third party. In this instance, no matter what the RCC church may think or say, you are not a undischarged heretic or apostate but a Lizard worshiping Jedi and the RCC becomes an irrelevance.

It’s a subjective irrelevance. Objectively, it continues to be relevant. We cannot undo a mark on the soul, just because we choose not to believe it. We can live as if it did not exist, but that’s not living in reality.

Going to the subject of the article, what bothers me is this. You have someone within the establishment telling you it is wrong to criticise the hierarchy of the establishment. It’s the self-serving paradigm that the clergy would wish the “faithful” to do - subject themselves to the unquestioned authority of the church so that control and dominance is maintained.

We have to distinguish between being a critical thinker and setting ourselves up as a parallel magisterium. I can be very critical about taxation. The fact remains that the IRS calls the shots. The same happens within the Church. You can have an opinion that is different from that of the hierarchy or those in positions of authority. But at the end of the day, they have the right to make the rules. This right has been handed down to them from the Apostles.

I’ve had this out with a bishop before. He told me that I was subject to his authority because I was baptised as a Catholic.

Actually, your bishop is quite correct. He has spiritual and moral jurisdiction over every baptized Catholic in his diocese. This is not his choice nor your choice. It is the way this was set up by the Apostles. If we read the letters of Paul, we see how he exercises authority over every community that he converted. When he writes to the Philipians, Ephesians, Romans, etc. he invokes his authority as bishop and he imposes his authority over the faithful in those Churches. There is no distinction about age. Everyone in those Churches came under his jusrisdiction.

His presumption was that because of a decision taken by my parents when I was a 4 week old infant I was eternally bound to do as I was told by the men in pointy hats and dog collars. I politely invited him to re-evaluate his position, and his suggestion was that I was mentally defective, the proof of which was my refusal to accept his authority. I believe I made my counter argument by inviting him to place that authority somewhere in the hidden regions of his anatomy. I may have suggested he place his mitre in the same location. I can’t recall exactly…

Even to a non-Catholic, this kind of behavior is clearly vulgar and disrespectful. This has nothing to do with being Catholic. It has to do with being a civilized and polite person.

to be continued

 

[JReducation]

conclusion

Is, as the article suggests, he my “superior”? Are there ranks of people in the church? In the eyes of God? or are men created equal? Perhaps some are more equal than others?

This has nothing to do with human dignity. As far as dignity is concerned, we are all sons and daughters of the Father. However, even among the sons and daughters of the Father there is a hierarchy of authority. Jesus had many disciples, but he selects only 12 to be apostles or bishops. Even his mother had to submit to their authority. And from among them he pulls Peter aside and hands over the role of Good Shepherd to Peter when he says, “Feed my sheep.” The Shepherd is the one who feeds, protects and stears the sheep. If you know anything about shepharding, it’s very interesting. Shephards to do not lead the sheep. They walk behind them pushing them along in the direction that they need to go. The metaphor that Jesus uses to explain his authority and role as the Good Shephard and which he hands over to Peter is that of the person who goes from behind and pushes the flock along the right path. It is also to Peter and Peter alone to whom Jesus says, “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven and what you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” Then he gives Peter the keys of the Kingdom. To all the apsotles he says, “Whose sins YOU shall forgive, shall be forgiven and whose sins YOU shall deny, shall be denied.”

Based on the witness of scripture and the ancient tradition of the Church that has been handed down to us to this age, it seems that even among God’s sons and daughters there is a hiearchy of authority and not all men and women have the same authority, even though we have the same dignity as sons and daughers of the Father. There is a big difference. We deserve to be treated with justice and respect. But not all of us are in charge. Some are in charge and others are submitted to the authority of those in charge. Jesus didn’t create a democratic Church. The paradigm that Jesus chose for his Church is based on a monarchy. There was democracy during Jesus’ time. Democracy actually predates Jesus, if you examine Greek and Roman history. But Jesus did not subscribe to it for his Church.

The fact is, taking any belief in transubstantive and absolutive powers as aside from this argument, priests and bishops are administrators and managers in a body corporate who are dealing with better educated and more intelligent people than in generations past who have access to the rules of governance of the church who are quite capable, and in fact empowered to challenge, question, and where need be, decide for themselves how the clergy should behave towards them.

Actually, bishops are not administrators and part of their role as bishops is to govern. This was a role that was given to the apostles and transmitted from generation to generation. We can’t undo this. Again, I would refer you to Paul’s writings. This was a man who governed the Churches under him, even when he was traveling. He kept his finger on the pulse and corrected them when they steered away from the faith and praised them when they did good. If we read the first four chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, we see where the early Christians sold what they had and put it at the feet of the Apostles. This was a sign of submission to their authority. This submission to the authority of the bishop, which is what an apostle is, comes down to us from the first generation Christians.

Too often clergy have taken advantage of this “Father knows best” mentality and have abused their positions. I’m not just talking in the sexual sense either. Too much bullying, decision making on the hoof, making things up as they go along, and then blowing their stack when the “faithful” stand up to them has been the church of the past, and indeed the present.

There is no room for meaness. I agree with you. Any priest or bishop who is mean is out of line.

I’m sure the clergy would like to have that authority back, irrespective of whether they see themselves as “liberal” or “conservative” the one thing they all agree on is this: they are the ruling class, the faithful are the ruled and governed. It has nothing to do with salvation and everything to do with status.

Actually, it has something to do with salvation. It has to do with the sacrament of Holy Orders. If you begin to redefine the sacrament and the role of the ordained, then you are redifining dogma. We can’t do that. Part of the role of the ordained is to govern. We cannot take that out of the sacrament of Holy Orders. That was part of the sacrament when it was instituted by Christ.

The last laugh, therefore, is going to remain with the clergy until the “faithful” get together and turn their attentions to fighting a united front. The clergy, unfortunately, have a better grasp of the 3-block war than the people do.

What you’re describing here is Protestantism, where the laity controls the community and the clergy is employed by them. The laity can hire and fire at their convenience. This has not worked for Protestants. In fact, what began as three Protestant movements, has turned into several hundred reformation communities all in conflict with each other. Every time they have a conflict, one group moves up the street and opens another church. That flies in the face of the definition of the Church as taught by Christ. One of the signs of the Church is that it is one. We may not agree with each other on the day to day matters, but we are one in our submission to authority, one in our faith, one in our dogma, one in our moral belief, and one in our sacraments.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[bkovacs]

Hearing that a bishop has been arrested on child porn charges is not criticism. It is shocking and terribly discouraging. That the hands of such a person also passes out the eucharist at mass makes me wonder if it’s all a big sham. That is not criticism either, but a shaking of my faith. It really makes me wonder if I can trust.

If there were no criticisms, there would be abuse of power.

I guess they shouldn’t be criticizing Bishop Williamsom of the SSPX as well. But they are!!. Only when you criticize the liberals do you yourself get criticized, by the current RC clergy.

 

[recidite_plbs]

JReducation, to take the points of your first reply post in turn (I can’t post with quotes as it is too long):

Firstly, how do we know we have a soul, let alone a mark on it? What you are saying, if I understand your perspective correctly is, because you believe there to be both a soul and an indellible mark on it, that I have a soul with an indellible mark and that is an objective truth even though there is no physical proff of this, and in any case I am uncertain of the former but I categorically reject the latter? That isn’t logical to me. Surely the acceptance or otherwise of the indellible character is a matter of individual faith To that end I would suggest the issue of the indellible character is a matter of whether you choose to believe it to be so, i.e. if you believe it is there then it might as well be, if you don’t then it doesn’t exist and it is the subjective irrelevance, not the argument. The fact is, I reject the notion of the indellible character, so to me, the objective truth is that it doesn’t exist. You choose to believe it, and I respect your faith though I do not share it, so to you it exists and can be an objective truth to you.

What you can’t do is take a matter of conjecture on a subject on which we disagree and attempt to somehow assert it on me as objective truth when you cannot prove it, any more than I can assert that an indellible charatcter doesn’t exist on your sould simply because I don’t believe it.

The difference is that the right if the IRS (Or HM Revenue and Customs over here) to make the rules is based on common consent. If I don’t like it I can form my own political party, persuade others that I’m right, and the HMRC become subject to my authority if I win enough votes. Failing that, I can take charge by force if I have to (assuming enough people with guns agree, in which case we stage a Coup). When God has guns, then I’ll accept His fait acomplit. Until then, God can hand what he wants through His apostles and their descendants, that’s a matter for those who subject themselves to the authority of their church.

The difference is that Paul exercised authority over those who elected to join the church. Did he exercise authority over those who did not? In the same way, the bishop may have convinced himself that he has authority over me, but the law of this land states otherwise. As an analogy, as a soldier I was subject to the Army Act of 1955 and the Queen’s Regulations. They didn 't apply to me before I joined up, they don’t apply to me now I’m no longer serving (though as a closer analogy I retained my status as a holder of the Queen’s Commission and its privileges for life even though my rank is purely honourific now). If a Lt Col attempted to pull “rank” on me, he simply couldn’t. I elected to leave the army and that is the end of it. The RCC may attempt to think of me as perpetually able to enjoy the benefits of membership, but it can’t force me.

And this is where the Bp was wrong. The issue was actually an administrative one where I had the law on my side. I’d asked to have my baptismal and other records expunged from the diocesan records, as the Data Protection Act gives me the right to do. Irresepctive of Canon Law, the law of this land requires those records be expunged if I ask and if the church fails to comply it is in breach of the law and can be prosecuted. The Aux Bp in question is also the chancellor of the diocese and a trained lawyer as well as canon lawyer, so he knew what the law demanded. When I contacted the diocese he called me back and threw down the gauntlet to take him to court, so I did. And I won. And he didn’t like it. What followed was a series of phone calls that got more and more heated each time because he kept demanding that I, as a Catholic, submit to his authority and withdraw the case. I reminded him I’m no more a Catholic than I am a hedgehog and that the sensible thing to do would be to stop wasting everyone’s time and money and just comply with the law. He kept trying to assert his “authority” I refused. Simple as that, until I pointed out his authority was only of concern to those catholics who chose to accept it, and that he lacked even the moral authority to compell many catholics who were baptised and do not go to mass, use contraception, agree with women priests, have aborted pregnancies and so on. While, I told him, I wasn’t condoning what people chose to do, he had to accept that not everyone was going to do as he said and that I was one of them. He then went on to suggest that I, and everyone who did not accept the moral and actual authority of the Bishops as (and I’ll quote) “mentally defective”. Now I don’t know about you, but to go on to your next point, I object quite strongly to being described by someone as “mentally defective”.

Had someone not poured some water over my head when I was too young to tell them not to I wouldn’t have been baptized, therefore what authority would the Bp have had over me? None. So why should he presume to have any over me now just because of a baptism that took place when I was 4 weeks old?

Indeed it begs a philosophical question: if mankind has freedom of will, to what extent is that freedom there if the only people who are free of the authority of the bishops are those whose salvation cannot be counted upon because they did not receive the sacrament of baptism? If we take the extension of that argument, our will is only truely free if salvation cannot be guaranteed and the closest we come is for our souls to enter limbo irrespective of the faith or good works that life performs. Am I to presume that I have been shackled to the authority of someone I would otherwise reject through something that I had no control over as an infant? Because that’s what the RCC and its bishops presume for themselves I have opted not to have my children baptised so that they are free to decide for themselves what they want to have claim authority over them. Let’s see this Bp attempt to claim authority over them!

Please also tell this to the Bp who thinks I ought to be locked up in a sanitorium until I do as he says.

 

[Eucharisted]

Hearing that a bishop has been arrested on child porn charges is not criticism. It is shocking and terribly discouraging. That the hands of such a person also passes out the eucharist at mass makes me wonder if it’s all a big sham. That is not criticism either, but a shaking of my faith. It really makes me wonder if I can trust.

If there were no criticisms, there would be abuse of power.

Trust in Christ, not in human beings.

 

[recidite_plbs]

JR, again taking your second post point by point, sans quotes:

I like the way you express the principle of “shepherding”, It’s a pity that too many clergy, bishops in particular talk a good game about being shepherd but behave somewhere between martial authority and feudal baronialism. In order for any authority to work there has to be consent. Even in communist states like N Korea there has to be the consent of the people to be governed. The issue here is how that consent is obtained, by free will or by force. To some extent most systems of government rely not on free consent but on coercion, no matter how “democratic”. If you take that as a continuum, the RCC (I think) would err towards the communist dictatorship end, but fails to achieve this because it lacks the direct ability to use force. It has tried in the past with the Inquisitions, and the Crusades, but it has lacked the finesse and simmering brutality that the Islamic Regious Police have in states governed by Sharia Law, but I bet there are many clerics in the RCC that would love to adopt that system believeing it would be for the greater good of souls. Where the RCC has settled itself is on a system of feudal baronialism: the faithful are the unwashed masses to be given bread and shelter, but never shall the riches be shared or their status improved, while power is maintained through patronage and intrigue.

Shepherds, the Bishops are not.

I have to wonder, when Jesus gave the Petrine Commission, did he envisage quasi-state administration? Did he say “whatever you bind in heaven, but in order to do it, what you really need is a civil-service and beaurocracy that would strangle a nation in red tape so that everyone exists in this legalistic framework because it really is the way forward for a religion coming out of Palestine”? You mention Paul, but what you have to remember is that he was a tax collector and a civil servant. He was an administrator. He is often called the father of the church, but what he did was instill a culture that he was familiar with: tax codes, administrative rules, procedure, and management. He really was the management consultant of the day, the Chief Executive and Chief Operating Officer to Peter’s Chairman of the Board. Governance and administration are so inextricably linked as to almost be synonymous. Again, the first 4 chapters of Acts relates to those who elected to belong to the church. What did it say about those who did not join, or those who joined, didn’t like what they saw, and left? What does it teach us about them?

See my last post about meanness.

Other than those with a vested interest in maintaining a status quo ante, who says we can’t question dogma? You have to double-take when the Pope says you can question anything you want in an Ecumenical Council, except my ability to govern and be infallable (and yes, I know the restrictions on that). Is it necessary to my salvation that as well as accepting the immaculate conception, death, resurrection, and ascention into heaven the feudal behaviour of bishops who place themselves above the law of the land (render unto ceaser anyone? passage of the picking of the corn: the law was made for man, not man for the law?)? If it is, then it confirms in my mind that this is not a God I want anything to do with, and sod the consequences!

I might be describing some form of Protestantism, I find much of that as distasteful as Catholicism. I’m at the point of finding all of it distasteful and a God I barely like. I don’t know what form of “church” I can be comfortable with, but I do know it certainly isn’t the RCC.

 

[rep140]

Any idea why RECIDITE wants to spend any time on this site?

 

[recidite_plbs]

Any idea why RECIDITE wants to spend any time on this site?

Why not?

The serious, though off topic answer, is I want to understand what it is that I think and believe and a lot of that comes through dialogue and discussion. I’ve drifted quite a way away from the catholic church, but it is the only church I’ve known, and I want to understand where I’ve ended up, and so in that regard it’s far easier to understand in reference to where I cam from than trying to understand it in the midst of others who don’t come from where I came from. I suppose what I’m saying is it would be impossible to chart how far removed I am from the catholic church trying to work it out with non-catholics. The next step is trying to discern what I do from there once I have worked it out.

 

[JReducation]

Why not?

The serious, though off topic answer, is I want to understand what it is that I think and believe and a lot of that comes through dialogue and discussion. I’ve drifted quite a way away from the catholic church, but it is the only church I’ve known, and I want to understand where I’ve ended up, and so in that regard it’s far easier to understand in reference to where I cam from than trying to understand it in the midst of others who don’t come from where I came from. I suppose what I’m saying is it would be impossible to chart how far removed I am from the catholic church trying to work it out with non-catholics. The next step is trying to discern what I do from there once I have worked it out.

As your brother and a brother to all men, I will give you a piece of advise from the life of our holy Father Francis. It’s not a quote, it’s just something that I have learned from reflecting on this man’s life. Sometimes we have to learn to keep thing simple.

I don’t know you personally, so I can’t say this with certitude. I can only extrapolate from your writings. It sounds like you have created a hornet’s nest for yourself by bringing to many issues to the table at once. I alway think of the man who wants to clean his house and decides to empty out all of his closets. He throws everything into the centre of the room and then it’s almost impossible to deal with, rather than go one closet or even one room at a time.

My fraternal advice to anyone who is struggling with their faith tradition, Catholic or other, is to start with one point. Explore that, Discuss it. Ask questions. Read about it. When you have a clear idea of what it means, you can make an informed decision. Then move on to the next point.

Since the Eucharist is the central point of the Catholic faith, I would suggest that you begin with that and put bishops and other persons and issues on the sideboard. The first question should be, “Do I really believe that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist and do I believe that at every celebration of the mass Christ’s sacrfice on Calvary is reinacted exactly as it happened 2000 years ago?”

If you want, I would be more than happy to walk the journey with you, in a non-judgmental manner, but in a Franciscan manner. We can do this on these threads, so that others can learn as well or via PM or email.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF