J
JReducation
Guest
I’ll try. As I said, my areas of expertise are Franciscan Theology and Mystical Theology.
Let’s see what we can find out, together. How’s that?
Why do so many Catholics cringe at theology, Vatican II and even the Catechism?
- Status
Let’s see what we can find out, together. How’s that?
B
blessedtoo
Guest
I think you misunderstood the context in which I used the word:I highlighted obfuscation, because it’s an awesome workand I think it captures my question. I fail to understand why Catholics have such little tolerence for obfuscation. And it always seems to arise when one speaks on moral theology, conscience or makes reference to Vatican II.
I was wondering if others found this as interesting a reaction as I do. I for one find the (to use your word) obfuscation of moral theology, issues of conscience and Vatican II to be a sign of the dynamic activity of the Holy Spirit. If everything were so easy to digest, understand and practice, the Church would be static.
I do not share your opinion that confusion, bewilderment, or lack of clarity are signs of dynamism in the Church. Nor do I think they exist in the Church Herself. Among the faithful? Absolutely. In the teachings? Not at all. And that’s the way I like it.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
JReducation:
I think the problem in discussing theology here is multifaceted.
Part of the problem, I think, is that a lot of us simply don’t have sufficient educational background, formal or informal, to enter knowledgeably into such discussions. For many, the only backgrounding has been what we learned in Catholic school, RCIA or something of that kind. Unfortunately, this is a hugely varied source anymore, and has been for some time. In some Catholic schools, there is little or no actual religious content. For some people, then, their only resource is “cultural”; i.e. what did they learn or think they learned from their parents. There is a huge problem in this country with adequate catechesis. I don’t think most who know it blame Vatican II as such, but those who took Vatican II as a license to simply propagate their own opinions, make people leery of it. Lots of people, most definitely including lots of people on here, don’t like it and are immediately suspicious when people start talking about how V II said this or that. When one has had that “Pre Vatican II” epithet tossed at them a few times, particularly when that is often the only response to something one believes is right, one just tends to discount it, au outrance.
Beyond RCIA or Catholic schooling, there is kind of a void. I think a lot of people in here are here because reliable sources of knowledge are hard to come by. And, of course, people get distracted by political issues and such. It isn’t a lot better if one is fortunate enough to go to a Catholic college. I attended college while V II was going on. In those days, you couldn’t graduate from a Jesuit college without achieving enough hours in Philosophy (heavy on Aquinas) for a minor and being three hours short of a minor in Theology. And you could be pretty sure you were hearing it straight. I was there when a handful of the Jesuits went all frothy about what they thought V II meant, but that very frothiness made me suspicious of it. Nowadays, Theology and Philosophy courses are a lot like Forrest Gump’s box of chocolates. My own son transferred from a Jesuit college to a state college largely because he just didn’t seem to be able to avoid Theology courses that he felt were anti-Catholic. “There’s less anti-Catholicism at State” he used to joke.
Add to that the fact that the potential backgrounding is immense, it makes things very difficult.
So what does a person do, then? Sure, one can read, for example, the V II documents themselves. I have done a fair amount of that and, to be honest, I keep thinking, well, yes, okay, when is this going to tell me something I don’t know? One can read what the Popes write from time to time. One can read Catholic publications. (And they are a box of chocolates all their own) But if one has never had the education in doctrine, for example, that some have had, one is over one’s head or, at best, has to extract the basics as one goes; like trying to figure out what’s in Chateau Petrus simply by drinking it when one’s only prior knowledge of wine is the price of Mogen David. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a big, big help. Even then, though, most people have no access at all to the sources cited therein, let alone to the sources for the sources.
But, and this is one of the really wonderful things about the Church, it seems as if one knows a little, picks up things from scripture itself and if one reads a bit, at a point it seems to me Grace kind of takes over, and the desire to love God. If it was not for that, I think virtually all of us would be in a world of hurt.
I commend someone like you, JRedcuation, who, it seems, is volunteering to provide real information for people here. I, for one, will keep watching.
I think the problem in discussing theology here is multifaceted.
Part of the problem, I think, is that a lot of us simply don’t have sufficient educational background, formal or informal, to enter knowledgeably into such discussions. For many, the only backgrounding has been what we learned in Catholic school, RCIA or something of that kind. Unfortunately, this is a hugely varied source anymore, and has been for some time. In some Catholic schools, there is little or no actual religious content. For some people, then, their only resource is “cultural”; i.e. what did they learn or think they learned from their parents. There is a huge problem in this country with adequate catechesis. I don’t think most who know it blame Vatican II as such, but those who took Vatican II as a license to simply propagate their own opinions, make people leery of it. Lots of people, most definitely including lots of people on here, don’t like it and are immediately suspicious when people start talking about how V II said this or that. When one has had that “Pre Vatican II” epithet tossed at them a few times, particularly when that is often the only response to something one believes is right, one just tends to discount it, au outrance.
Beyond RCIA or Catholic schooling, there is kind of a void. I think a lot of people in here are here because reliable sources of knowledge are hard to come by. And, of course, people get distracted by political issues and such. It isn’t a lot better if one is fortunate enough to go to a Catholic college. I attended college while V II was going on. In those days, you couldn’t graduate from a Jesuit college without achieving enough hours in Philosophy (heavy on Aquinas) for a minor and being three hours short of a minor in Theology. And you could be pretty sure you were hearing it straight. I was there when a handful of the Jesuits went all frothy about what they thought V II meant, but that very frothiness made me suspicious of it. Nowadays, Theology and Philosophy courses are a lot like Forrest Gump’s box of chocolates. My own son transferred from a Jesuit college to a state college largely because he just didn’t seem to be able to avoid Theology courses that he felt were anti-Catholic. “There’s less anti-Catholicism at State” he used to joke.
Add to that the fact that the potential backgrounding is immense, it makes things very difficult.
So what does a person do, then? Sure, one can read, for example, the V II documents themselves. I have done a fair amount of that and, to be honest, I keep thinking, well, yes, okay, when is this going to tell me something I don’t know? One can read what the Popes write from time to time. One can read Catholic publications. (And they are a box of chocolates all their own) But if one has never had the education in doctrine, for example, that some have had, one is over one’s head or, at best, has to extract the basics as one goes; like trying to figure out what’s in Chateau Petrus simply by drinking it when one’s only prior knowledge of wine is the price of Mogen David. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a big, big help. Even then, though, most people have no access at all to the sources cited therein, let alone to the sources for the sources.
But, and this is one of the really wonderful things about the Church, it seems as if one knows a little, picks up things from scripture itself and if one reads a bit, at a point it seems to me Grace kind of takes over, and the desire to love God. If it was not for that, I think virtually all of us would be in a world of hurt.
I commend someone like you, JRedcuation, who, it seems, is volunteering to provide real information for people here. I, for one, will keep watching.
C
catharina
Guest
Oh, JR. Let me make an attempt here.
Attempts at discussion of Theology, Vatican II and even the Catechism can call forth emotional responses due to nothing more than the history of recent times. In '68 when Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae with its continued ruling against the use of artificial birth control), almost at once, talk of personal conscience and its “supremacy” arose like flash fires (in opposition to the continued teaching). Since “most” of those in the US were involved in using the pill (most being non-Catholics) and since most of those called to offer opinions prior to the issuance of Humanae Vitae had recommended that ABC be approved, there was an expectation for many, that Humanae Vitae would bring changes. It didn’t happen – and very soon, angry priests and laity began speaking of the supremacy of personal conscience (along with the notion of “ignorant old celibates – what do THEY know?”). IOW, things started getting very ugly. (It’s more than likely that many of the priests who spoke in such terms are now former priests.)
Never before had there been (in my lifetime) such rejection of Church teaching along with personal rejection of Church authority. The times were truly terrible. Any notion of conscience was co-opted by those who stated ‘your conscience can free you from the teachings of the Church.’ Theology became equally suspect when it came issued from Rome or when Rome chose to censure certain false teachers. Vatican II, a council that called for great and growing unity, was instead blamed for great divisiveness. As for the Catechism, it’s challenged so much of the false teachings that have been supported still by both ends of the spectrum, that some choose to negate it too.
That’s the best I can do with my inadequate review of recent history.
Now, I’ll refer you, please, to a new thread on conscience; i.e., on the conscience of one man who has been newly beatified. He’s one of my heroes.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=209928
Attempts at discussion of Theology, Vatican II and even the Catechism can call forth emotional responses due to nothing more than the history of recent times. In '68 when Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae with its continued ruling against the use of artificial birth control), almost at once, talk of personal conscience and its “supremacy” arose like flash fires (in opposition to the continued teaching). Since “most” of those in the US were involved in using the pill (most being non-Catholics) and since most of those called to offer opinions prior to the issuance of Humanae Vitae had recommended that ABC be approved, there was an expectation for many, that Humanae Vitae would bring changes. It didn’t happen – and very soon, angry priests and laity began speaking of the supremacy of personal conscience (along with the notion of “ignorant old celibates – what do THEY know?”). IOW, things started getting very ugly. (It’s more than likely that many of the priests who spoke in such terms are now former priests.)
Never before had there been (in my lifetime) such rejection of Church teaching along with personal rejection of Church authority. The times were truly terrible. Any notion of conscience was co-opted by those who stated ‘your conscience can free you from the teachings of the Church.’ Theology became equally suspect when it came issued from Rome or when Rome chose to censure certain false teachers. Vatican II, a council that called for great and growing unity, was instead blamed for great divisiveness. As for the Catechism, it’s challenged so much of the false teachings that have been supported still by both ends of the spectrum, that some choose to negate it too.
That’s the best I can do with my inadequate review of recent history.
Now, I’ll refer you, please, to a new thread on conscience; i.e., on the conscience of one man who has been newly beatified. He’s one of my heroes.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=209928
J
JReducation
Guest
I like the way that you explained this and I appreciate that you took the time to do so. It is well put. In addition, thank you for your closing comment. I deeply appreciate the compliment.
I do not consider myself a theologian, as I do not research or write theology. I did get complete graduate school in Mystical Theology and Franciscan Spirituality (at that time they were not considered to be MA subjects, today they are), and a BA in Roman Catholic Studies. But my intention was always to use them for ministry, mostly education, retreats, counseling and the like. I am willing to share what little I know about other areas of theology and I can recommend some good reading.
In closing I will say this, it is important to understand that theologians who teach at universities have a very different ministry than those who work in other areas of the Church. Their job is to provoke the mind. When I was a student we called it “peeling the onion”. I don’t know if that phrase is still in use in theological schools. Professors of theology’s role is to throw all of the possibilities on the table. They will expose their students to many opinions.
Unfortunately, these courses are not always combined with courses in Roman Catholic studies, which will help the student sort out theological hypotheses from Church doctrine. I was fortuante to have RC studies first, then theology. This is not the usual case, a definite weakness in Catholic Colleges and universities.
Unless one is working on a graduate degree in Catholic Theology, a single course can cause more confusion than help. That’s the unfortunate way that our higher education system is setup. Having been a college dean, I understand where the problem is. You would have to add any number of credits, which would make an undergraduate degree very long. I’m not sure what the answer is. If I were to be allowed a suggestion, it would be not to teach theology as an open-ended forum, except for those who are going to major in it. Rather, teach Roman Catholic studies. For the average undergraduate student, this would be more helpful. Roman Catholic studies should also be taught at parishes to young adults and adults.
We can teach a simpler version to children with a stronger focus on the Catholic Catechism, Scripture and Church History. This would be a great improvement. Unfortunately, as my pastor rescently reminded me, parishes function with volunteers. Not every volunteer has the time to get this kind of education before becoming a catechist.
God bless!
J
JReducation
Guest
Thank you Catharina. That was nicely put.
You’re right, conscience became the shield for a multitude of sins, not only birth control, trust me.
Unfortunately, among the laity and sisters (I hate saying this about sisters), however, the appeal to conscience has been abused.
I know this is another thread, so I will not go into this too deeply. Conscience must always conform to the mind of Christ. The Church, Scripture and Tradition are the depository of that mind, if you will.
On the other side, the Church will never say that someone is going to hell, because they are really trying, but simply cannot, excuse the expression, wrap their conscience around certain moral norms. The Church acknowledges human limitations.
Both sides, those who abuse the shield of conscience and those who deny that there is such a thing as a mistaken conscience through no effort on the part of the person are wrong.
How long has the Christian message been in places like India . . . centuries, taken there by the Apostles. We respect the conscience of Hindus. They have heard the Christian message. But they can’t reconcile themselves to it. This is not a deliberate manipulation on their part to justify their Hinduism. It’s how they function, at a deeper level. We leave God to deal with it.
I believe it is wrong to use conscience as a justification for something that you don’t want to do and to dismiss the conscience of a person who is acting according to what he or she has received from grace and nature. In the end, grace builds on nature.
God bless.
C
catharina
Guest
God bless you too.Thank you Catharina. That was nicely put. You’re welcome.
You’re right, conscience became the shield for a multitude of sins, not only birth control, trust me. I’m well aware!
Unfortunately, among the laity and sisters (I hate saying this about sisters), however, the appeal to conscience has been abused. Re this? I could write a book …
I know this is another thread, so I will not go into this too deeply. Conscience must always conform to the mind of Christ. The Church, Scripture and Tradition are the depository of that mind, if you will.
On the other side, the Church will never say that someone is going to hell, because they are really trying, but simply cannot, excuse the expression, wrap their conscience around certain moral norms. The Church acknowledges human limitations.
Both sides, those who abuse the shield of conscience and those who deny that there is such a thing as a mistaken conscience through no effort on the part of the person are wrong.
How long has the Christian message been in places like India . . . centuries, taken there by the Apostles. We respect the conscience of Hindus. They have heard the Christian message. But they can’t reconcile themselves to it. This is not a deliberate manipulation on their part to justify their Hinduism. It’s how they function, at a deeper level. We leave God to deal with it. Yes, cultural habits can support invincible ignorance.
I believe it is wrong to use conscience as a justification for something that you don’t want to do and to dismiss the conscience of a person who is acting according to what he or she has received from grace and nature. In the end, grace builds on nature.
God bless.
Now I refer you to another new thread regarding conscience and invincible ignorance. (Your name was mentioned.) Link is:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=209782
J
JReducation
Guest
On the contrary, confusion, bewilderment and lack of clarity are part of the Church’s history. What is beautiful about this is that the Holy Spirit uses these as tools to reveal truth.I think you misunderstood the context in which I used the word:
I do not share your opinion that confusion, bewilderment, or lack of clarity are signs of dynamism in the Church. Nor do I think they exist in the Church Herself. Among the faithful? Absolutely. In the teachings? Not at all. And that’s the way I like it.
You may want to read the works of St. John of the Cross The Dark Night of the Soul, Teresa of Avila, her autobiography, and Catherine of Siena. They point to all kinds of confusion, bewilderment and lack of clarity as the Christian soul progresses toward God. They tie this in with the mystery of the Church. They show how this is part of the pasth that the Church must walk to achieve ultimate union with God. Don’t forget, we are the Church.
As St. Catherine of Siena says, we cannot achieve the Mystical Marriage unless we go through this whole confusion and bewilderment.
St. Teresa says that as we go through the interior castle there are some rooms that are actually terrifying, but in the throne room we find “His Majesty.”
St. John of the Cross speaks of the ascent to Mt. Carmel as going through stages, one of them is the dark night of the soul.
The reason that the Church honored them with the title Doctors of the Church was because they taught the truth about the Church and its members. We are drawn to God through all of this confusion, chaos, aridity, bewilderment, and pain. The Holy Spirit serves as the guide. The only thing that the Christian has to grasp is faith, because often he or she feels completely void of God. God does this very deliberately during the night of purgation.
The Church accepted these teachings as consistent with revealed truth. Also, the Church saw that this is the way that the Church grows. Of course, we keep in mind that the term Church here is more than the clergy. It’s all of us. We go through these stages in different degrees and at different times. Sometimes there are those who never go through this confusion and bewilderment. God reserves it for a chosen few.
He once told Teresa that this is the way that he treats his friends. To which she responded, “No wonder you have such few friends.”
While obfuscation is part of Church mysticism. It is not everyone’s experience. If that’s what you mean, I agree.
B
blessedtoo
Guest
Mysticism, theological discovery and contemplation are all glorious wonders of the Catholic faith. With that I agree.
I have read both St. Theresa and St. John of the Cross. Their mystical journeys and spiritual revelations are treasure troves.
However, I don’t think for a moment that they experienced confusion or lack of clarity regarding the teaching of the Church, the tenets of our faith or the theology at it’s heart.
Because we walk the earth and are rooted to our human reality, we will undoubtedly find ourselves amidst confusion and bewilderment as we attempt to live “in the world” without being “of the world”. The Church is our beacon and guide. Without Her clarity, we are lost in a morass of fruitless SELF reflection. The great saints you mention kept their focus always on God as they unravelled the mysteries of His truth in the confusion of this world.
I have read both St. Theresa and St. John of the Cross. Their mystical journeys and spiritual revelations are treasure troves.
However, I don’t think for a moment that they experienced confusion or lack of clarity regarding the teaching of the Church, the tenets of our faith or the theology at it’s heart.
Because we walk the earth and are rooted to our human reality, we will undoubtedly find ourselves amidst confusion and bewilderment as we attempt to live “in the world” without being “of the world”. The Church is our beacon and guide. Without Her clarity, we are lost in a morass of fruitless SELF reflection. The great saints you mention kept their focus always on God as they unravelled the mysteries of His truth in the confusion of this world.
A
AndyF
Guest
Admittedly, because theology is a threat, and not because of individual state. It also claims to have a supreme entity as it’s owner. I think what your seeing is theology being criticized proper to it’s claimed standing. It will be dissected by everyone and scrutinized to the maximum man can muster in ages to come. Man will search for every error and technicality, and that is his right because justice applied to entities are intrinsically theirs by universal law.
This to man is the real price of the existance of hell. Create a place like hell and automatically you’ll have beings clambering for realities. The theology that “all you have to do is to behave to prevent going there” does not satisfy because it is the justice of it’s existance that is in question. The hell of now means that his trial is now and it is now the issues of justice are resolved.
Apply precepts we are bound to and every rule had better be perfection in itself and prove to be without bias and applied with the same standard equally among all entities in the form they choose to carry out activities. Those who advance it’s claims had better be of the perfection they claim and worthy of propounding it’s claimed truths. The severity and longevity of hell demands that theology is without fault and opens itself to criticism, and every crevice will naturally be explored for it’s soundness. There will be no representative middle man has a message bearer delivering and interpreting it’s rules. This is because the importance draws us to it’s heart and we shun barriers. We need to be in it’s face, and in so doing we challenge it every second of the day. That is natural to all beings.
This explains why many bypass the helpful explainations of the Fathers, and to this day after 2000 years we see the same questions being asked and answered. We unjustly take this personally and we scold the flock for not understanding. There is something that is not enough and we know it does not have a sinister character, it is benign and natural, but the ministers will instruct on it’s evilness all the same.
Stand down from this podium, remove the threat and theology is no longer scrutinized.
AndyF
R
rwoehmke
Guest
My experience over several decades with DRE’s (Directors of Religious Education) who have earned a Masters in Theology is exactly the problem you state here. They have been treated to exciting new ideas and speculation and often times only half understood what was being taught. They get that MS or MA and want to share all that good stuff with the parish volunteers and students. The basic teachings of Christianity and Catholicism go out the window because it no longer excites them to teach that old stuff.In closing I will say this, it is important to understand that theologians who teach at universities have a very different ministry than those who work in other areas of the Church. Their job is to provoke the mind. When I was a student we called it “peeling the onion”. I don’t know if that phrase is still in use in theological schools. Professors of theology’s role is to throw all of the possibilities on the table. They will expose their students to many opinions.
Unfortunately, these courses are not always combined with courses in Roman Catholic studies, which will help the student sort out theological hypotheses from Church doctrine. This is not the usual case, a definite weakness in Catholic Colleges and universities.
If I were to be allowed a suggestion, it would be not to teach theology as an open-ended forum, except for those who are going to major in it. Rather, teach Roman Catholic studies. For the average undergraduate student, this would be more helpful. Roman Catholic studies should also be taught at parishes to young adults and adults.
We can teach a simpler version to children with a stronger focus on the Catholic Catechism, Scripture and Church History. This would be a great improvement. Unfortunately, as my pastor recently reminded me, parishes function with volunteers. Not every volunteer has the time to get this kind of education before becoming a catechist.
God bless!
We older parents who got an education from the Priests and Sisters before Vatican II now have children who often don’t know dreck about the basics of their Faith unless we knew enough to do some teaching on our own at home. As a result of this pattern, combined with some very poor post Vatican II textbooks, there are at least two generations of Catholics out there many of whom do not know their basic Catholic teachings. As a result, being Catholic is often seen as rather dull and uninspiring compared to the Evangelical or Pentecostal Church down the street.
At the same time the RCIA mechanism by which people come into the Church can be very good in some parishes and very bad in others the difference being very dependent of the backgrounds of the instructors or directors.
F
freesoulhope
Guest
Hello
At the moment, i have only just starting to really get to know my Catholic Faith. I have had a blind faith for years and didn’t care much for theology. I cringe sometimes in fear of what Catholic Theology, Especailly Moral Theology, might say; simply because i know that if i want to stay Catholic, i’m going to have to adhere to certain ideas that i don’t particurely like. Yes, you geussed right. I am a sinner, and i enjoy sin alot, especailly sexual ones. Who doesn’t get the desire sometimes to put on a condom and treat some poor women like a sexual object, or do some other sin. But i know that deep down its wrong. As much as i like sinning, I also like being Catholic.This discussion reminds me of when Jesus was surrounded by crowds of sinners who were asking him about doctrine, moral theology, philosophy and other aspects of the faith; some humblely stayed when they heard the truth, and some left Jesus, because they couldn’t bare to be wrong about their faith, behavior, philosophy, or reject the material things they valued most. Alot of people are proud, and there pride is like a rock, when it should be their faith that is the rock. A lot of people who reject the faith, don’t know their faith.
I don’t want to be the lost sheep who walks away, inventing my own Theology and Church, which is what alot of people are basically doing.
So here i am.
What kind of things did you learn about? Do you know a good site other then this one, where i can learn? Or do you know any digital books that i can download for free? I would much rather read a good digital book, then read from an internet site.
Peace.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I think many cringe at the mention of Vatican II because of the way it has been misused. I agree with JR’s sentiment that the Holy Spirit is behind the council. Too often, I think people on all sides approach Vatican II as they would approach a meeting of the UN. All they see are agendas and assume that the documents must be interpreted in that lens. As though, “Let’s see who won out in this passage, the liberals or conservatives.” Now, I’m not naive enough to think that no one at Vatican II had an agenda, but let’s give the Holy Spirit some credit!
If you like Vatican II, I recommend getting ahold of the Council Daybooks (if you don’t already have them). They give you a window into what was going on as the documents were being composed. It really helps interpret a passage when you have a better idea of why a particular passage was included. Of course, I know the end result is preserved from error. I’m not sure if that same charism applies to the process!
I’ve no idea why people cringe at the Catechism. I think it’s great! I don’t know if some people are just upset that it’s not the Baltimore Catechism while others think it spells things out too clearly so they cannot nuance what they would like to.
If you like Vatican II, I recommend getting ahold of the Council Daybooks (if you don’t already have them). They give you a window into what was going on as the documents were being composed. It really helps interpret a passage when you have a better idea of why a particular passage was included. Of course, I know the end result is preserved from error. I’m not sure if that same charism applies to the process!
I’ve no idea why people cringe at the Catechism. I think it’s great! I don’t know if some people are just upset that it’s not the Baltimore Catechism while others think it spells things out too clearly so they cannot nuance what they would like to.
F
freesoulhope
Guest
The problem is, alot of people hear the faith, but there not tuaght the fruitfull philosophy behind the faith. There is a philosophy behind the Church which is rarely seen; that is why you have young kids asking " Why is it wrong to have sex before marriage" or “why can’t i use a condom”, because all they ever hear is “statements” and catch-phrazes such as “Its wrong because God said so”, but they are never tuaght why. Many Catholic parents are lost for an explanation, because they don’t really know themselves. Its not as if there isn’t a strong rock of philosophical and ethical explanation out there; but its been left behind; going back to the times of St Thomas Aquiness, and has been replaced by what people call dogma. However thats not to say that people shouldn’t look for themselves, but one should be pointed in the right direction.
I had to find out for myself, and spend years searching through the internet looking for infomation to justify my beliefs before i ever came across people like St Thomas Aquiness. In RCIA, if i rememeber correctly, i learned nothing about the philosophy behind Catholicism or the philosophers such as St Thomas. I never heard anything about Theistic evolution; for a long time i thought the Catholic chruch was a creationist faith. Thats not to say that RCIA has not Improved since i first went there, or that all expereince are the same. That was just my take on things.
Another problem with the Church, in terms of inspiring the youth, is that they take there conservitism to far in my opinon. What i mean by that is; the Catholic culture is too old. Its like an old english bible. Its to hard to vibe with, unless you are willing to tolerate it. The hyms and the songs never change. Thats not to say that they should change them, but they should adapt and move on with the times. Make a more fruitfull culture which identifys with the mordern youth. Thats why young people go to the other churches, because the Catholic Church doesn’t attempt to identify with them cultrally. Its like the Church is stuck in a time warp.
.
R
Risorgimento
Guest
I think that its only natural that we bring our own personal social and political feelings into how we want to interpret Church teaching. If we do not want another child, but want to have sex with our spouse whenever we want, we naturally cringe at the Church’s teaching on contraception, for example. If you are a modernist, a liberal, you will take to Church teaching different than a traditionalist, or an ancient. That is all well and good, but it doesn’t really matter how WE interpret it, or what OUR conscience tells us, because we must bend of will and wants to that of God and His Church. So when people say, “Oh, they’re conservative Catholics” or they are “fundamentalist Catholics” or they are “liberal Catholics”, the real and only question should be are they “orthodox” Catholics? (which people often condemn and mislabel as conservative or fundamentalist, when its really just orthodoxy) The Church’s teachings are very “liberal” on some issues and very “conservative” on others, but they are not ambiguous. We must follow all of them. (or at least attempt) It’s not about being conservative or liberal, modern or traditonal, its simply right and wrong. Too many Catholics want to remain in the Church (for whatever reason…its comfortable, they were born there, etc.), but they blatantly ignore Church teaching about confession, contraception, divorce, co-habitation, the list is endless, obligatory days. (I’m not implying they should leave, but its just that they would make perfect protestants…always throwing temper-tantrums about established Church teaching that doesn’t suit them) We are not protestants here, our Church rules, laws, teachings, and theology actually come from somewhere and should be adhered to. The Church’s teaching is based on over a thousand years of prayer, deliberation, council, and revelation. You cannot disregard it because it doesn’t suit your particular agenda, like “I only want 2 kids, so I can’t take the risk of NFP.” Anyway, I don’t cringe at theology and Catechism. I love it. I consult the Catechism all the time. Vatican II meant well and probably did the right thing at the time. We must also remember that Vatican II was not a radical as the American priests and bishops who took certian liberties and misinterpreted papal mandates. If you go to a Catholic Church in England today, they are definitely post-Vatican II in theology and teaching, but their services are still beautiful and formal and ancient-feeling and that was something Vatican II never meant to do away with. Its just how we Americans, in typical American style, were “given an inch” of wiggle room to make people more comfortable and instead “took a mile”. God bless and God help us.
B
Beofuse
Guest
freesoulhope:
I also came back to the Church after many years of wandering aimlessly in this post modern world. The Catechism is a must for anyone trying to understand the faith. As far as marriage and sexual morality check out the Theology of the Body by West.
amazon.com/Theology-Body-Beginners-Christopher-West/dp/1932645349
This one book forever changed my understanding of God and the meaning of life.
God Bless
Gordie
I also came back to the Church after many years of wandering aimlessly in this post modern world. The Catechism is a must for anyone trying to understand the faith. As far as marriage and sexual morality check out the Theology of the Body by West.
amazon.com/Theology-Body-Beginners-Christopher-West/dp/1932645349
This one book forever changed my understanding of God and the meaning of life.
God Bless
Gordie
J
joseph_virgen
Guest
Great question.
i have encountered this problem more than i can recount. the answer has always been; why is there the need to make something simple into something so difficult that the normal person feels inept at understanding it.
some teachings are meant to be simple.
from time to time i remind myself the Nazarene taught great multitudes, the poor, the sick, the social outcasts, the majority lacking in structured education.
The Nazarene knew his audience. sometimes i think the church has forgotten this.
i have encountered this problem more than i can recount. the answer has always been; why is there the need to make something simple into something so difficult that the normal person feels inept at understanding it.
some teachings are meant to be simple.
from time to time i remind myself the Nazarene taught great multitudes, the poor, the sick, the social outcasts, the majority lacking in structured education.
The Nazarene knew his audience. sometimes i think the church has forgotten this.
J
JReducation
Guest
Actually, the Church doesn’t try to make things more difficult to understand. If you really want to read complexity, go back and read John’s Gospel in the original Greek and his book of Revelations. John was a master of mysticism. He took his mystical experiences, his knowledge of Greek philosophy and his experience of Christ and wound it into a very complex theological treatise.
Most of us read John in English and few of us stop to ask why he uses certain words such as the Logos or what the term Logos means, where did John get it, why did he use it and so forth. When you do this, you say to yourself, “Oh my God, he’s using pagan Greek philosophy to explain the hypostatic union.”
John also introduced the difference between symbols and signs into Christian thought. This complicated matters for the rest of us, because we tend to use these two terms interchangeably, but John does not. He’s very stubborn about it too.
In his Book of Revelations he merges the events of his time with visions that he had while deep in mystical contemplation. It’s very hard to pull them apart unless you’re skilled in early Christian history and mysticism.
Luke did the same thing in his two books. He often changes names of people and places from the original Aramaic and Hebrew and replaces them with Greek and Latin names. To understand him, you often have to ask yourself, why he did this. As you discover his rationale, you then begin to get a different picture of Jesus, than you would if you read it straight through without asking. It’s actually a much more profound picture and very intense.
I believe that when one is speaking about God, one is faced with the limitations of human language. This is what makes ideas so difficult. I believe this is what the Catechism and the different Councils tried to grapple with. They tried to teach mystery using limited human language. There are always going to be pieces that are illusive. But that’s not the Church’s fault; it’s a natural consequence of dealing in mystery and transcendence.
M
Mayo
Guest
I would suggest reading Jim C Cunningham’s book on Nudity & Christianity. Due to Copyright Laws all I can say is that it is very explanatory in connection with the question you ask.
Mayo
Mayo
S
SanJudas
Guest
God save all here.I highlighted obfuscation, because it’s an awesome work
I for one find the (to use your word) obfuscation of moral theology, issues of conscience and Vatican II to be a sign of the dynamic activity of the Holy Spirit. If everything were so easy to digest, understand and practice, the Church would be static.
JR,
I believe in another thread in which you were participating I accused theologians of sometimes “obfuscating” matters for the faithful. You have to understand that, in the same way that most people don’t know or want to know the details of how their television set works, many of us are content to practice our faith without having to plow through all of the tendentious arguments and hairsplitting definitions that often characterize theology and philosophy in general. Obviously, there are others who really do enjoy those things, just as there are those who are always tinkering with their cars or their computers or whatever.
I was raised in a Catholic family in a Catholic community. The stability that the practice of our faith gave us was our joy in times of peace and plenty and our strength in times of adversity. In the 1960’s we needed clarity and firmness, not confusion and ambiguity. Does that sound simplistic? Yes, but I defend that simplicity. Jesus Christ instituted, through our first Pope Peter, a hierarchy and magisterium, with the purpose of providing an authoritative body for the development of doctrine, ritual, and liturgy, to rule our communities, and to administer our Sacraments. These things were done as an aid to us so that we wouldn’t fall into confusion and error, and subsequent disbelief. For several centuries the Early Church battled heresies and schisms. By the beginning of the so-called “Middle Ages” ( I prefer the term “Age of Faith”) Church doctrine had stabilized somewhat and we see as a result the stabilization of Western society and the formation of Christendom. Christendom was ruptured at the end of that age by the reemergence of heresies and confusions (re: the Protestant Deformation) and the result has been the rebellious rejection of God and Church as guiding and ruling factors in our lives.
I fully accept the Vatican II Council as valid and authoritative. My beef is that the professional theologians who formulated its documents unintentionally caused much of this famous “obfuscation” which I believe has demonstrably been a source of the decline in vocations, the closing of parish churches and schools, and in numbers of faithful. Considering the fact that the entire Western world has been caught up in a spirit of liberalism and relativism during this same period of time, an added dose of apparent flaccidness on the part of our ecclestiacal authorities was not helpful.
A house is best built upon a rock, not shifting sands.
- Status