Thank you for this link. It makes some points that I can kind of agree with, but it has a few gaps that I can see:
“That does not mean we whitewash or ignore their bad parts, but simply that we give due attention to their import in the life of the Church.”
– Is this code for “the ends justify the means?”
I ask that sincerely because I think it’s safe to say that Jesus would not have been in favor of picking up weapons of war.
So yes, if nothing else, they preserved the Good News through the centuries, and the Church “did what she has to do” like maybe the dishonest servant in Luke 16. It took a man-made, man-operated, and God-inspired institution to author and preserve the Gospel over time. So that’s why Jesus knew His message was in good hands in the form of the Eucharist.
Also I don’t have a problem with just saying “we did this” and apologize for it (didn’t JPII issue a general apology?) and move on. Nothing to hang my head over any more than over slavery in America or Simony in the Church. If it isn’t past, then at least I don’t see it and if I do then I will have to object to it. But if nothing, any sins or the past – even institutional sins – should not stop us from going out and preaching the Good News.
“We must go on the attack, and present the story of our Catholic family with vigor, courage, and resolve.”
Jesus sent us out as sheep among wolves. I don’t understand why this guy’s fascination with aggressive terms like “must attack.” Jesus “attacked” one time – the money changers. The rest of the time He “defended” the sinners against their accusers.
