Absalutely nothing

Is this Cardinal Koch some distant relation of the infamously wealthy & conservative Koch brothers in the USA??

Good questions Sue?!
Another question could be--Would Western Society be attractive without the church?!
georgeh

Sue, "The Catholic Church for me is Catholica" sounds right to me but how often can we physically join to share a meal together as one? Is it enough to have only cyber Church?

Francis

The cyber community of Catholica is enough for me at this time. We can't break bread, but we break open and share the word in very many ways, and that is the primary level of communion in the spirit, the level underlying the sacramental experience, the reality that the sacrament expresses in the meal of bread and wine.

Still it would be nice to meet and share a meal.

tony

Catholica is where I find my spiritual encouragement. For now, I continue to attend Mass to encounter Jesus in the Eucharist, as this is the only oppportunity available at present. I dream of the day when we might have Prayer or Scripture Study groups in this town, but, as far as I can find out, only the Lutheran women have such a group and I am welcome to attend. Due to ill-health, I am barely making it to Mass so Catholica is my lifeline.

Sue, "The Catholic Church for me is Catholica" sounds right to me but how often can we physically join to share a meal together as one? Is it enough to have only cyber Church?

Francis

Judith, guess I phrased that question too narrowly. It should have been,

What is there in the Church today to attract anyone who lives in a Western society?

The Catholic Church for me is Catholica. That is the only place I find both Christian community and spiritual inspiration at the moment. How about you Judith, and everyone else?

Sue

... why is a "try" a score: in games you usually have to achieve something and not just "try" if you want to score a point!

Ah Cathy,

Remember, as Yoda so accurately put it - "Do or Do not. There is no try."

Time for a rethink?

Thanks Joe - you said it all! There is nothing more I can add except that we must be the leaven in the bread and be the Church we want it to be. Edwin Markham wrote:

He draw a circle and shut me out -
rebel, heretic, a thing to flout.
But love and I had the wit to win;
We drew a circle and took him in

How can an Institution that preaches the love of God keep so many outside that circle?

Marian

We are all, God, you and me and all else, are in it together. A creativity has begun and each use, with respect to the other, their ideas of creativity hoping to learn the best (divine) version. We make mistakes and hopefully over time (long time) learn to do it right. Then our eternity enters the next phase of creativity. What a joy it must be when we have gained a better knowledge of divine creativity. Wow! What about it? Can we work together? Let's give it a go.

Francis

First It, the question of origins (the Alpha position): I simply don't believe something as complex and beautiful as Life, or Existence, could have evolved from nothing, or had no origin. I simply do not believe Life, or Existence, is random, directionless or without some ultimate Origin, or Meaning. My definition of "God" under this first schema the is essentially defined in the negative terms of what God is not — i.e. that there was no Origin, or no Ultimate Meaning.

If one believes this, you must provide a complete and reasonable explanation for all the evil, of all types, that exist!

Vince,

I do not think that is such a difficult assignment. In a sense that is the driving agenda for the entire foundational story of Christianity. God did not create evil and suffering. He (She or It) might be a "loving God" but He (She or It) did not set out deliberately to impose pain and suffering and evil on Creation. Evil (pain and suffering) arise as an inevitable side-effect of the choice given to sentient creation to play some part in the Creation Endeavour. We help build the future of Creation, we create history, and God respects those contributions absolutely. God does not step in to correct our mistakes. The cycle of birth-growth-maturity-death is also an inescapable part of the template of Creation. Death inevitably carries with it pain, especially for the higher forms of life.

Are the foundational stories of our religion trying so much to describe the (loving, compassionate, justice and mercy) qualities of God? Or are they trying to explain how a loving, compassionate, etc., God allow suffering, pain and evil into Creation? I think it is the latter. We get too hung up on the picture of a loving God. I sense God IS loving — and would not hurt a flea. The reason why evil – and pain and suffering – exist in Creation is: (a) because of the cyclical nature of Creation (Jacob Bronowski titled one of the episodes in the Ascent of Man, "The Music of the Spheres", which discusses the cyclical aspect of Creation), death is inevitable for new life and with death comes pain; (b) in giving us (sentient life) the freedom and capacity to contibute to the outworking of Creation the reality is that we're going to cock up a lot of the time. It is us, not God, that brings a lot of the pain, suffering and evil into Creation.

I don't think "blaming God" for the existence of Evil helps much. Yes, he could have created some "heaven on earth" but that is what the Garden of Eden would have looked like had humankind chosen through the apocryphal story of Adam and Eve the alternative choice available to them. Do the animals and other lower life forms have an understanding of "evil" in their vocabulary? Where I disagree with the fundamentalists is in some "personalised" concept of Evil in the guise of the Devil, Beezelbub, Satan, Old Nick, or any of the other names that are used. That is as flawed a concept as thinking of God as some "kindly old uncle" sitting up above the clouds who is constantly "intervening" or meddling in our soup to correct our mistakes, or impress us with his existence. The God that matters resides within each of us, as does the Evil that causes us our pain!

PS If anyone is in any doubt about the above then have a look in today’s newspapers!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


QLD 18.....NSW 10

: :

Coming from a traditionally AFL state, I'm always a bit mystified by Rugby - I mean, for instance, why is a "try" a score: in games you usually have to achieve something and not just "try" if you want to score a point! So I'm quite neutral about the controversy over an umpire's decision - or is it a referee in Rugby? - but I wish people would remember, honestly, the Church is NOT a football game of any code!!!

First It, the question of origins (the Alpha position): I simply don't believe something as complex and beautiful as Life, or Existence, could have evolved from nothing, or had no origin. I simply do not believe Life, or Existence, is random, directionless or without some ultimate Origin, or Meaning. My definition of "God" under this first schema the is essentially defined in the negative terms of what God is not — i.e. that there was no Origin, or no Ultimate Meaning.

If one believes this, you must provide a complete and reasonable explanation for all the evil, of all types, that exist!

Sue, if you were 70 or older, educated in the pre-Vatican II era and brainwashed that whatever Father says, you do, then went through the Springtime of Hope that the Council brought us and the free expressions of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in Prayer Groups etc. then what is there in the Church of today to attract you?

Love it!!!!! but don't encourage us while
we still half a leg still in the door - just

...."to help the faithful find direction amid confusing points of view...".

The appalling Eamonn De Valera said, "The majority has no right to be wrong." That's the kind of thinking that led to IRA bombings in quiet market places even in the Republic and the death and maiming of innocent children in the name of 'the right idea'.

I have come to believe that small groups who know what is right for everyone are to be avoided like the Black Death.

Of course the majority is often wrong. They read The Telegraph for example. But on a good day they have more to offer than the pure small core of faithful.

My mother used laugh about the woman seeing her son,one of the soldiers marching past and saying, "Oh! Look, they're all out of step except Sandy."

The internet today provides more than enough opportunities for education in the futility of trying to engage with these people. As I argue, they need certitude in their lives even more desperately than they need food each day for their survival. There's never an absence of hierarchs around who are prepared to spoon feed them certitude.

Bishop David Walker is a fascinating individual in some respects. I've been reading a new attack on him in recent days by one of his priests that has been circulating by email but not yet been published anywhere on the internet that I can discover. He does have some ferocious enemies in his own ranks. My gut sense is that, like many of us in this place, he was "sold" on the optimistic, forward-oriented vision that was opened up by Vatican II. Today he finds himself increasingly like a fish out of water surrounded by company men and "ecclesial politicians" who don't believe in anything other than what they detect from which way the wind happens to be blowing on any particular day. I feel for the man. It must be demoralising today in a leadership position trying to maintain some optimism and hope for those dreams that fired the elites in Catholicism for, what in hindsight, we can now see was only about a decade and a half until the neanderthal element started to get real control of the institutional agenda.

I still think it is interesting to speculate on whether or not the Cardinal has had a change of thinking — not ideologically — but in terms of his ambitions within Australia or whether his focus is again on the international canvas. That could have a huge bearing on where things develop from here — for instance whether there is still a push on to re-amalgamate the Sydney metropolitan dioceses and create a mega-archdiocese to compete with Melbourne in the size of its treasury?

No, there won't be a French revolution, because there is no bastille to storm. And there will be no American because all the tea went overboard a long time ago.

If the Pope and his Cardinals want a "smaller, purer" Church, that is what they will get. He's the dictator.

And yes, people no longer have fear of "eternal damnation" - not even George Pell who hopes that no one will be in hell, and atheists can get to heaven.

The big stick has disappeared off the Cafeteria menu, and the carrots aren't all that appealing anymore.

Wouldn't the first step be to sit down with the people and find out why they are confused, and choosing to travel in the direction they are taking?

Would it be so hard to listen to the people, instead of dictating Rome's edicts to us? Not that we are listening to Rome any more, and won't, until some firm action is taken about addressing the problems of abuse.

A friend sent me a copy of the address given to youth in Brisbane by Archbishop Mark Coleridge. He says "The Year of Grace is a time for a change of heart, a time to leave behind the lonely pig-sty of "worthiness" and to come to the feast as daughters and sons of the Father. It is time to start afresh from Christ."

Does he forget that pig-styes cannot just be abandoned? They have to be either burnt down or thoroughly cleaned out and disinfected before they can be used again. Not a bad metaphor for the state of the Church, but probably not the way he meant it.

I do see the Year of Grace as a possible time for personal reflection and reexamination of life on the vital issues which affect us, but not just to take up the "party line" and run with it until extensive cleaning has been done first.

Does Archbishop Coleridge have the heart and guts to ask his people what they think, and why they are choosing to walk away from the Church and all it has stood for in our lives? No doubt the Temple Police will have the new Bishop of Toowoomba firmly under their micrscopes to see if he diverts from their beliefs and be ready to treat him as they did Bishop Morris.

I attended a Conference at the University of San Francisco about eight years ago where I heard Donald Cozzens argue that the Catholic Church was the last remnant of feudalism. I have long remembered that talk and my thought at the time that perhaps it all might end with another French Revolution or the American War of Independence? It's a bit like the big question of how the Universe might end: with a whimper or a bang? My gut sense today is that it's going to be a whimper — basically for the reasons you argue. While there are similarities between the Hierarchical Church and the Ancien Regime, there are also differences — one of them being that "the people" have more freedom to simply "walk away" and stop "paying the taxes"; or placing the money on the collection plate. In a country like Australia today the "money on the collection" plate is relatively insignificant compared to the others sources of income the institution has access to today. The hierarchs are largely independent of the "end users" paying their tax via the weekly collection plate — and the "end users" (the ordinary pew-sitters) have been slowly waking up that they are largely independent of the hierarchs. The threats of "eternal damnation" held against them by the hierarchs are largely considered to be hollow by the vast majority. Self-evidently from the fact that the vast majority of them no longer attend weekly Mass, they no longer have a fear of "eternal damnation" in not doing so.

Brian and All, I was accosted after a funeral Mass by a woman who overheard me talking about the Church. She was obviously one of the remnant. In the ensuing discussion I realised she is one who has been educated and trained to support the remnant cause in the Broken Bay diocese. The first person I was speaking to said my points of view sounded like Bishop David Walker's. The woman who accosted me had ready answers to all I mentioned as if she had been taught and convinced of the truth of her attacks on me. No matter what facts I came up with she had a ready answer. It occured to me she must be one of a group specifically trained as defenders of the last two popes and their bad decisions.

Francis

...."to help the faithful find direction amid confusing points of view...".

OUR WAY!

...."to help the faithful find direction amid confusing points of view...".

For Koch, the role of the local bishop is "to help the faithful find direction amid confusing points of view...". What a patronising and demeaning opinion Koch has of Catholics who are not confused but angry precisely because of such condescending treatment by Church leaders who should simply know better! Local bishops have simply become branch managers for Rome and can be forced from their Dioceses for their pastoral initiatives (such as Bishop Morris of Toowoomba). If the Pope is so interested in the "new evangelisation" renewal driven by small Church then he might disperse the College of Cardinals and empower local Churches to evangelise as the mustard seed of "hope" buried deep in the soil of their specific cultures.

Dan, if you never write another word - you have hit the nail on the head with this statement.

Helen

Joe, I like what you say - and I do sincerely hope that we are moving toward the 'Companionship of Empowerment' which would mean a far more organic church than the one we have now.

But it has to start somewhere - and if it means the world wide web is the place where it this movement starts then it gives a new meaning to universal.

Helen

Yes, I agree with you Desi, that the structure of the Catholic Church is that of a dictatorship, and it has been that way, for at least about 14 centuries, and maybe longer. What the dictator says, goes. Brian says that the Church's problems is a lack of leadership, and that no one is willing to take on the dictator.

It is not a question of anyone being unwilling, but of being unable. In civil society, a dictator can be overthrown by whoever has the guns. Or they may be forced out by protests on the streets - either way it is a question of force of one sort or another. Brian is right. Uproar amongst the laity will not make any difference because the Pope and his hierarchy have the control of the money and the property and the laity have no legal right to it. No one can really do anything. And the Pope has the means of making sure that his successor will also follow his party line, because he alone has the right to choose the Cardinals who will choose his successor.

But there is a big difference between civil society and a religion. In civil society, no one can opt out. You are stuck in it and if the dictator is oppressive, you have to suffer the opppression until he is forced out. You can fight back and overthrow him or her. If a democratic government is oppressive, you can throw them out at the next election. None of that applies in a religious dictatorship. If you want to believe in it, you are stuck with the system. If that system is dictatorial, then change can only ever come from the top.

But you can opt out of any religion. No one is forcing you to stay in it, at least in secular society. But if you are attached to the liturgy and the forms and the culture, you don't want to opt out completely, there is another way: just become Cafeteria. Just like George Pell is in his own way ("atheists can go to heaven"). Pick and choose what you want and ditch all the rest.

Joe, I find your analysis very perceptive.  In a nutshell you have described what happened after the first century,

"Down through history after the 1st century, great “Christian temples” were eventually erected in major cities, a place for God to again reside. Cathedrals, basilicas, churches, even in castle private chapels. God resided in these places at all times under the form of “consecrated bread.” God had been packaged, contained, controlled thru the incantation of special words spoken by a “priest.” People again for almost two thousand years had been turned away from what Jesus taught of where God is to be found."

God had been packaged, contained controlled thru the incantation of special words spoken by a "priest".

I also liked your description of Vatican II as providing a 'conversion' experience for the bishops.  A new Pentecost indeed.  And your questions about our perception of God. There is so much else in what you have written that I could comment on and agree with.  

Instead, I would come back with just one question:

If you were young, say about 25 years old, educated, and from a Catholic family that are probably no longer Mass attenders,  what would attract you to the Church of today, especially if you were no longer sure you even believed in God?

Sue

I do not have the brains or intuition to understand much you write but what I do understand, and your charity, help me in my on-going search out of induced ignorance to the Light.

Joe,

I think this is the gzillion dollar, puzzling question:

Why are the "Faithful to Vatican II" followers not beating much louder and larger drums to wake up the rest of the simple-faithful folk to what is to be the Church of the future as directed by the Holy Spirit?

Framed another way the question might read: How come a tiny remnant minority dictate the agenda for over a billion people?

It's a similar question that puzzles about the many civilisations that have disappeared off the face of the planet. It's the question the German or Japanese people must ask themselves about how they were nearly led to total defeat during the Second World War by small minorities within their populations? The only conclusion I can come to is that we're dealing with forces in the human psyche here that even with all the knowledge we have today we still know scarce little about. The vast majority of the population simply feel totally powerless in trying to engage with this remnant minority. Most people just feel they have to walk away rather than even try and engage with them in any kind of rational way.

I cannot see any alternative to the pattern that is now well-established — a continued slow drift out of the pews. There is not going to be some sudden "revolution" of the "Faithful to Vatican II followers". The price involved in fighting the remnant sector, and the ecclesial bureaucrats and politicians, is simply perceived to be "too high". I think the prognosis is that the institutional Catholicism we have known will end up looking little different to the Jehovah's Witnesses or some other small Christian denomination or sect. There will be little doubt that those still participating will sincerely believe that they alone hold the keys to the kingdom of God and all the rest of society are deluded and misguided if not heretics.

What's the missing ingredient? I think it essentially boils down to leadership. Who is prepared to "take on" the remnant? I don't think anybody is.

I sense the more likely scenario is the "phoenix arising from the ashes" one. There is still a great deal of interest in the world in these big questions of where did we come from; where are we going to; what does it all mean? The remnant are incapable of killing those questions off as much as they would like to ... and as much as they believe they have God on their side alone. Something will emerge out of the present destruction. What it might look like — even if it has some "institutional" or "heirarchical" characteristics? These are questions that are still open.

The typo has now not been corrected!

.

Submitted by Petrus Romanus (not verified) on May. 23, 2012.
This thoughtful article prompts these questions:

What would a hierarchy-less (maybe even clergy-less) Catholic church look like?

Would the vision of the Gospels be best served that way? Oh yes ... and the Spirit of Truth too?

Dogmatically possible or not, that's just where the Roman church is heading.

http://ncronline.org/blogs/just-catholic/following-money

Iknow the article is about the money tied up with the various religous orders, but this response caught my eye. Would it be possible for hiearchy less Church after centuries of this model? It this what we are seeking?

Helen

James (and, in fact, everyone else), I feel that I need to make the rules of the ‘game’ very, very clear (especially this morning!).

Whatever the ‘game’, there is only one MAN in charge (no matter how much help he may get in terms of advice eg reviewing decisions, and although he may have different titles such as Umpire, Referee or even Pope, his decision is FINAL.

It matters not a jot whether anyone thinks that he got a decision wrong (eg a ‘player/bishop’ –to coin a phrase- ‘dropping the ball’), what he says goes.

Also, it must be remembered that no matter how high the opinion any one man in Sydney might hold about himself and his knowledge of the ‘rules’, what the man in charge says ‘goes’.
(This in fact applies not just to ‘one man in Sydney’ but the whole of NSW!).

‘Followers’ can discuss the rights and wrongs of any decision, in the press, on TV, on Internet Forums and elsewhere, write as many articles as they like but, believe me, at the end of the day, it will make absolutely no difference.

No decision will be changed!

It may surprise readers to know that there are even some ‘supporters’ who are so ‘scrupulous’ in terms of the ‘rules’ as they were laid down when the ‘game’ was first established, that any ‘change’ is considered ‘sacrilegious’ and are even prepared to throw others out of the ‘club’ if they don’t agree with their ‘rules’. (A small insignificant minority but one that has the ear of the games ‘hierarchy’ and have even been known to send (confidential) e-mails to the ‘game's’ HO about 'abuses' of these rules!).

.
PS If anyone is in any doubt about the above then have a look in today’s newspapers!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

QLD 18.....NSW 10

Thanks James,

I can only surmise from all of this, is that more disharmony and antagonism is created as a result, not to mention the moral panic that this can instigate as well, the very thing that religion is often accused of doing, which doesn't contribute anything to a harmonious way of living, the very anathema of spirituality.

And I don't think you sound like a broken record, simply because it does take clear thinking such as yours, to wade through all the layers of mud that have buried the church into the state she is in. These things have needed repetition until we could clearly see through the mud of it all, so thanks for all of your efforts.

Liz.

Good one James?!
It does show you that one needs to be "serious" as to what may be consumed both physically and spiritualy, for one's well being?!
The RC church still plays an important part in providing that "menu",I feel?!
georgeh

Then your position stands as one which simply doesn't gel with the way religion operates. So why do you continue to rattle the cage, so to speak, when most people simply walk out the door and find their spirituality, if they still want it, elsewhere? If it's simply for the fact that you cannot let go of the tribalism involved, then you do a disservice to others who may try to find meaning within it all.

I suspect that there is a bit of tribalism involved, because the constant reminder that 90% of children brought up as Catholics or who attend Catholic schools cease to "participate" seems to have the lament of an old time member of a declining football club.

Likewise, if only we had a better coach, better backline and smarter tactics, things would be better - the Club house will be fuller,there would be more money in the coffers to train up new stars etc. etc.

I read Dan Donovan's first essay (the second was a very entertaining, but not surprising piece of Church history for those who had read about such shennanigans before) and there seems to be the same lament, that the current coaches, backline and forwards are inadequate for deep psychological reasons, and if we could only get them to go back to the tactics of Vatican II, the Club's glory days would return.

I was going to make some comment on the article along these lines, but thought I was beginning to sound like a cracked record. But let me crack again. It may be true that the decline may not have been so dramatic had there not been the determined attempts to undermine Vatican II, but the decline was happening before John Paul came along. And in some ways the Council was responsible for accepting that secular society had some good things about it - indeed, had shown the Church the way in many things. It also encouraged people to think - something that was regarded as dangerous before, unless you were prepared to bury your mind in the Summa Theologica (remember Modernism?).

It's obvious from those that did care about Vatican II, that they are now in their twilight years. Movements really do come and go. The Catholic Church is a religion and operates from an ancient source, utilising what religion does indeed do, in their rituals, sacraments and their smells and bells. This is the magic incantation that religion provokes within people.

I agree, and you only have to listen to people talk so seriously about crystals and astrology, and any other smorgasboard of New Age quantum concoctions to realise that this stuff is not going to go away. Does it really matter what form it takes or whether or not a new translation of abracadabra is driving followers away? Well, I suppose it does if you are attached to a particular tribe and are worried about its fall from the charts.

The real "problem" of religion at the moment is Sharia law, and it doesn't matter whether it is the Islamic variety, Catholic or Hindu variety. There was an interesting interview with Michael Kirby on the Religion and Ethics Report. Kirby bemoans the fact that something has changed in politics and politicians are forever talking about their religion. He points out that the founding fathers of our Constitution were adamant that Australian society would be secular - a fact that Pell & Co increasingly lament. But, he says, that provision in our Constitution was precisely to protect religion so that people could practie it the way they wanted to, and no one religion would dominate to impose its way on others.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/religionandethicsreport/22god-botherers22-...

If it (religion) is personal, there is much more freedom of consciousness involved, and one (I would hope) where I think we would have an increasing amount of people who operate in leadership positions that are far more enlightened than the likes of Tony Abbott and co.

I agree, and, to my mind it is much more healthy when the likes of Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull keep their Catholicism to themselves and don't splash it over the front pages of magazines the way Tony Abbott has been prone to do. But then, that is the Santamaria way.

Then your position stands as one which simply doesn't gel with the way religion operates. So why do you continue to rattle the cage, so to speak, when most people simply walk out the door and find their spirituality, if they still want it, elsewhere? If it's simply for the fact that you cannot let go of the tribalism involved, then you do a disservice to others who may try to find meaning within it all.

It's obvious from those that did care about Vatican II, that they are now in their twilight years. Movements really do come and go. The Catholic Church is a religion and operates from an ancient source, utilising what religion does indeed do, in their rituals, sacraments and their smells and bells. This is the magic incantation that religion provokes within people. The spirituality of such, is of a personal nature, and as we know from this DB alone, there are many ways of expressing this. Religion within Australia has been on the decline in academic circles for some time now, where even a major university such as the UQ has dropped the Study of Religion from it's curriculum, which shows the shift in perception of how one approaches such things. I think many see it more as something they personally engage in within their own personal lives, and why wouldn't they, when we have a secular society that offers us a smorgasbord from which to pick and choose to our hearts delight, and we don't have to belong to any dogmatic institution to do so? If it is personal, there is much more freedom of consciousness involved, and one (I would hope) where I think we would have an increasing amount of people who operate in leadership positions that are far more enlightened than the likes of Tony Abbott and co.