In 1971 Hans Kung gave me a copy of his then recently published book 'Infallible? An Enquiry' and he wrote on the flyleaf - 'non in destructionem sed in aedificationem Ecclesiae' - not for the destruction of the Church but for its building up (restoration, reform).
On another occasion he wrote: 'Why am I staying in the Church? Because, in critical loyalty, there is so much in this community and its history that I can affirm, so much in this community from which, like so many others, I draw life. I am staying in the Church because, along with the other members of the community of faith, we are the Church.....Because I draw hope out of faith that, as in the past, the cause of Jesus himself is stronger than all the misconduct in the Church'.
Hans Kung, over many years, has demonstrated a faith, resilience, commitment and scholarship that has set an example for many of us. He is not intimidated by an insecure hierarchy or attacks from grovelling elements of the laity.

What was that thorn in St Paul's side?

But it dosen't look so poetic 'a pain in the bum' as 'thorn in the side' does it?

Do you have to strap it to the inside of your left thigh or do you just beat your bottom with it?

Do you have to strap it to the inside of your left thigh or do you just beat your bottom with it?

Don't you need the approval of your confessor for bodily mortifications?

Oh how I beg him for permission!

Someone should tell the poor dears that a fruit and nut chocolate, preferably the rum and raisin one, helps with constipation

Do you have to strap it to the inside of your left thigh or do you just beat your bottom with it?

Someone should tell the poor dears that a fruit and nut chocolate, preferably the rum and raisin one, helps with constipation, and the "medicine" is much more enjoyable than some traditional ones. Oops! Silly me! We are not supposed to enjoy, just to suffer, aren't we?

What was that thorn in St Paul's side?

There needs to be a study on the correlation between sanctimoniousness and constipation

Indeed, and hemorrhoids as well. If you have seen some videos that are made by well meaning evangelists depicting the Apostles or St Paul, you do have to wonder why they walk so slowly and with obvious pain!! Could be the weight of the responsibility that they feel in teaching or it could be that they indeed did suffer from piles.

Helen

There needs to be a study on the correlation between sanctimoniousness and constipation

But have you noticed that all people who look 'holy' look like they haven't had a good clear out for a few days?

The poor fella looks like a high fibre diet would do him a world of good.

But have you noticed that all people who look 'holy' look like they haven't had a good clear out for a few days?

Helen

Folks, I've just been reading one of my favourite entertainments, "Cooees from the Cloister" — Apostles (and an Apostless) for the kind of Church Papa Benny seems intent on creating. I reckon we all ought to pack up and go home but send a note to Benny to immediately make all the Cooees Cardinals (and a Cardinalesse) and make sure one of them is made the next Pope. This will be the perfect formula to re-evangelise the Church, get all the "lost souls" and "aCatholics" into heaven, bring the apostates flocking back into the pews, and give the "reform of the reform" real bite.

Dear Holy Father, if you are reading this please click the link below. You really need these guys (and the gal) to speed along the creation of your "smaller, purer Church". Sincerely, aCatholic Brian

Thank you Tony- it is a pleasure to be part of such an enlightened forum.

Thanks also for the link to Cesar Chavaz. I had vaguely heard of him and was facinated to read this bio sketch of a genuine working class hero and a true Christian humanist.

Absolutely agree. To believe in a standard humanist response is both facile and fascist. Everyone has thier own innate perspective and levels of engagement with the world. My position is that in Christ's case this centered on compassion for the most urgent and compelling cases of human suffering. His notion of compassion was not some kind of do-goodism but a deeper spiritual commitment that came from a 'personal understanding' of himself and of God. His teachings about humility and forgiveness in the canonical gospels and beyond seem to be aimed at facilitating this gnosis. While he commended compassion as the focus of our lives, he knew that soft hearts had to be directed by hard headed rationality and pragmatism. He also expected that people should only attempt to work within the range of thier capabilities.

Even with these provisos, my 'dream' is that a new humanist Christology might galvanise that elusive 'critical mass' needed to make substantial improvements to our world. And one of the many wholesome and unique aspects of this kind of faith is that it as nowhere to hide- it will constantly be tested by the fruits it yields in the real world.

Great conversation Brian and Chris!

I brings to mind a link in what we euphemistically refer to as 'another place' about César Chávez who, on this reading, seems to embody the humanist Christology you allude to and who certainly seemed to push his own capabilities to the limit!

BTW Just in case it hasn't been done before, welcome to Catholica, Chris.

I'm very attracted to the concept of Jesus as "avatar" that Peter Dresser introduced in one of his commentaries here. I see the historical figure of Jesus as almost a dressmaker's mannequin onto which has been draped a great amount of accumulated and stored collective wisdom of humankind.<<

I think the greatness of spiritual humanists like Jesus and Buddha is that they drape a lot of it on themselves. Jesus encapsulated and amplified the finest ethical and mystical traditions of Judaism as Buddha did with Hinduism. And of course the teachings of both leaders were so aligned as to be often inseparable.

His solutions are often paradoxical and counter-intuitive — they seem to defy normal human logic as to how we ought respond to many situations.<<

That is also the mark of genius. So many quasi social gospel humanists have failed to grasp this and have insisted on pigeonholing Jesus as a bourgeois liberal and even a Marxist. Christ was variously pacifist and belligerent, egalitarian and competitively individualistic, a fervent champion of children and marriage yet ferociously hostile to the patriarchal family unit. His parables mocked conventional wisdom and were laced with ethical propositions that were enigmatic and paradoxical.He understood what should by now be obvious from the lessons of history: that constructive progress and the solutions to life’s dilemmas do not consistently proceed from conventional left or right wing, idealist or realist prescriptions. They often require a judicious melding of all these, or even thinking outside such categories.

I think it is not just institutional Catholicism which is in crisis but institutional Christianity as well. People are "walking away" from all the churches and the fundamentalists are taking over all the Christian citadels.<<

This has a eerie similarity with first century Judaism - the fundamentalists then were Shammaite Pharisees who had formed an uneasy alliance with the venal Temple elites to enforce rigid purity rules to promote a culture of guilt that made it easier to exploit the populase and dispossess them of their land.These landless am-haaretz provided many of the followers of John the Baptist and Jesus.

I sense we're searching for a new Christology. I put that suggestion to Fr Gerald O'Collins SJ who is reputed to be the leading international "expert" on Christology in an interview a few years ago and he sort of poo-poohed the idea by suggesting more or less that Christology is the study, or understanding, of the total Christ. The subject "Christology" covers all of the images we have of Christ — the suffering servant, divine mercy, the sacrificial lamb, the good shepherd, etc., etc., etc.. He argued you can't have a "new" Christology essentially because the term encompasses all of the images or conceptions of Jesus Christ that you can imagine.<<

Unfortunately clerics are threatened by the notion of a new humanist Christology which tends to make them redundant- unless they can move beyond their platitudes and provide real spritual social and political leadership. The bad news for them was the Jesus had little time for clerical supernumeraries who sought to interpose themselves between humanity and God.

Popularly Jesus seems to be presented as some kind of "modern day miracle worker": if we but pray the right abracadabra formulae to him, or participate in the Eucharist often enough, he'll "reward" us by "protecting" us against evil, misfortune, illness —<<

So true- even Job made that clear centuries before JC. To me it seems clear that in this compromised world where evil is an inexorable reality, the opportunities for any divine intervention are extremely limited. Thus Jesus imparted some basic spiritual and moral truths and from then on it was up to us:we alone are the masters of our destiny.

There is a temptation to get all enthusiastic about social justice and "loving our neighbour" endeavours but, I sense, it can sometimes be as warped and "off the mark" behaviour as getting all caught up in pious devotionals. The Way of Christ, in my view, calls first for a sense of "personal conversion" or "personal understanding" and then the proper "humanism" or "responses to others" flows out of that personal understanding or conversion.<<

Absolutely agree. To believe in a standard humanist response is both facile and fascist. Everyone has thier own innate perspective and levels of engagement with the world. My position is that in Christ's case this centered on compassion for the most urgent and compelling cases of human suffering. His notion of compassion was not some kind of do-goodism but a deeper spiritual commitment that came from a 'personal understanding' of himself and of God. His teachings about humility and forgiveness in the canonical gospels and beyond seem to be aimed at facilitating this gnosis. While he commended compassion as the focus of our lives, he knew that soft hearts had to be directed by hard headed rationality and pragmatism. He also expected that people should only attempt to work within the range of thier capabilities.

Even with these provisos, my 'dream' is that a new humanist Christology might galvanise that elusive 'critical mass' needed to make substantial improvements to our world. And one of the many wholesome and unique aspects of this kind of faith is that it as nowhere to hide- it will constantly be tested by the fruits it yields in the real world.

Perhaps a slight correction Brian - do they act for what they construe God to want having first construed what they think God is in consultation with the people, so acting for the people and for God.

In a Christian humanist church, there would be far less time spent in 'worship' and more in addressing the real human problems on a personal, local and international level. That is the kind of church we should set up to compete with the corrupted one now sliding towards spiritual bankruptcy and irrelevance.

This kind of spiritual humanist magnifies the dimension of Jesus. It implies that our salvation in this world and perhaps, the world to come, hinges on our response to human suffering. It sees the crucifixion not as an act of guaranteed salvation per se but an expression of God's solidarity with us, the sacrifice he was prepared to make to demonstrate the depth of love that can be unleashed through the inspiration provided by Christ's model of compassionate humanism.

I am really attracted to what you write, Chris, particularly in those quoted paragraphs above. To me, Jesus Christ is not one whom we worship because he was some "cool dude", nor this inaccessible "hero" from long ago, nor even because he is reputed to be "the Son of God" or some "miracle worker". His essential relevance in our lives today is what he can do for us in our lives today. I'm very attracted to the concept of Jesus as "avatar" that Peter Dresser introduced in one of his commentaries here. I see the historical figure of Jesus as almost a dressmaker's mannequin onto which has been draped a great amount of accumulated and stored collective wisdom of humankind. Jesus Christ is a "roadmap" or "blueprint" who shows us (even today, 2000 years later) how to navigate the mountains and valleys that we encounter in our lives. His solutions are often paradoxical and counter-intuitive — they seem to defy normal human logic as to how we ought respond to many situations. Jesus does not operate at the "lizard brain" level of human behaviour. To access those "solutions" we need to be both intimate with his story — the parables and the accounts in scripture — but as well the further insights other thinkers have written in the millenia since*. The "real communion" with Jesus Christ comes from absorbing his words, and also his actions (how he responded to various situations recounted in the New Testament record), not through absorbing some host or wine representative of his body and blood.

I'm getting a better idea of where you are coming from with this concept of "Christian humanism" which is the title of your book and I'll look forward to reading it in due course.

I think it is not just institutional Catholicism which is in crisis but institutional Christianity as well. People are "walking away" from all the churches and the fundamentalists are taking over all the Christian citadels. I sense we're searching for a new Christology. I put that suggestion to Fr Gerald O'Collins SJ who is reputed to be the leading international "expert" on Christology in an interview a few years ago and he sort of poo-poohed the idea by suggesting more or less that Christology is the study, or understanding, of the total Christ. The subject "Christology" covers all of the images we have of Christ — the suffering servant, divine mercy, the sacrificial lamb, the good shepherd, etc., etc., etc.. He argued you can't have a "new" Christology essentially because the term encompasses all of the images or conceptions of Jesus Christ that you can imagine. I've mulled on that a lot since I did the interview. He may well be correct in a strictly academic sense. My argument though essentially is that I think there is massive confusion amongst ordinary punters of who this dude Jesus is and what "belief" in him is supposed to do for us, or how that "belief" ought influence our lives and behaviour today, 2,000 years after he disappeared from the scene physically.

Popularly Jesus seems to be presented as some kind of "modern day miracle worker": if we but pray the right abracadabra formulae to him, or participate in the Eucharist often enough, he'll "reward" us by "protecting" us against evil, misfortune, illness — or if we should happen to encounter any of those things and step up our devotions and worship he'll respond. My experience is that it is all bullshit. Neither God nor Jesus are "up there" with a big hairy arm waiting to be extended to stir up the molecules in our soup and bring about cures or changes in our circumstances. The benefit of Jesus, this "avatar" as Peter Dresser calls him, is in being able to read the Jesus "map", "blueprint" or "Way" — not by the expectation of miracles, magic or divine interventions. Essentially then I agree with you when you write "In a Christian humanist church, there would be far less time spent in 'worship' and more in addressing the real human problems on a personal, local and international level."

I don't necessarily agree though when the emphasis is placed on doing good works for others. Don't get me wrong, I think that is part of the "Way" but it is not the prime focus of the "Way". The prime focus of the "Way" is in sorting out our own thinking and the script, or "Christology", we are going to follow. The humanist dimension of how we respond/relate to our neighbours (and enemies) is an intimate part of that but preceding that is the attitude or "mindframe" we bring to such endeavours. I sense that the prime goal of all of us is not "happiness" as suggested in the constitution of the United States but the capacity to make intelligent choices that mature us as individuals and through that we eventually find "happiness" or "peace of heart". "Peace of heart" — the "peace" that surpasses all human understanding — I think is the better aspiration. A person enduring some immense personal torture can experience "peace of heart" through an understanding of their circumstances but it might well be a long, long way from "happiness". There is a temptation to get all enthusiastic about social justice and "loving our neighbour" endeavours but, I sense, it can sometimes be as warped and "off the mark" behaviour as getting all caught up in pious devotionals. The Way of Christ, in my view, calls first for a sense of "personal conversion" or "personal understanding" and then the proper "humanism" or "responses to others" flows out of that personal understanding or conversion.

*I've often wondered about this idea that Jesus is "the fullness of revelation". How I originally interpreted it is that Jesus "came down to earth" with some kind of briefcase or brain packed with instructions and rules from the first person of the Trinity and he distributed these to humankind in a way not dissimilar to the way Moses distributed the Ten Commandments after he came down from the mountain. In other words Jesus himself, personally was "the channel of communication" from God the Father. Today I interpret it differently. I still believe there is insight in the saying "Jesus is the fullness of revelation" in the sense that there is not going to be another Jesus — another "avatar" like Jesus. What has changed in my own thinking is how the "divine knowledge" or "revelation" is transmitted to humankind. I don't think it was through Jesus alone. All those early writers of scripture played a part in it — and so also the myriad of minds down through history who have meditated on the meaning of Jesus. We are still learning how to read the Jesus' script. He's not "the fullness of revelation" because he brought down the equivalent of some giant dictionary or "book of theology" that contained "all the answers". He is "the fullness" because it is only through him that "all will be revealed" — not necessarily that it has yet "all been revealed".

Judith, the reality is that George Pell (and his successors as Archbishop of Sydney and Metropolitan of the NSW Province) have effectively been saddled with the problems of the remote diocese of Wilcannia. Other remote dioceses will soon face similar challenges. The bet is that before too long the Catholic people of Wilcannia will face a succession of foreign, newly ordained, Neo-Cat priests from the Redemptorist Mater seminary serving out their post ordination two-year commitment to the Archdiocese of Sydney. Don't get your hopes up that this is any "solution" to the challenges facing the Church in remote dioceses or facing the Church more broadly in Australia. This is the best solution that could be achieved given the diabolical state the Church is now in in this country. There is absolutely nothing in this result for any person to get excited about other than the fact that eventually Bishop Kevin Manning was able to bring about some sort of result.

The present situation in Wilcannia-Forbes would be great as a springboard to a new way of doing things in Australia. If the representatives from each of the larger towns in the Diocese, some from the Religious Orders active there and some of the remaining priests were allowed to sit down and discuss their hopes and dreams with Archbishop Wilson and the ACB, without having to get their decision rubber-stamped by Rome or anywhere else, then we might have a template for the future in which we, the laity, would be recognized as full members of the Church.

But, dream on, old girl. It ain't likely to happen under present management, local or international, yet the Holy Spirit is still active, so I hope..............

Australia could give a great gift to the Church in the world by this, but do our leaders have the guts to stand up to Rome and say "Your way doesn't work here. We know what and who we need, so let us get on with it, and you can give us 5 years to test our way. Then sit down with us and review what has happened and what are the needs now."

"they" have left me, and my fellow-parishioners.

Seriously, the institutional rulers of the church have so far departed from the Gospel, even from the docs of Vat2, in thought, word and deed and omission that there is a gulf at present unbridgeable.

Mary

Read for interest -
http://ncronline.org/news/people/dorothy-days-filthy-rotten-system-likely-wasnt-hers-all

What she actually said seems to be LOUSY rotten system. And she was referring to "Holy Mother Church."

Like Cardinal Newman, Sue, I actually have enormous confidence in the common sense of the ordinary people. As I suggested a few weeks ago I think there is a magnificent doctoral thesis and possibly a literary career with a few books extending the investigations of what Cardinal Newman was examining in the series of essays that eventually became the book "On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine". I've long had a sense that this work of Newman's was largely unfinished and, more so with the knowledge we have available to us in society today, this is a rich field to be ploughed.

There is a massive difference between "fashion" — the sort of celebrity and popular fashion stuff that Rupert Murdoch learned to exploit to build a massive personal fortune (and now all the mainstream media, and many political paties, seeks to exploit in similar fashion) — and this "deeper common sense" that the ordinary people in any society have. Newman was trying to differentiate between the two and I am not sure he fully succeeded and that's the potential field for deeper investigation.

Maybe you're right Bill, and it was all a dream after all, and for others a nightmare.

And perhaps Vatican II had it right after all, and allowed us all to follow our conscience right out the door.

You could be right Brian. My fear would be that it is the people already at the top of their groups/religious institutions looking either to have as influential a voice as a Rome on the world stage, or else to gain power and prestige in a bigger arena, rather than the grassroots wanting to cede some of their independence.

Perhaps I am just being cynical. It may be more about just trying to survive between an increasingly anti-religious world on one side and increasing fundamentalism on the other.

Sue

Within the other religions and traditions though, Sue, I sense there is growing consensus for a need for some coordinating body. Over the last century or so we have seen the gradual rise of initiatives like the National Council of Churches, the World Parliament of Religions, the World Council of Churches, which in different ways would seem to be testimony to this human desire for either some "symbol of unity" or a place where consensus can be argued and achieved or a place from which a religious consensus position can be argued in other realms in society (such as national parliaments or the UN). More likely it's a combination of all those things. To me the crucial element is the beliefs and attitudes of those who are elected, or chosen, to work in such a central authority.

This is a wonderful commentary, as you said, Brian, and I thank Don and you for this and the two earlier.

In answer to the question: physically, I have left, am disgusted by the lies, hypocrisy, sexual assaults of innocent children, (what will happen to my great grand-children?), and, even worse, the covers-up, the denigrating of women and the ever-lasting rudeness of so many clergy.
Had the clergy, as an whole, had the mental toughness, realistic outlook and any of the guts of the average mother the Church would be quite different.

Mentally, I am still torn. If I could bring myself to regaining a belief Jesus lived, did and said what we are told He did and said, I would be emboldened to search further but, as one of the beautiful ladies has written below today, all of Him appears to have been lost at the time of Constantine.
How may we believe anything that comes from Ratzinger or from so many in so many nations?

I smiled at, and admire, the beautiful lady who, this morning, said she would stay and stir.
I am too old for that.

I am not in an happy position. I think I am grieving for an ideal in which I believed for 70-odd years and which, for me, is dust.

Thank the great Mystery, I have Bett. She will be more than enough to see me through.,,,,,with Catholica.

Thank you all.

I go along with all that Nicholas.
We can be both a Catholic and a Christian, I feel?!
georgeh

Helen and Brian, an interesting question indeed! I have been wondering about this too. Why do we need that big Head Office in Rome? Developments in communication technology have made the Church much too centralized. Perhaps it is time for the pendulum to swing back the other way. Eg. Complaints by the temple police should not go past the local bishop (or his immediate boss if the complaint is about the bishop.

But what really intrigues me is that all the other religious traditions seem to get long perfectly well without a controlling central body. It is the sacred texts and mature spiritual teachers that hold groups together and build local communities.

The universal institutional Church has certainly been able to marshall resources to build churches, schools, hospitals and other social welfare establishments not only for local communities, but also as part of missionary activities. But how much do we need of that, now governments and NGOs are picking up responsibilities there, and the Catholic community is shrinking?

The question becomes one of how to decentralize, and whether that could be achieved sufficiently without breaking the ties with Rome, since those ties are still valued? Perhaps the break will be inevitable if the Catholic community is to survive in this country.

Sue

That's an interesting question you pose, Helen.

My view is that we actually do require some "central head office". We require some symbol of our unity and, indeed, "catholicity" in the small "c" understanding of that word.

What is the chief matter in contention at this point in history seems to be not whether we require such a symbol or "place of unity" but how those who occupy that place interpret their role? If they interpret their role that they are the ones holding "the royal telephone to Jesus" then it is a disaster — and that's essentially what we've seen with "head office" and the "papacy" squandering all its moral authority and gradually being listened to only by a small remnant element in society.

My own view is that the Spirit speaks through all of humankind. The trouble we face is that some people do hear "voices in their heads" and there is massive potential for us to misinterpret what the Spirit is saying. We do need some place of authority, some parliament if you like, where we discuss what the Spirit is saying, where we discuss things like the collective direction in which we should be heading, and reach some consensus about what we collectively believe and what we're collectively trying to build when we speak of "building the kingdom".

The present leadership do not see it like that at all. They sincerely believe they have been "ontologically changed", they are the "successors of Peter", they are the ones with exclusive insight into the "thinking of Jesus", they are the "architects of the kingdom" — they are the only ones entitled to act "in persona Christi" — and it is their role to interpret the agenda of Jesus for all humanity — not to be acting as any coordinating agency trying to understand what God, or the Spirit, or Jesus, might be saying through the agency of all humankind ... or ordinary people and pewsitters. The ordinary pewsitters are perceived in the role of navvies, serfs and slaves – the docile servants – who will provide the resources to build the palaces that constitute "the kingdom".

I cannot see that changing under the present administration, or any foreseeable alternative likely to come from at least the next 2 or 3 conclaves. These people will literally reduce the institution to rubble before they admit any of their thinking is wrong or misguided.

I think in whatever comes next, whatever shape the phoenix eventually assumes, that humankind will still need some place of Primacy — some Parliament of the World's Religions if you like — through which all these individual small groups and all individuals discern collectively what we believe and what our hopes and dreams are. The critical change that has to occur is in the ordinary people's understanding of the role of such a "head office", papacy, or parliament, is and also for those who occupy such an exalted place to understand what their role is on behalf of their people. Do they act primarily for God; or do they act primarily for their people?

Equally though I am not convinced the hippie-Beatitudes-humanist picture of Jesus is succeeding that well in attracting followers to their view of what Jesus has to offer humanity, and each individual. The attitude seems to be that you don't need Jesus to be a loving and compassionate person. The "golden rule" and "common sense" tells us that if you truly want to "win friends and influence people" it is better to be nice to your neighbours rather than nasty. It's a "hard sell" to suggest that Jesus has something special to offer other than the nice sentiments contained in the Beatitudes.

Thanks Brian for your lengthy and heartfelt response. Here' my attempt at the 'hard sell.'

Christ's compassion goes far beyond the 'golden rule.' It is infused with humility, forgiveness and justice and constitutes the virtual totality of his teachings in the Gospels. He presents compassion as an intensely spiritual as well as beneficent social attribute. By loving eachother we can most readily ‘know and love’ God and the most simple way to love eachother is by compassionately responding to the relentless tide of human suffering. Stemming and even turning that tide becomes the purpose for human existence. Each of us- according to our diverse abilities- should do our uttermost to achieve that goal. In so doing we may hope to make this world more worthy of its creator and perhaps allow the 'Kingdom of God' to reestablish a bridgehead.

As for the terrible pain endured by our fellow member, Christ-like compassion may not always provide a solution let alone a miraculous cure for people in dire need. But it can bring the love of others into their hearts in solidarity with their grief. With God’s help it can give them the hope and courage to endure and enable the rest of us to persist, transcend compassion fatigue while we seek some solutions for their predicament. Christian churches should be much better at directing people in distress to finding the specific help needed to alleviate this pain. Too often it is left to impersonal bureaucracies. In a Christian humanist church, there would be far less time spent in ‘worship’ and more in addressing the real human problems on a personal, local and international level. That is the kind of church we should set up to compete with the corrupted one now sliding towards spiritual bankruptcy and irrelevance.

This kind of spiritual humanist magnifies the dimension of Jesus. It implies that our salvation in this world and perhaps, the world to come, hinges on our response to human suffering. It sees the crucifixion not as an act of guaranteed salvation per se but an expression of God's solidarity with us, the sacrifice he was prepared to make to demonstrate the depth of love that can be unleashed through the inspiration provided by Christ's model of compassionate humanism.

Any "official" takes their life, vocation, or career in their own hands to deviate in the slightest from reciting the "rules and policies".

Absolutely right, Brian, as was seen from yesterday's reports about Fr Sean Fagan they rule by threats and fear, let alone secrecy.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/priests-group-rallies-behind-cleric-silenced-by...

Thanks for the link, Peter. Here's one paragraph from the story:

One of their key recommendations was for pastors, bishops and other church officials to respond consistently to questioning or angry Catholics with constructive dialogue rather than a simple reiteration of church rules or policies.

My own sense is that systemically today "pastors, bishops and other church officials" are unable to do what the report's authors suggest because to try and dialogue such officials place themselves in danger of upsetting the orthodox and fundamentalist elements — even with dialogue in private. Any "official" takes their life, vocation, or career in their own hands to deviate in the slightest from reciting the "rules and policies". That's the fundamental obstruction today to Catholicism being able to reverse the decline and move forward again. As I argue the entire institution has effectively been "reduced to silence" on all the important issues people want discussed because the people in positions of responsibility are only capable today of engaging in "a simple reiteration of church rules or policies".

I don't think anybody at the grass roots level of the institution can change this culture — other than by leaving or absenting themselves. This culture has to be changed at the very top before this institution can "move forward" again. And I think it is extremely unlikely that we're going to see that "change at the top" for perhaps two or three generations. We have today an institution in terminal decline because of it. That is testified to by the exit rate out of the pews over the last century. There is absolutely nothing on the horizon that is likely to change that situation. Even the so-called "New Evangelisation Year" is simply "more of the same" that has been driving the vast majority out of the pews for the past hundred years. They're not going to propose some "evangelization" initiative that actually works and draws people back to what Jesus Christ has to offer. To do that they'd have to change the very culture of the institution that has been its characteristic for all this time. And hell is more likely to freeze over before they change any of that!

It's a pipe dream for anyone to think that this culture can be changed by concerted action at the grass roots level of the institution. Grass roots endeavours will only work at the level of "shaping the phoenix", not changing the existing culture. It is like expecting the people of Germany in the 1930s to have chosen a different pathway to the one of supporting the minority party that was leading their nation to doom and humiliation. Or the grass roots of the Mayans or Easter Islanders to have chosen a different course that might have averted the collapse of their civilisations.

In part I agree with you, Debb. I also think there is a strain in Catholicism that advocates a "tip-toe through the tulips version of social justice and compassion" — and I don't think it's necessarily insignificant. In some respects I'd argue that due to the "silencing (of bishops, priests, teachers, lecturers, etc.)" because of the activities of the temple police, some resort to this "tip-toe through the tulips version of social justice and compassion" version of Catholicism as a way of making it seem as though some work is being done in the vineyard but what they're really trying to do is evade the scrutiny of the taliban element within Catholicism. They were the tendencies I was trying to criticize in suggesting there might be a third viewpoint.

The "taliban element" presents this picture of how difficult it is to follow all the laws of Jesus. My own view is that the alternative is a heck of a lot harder to live out than anything the taliban/remnant element have to offer because people do actually have to think and make intelligent moral decisions for themselves — not simply continually recite that they know all of God's laws.

http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/unusual-study-asks-former-catholics-why-they-lef...

While I am attracted to the Beatitudes and the sort of sentiments expressed in Kurt Struckmeyer's excellent flash presentation that I showed in Don Fausel's commentary today, it often seems to me that there is a "harder edge" to what we might take from Jesus. If you could visualise a couple of speakers on soap boxes in Hyde Park "spruiking for Jesus" and one was going hammer and tongs on the "social conformist-goody two shoes" picture of Jesus, and a little further away there was a speaker going hammer and tongs on the "social justice- love one another-sandal clad hippie" picture of Jesus, what I am proposing is a third speaker presenting an alternative to both those models. What picture, or program, would this third speaker present of what Jesus has to offer both the individual and the world?

Brian, I don't see the Beatitudes as sentiments, but as a radical call to revolutionary living. If I think of those who are living out that call, these come to mind:

Fr Bob in Melbourne, Bill Crews at Ashfield, the St Vincent de Paul workers in every parish, Sr Helen Prejean who opposes the death penalty in the US, those who challenge authority (and risk being demoted or defamed, or getting the sack), Fr john Dear who goes to prison for opposing war and nuclear weapons, the workers in the Micah project in South Brisbane, the Sisters at Penola House refugee centre in Newcastle, Terry O'Connell and his work for restorative justice etc. etc. etc. I can also think of a few Catholica members who have sacrificed cushy jobs for their principles, or who keep tackling injustice like terriers, including injustice within the church. I a sure others can think of many more. Nothing soft-edged about any of them.

I don't see a third speaker with a third way. If we took seriously what Jesus invited us to do, we, individually and communally would be an incredible force for loving change in the world.

This might seem a bit way out, but some 50 years ago Jeanne Dixon, the American Catholic psychic predicted that within the century a pope would be visibly harmed; than a later pope would leave Rome and after that, the role of the Papacy would change.

Dare we hope?

'Infallible' papalism and pseudo – Christian idolatry of the Pope will give way to a Petrine office which stands at the service of Christianity and functions in the framework of synodical and conciliar structures.[7]

Sadly, the first part of this paragraph is still with us, and in fact, is gathering momentum once again amongst the those who are hunkering down to show they are 'faithfully Catholics'.

As for the second part of this paragraph - by the time we have evolved from the medieval form of Christianity (which we are trying to shake off) will we need a Petrine office anyway? Will we become small groups of Christians who will have their own ideals and ways of expressing thier faith without th need of a central head office?

Helen

"The language I use is that Jesus offers us "a way of processing life" — it's a way of thinking about, and through that thinking, taking the necessary actions to successfully navigate our way through life no matter what "life" might throw at us."

Those that came into contact with this person of Jesus, as described within the gospels, left not with thinking about a different way of life, but because of the immediate experience that was indelibly imprinted on their plastic brains.....that of unconditional love....and that in turn, perhaps made them change their understanding and thinking about just how they lived their lives. It is an experience of faith, of things hoped for and yet unseen, but it is also faith that seeks understanding....and now neuro science is providing us with a lot more insight into just what this might mean. Science is an incomplete system, and is just as good as it's next experiment. But with the ongoing faith of people, it leads to the impossible becoming a possibility. Jesus believed in people, not in some methodology.

"What Jesus offers humanity, and each individual, is a pathway through the unfairness, injustice, pain, indecipherability, and mysteriousness of life not to "success" or "happiness" but to a slightly different quality often called "peace of heart"?

I am so sick and tired of this pursuit of 'happiness' that so many speak of as the ultimate goal...that to me is perhaps a by product of the process and journey one undertakes...happiness in this lifetime does not guarantee 'peace of heart [mind]' as you say...just ask Bill D. Relationships of any kind are what bring our lives meaning and depth, as our neural pathways are created as open loops to engage with others, and so we are not complete individuals unto ourselves, we are not islands, but like these neural pathways that are embedded into our brain, they seek further connection with other neural systems...

Interesting Tony that you and I both chose to highlight the same three sentences. [See my post below: "What does Jesus Christ offer humanity?" LINK] I've been thinking further about the last sentence and the words in your subject line. Yes, I think it is "direct communion" (with the heavenly Father). What the fundamentalists and the institution offers today is "indirect communion" — i.e. communion brokered by the hierarchs, the institution and "creeds and rules" — and perhaps that might go a long way to explaining why so many have started to say "no thanks"?

Sue,

Thanks for that interesting perspective. I've been coming to the conclusion for some time that Jesus did not come to offer us some "creed" or a "book of rules" — which seems to be the perspective offered to us by the hierarchs and the remnant element who now control institutional Catholicism. The language I use is that Jesus offers us "a way of processing life" — it's a way of thinking about, and through that thinking, taking the necessary actions to successfully navigate our way through life no matter what "life" might throw at us. The abundance theology people want to present Jesus as some "book of rules" that will bring you happiness or "success" in life. The fundamentalists present this picture of a Jesus who offers us security and certitude amidst life's travails. (I think he does offer a form of security and certitude but it is a form of security and certitude about a gzillion light years removed from the sort of security and certitude offered by, or craved by, the fundamentalists.)

What an interesting perspective you offer us from Swami Abhedananda (my emphasis added)...

"Why a Hindu Accepts Christ and Rejects Churchianity."

By Swami Abhedananda
(A direct disciple of Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa)
Ramakrishna Vedanta Math, Calcutta.

"A Hindu distinguishes the religion of the churches from the religion of Jesus Christ. Speaking from the Hindu standpoint, the religion that the churches uphold and preach today, that has been built around the personality of Jesus the Christ, and which is popularly known as Christianity, should be called ‘Churchianity’, in contradistinction to that pure religion of the heart that was taught by Jesus the Christ and practised by his disciples. The religion of Christ or true Christianity had no dogma, no creed, no system, and no theology. It was a religion of the heart, a religion without any ceremonial, without ritual, without priest-craft. It was not based upon any book, but upon the feelings of the heart, upon direct communion of the individual soul with the heavenly Father. On the contrary, the religion of the church is based upon a book, believes in dogmas, professes a creed, has an organized system for preaching it, is backed up by theologies, performs rituals, practises ceremonials, and obeys the commands of a host of priests."

The rest of this article on the history of 'Churchianity' may be found here:
www.hinduism.co.za/jesus.htm

It is a characteristic of modern Christianity — and perhaps the whole of Western civilisation — that the central quest of life is for "happiness" (that's even written into the constitution of the most powerful nation on earth) or "success". I really do wonder at times if one of the central messages of the Jesus Christ perspective — the authentic Christian perspective — is diametrically opposed to that. It is a perspective that illustrates to us that life is inherently unfair, often painful (even the "Son of God" does not escape the most excruciating pain), unjust, indecipherable, and plain puzzling or mysterious. What Jesus offers humanity, and each individual, is a pathway through the unfairness, injustice, pain, indecipherability, and mysteriousness of life not to "success" or "happiness" but to a slightly different quality often called "peace of heart"?

The religion of Christ or true Christianity had no dogma, no creed, no system, and no theology. It was a religion of the heart, a religion without any ceremonial, without ritual, without priest-craft. It was not based upon any book, but upon the feelings of the heart, upon direct communion of the individual soul with the heavenly Father.

Sue, thanks for this reference. I'm afraid I have already left the institution because I don't believe in it any more, not because it has become so imperfect, but because the moment a community becomes a Community/Institution it has lost the plot. Belonging, building, obeying all take the place of the one thing necessary.

Yes, it happened even during the life-time of the apostles, but any farmer knows how you have to keep working on the soil to keep it productive. If you allow your focus to be set on building fences, gates, barns, show-pieces, you'll soon have an arid unproductive bit of dirt for all your efforts.

Actually I think we may be at a different stage of history compared to Francis of Assisi, and I can't take what he did as a standard, Kay. The points you made are always essential: go ahead and do it first, and get approval later. But I think it is time for a form of community different from the communities ruled over by bishops and ministered to by sacrificing priests.

Gotta go. tony