JR – poor attempt at a joke. I was drawing from the story in the gospels where St. Peter tries to walk on water. He’s OK when he looks on Christ. When his attention is drawn to the storm he begins to sink. I think people who become obsessed with statistics (Mass attendance etc.) is similar to St. Peter looking at the raging storm, instead of keeping his eyes on Christ. The storm may be real; but Christ is more real.
I love Fr Corapi but I do agree with you…but I think he is speaking from his own perspective as a former drug addict…I am sure he reaches a lot of people that have weathered the same types of things he has, but my favorite is Fr Groeschel, who is always more upbeatWith all due respect to Fr. Corapi, because I do like him a lot as a person, I don’t always agree with him on certain points. One of those that we disagree on is what I perceive as a very negative vision of Catholics. I’m not sure I can actually explain it; but I’ll try.
Sometimes I feel that his vision of Catholics is pessimistic. I think that’s what I’m trying to say. And yet, I don’t think that he’s a pessimist. I’ve seen him in interviews, when he’s not preaching. He’s much more relaxed and his statements about humanity are very hopeful and he has a joy about him that does not always come across when he’s preaching. I’ve often wondered if his audience really gets what he has to offer. He’s not a touch cookie, as he appears in his preaching. He’s very gentle and very funny. He does believe in the posibilities for humanity. In other words, in his interviews he does not come across as one who believes that humanity is lost and doomed. He comes across as a man who truly believes that humanity is good at the core.
I too beleive that most Catholics are good people, for that matter, most human beings are good people. I have a lot of hope for humanity. I believe that we’re going through a very rough period in human history and that we’re not addressing the spiritual needs of people. But people do want to find God.
Perhaps this is why people run to all kinds of crazy fads within the Church and beyond the Church. As Paul and Augustine would say, the unknown God for whom they are looking is right in front of them; they can’t see him and we’re not doing what needs to be done to help them. I think we’re trying; but what we’re trying is not working. We Catholics have a bad habit, if you can call it a bad habit. We try to be too cautious all the time. Everything has to be planned, predictable, organized, and not much left to God. It’s almost as if we have to make sure that we’re in control all the time.
One of the qualities that drew me into the study of the mystics was their uncanny spontaneity. God pointed to something and they jumped over the cliff, totally confident in God’s care and providence. We have to learn to trust in God’s love and providence again. Maybe this is what modern man is looking for and we, Catholcis, are not providing it. We’re not providing good spirituality. What made the mystics holy was their ability to see God in all things, even when the rest of the world saw only the dark side. They saw sin, human weakness, even natural events as opportunities to discover God. They used them to preach and teach. But they did not preach and teach messages of gloom and doom. Instead, they preached how to find God.
One of the best works on this very topic was written by Teresa of Avila, The Way of Perfection. It’s very positive. She’s not focussing on human weakness. She assumes that we all know this and that we have experienced to some degree. She focusses on God’s invitation to man to be holy. She lays out a road map for man to follow in response to God’s call. Maybe that’s what we need to do for people today, what Teresa did for people in her time. We need to give people road maps to holiness.
These are just random thoughts of mine. They may be all wrong. But I don’t think so.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
With regard to the “U.S. Catholicism: Decline and Fall” article, I am not sure what Podles’ point in writing it is.
Hardly a defense of the One True Faith, in my opinion.I agree 100% with everything that you have said about Fr. Corapi. I too believe that he’s a holy man and uses the “kick in the breaches method”. You’re right, Benedict and I do come from the Franciscan Schola, which is a little more tempered. I guess it’s a style that we inherited from our founder. Both styles have their place and time. There are many different kinds of people out there. For some, the gentle Franciscan method seems too soft and they walk away. They are looking for something that will rattle them a little. In comes a Fr. Corapi. For others, the Franciscan method of spirituality is just what they’re looking for: positive and gentle.
You know Fr Corapi had such a seamy side of life experience…He really saw evil up close and personal…He once said if you don’t believe in Satan you should see the world of drugsI agree 100% with everything that you have said about Fr. Corapi. I too believe that he’s a holy man and uses the “kick in the breaches method”. You’re right, Benedict and I do come from the Franciscan Schola, which is a little more tempered. I guess it’s a style that we inherited from our founder. Both styles have their place and time. There are many different kinds of people out there. For some, the gentle Franciscan method seems too soft and they walk away. They are looking for something that will rattle them a little. In comes a Fr. Corapi. For others, the Franciscan method of spirituality is just what they’re looking for: positive and gentle.
The important thing is not to overlook the gifts of the Holy Spirit. There are many gifts that he gives to the Church through different pastoral approaches and different spiritualities. We have to make these available to people.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
The point that you’re making is very important. There may be different in styles because we come from different spiritual traditions. But different spiritual traditions does not mean two sets of truths. That would be insane and chaotic.
I think DOShea at post #117 makes many excellent points. I do not disagree with his view in any material way. I personally think that those who try to blame Vatican II (DOSHEA does not) for the decline are trying to blame that which they want to reject. Rather, I think the materialistic lure of this post WW II modern world is just too great for many to want to accept the 2,000 year old (timeless) message of “I am THE way” Christ, the LIVING SON OF GOD, gave us.
I liked everything that you wrote. But I isolated this paragraph because it really tells a mouthful of truth. I just finished writing a reflection for our novices on the origins of the Franciscan family. As I was writing it, I realized that there is so much happening today that is not new, even though it may seem that way to us.
I’ll just share a piece of what I wrote just to share.
*Francis’ conversion is very important in Church history, because he was the very first mendicant to remain faithful to the Church and around him grew a family of mendicants that has been faithful to the Church for 800 years. The mendicant movement of his time took a turn toward heresy. They were very aware that the Church was in deep moral trouble. The mendicants were also aware of the corruption inside the Church. Abuse of power was rampant. Sexual abuse, contrary to popular media, is not new. It was all over the Church, especially among secular priests. Many monasteries had fallen under the influence of the aristocracy and the monks were subject to their whims, because they fed the monasteries. The papacy and the monarchs were strange bedfellows. The faith was under attack by the Muslims from all sides. But the same Muslims also threatened the economy and political infrastructure of the European monarchies. So the popes and the kings struck up deals to fight together. These deals cost the Church dearly.
Often, after a victory over the Saracens, as they were called, the monarchs did not want to return control to the Church, but wanted to submit the clergy, especially the bishops. The ordination of many bishops was illicit. Often, they were members of royal houses that put pressure on the papacy to ordain them. These ordinations were valid, because they were ordained by valid bishops and popes. But historians question whether they were legal, since some of them were under duress.
The long and the short of it was that the mendicants, also known as penitents, began to speak against the Church. They often took the position that the bishops and the pope were not to be obeyed, because they were sinners. In a strange kind of way, they set themselves up as arbiters of what was right and wrong in the Church. They created what we would call a parallel Magisterium or a teaching authority all their own.
What made Francis very unique was that he saw all the weaknesses in the Church, but he was able to see that the grace of God does not depend on the holiness of men and is not impaired by the sinfulness of men. God’s grace is part of his omnipotence. Therefore, God would be found within the Church and her teachings. Francis insisted on obedience to the local bishops and the papacy, regardless of how sinful they were. He also insisted on preaching the Gospel, rather than wasting time in debates against sinful clerics. This made him very attractive to the people of his time. It was refreshing to see a mendicant penitent who was not into the negatives, but preached conversion and repentance to all, not just to the clergy, as other penitential mendicants did.
He was also very refreshing, because he never said that he was right. He always relied on scripture, the Incarnation and the Trinity. These realities could not be wrong. If one built his life around these truths, then one would be converted to Jesus and would bring others along with him. In this way, he reformed the Church of his time and he did it from the bottom up. His efforts gave birth to three new families in the Church: friars, nuns and seculars, the three Franciscan orders. From among these families there cam great saints who rose to positions of great influence in the Church. Many even became popes*.
These evils were attacks from the evil one against the Church. But they are not new. If we take away the dates, one would almost say that it sounds like modern history. The point is that the Church has been fighting sin and the evil one since its birth. She will continue to do so. And each time that she engages, she will come out victorious. Then follows the next battle. I believe that there will never be a resting place until Christ comes again.
Therefore, we should not despair, panic or believe that we will not come out of this. We will. But we will engage in another battle similar to the same. There are only so many tricks that the devil can use. Let’s remember, evil is not gifted with wisdom. Therefore, he does not have the power to be very creative. It’s always the same old attacks with a new coat of paint. These attacks from the evil one did not begin at Vatican II, nor will they end by deleting Vatican II from history.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I disagree about “wether you agreed with them or not”. This thinking has led to the down fall of the Catholic Church!
I said macho Br JR…I see Fr Corpai as a sportsman…he hunts. he boxed, he was a Green Beret…He has the characteristics of someone who was sort of a physical type of guy…someone men would seek out for a Friday night boxing match type evening, or to go hunting withThe point that you’re making is very important. There may be different in styles because we come from different spiritual traditions. But different spiritual traditions does not mean two sets of truths. That would be insane and chaotic.
As many have said, Fr. Corapi comes from a very different background and he uses his experience. This is good. I think the difference between Fr. Corapi and the Franciscans has to do not with doctrine, we are united on that. The difference has to to with founders.
Someone mentioned that Fr. Corapi was masculine as opposed to St. Francis. I’m not sure if that is an accurate portrayal of the two men. I would say that the difference between the two men is that they are products of their times. The same is true of the difference between the Franciscan family and the SOLT family. The SOLT is a very young society. Their mission is very similar to that of the Franciscans, but their style is much more 20th century. Their founder is a very different kind of person. He was not as charismatic as a Francis, Benedict, Teresa of Avila, Teresa of Calcutta or Vincent de Paul, just a few examples.
This has served them well, I’m referring to the SOLT. Each member of the Society has more room to use his or her style. This is not the case with communities who have had very charismatic founders. These communities have been shaped to follow the Gospel in the footsteps of their founders.
So when you see a Franciscan, such as the Missionaries of the Eternal Word or a Fr. Benedict and others, they have that genteel manner of speaking the same truths that a Fr. Corapi preaches in a more energetic manner. That genteel manner comes down from the founder. These men have a commission to be like the founder, speak like him, act like him, do things his way and try as hard as they can not to divert too much from his style and his vision.
But you are very right, if you put a Franciscan (any one of us) and Fr. Corapi in the same room, we’re going to tell you the same things about sin and virtue. We’ll just say it differently. There is a brotherhood among us that is based on faith. We share the one faith.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
People who don’t play the team game finish up in the comentary box they just blabber on while no one really listens and just plays the game.
Mother Angelica was not a team player! She dug her heels in against Cardnial Mahoney and the liberals, progressives, modernists and feminists! She led the way for those who minds were being polluted by modernists Bishops and Priests.
This thread has morphed into a discussion on STYLES OF LEADERSHIP. I think one “style” is that of being a team player. Mother Angelica has done a wonderful job of assembling a team of Catholic clergy and laity to speak to the fullness that’s found in the Catholic faith. Not only religiously; but culturally as well.
You decide to become part of God’s team and He will make you honor you mightily; maybe even more than you would wish.
While I agree with the spirit of the idea (that there are different styles) I don’t think the characterization really works in specifics. Fr. Corapi is not only a macho guy, but he’s a scholar with 2 PhD’s and he is cultured to appreciate museums and gardens, etc.
Mother Angelica went the tide when she founded EWTN! Read her Biography by Raymond Ayrroro. She locked horns with her Bishop and Cardnial Mahoney!