Why do so many Catholics cringe at theology, Vatican II and even the Catechism?

[JReducation]

Catharina and JR,

After retiring to pray the Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity, I realized that I needed to say I was sorry for having offended you. My response was childish and uncharitable. I ask your pardon if you were injured by my characterizations of you.

We are all human and all of us get very passionate about many things. When we get passionate, we often say things that we later realize don’t truly represent who we are or who we want to be.

If you had a dollar for the number of times I have had the temptation to errupt, you would be a very wealthy man.

I have been taught to forgive others so that I can forgive myself. It’s good practice.

I accept your apology and welcome your questions, comments and observations about the discussions here.

Pax et Bonum

JR

 

[toddyo]

This is a real question.

I was trained in Catholic Theology for many years. I believe that I know my theology very well and that it is very orthodox, with a lower case “o”. I’m Roman Catholic not Eastern Orthodox.

Anyway, I fail to understand why some people have such difficulty when you mention words like: conscience or moral theology or when you quote the teachings of Vatican II.

I find there are two common reactions.

1. There are those who think that conscience, moral theology and Vatican II are a free for all. Which is wrong!
2. Then there are those who react as if conscience, moral theology and Vatican II were spawned by Satan himself. Which is also wrong!

Why can’t we just take them for what they are?

I converted to Catholicism through the study of theology. What brought me to the Catholic Church was its theology. It’s so logical. I often amazed at how many Catholics do not know real theology and how many do not want to kow it. Worse, how many abuse it either to the left or the right.

Why is this? This is crazy. It’s often worse than politics.

 

[toddyo]

Catholic Theology is the best when it is practiced. When a whole Theology Department (Georgetwon) walks out of a Cardinal’s commencement address because he proposed the graduates expound Catholic values wrt sexuality, etc., it was too much for those lost souls. Best solution is a very serious "Life in the Spirit Seminar!

 

[JReducation]

Catholic Theology is the best when it is practiced. When a whole Theology Department (Georgetwon) walks out of a Cardinal’s commencement address because he proposed the graduates expound Catholic values wrt sexuality, etc., it was too much for those lost souls. Best solution is a very serious "Life in the Spirit Seminar!

I understand that the theologians who walked out on the Cardinal were opposed to the fact that in their opinion the Cardianl sounded like he was preaching a sermons rather than giving a scolarly lecture which is what the expected. I also understand that in scholarly lectures you discuss all the perspectives, not just your own.

That being said, I still believe that their behaviour was silly. If they wanted a scholarly lecture, they should have asked for one. You do not invite a Cardinal and give him a blank check, because he’s going to speak from a pastoral perspective. Very few Cardinals spend their time studying theological debates and questions. I’m not sure what they expected.

They should have invited Ratzinger. He’s a person who spend a great deal of time on speculation of this or that perspective. But when he gives a pastoral address, he limits his remarks to the teachings of the Church, not to scholarly speculation.

Most Cardinals will do this unless they are lecturing in a theology class.

The reaction of the professors at Georgetown was silly and rude.

JR

 

[uther]

JR,

I love a good theological discussion as well. I don’t have anything close to your level of education, but I do take issue a bit with those here who have suggested that reading an encyclical takes massive background study and knowledge to really understand what it is being taught. Some are like that, I’ll grant, but many are very straightforward. And if there are nuances and deeper meanings, most often they are layered, so that people of various levels of education can derive benefit.

If they are encyclicals, they carry a certain weight of infallibility and are therefore important for the entire church, not only the theologians and the Bishops. The Holy Spirit, in my opinion, tends to guide holy Popes and even some who were not so holy, so that even for the poorly educated, the concepts are accessible.

But in answer to your original question, there has been such a level of contraversy and antagonism within the Church connected, rightly or wrongly, with these subjects, that it may be people are just weary, and want some peace, and to be left alone. That is sad, to be sure but it is not a surprising human response.

Many people in the pew just want to know where the boundaries are. If Vatican II changed those boundaries, they just want to know where the new ones are. They don’t want to have to think about it too much, at least in any theological sense, but would rather just have the whole thing settled. They are uneasy with change, but once changed they will be just as uneasy if things were changed back.

The challenge is always in the presentation of theology. I knew a Baptist minister with a Masters degree in theology who believed that to truly know the subject at hand, the preacher or teacher should be able to present it to any person or persons at their level of education and understanding.
People tend to be intimidated by theology sometimes and get defensive because of that. They would rather not learn than to appear stupid, and we can understand that, because we all have felt that at some point. Our job, if we are teaching or preaching is to engage them where they are, with respect, and they will absorb quite sophisticated theology if presented in their "language.’

Jesus used parables a lot in his ministry, most often with a pastoral theme such as sheep herding, vineyards, etc. because that is what the people readily understood. A good preacher/teacher today is able to draw out analogies from the everyday lives of the people he is addressing to transmit the deeper truths.

toddyo,

I really don’t think LISS is the answer.

 

[David_Poem]

This is a real question.

I was trained in Catholic Theology for many years. I believe that I know my theology very well and that it is very orthodox, with a lower case “o”. I’m Roman Catholic not Eastern Orthodox.

Anyway, I fail to understand why some people have such difficulty when you mention words like: conscience or moral theology or when you quote the teachings of Vatican II.

I find there are two common reactions.

1. There are those who think that conscience, moral theology and Vatican II are a free for all. Which is wrong!
2. Then there are those who react as if conscience, moral theology and Vatican II were spawned by Satan himself. Which is also wrong!

Why can’t we just take them for what they are?

I converted to Catholicism through the study of theology. What brought me to the Catholic Church was its theology. It’s so logical. I often amazed at how many Catholics do not know real theology and how many do not want to kow it. Worse, how many abuse it either to the left or the right.

Why is this? This is crazy. It’s often worse than politics.Oic.What you are looking for?people to be on your level?never will happen.What we need to work on is the spirtual principle called humility.if you have time to worry abouy others then you have time to pray,That is if you love Jesus thenfollow his ways

 

[Jeanette_L]

Oic.What you are looking for?people to be on your level?never will happen.What we need to work on is the spirtual principle called humility.if you have time to worry abouy others then you have time to pray,That is if you love Jesus thenfollow his ways

It sounds like you may be presuming to know this man’s devotional and prayer time with God; and worse yet, seeming to presume he doesn’t have one; and worse yet presuming to question his heart before God and his love for Christ. How is that? People here seem to jump to all kinds of erroneous conclusions in what seem like fits of temper, it amazes me, it is very uncharitable at the least.

He was asking a simple question, mostly about those who like to complain a lot but don’t bother with the effort of real well balanced study to find the answers and to ‘show themselves approved’.

The Holy Scriptures give us all these avenues, prayer, service and study, as guides toward fullness of truth in Christ. Leaving out any of them only causes a lopsided or incomplete understanding of our faith.

Just something to think on, that’s all…

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please stay on topic, everyone. Leave personal remarks out of the discussion. Thank you all.

 

[JReducation]

David_Poem:
I’m sorry I had to cut David’s response in order to fit mine, but I encourage everyone to read it, because it is truly awesome.

There were several points in this response that made sense to me. I think the one that struck home the most was the fact that many people really want to know the boundaries.

I was reminded of the Jewish people in the desert. While Moses was on one of his retreats with Yahweh they were lost and created a golden calf. I think that Salvation History tells us that human beings feel uncomfortable without rules and boundaries that are very clear. When they have to think about them and make choices, they end up creating more rules and boundaries, as did the Jews in the desert. These new rules and boundaries are not always good.

Maybe this is part of the human condition that we call original sin. Jewish theology has a very interesting take on original sin. It describes original sin as man’s inability to live with hope. Man has a very difficult time just waiting for God and therefore he falls into the sin of wanting to do God’s job. To do this, he then falls into the sin of wanting to know what God knows, which eventually leads to a point where man falsely believes that he no longer needs God.

What David is alluding to is the difficulty that many of us have living with ambiguity and waiting for things to become clearer. No one can deny that this is real.

The anecdote of the Baptist theologian who said that theology and theologians have to meet people where they’re at is great wisdom. Theology is very complex. It’s like an onion, with many layers. As time passes, we understand revelation more clearly. It does not mean that anything new was revealed. Theology is not about discovering new revelations, because there are not new revelations. Theology is about applying reason to the understanding of revelation.

It is true that Revelation is complete. It is also true that human reason is still developing. Therefore, with each passing generations, we are better able to understand and explain what was revealed from the beginning.

The problem is that while theologians can apply reason to revelation and understand some things more clearly, it is not always possible for many of them to explain what they have discovered. I believe this has something to do with the fact that most theologians live and work in the world of academics. I alway compare theologians to physicians. There are some physicians that are very good at making something understandable and there are others who leave you asking yourself “What did he say?”

I have no magical solution to correct this problem. But I do believe that what the great saints of the Church have taught us is applicable here.

If we look closely at the saints, they became professionals at being saints. Their entire life was dedicated to the practice of the Gospel. When they felt that something was wrong, either within themselves or within the Church, even if they had received the message from Christ himself, they always went back to the hierarchy to ask for confirmation of what they believed. If the pope or the bishops said it was correct, they went with it. However, when the popes or the bishops rejected, even what the saints had heard from Christ through a vision or other mystical experience, they obeyed the popes and the bishops.

The one thing that they had clear in their mind is what St. John of the Cross said. “If there is error, let the responsibility fall on the hierarchy, not on the soul.” As long as the soul was obedient, the soul was free of culpability. To a person like St. John of the Cross, the most important thing was to be a saint. To be a saint, his soul had to be free of culpability. By obeying the Church, the responsibility fell upon the Church. He had done his duty. He had prayed, reflected and shared what God had revealed to him. Then the Church had made its position clear and he had obeyed as Christ obeyed, without murmuring and without resentment.

This kind of holiness is very difficult, but it’s the only way that we’re going to get past the difficulty of dealing wiht ambiguity. If we get stuck on the letter of every word that comes from an encyclical, the Catechism, Vatican II or some other source, we will not have time to experience the peace and quiet where the soul and the Divine can speak to each other.

We have to make a choice. Do we want to do battle over every word or do we want to experiene unity with Divinity in the silence of the soul?

JR

 

[Tammy111]

This is a real question.

I was trained in Catholic Theology for many years. I believe that I know my theology very well and that it is very orthodox, with a lower case “o”. I’m Roman Catholic not Eastern Orthodox.

Anyway, I fail to understand why some people have such difficulty when you mention words like: conscience or moral theology or when you quote the teachings of Vatican II.

I find there are two common reactions.

1. There are those who think that conscience, moral theology and Vatican II are a free for all. Which is wrong!
2. Then there are those who react as if conscience, moral theology and Vatican II were spawned by Satan himself. Which is also wrong!

Why can’t we just take them for what they are?

I converted to Catholicism through the study of theology. What brought me to the Catholic Church was its theology. It’s so logical. I often amazed at how many Catholics do not know real theology and how many do not want to kow it. Worse, how many abuse it either to the left or the right.

Why is this? This is crazy. It’s often worse than politics.

In relation to the spiritual, our American culture is very anti-intellectual. This translates to anti-creed, catechism, formal declarations of faith, etc. For Catholics this Should not be! We are to be guided by Sacred Tradition (includes Vatican II, the Catechism, and other formal documents of the Church) and Sacred Scripture. The lack of teaching after Vatican II was a poor response to the emphasis on a more freedom and lay involvement.

 

[paxromana]

This is a good thread. A bit broad but lots of interesting discussion.
I think many people feel that theology is too tough and it is their duty only to be instructed in main tenets of Catholic doctrine not to search deeper. If church leaders demanded the laity understand it better maybe they would.

 

[RobbyS]

This is a good thread. A bit broad but lots of interesting discussion.
I think many people feel that theology is too tough and it is their duty only to be instructed in main tenets of Catholic doctrine not to search deeper. If church leaders demanded the laity understand it better maybe they would.

It think it goes beyond anti-intellectualism/indifference. After Vatican II there was a rebellion against traditional theology, especially Thomism. Instead there was a mismash of liberalism, mysticism , Biblicism, and historicism. As if Vatican II had overturned everything that had been done since the Reformation, if not since the time of Constantine. Downright anti-dogmatism, as theologians cut all the anchors and set full sail into the seas of uncertainty.

 

[JReducation]

I believe that the laity forgets that Vatican II opened the doors for theologians to put ideas on the table that the bishops would think about. It also opened the doors for theologians to look at traditional teachings of previous theologians and clarify what some of these meant or even reword some of them so that they say what they were meant to say.

As time passes, words take on different meanings. Theological statements that were written hundreds of years ago loose their meaning, because we keep the same words as the original writing, but that word no longer has the same meaning.

The other problem was that some theologians thought that because the Church encouraged them to think and write, that this meant that everything they thoughth and wrote was going to be accepted as gospel truth and such is not the case. Some things that 20th century theologians have written are very good and very well said and the Church has used it. But some of it is nonsense and the Church has brushed it aside.

It is important to remember that just because someone’s writings are nonsense doesn’t make that person a bad person, just a mediocre theologian.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has done a very good job at collecting the best theological writings of yesteryear and today to explain the Catholic faith.

One of the important things to remember is that the Church is not going to die in 70 years, as does the average person. The Church will be here until the end of time. Therefore, the Church is never in a hurry.

We become impatient because we want the hierarchy to wipe Vatican II out of existence and others want the hierarchy to clarify everything that Vatican II said. The fact is that the Holy See is the holder of the Keys and the holder of the reigns. The Holy See decides what is addressed first and how fast or when. The Holy See is not in a hurry to clarify or revert Vatican II.

The Holy See wants to do the job, but it wants to do it right. Therefore, it will proceed with caution and prayer.

As our Holy Father Benedict said when he was in NY and DC, faith and reason must go hand-in-hand. We can’t run a Church on feelings or preferences. We have to look at the faith of the Church and use reason to explain it.

This does not happen over night. We have to go back through the history of the Church and ask ourselves how can we explain this in a rational way that makes sense today.

Also, newer Doctors such as Catherine, Teresa and Therese have added to the understanding of faith. What they have added is not easy to understand. It’s very deep, because it goes beyond rules and regulations. It goes into the relationship between the soul and the Divine. This was an area of theology that was no usually studied by the average lay person.

Now the Church wants the average lay person to know Teresa, Therese and Catherine and to understand that even if you follow the Church and receive the sacraments, you will not arrive at union between the soul and God without going through this mystical growth process.

This growth process was always there and was happening, but it wasn’t until Francis of Assisi that it was first made available to the laity and it wasn’t until Catherine, Teresa and Therese wrote it, that anyone really understood where St. Francis of Assisi, St. Vincent de Paul and St. Francis de Sales were leading us.

JR

 

[Jeanette_L]

This seems actually very simple and makes way too much sense JR, are you sure it’s not way more complicated than this?

 

[JReducation]

This seems actually very simple and makes way too much sense JR, are you sure it’s not way more complicated than this?

What makes it more complicated is the fact that too many lay people do not understand how theology works and much less how the Holy See works.

We become demanding and critical. We begin to disrespect authority when it does not move in the direction we want and with the speed that we want.

JR

 

[SoCalRC]

I believe that the answer to the original question is early religious education. When I was a young boy, we were a discriminated minority. This was bad. I grew up in a house without running water primarily because my father would not lie about being Catholic.

But it did give us a sense of unity and pride. My father missed many a Sunday Mass, but he was adament that his children all attend Catholic school.

That experience was different as well. Again, we emphasized our differences. We may have memorized the Catechism by rote, but we memorized it. We were overwhelmingly Catholic, and we were taught by priests and nuns.

Today, most Catholic schools have large, non-Catholic representation in their student body. Few classes are taught by priests or nuns. There is a religion class, but it seems almost non denominational, God is Good, Jesus is Love…

Many Catholic High Schools still offer a decent religious education, but they are becoming cost prohibitive for many, many Catholic families. And, in any event, High School is too late.

Last year I went to recruit volunteers for a social program from our parish’s confirmation class, it is two years, with the two groups often mixed together. I had planned on starting my presentation by first holding up my dog eared copies of the universal and US Catechisms, then I was going to pull out the Compendium, last I was going to go to the little Catholic ‘formulas’ in the back to make my pitch (basically, get down to the ‘fundementals’, then relate them to what I was asking them to do).

As I started, a hand was sheepishly raised, and the young women asked me “What’s the Catechism?” I then asked the whole group (70 or more) if anyone else had the same question. A ton of hands went up. So I shifted gears, backed up, and did what I planned, but explained each ‘prop’ in detail as I held it up.

Not to quibble semantics, but we are a culture as well as a religion. Once a culture stops dutifully passing on its ways and traditions to its young, the culture will erode, particularly when immersed in another culture.

The US has, for virtually its entire history, been a Protestant nation. That Protestant culture has also eroded, leaving us with many self identified Christians who could not, if asked, identify the differences between their own particular ‘branch’ of Christianity and any other.

So we have young people going into a world with only a minimal understanding of our faith. Then, they are immersed in a Protestant based culture that, itself, has erroded to the point where it is easy to find validation that simply doing what we want is ‘Christian’. Think about it, you can now find groups that protest funerals of fallen military men and women, justify it by describing whom God hates, and then label Catholicism as a non-Christain pagan cult, unlike real Christians like themselves.

Yet, instead of being repulsed, we actually merge. Many US Catholics feel a closer connection to extreme Evangelicals than they do to Rome. This is because they have developed a mutual self interest in the political sphere.

If you are immersed in a culture that rejects Rome, and even consider yourself morally aligned with groups that seem to even reject the significance of Christ’s earthly message, Roman Catholic theology and doctrine can be perceived as oppressive and scary.

Going from a world view of ‘self’ and ‘superiority’ to membership in the flock of the faithful is a huge transition. Small wonder it is seen as a loss of freedom, or the authority of Rome is so easily questioned.

I see this a lot in the forums here. Proudly ‘Catholic’, often self described as a ‘good’ Catholic. But when confronted with a contradiction between personal belief and the actual teachings and theology of the Church, deference and obedience is never even considered. The document must be wrong, it must not mean what it says, such-and-such is beyond the Pope’s proper authority…

Again, I think it is the foundation. In the absence of a solid understanding of our religion when young, the distorted Protestant culture around us is absorbed in its place. Once beliefs are firmly implanted, particularly ones that put high emphasis and value on our own opinions, it is simple human nature that we find it easier to redefine Catholicism to match what we already believe instead of rethinking our own lives and values.

 

[JReducation]

I totally agree with SoCalRC on the sociological phenomenon affecting Christianity in the USA.

However, I find that those who are more belligerent toward Vatican II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Revised Code of Canon Law, the Enclyclicals post Vatican II and theology are the so called Traditionalist Catholics.

I would have expected anyone who called themselvesa traditional Catholic to be more than interested in Catholic writing and what Catholic authorities have to say, not only about the EF, but about prayer, mysticism, sacraments, the Church, faith, union with God, corporal works of mercy, social concerns, ministry, conversion of manners, conversion of thought, sacred scripture, family, ecumenism, dogma, religious life, and the many other topics of which the Church is speaking about.

Instead, I find that traditional is narrowed down to the EF and the influence of great holy minds such as Teresa of Avila, Catherine de Hueck, Dorothy Day, Mother Teresa, St. Francis of Assisi, Archbishop Romero, Cardinal Sean O’Malley, Cardinal Levada, Elizabeth Ann Seton and others is completely ignored by this population, not to mention the writings of Vatican II, the Catholic Catechism, the newest comentaries on Sacred Scripture that have so much insight into new discoveries regarding Salvation History.

The EF cannot be the only thing that defines traditional Catholic thinking. Traditional Catholic thinking is defined by prayerful reflection on Church teachings and an attempt to understand what has been said today about the beliefs that we have held for years.

Nothing of what we belief has changed. It has been reworded to represent it better. Some of it has been worked into newer theological writings.

For example, some people here hate Karl Rahner. When I was working on my PhD we read all of Rahner’s works. It was no easy task, but it was possible to see so much of St. Augustine in his writings and a great deal of Bonaventure. It was also easy to see that in making some of his points he was using the exact method of deductive and inductive reasoning that had been used by Aquinas. His topics and themes were different, but his methodology was very Thomistic. Many of his topics and themese addressed what had been written primarily by Augustine and Bonaventure. In fact he leaned more toward Bonaventure. I believe this is why the Franciscans loved him more than the Dominicans (LOL).

There are other examples such as the recently published journals and letters of Mother Teresa. They are very Franciscan in their theology. They restate Francis of Assisi almost word for word and yet, the context and the language is very different, but the themes and conclusions are so similar. Obviously, she modeled her life on his.

Nonetheless, I don’t see people reading these great works or talking about them here.

Then there is the entire missionary theology of the laity written by the Doctor of the Church, Therese of Liseux. No one touches that one.

I’m not talking about young people in their 20s. I’m talking about the over 40 crowd.

I am stunned to see such a concern with the liturgy and so little concern with the faith.

As St. Bonaventure wrote, “the sacrifice of the mass is the summary of our faith, but without a knowledge of the faith at the level of intellect and love, one can never properly appreciate such a sublime sacrifice and it remains an exercise in worship, rather than a union of the soul to Christ’s soul.”

JR