Linear
WEEKEND FORUM: Let us brain storm a positive vision of Catholicism... (Main Forum)
by Brian Coyne 
, LINDEN, NSW, Saturday, May 08, 2010, 13:05 (1138 days ago)
![[image]](http://www.catholica.com.au/gc0/bc2/images/CatholicVision_an_600x155.gif)
In an endeavour to try and shift our discussion away from the constant flow of negativity and depression that some of our leaders seemed pathologically attracted to offering us these days through their pronouncements and misguided policy directions, I thought we might try a brain-storming session today. If you were granted the power to create and inspire a form of Catholicism that was genuinely held in high regard by all people, not simply some minority which you, or some other person you might nominate might regard highly, what would be the characteristics of that Church? Last night I set down some thought-starters from my own personal perspective. The following list is not meant to be exhaustive but is an attempt to excite the neurons in your minds to expand on this list in a brain storm. In a "brain storm" one is seeking to accept all ideas rather than those that might be judged as practical/doctrinally sound/fitting in with some constitution or pre-defined set of 'rules'. The sorting out as to whether something can be implemented comes later.
This weekend let us have a "brain storm": What is the vision of a vibrant Catholicism you would like to see?
Here's my starter list:
The vision of a vibrant Catholicism I would like to see…
![[image]](http://www.catholica.com.au/img/DotPts_40x40.gif)
I would like to see a Church that is appealing to the broad masses in educated society not because 'mass appeal' indicates popularity per se but in the deeper sense that popularity, or the offering of respect by the broad community, indicates that the institution might be somewhere close to "getting its theologies and thinking correct". Some seem to believe that you prove how "close to truth" you are is by demonstrating how unpopular or "geeky" you are. It is seriously flawed thinking — a gross misunderstanding of the 'unpopularity' that Jesus was subjected to.
I would like to see Catholicism as a religious institution that is respected by the other great religious traditions not because it thinks it is "the one true Church", or the one with the most authentic claim to "Apostolic Authority", or "Divine Authority", but because it exhibits a deep humility in the face of all the great questions without answers about Life, about the meaning of our existence, about the great theological mysteries. I would see it earning its respect for its encouragement of all people in this great human quest for answers and "ultimate truth" — not constantly pretending that it alone has "ultimate truth" already.
I would like to see Catholicism respected by the peoples of the world again for all its great works to lift the poor out of their poverty and into personal dignity, to educate the great masses of humanity, its encouragement of higher education exploring at the very frontiers of human knowledge; as one of the prime agencies in society promoting justice in all its forms — the agency that lifts the disadvantaged to places of advantage; that provides comfort to those in sorrow, anxiety and pain not through analgesics but by encouraging them to find the reason or meaning for their sorrow, anxiety and pain and help them work through it in both scientifically and spiritually coherent ways.
I would like to see Catholicism as a moderating influence in society — an institution that is a respected voice of wisdom seeking everywhere to moderate excess whether it is the excesses in the way humanity exploits our natural resources and environment, the excesses in mob behaviours on the part of the masses, the excesses in the sectors of the population who have access to riches or who exercise power in significant degree over others, and the excesses in popular culture. It will not present itself as "always having the correct answers" but will be respected because as an institution it knows how to acknowledge its mistakes when it is brought to a realisation (either through its own self-knowledge or when it is pointed out by others) that it has made them.
I would like to see Catholicism — the whole Catholic community — again as a major patron and sponsor of the arts and all those people who are "pushing at the boundaries of insight and knowledge" — this would be across the gamut of all fields of "art" not just those that are seen as "high art" or "classical art". Again mistakes have to be accepted as part of this process but rather than setting itself up as judge of what has merit in society at the frontiers of knowledge I would like to see an institution that earns its respect as a leading voice in that collective human endeavour to discern what is of merit. In other words we earn our respect as leaders from a position of humility rather than presenting ourselves as "know alls" or a people with "all the answers" before humanity as a whole casts judgement. This points to a profound re-orientation in our theological outlook from one seeing God speaking exclusively through us, or our ecclesial leaders, to one of seeing God speaking through the entire human family, and if we merit a position of primacy it comes from our skill and discernment as leaders of the collective human effort to discern what our Creator-God is saying through this diverse channel of "all people".
What is the vision of a vibrant Catholicism you would like to see?
![[image]](http://catholica.com.au/images/CatholicaICO_30x30.jpg)
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedWEEKEND FORUM: Let us brain storm a positive vision of Catholicism...
by DavidC , Saturday, May 08, 2010, 15:25 (1138 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Great beginning Brian. I like all the points you make.
I'd add a few things, sometimes these are just differences in emphasis.
I'd like to see a catholicism that genuinely respects individual humans, one that accepts the primacy of individual conscience as fundamental. I hope for more than the lip-service sometimes advanced in support of "properly formed" conscience. For me this entails a catholicism that may have clear moral positions but that does not seek to impose its position on anyone, including its own members, through threats or manipulation.
I'd like to see a catholicism that engages the contemporary intellectual, artistic, economic and moral worlds respectfully and fearlessly from a position of equality. An example of what I have in mind is Rowan Williams in Richard Dawkin's interview of him which I posted as a link a couple days ago.
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/archbishop_of_canterbury/richard_dawkins_interviews_t...
I'd like a catholicism that realizes that Jesus called us to create the Kingdom of God, here and now, first in ourselves but also in the world in which we live. This involves each of us putting on the mind of Christ so that Christ lives within us. There are paths to this. Jesus taught them. And the church should teach and support people on the way.
I'd like a catholicism that acknowledges and accepts its past...all of it: the sublime and the wicked; the generous and the cruel; the genuine seeking of saints and the infallible pretenses. I'd like a catholicism that accepts that it is a human institution.
I'd like a catholicism that embraces the mysteries of life. not dogmatically but as respectful and humble contributing partners of all humans who engage ultimate questions. My ideal catholicism would help us to "Only not know", to bow in awe, to embrace our co=creative agency with God, to rejoice in the jubulance of the whole shebang. The Ultimate may be experienced but it is inexpressible and unfathomable.
I'd like a catholicism that entirely abandons the notion that salvation is a matter of true belief (no more Catechism of the Catholic Church) and entirely embraces the truth that God is love, unconditional, absolute, unbounded love.
I'd like a catholicism that can balance continuity and change. This catholicism could see Palestrina and Amanda McKenna as shapers of a broad and deep river of evolving worship. This catholicism makes use of its glorious past and celebrates its glorious present. This catholicism accepts that God's creative presence flows and evolves, and reprises, and surprises.
I'd like to see a catholicism based on the sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist as the signs and enactments of our individual and community commitments to create the Kingom of God on Earth. Now.
lockedWEEKEND FORUM: Let us brain storm a positive vision of Catholicism...
Thanks David - I agree with the direction you are thinking in, and am grateful to you and to Brian for getting this into words.
I do find it difficult to summarise such a big issue but one thing I would especially emphasise in my own 'positive vision' is discussed by Eugene Cullen Kennedy on NCR here:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/bulletins-human-side/what-truly-divides-church-isnt-traditio...
I strongly agree with him that the problem is not a division between conservatives and progressives, or traditionalists and Vat2 people. Brian, I'm never sure whether you are serious when you consign the dogmatic conservatives to 'hades or oblivion', but if you are serious I disagree - if they sincerely believe that what they are doing is right, then they are not to be condemned, only to be argued with.
As for traditional/conservative vs progressive/Vat2, God's people have room for a lot of diversity: so long as each respects the others' right to be different in these ways, recognising that all are attempting to walk in Christ's way and God's love, with the sort of spirituality and celebration that they themselves find nurturing.
The real division, as Kennedy suggests, is between healthy and unhealthy ways of leading others:
Healthy people give off healthy vibrations that we sense immediately. They make us feel comfortable and at ease with them and ourselves; they do not throw a lasso around us to rope and tie us for some cause or need of their own. Above all, we feel safe and free in their presence. That is healthy and it cannot be faked or counterfeited. . . . . . .
Unhealthy people or movements are out to gratify some need of their own and they use their persuasive skills or their superior position to achieve this.
I would describe 'unhealthy leadership' a little differently, because the hierarchy are aware of a responsiblity to the people, which adds another element to the way they use authority - if they are convinced of their own 'way', then they may honestly believe they are required to use that authority to coerce others to do the same. I am convinced that they are wrong, but they are not condemned to hades or oblivion for being sincerely wrong - they need arguing against (and if they are harming others we will try to stop them), however long it takes and however much we run out of energy and have to wait for others to see it our way and take up the argument. (If they are committing crimes, of course, as in the abuse cover-ups, that is another question.)
But if we were all, finally, to be judged on the standard of 'did anything you did, believing it to be right, harm anyone else', then there would be no hope for any of us. We are all, as Tom Kenneally has said, 'poor sodding pilgrims'. In finding our way through life, we often see later that what we did in sincerity in the past has indeed harmed others.
We need to be a truly forgiving church, if we are to be God's loving people walking in the way of Christ. We also need to help each other, and the institution of the church, to be better and better: forgiving doesn't mean not acting. But no one said that forgiving our enemy, or those who we see doing harm perhaps with good intent, is going to be easy - it isn't easy, it is just required.
Gaspode
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet. - Gerard Manley Hopkins
lockedHell or oblivion...
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Saturday, May 08, 2010, 18:59 (1138 days ago) @ Gaspode
Oh my God, there is already so much to discuss emanating from this string. I'm still only half-way through reading it ... and getting more excited with each post I open. Thank you to all of you.
Just a quick, brief response on the "Hell or oblivion" idea. Well I hope it will be brief. I think it is a huge territory within itself.
When I make those comments I am half-joking, Gaspode. I no longer believe in the "Hell" of Milton or Dante — burning fires and all that stuff. But neither do I believe in the "all merciful God" who is going to "save us all no matter what". I think we have been given adequate warning. We don't need to be "judged". As I wrote the other day I see God more in the role of a kindly janitor showing us which door we have chosen (if you can put this in visual terms) rather than as some stern high court judge sentencing the incorrigible prisoner to yet another lengthy term in jail.
Much of my own thinking in these matters has been formed by images we have access to today coming from the sciences and, particularly, fundamental physics, with the concepts like "dark matter", "anti-matter" and even "quantum perturbations". My sense is that it is these concepts, which humankind has only had access to relatively recently (in the last 100 years or so) which are probably what the more ancient theologians, artists and seers were imagining through intuition. On the other hand we also have this sense coming from science that nothing can be destroyed — the Laws of Conservation of various kinds, including energy, and Einstein's famous e=mc2 telling us of the relationship between matter and pure energy.
My personal sense is that there is a "hell". The problem is that the pictures of Milton and Dante have been so deeply embedded in our culture that it is difficult to shift them, or remove them. We need new artists to create fresh metaphors to help us explore this territory more deeply in the light of the insights modern science is giving us. My own personal sense — again derived from the knowledge I've acquired from my reading in the sciences — is that "hell", for want of a better term, is more likely to be some kind of 'oblivion' rather than 'fire and brimstone'. This accords with even the old Penny Catechism sense that it is a denial of being able to see, or live in the presence of the Divine. I suspect "oblivion" is a fate worse than 'fire and brimstone' — it's a sort of 'perpetual solitary confinement' to use another metaphor or analogy. From the stories we read of people who have been subjected to 'solitary confinement' it is a form of 'living hell'. In the end it is difficult to live with yourself — you literally 'go mad'.
In short I'm not convinced by the gooey, overly sentimental sense of "God loves everybody". The bugger has created anti-matter and dark matter — or, at least, allowed it to exist. I do not though have a sense that God 'consigns' anyone to Hell. Rather I have this sense that God 'warns' us of the possibility. We are the one's who 'choose' our final destination by the creeds we choose to follow, by the choices we make in life regarding what we believe and how we act and feel. It's a pretty brutal reality. And yes, I'm half serious therefore, that some of these people (leaders) who insist on leading large sectors of humanity 'up the garden path' are likely to be in for a pretty rude shock. Sucking up to God does not get anyone into 'heaven' but neither does relying on the 'infinite mercy' of God. He doesn't 'punish' though. God IS merciful and pure love. We are the ones who 'punish' ourselves by not thinking life, and all these matters, through in intelligent ways. We punish ourselves by not heeding the warnings.
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedHell or oblivion...
Brian, yes and no. I feel along with most of what you say here, but there is no good vocabulary to describe where I am with this sort of thing at the moment (which is why I haven't put in a proper answer to your original discussion-starter).
In so far as I can use the language 'God loves...' I would want to say that yes, God loves everyone, and that includes letting us make our own disastrous choices, so if someone chooses to be anti-human (for example, but again the language fails) then they make a choice against God and will not be part of 'God's ultimate destiny for his followers'. But the point I am trying to make is that people often take paths we disagree with, and which may harm other people, but take those paths because they honestly believe them to be GOOD for other people. That is not anti-human, and they have not 'turned away from God'. I know that at times I have harmed other people while intending to do them good, and I don't think that constitutes 'the door we have chosen', it's just a mistake of immaturity or ignorance. Even trad moral theology allowed 'invincible ignorance' to leave you innocent of the wrong you have done.
Damn the language - it doesn't work and I've got to go now.
Gaspode
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet. - Gerard Manley Hopkins
lockedHell or oblivion...
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Saturday, May 08, 2010, 21:01 (1138 days ago) @ Gaspode
Yes, and in turn I agree with much of what you are writing. As I suggested it is a massive issue to try and condense into a few paragraphs. I also raise the question of what happens, for example, to a person with an intellectual disability — or someone like my father who simply did not have access to any sophisticated education and had great difficulty with abstract thinking. I don't know the answers. I do retain a sense though that somehow or other in this concept we attribute to God of "infinite or perfect justice" (rather than infinite mercy) somehow the process does "iron out" all these things that are essentially irresolvable in our frame of reference.
I relate to what you write, Gaspode, in the matter of ourselves making mistakes or errors of judgement that bring hurt to other people even when the actions we took were well-intended. That hits home big time with me because of choices I made that I acknowledge changed the situation for my former wife and children. At the time I was endeavouring to "do the right thing" — and, more especially, for them rather than myself. My sense in those sort of matters is that we are called on to acknowledge our errors, even when they were not our direct responsibility. It's when, through fear or ego, that we refuse to acknowledge our errors that we bring disequilibrium into our lives — we diminish ourselves. Sometimes we are actually unable to restore the situation to whatever prevailed before the error of judgement. My own thinking is that is taken into account, the critical thing — in terms of our own (spiritual) well-being — is the ability to acknowledge our errors and learn from them even if it might be beyond our powers to actually restore some kind of equilibrium to whatever was thrown into disequilibrium by our choices.
I think you and I would both acknowledge this territory is complex. Some of the best minds in the whole of history have spent lifetimes engaged in trying to fathom it all out and even after a lifetime of contemplation not come up with final definitive answers.
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
locked
Hell or oblivion...
by desi , Australia, Saturday, May 08, 2010, 22:23 (1138 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Isn't the starting point, in all our thinking/understanding/longing/discussion etc, etc, our notion of 'God'.
I know that it was a huge step for me, personally, to move away from that 'elsewhere' understanding which I (unknowingly really) had had for so many years.
It is that teaching which is at the very heart of the Catholic Church, before they even touch on any other topic, the 'up-there' 'person' idea that Brian so eloquently waxes lyrical about!
So, my starting point would be an open discussion on this whole area.
Having read it back, I don't think that the above will add anything to the topic but hey, ho)!
lockedHell or oblivion...
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Saturday, May 08, 2010, 22:45 (1138 days ago) @ desi
Yes, Desi, this is the sort of thing I had in mind when I wrote recently that we are searching for a new "theology, Christology and ecclesiology". It upset one person to the point where they re-posted it on Cooees from the Remnant. Ultimately I think our starting point has to be in our understanding, as imprecise and imperfect as it might be given that we are dealing with "a Mystery" (the Mystery?) and a concept that is "totally other", with our understanding of God and the nature of the relationship God calls us collectively, and individually, into. God is not "up there" or "out there". For each of us he is "in here" — closer than our closest friend in the sort of phrases that Roch is always reminding us of. But while the likes of Benedict insist on taking us back to the quaint beliefs, devotionals and pieties of a by-gone era there is fat chance of advancing very far in the questions that do need exploration. Benedict seems perpetually locked into only wanting to appease what he calls "the simple people" and "the little people". At least in the educated world most people no longer think of themselves in those terms. I think we are now largely "on our own" to make sense of this stuff and I agree with you the starting point has to be these very fundamental questions of how we envisage God as either this "remote figure" — an "elsewhere God" as Michael Morwood has labelled him — or a God who is at the very core of the "being" of each one of us and the challenge we each face is how do we "listen" to the guidance of that "inner God" — how do we discern between the genuine "promptings of the Spirit" and sort that out from the cacophony made by our own ego and anxieties?
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedHell or oblivion...a choice in dimensional reality
I hate to keep quoting the Buddhists, but in this area, I believe, they are way beyond us in their imagining of the ultimate reality. Essentially, their teaching is that we all have an outer, or physical, body, and an inner body. This is actually a whole lot better conceptually than our Christian separation of matter and energy, soul and body, into two distinctly separate realities. According to the Buddhist teaching, the inner body is as unique and real as the physical body, but it carries with it consciousness and it survives the death of the physical body. The physicists are getting eerily close to this in their study of matter and energy (hmm . . . seeing any parallels here?) Waves are particles and particles are waves. They can figure out the strong force and the weak force but they can't figure out what they term GUT (the great unifying theory of everything), although immediately upon reaching this conclusion nearly every one of them sets out to try to do so. This drive to figure everything out using our brains is just how we are hard-wired. We are limited by our limitation of being. We're stuck here in a linear space and time and all the brainpower in the world won't get us anywhere near GUT. That, in my opinion, is what the Resurrection was all about. Try to figure that one out! No more possible with brainpower than parsing out GUT.
So we have these limitations and the only way to see a little bit behind the curtain is with our hearts/souls, which, in Buddhist teaching, are intimately interconnected with the inner body we all have. If we've let go of our reliance on brainpower and allowed our consciousness to open up to Spirit, we become, as they term it, more "enlightened," and at death, the inner body and soul are better able to open up to ultimate reality.
Lewis put it best in, The Great Divorce. Here's the Wikipedia summary of the story:
"In The Great Divorce, the narrator suddenly, and inexplicably, finds himself in a grim and joyless city (the "grey town", representative of hell). He eventually finds a bus for those who desire an excursion to some other place (and which eventually turns out to be the foothills of heaven). He enters the bus and converses with his fellow passengers as they travel. When the bus reaches its destination, the "people" on the bus — including the narrator — gradually realize that they are ghosts. Although the country is the most beautiful they have ever seen, every feature of the landscape (including streams of water and blades of grass) is unbearably solid compared to themselves: it causes them immense pain to walk on the grass, and even a single leaf is far too heavy for any of them to lift.
Shining figures, men and women whom they have known on earth, come to meet them, and to persuade them to repent and enter heaven proper. They promise that as the ghosts travel onward and upward, they will become acclimated to the country and will feel no discomfort. These figures, called "spirits" to distinguish them from the ghosts, offer to assist them in the journey toward the mountains and the sunrise.
Almost all of the ghosts choose to return instead to the grey town, giving various reasons and excuses. Much of the interest of the book lies in the recognition it awakens of the plausibility and familiarity, along with the thinness and self-deception, of the excuses that the ghosts refuse to abandon, even though to do so would bring them to "reality" and "joy forevermore".
The narrator is met by the writer George MacDonald, whom he hails as his mentor, just as Dante did when encountering Virgil in the Divine Comedy; and MacDonald becomes the narrator's guide in his journey, just as Virgil became Dante's. MacDonald explains that it is possible for a soul to choose to remain in heaven despite having been in the grey town; for such souls, their time in hell has been a period of testing, and the goodness of heaven will work backwards into their lives, turning even their worst sorrows into joy, and changing their experience on earth to an extension of heaven. Conversely, the evil of hell works backwards also, so that if a soul remains in, or returns to, the grey town, even its happiness on earth will lose its meaning, and its experience on earth would have been hell. None of the ghosts realize that the grey town is, in fact, hell. Indeed it is not that much different from the life they led on earth: joyless, friendless, and uncomfortable. It just goes on forever, and gets worse and worse, with some characters whispering their fear of the "night" that is eventually to come.
According to MacDonald, heaven and hell cannot coexist in a single soul, and while it is possible to leave hell and enter heaven, doing so implies turning away (repentance); or as depicted by Lewis, giving up paltry worldly pleasures and self-indulgences — which have become impossible for the dead anyway — and embracing ultimate and unceasing joy itself.
In answer to the narrator's question MacDonald confirms that what is going on is a dream. The use of the chess game imagery as well as the correspondence of dream elements to elements in the narrator's waking life are reminiscent of Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass.
The narrator discovers that the vast grey town and its ghostly inhabitants are minuscule to the point of being invisible compared with the immensity of heaven and reality. This is illustrated in the encounter of the blessed woman and her husband: she is surrounded by gleaming attendants while he shrinks down to invisibility as he uses a collared tragedian to speak for him.
Toward the end, the narrator expresses the terror and agony of remaining a ghost in the advent of full daybreak in heaven, comparing the experience to having large blocks fall on one's body (at this point falling books awaken him)."
Heaven is truly here and now, and to come. So is hell. We choose, at every moment while chained to our current limitations, whether we will transcend them through the gift of eternal life, or allow them to turn us into incredible shrinking beings.
Stories. That's really all we have are stories, of what reality might be. And promises. "In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I not have told you? I go to make a place for you, and if I go, I will come again, and take you to myself, that where I am, there also you may be."
lockedHell or oblivion...a choice in dimensional reality
by DavidC , Monday, May 10, 2010, 04:32 (1137 days ago) @ Dawn Elaine
Dawn,
Thanks for this post. If you have not seen it you might be interested in Paul Knitter's "Without the Buddha I Could Not Be a Christian" in which he explores what he thinks are productive cross pollinations of Buddhist and Christian thought.
lockedWhat is killing Catholicism and Christianity...
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Monday, May 10, 2010, 15:39 (1136 days ago) @ Dawn Elaine
Thanks for that post, Dawn. It's uplifting to read it. My own sense of what is killing Christianity is not Buddhism, or Atheism, or Science, or Secularism, or Consumerism, or "the bloody liberals and cafeteria Cafflicks", blah, blah, blah... It is simple mindedness or bloody mindedness! That's what the younger generations are walking away from. It is this perpetual fear about embracing the Mystery of Creation and the Mystery of the Divine and this perpetual need to appease a tiny sector of Christianity by feeding them certitudes; absolutes where there are none; idolatry and superstition instead of 'faith'; all of the foregoing instead of the Mystery, or the Truth that to many questions there are no clear-cut answers — we have to learn to live "in the Mystery" or "with the Mystery".
I think this line from the video "What the Bleep" is not only the best line the film but is one of the best summaries of what it is all about that I know...
This clip may take a few seconds to download!
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedWEEKEND FORUM: Let us brain storm a positive vision of Catholicism...
by Jerome , Saturday, May 08, 2010, 21:37 (1138 days ago) @ Gaspode
What a great idea to focus on this theme, Brian!
Gaspode, your comments ring a bell for me.
My first focus for comment is the introduction to this theme..
“In an endeavour to try and shift our discussion away from the constant flow of negativity and depression that some of our leaders seemed pathologically attracted to offering us these days through their pronouncements and misguided policy directions, I thought we might try a brain-storming session today.”
Could it be said that Catholica chooses to highlight the “constant flow of negativity and depression” while perhaps ignoring other positive and ‘faith growing’ sources that are “offered”?
I have a suggestion.
How about having an editorial policy that ensures that topics published are an equal ratio of questioning/critical themes and positive/ good-practice themes?
If readers wish to respond to the critical themes that is fine – no limits.
If readers wish to respond to positive themes that is fine – no limits.
I always admire the fantastic efforts that Peter and others put into finding links to stories and they are all very newsworthy, but I wish that there would be a more deliberate balance between the positive and negative. There are millions of Christians on this planet. Surely there must be at least 100 positive stories emanating from them every day???
lockedCivil Discussion and Schornborn
I'd like to see a catholicism that engages the contemporary intellectual, artistic, economic and moral worlds respectfully and fearlessly from a position of equality. An example of what I have in mind is Rowan Williams in Richard Dawkin's interview of him which I posted as a link a couple days ago.
David, I missed this interview when you first put it up (we can't be screen starers all the time), but have now seen it. There was one thing that struck me about it.
It was the utter civility with which they both discussed the whole issues of God, Christianity etc.
This was so unlike the Dawkins of the cheap shots at the Atheist Forum in Melbourne. I don't recall Rowan Williams ever taking cheap shots, but George Pell does it all the time whenever he sets up his "secular" and "relativist" straw men, and, more recently, his suggestion that secular society was pushing pedophilia as just another sexual preference, a truly lame, untrue and offensive excuse for the behaviour of some of his fellow priests.
Christoph Schornborn is an interesting person, raising issues that bother many in Catholica. He is interesting for another reason as well. He comes from a very rich (I assume they still are), aristocratic German family.
I remember being in the city of Wurzburg many years ago, which had a fine medieval and renaissance castle on the hill which was the Elector Bishop's residence. But one of Cardinal Schornborn's relatives, the Elector Bishop of Würzburg Johann Philipp Franz von Schönborn decided that he wanted a town house as well. So, in 1720, he commissioned a famous architect Balthasar Neumann to design him one.
The building was eventually completed in 1744 by his brother who also became the Elector Bishop, Friedrich Carl von Schönborn, and was called by Napoleon, "the best parsonage in Europe".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%BCrzburg_Residence
I mention this little bit of historical trivia because it was on my visit there that I first realized why there had to be a Reformation and an Enlightenment.
The Residenz in Wurzburg is worth seeing for being so over the top in its ostentatious wealth. Admittedly it was built 200 years after Luther, but it just showed how the Church, where it was still in control in the South of Germany, had still not changed its spots.
Here was the Bishop, who even by todays standards would have to be immensely wealthy to have two such homes, but in the first half of the 18th. century had to be hundred times wealthier in comparison to the general population of his time. The Bishops were kicked out of there in the early 1800s with the roll on effect throughout Europe of the French Revolution and the secularization of the State with the rise of the Enlightenment.
Maybe it will be another Schonborn, but for quite different reasons, who will set off another Reformation and Enlightenment within the Church itself to shake it to its foundations.
Like with the Wurzburg Residenz, the reformation won't be before time.
lockedCivil Discussion and Schornborn
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Saturday, May 08, 2010, 22:12 (1138 days ago) @ James
James, thanks for that wonderful digression. I've just spent a fascinating hour or so exploring the Würzburg Residenz, and much else, including the Wikipedia page on Christoph Schönborn himself [LINK]. The Wikipedia page on the Residenz also has a LINK to an excellent virtual tour of the palace complete with audio commentary about the various rooms and garden. I have a distrust of people born with a silver spoon in their mouth but this man certainly has a most interesting pedigree and seems to have studied hard and in many disciplines.
Like you I also enjoyed the dialogue between Rowan Williams and Richard Dawkins and came to a similar conclusion to the one you have come to:
This was so unlike the Dawkins of the cheap shots at the Atheist Forum in Melbourne. I don't recall Rowan Williams ever taking cheap shots, but George Pell does it all the time whenever he sets up his "secular" and "relativist" straw men, and, more recently, his suggestion that secular society was pushing pedophilia as just another sexual preference, a truly lame, untrue and offensive excuse for the behaviour of some of his fellow priests.
I think one of the major problems that has gotten the institution into the pickle it is in stems from how every intelligent priest, bishop and cardinal up and down the line has effectively been silenced out of a perpetual fear of upsetting this small minority in the institution who have become labelled as the "temple police". I know from my conversations with at least a couple of bishops that they are afraid of them not in the sense that they are fearful of 'getting into trouble' so much as you simply cannot win an argument with these people, or 'shake them off'. They're like dogs with a bone. It is impossible to reason with such people. They simply cannot take "no" for an answer about anything. Ordinary classroom teachers, school principals, parish priests right the way up to cardinals have simply found that for their own sanity it is best not to provoke these people. The consequence is that the only ones who do speak out in the media tend to be the Pell's of this world who themselves seem to have hides as thick as elephants. It is now a cancer that has eaten the heart out of Catholicism as an institution. I honestly don't believe the cancer can be stopped without intervention from the top and that is extremely unlikely to happen especially given that Benedict seems intent on promoting a man like George Pell. He must be the most ambitious prelate we have ever seen in Australia. The truth is that there are probably a couple of Australian leaders who might make good Prefects for the Congregation of Bishops, or to undertake the visitation to Ireland but they're not 'ambitious' men and their talents will be completely overlooked.
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedAmbition in the Church
George Pell...must be the most ambitious prelate we have ever seen in Australia. The truth is that there are probably a couple of Australian leaders who might make good Prefects for the Congregation of Bishops, or to undertake the visitation to Ireland but they're not 'ambitious' men and their talents will be completely overlooked.
I have to admit that I have never seen anyone like him, although one got used to picking the politicians in the seminary. Pell is the consummate politician in a frock.
But the behavior of politicians in a democracy is slightly different to that in an absolute monarchy. A politician in a democracy has to watch everything he says because the voters can throw him out at the next election.
Klaus Ziegler in El Espectador, in speaking about political rhetoric this week pointed out that neuroscience is discovering that not all linguistic functions speech appears to be located in the rational part of our brain, the neocortex.
"Some seem to be under the control of the emotional or limbic system which explains why a simple succession of events can induce an immediate emotional reaction, without the semantic content being important, as happens with verbal insults, obscene language and political rhetoric."
Political rhetoric is therefore geared to stirring up the emotions, and often relies on nationalism and other calls to herd behaviour. Further, such rhetoric is usually devoid of content, such as "There can be no turning back" (from what?). "I am the candidate for change" (for what?). "We need investor confidence" (how?)
"A candidate on the campaign trail knows that he always runs the risk of offending our wounding the interests of one part of the electorate, no matter what he says, and especially if he tells the truth or reveals what he really thinks. This explains why political discourse has to be generic and ambiguous and why politicians are forced do give answers that do not involve some risk."
Ziegler is of course here talking about democracies where power comes from the bottom up. The successful politician is the one who listens to the movements within community feeling and then directs his rhetoric towards those ends, no matter what he really thinks about the issues. All of them do it and it is more obvious in some than in others.
The difference in an absolute monarchy like the Church is that the ambitious clergyman politician does not have to listen to what the "laity" have to say, because they do not decide his rise to the top. But he has to do the same thing, to smell the prevailing winds of the shifts of power and opinion at the top and direct his rhetoric in that direction.
It will be toeing the party line in accordance with what he perceives to be the views of the absolute monarch and the courtiers that he has gathered around him - and again, irrespective of what he really thinks about their ideologies. He can say what he likes to the laity and the clergy lower than him, as offending and upsetting them is not important. So long as whatever he says is straight down the party line, he is on the way to the top.
Once the ambitious clerical politician smells the ideological winds, he gets rewarded with further advancement until he gets to the point of having some influence on the choice of bishops, and more importantly on the choice of Cardinals. Ratzinger held this position with JPII for over 25 years.
Then, when the Pope dies and the jostling starts, we see a return to what we are more used to in democratic societies. The rhetoric changes because it is now directed downwards towards the electors, one's fellow Cardinals. But if he has played his cards right, an aspirant Pope has done his best to have like minded people appointed to that office - and indeed they owe him some favours.
Ratzinger played this role superbly, and one could see in his elections speeches (he would call them sermons) before the Conclave, we had the same rhetoric (you know, secularism, materialism, relativism...all the buzz words) directed towards his electorate...and bingo, he was in.
It will be interesting to watch how our Australian clerical politican fares in this survival of the wiliest. So far he gets full marks.
lockedAmbition in the Church
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Sunday, May 09, 2010, 10:22 (1138 days ago) @ James
I have to admit that I have never seen anyone like him, although one got used to picking the politicians in the seminary. Pell is the consummate politician in a frock.
I think many share your point of view, James. The attention this guy stirs up in the international media, and amongst the high profile international Catholic journalists and prominent bloggers, is quite extraordinary. While he does have an ideological core for sure, I also have this sense that had the "ecclesial political climate" been running in a consistently different direction to what it has been under JPII and Benedict this guy is such an ambitious and 'political animal' he'd have been equally prominent in that alternative climate. I sense there is a constant internal tussle there between his ideological preferences and his ambition or drive to be constantly at the centre of the action. Your analysis of the different ways in which "politics" is played out in a democracy and in an absolute monarchy has much to commend it.
The sense I pick up is that he was extremely successful in ingratiating himself with JPII to the point that for a period he was almost single-handedly picking who would be the bishops right across this country. He fell out of favour for a while in having that sort of influence. If he gets this position as head of the Congregation of Bishops I should imagine there will be a big pay-back time.
One of the saving graces in all of this is that he has developed a reputation for making hopeless appointments. The number of "disasters" left in his wake is almost as impressive as the international attention he creates. That augers well for him continuing to be a major contributor to the continued collapse of the institution. If the Australian church can put up with the short term pain of the appointments he will make in this place my confident prediction is that he will be the best appointment Benedict could ever make to bring about the collapse of the entire institution by simply driving most people out of the pews. We live at a fascinating moment in world history and ecclesial history.
If there really is a "last judgement" in the style in which Michaelangelo painted it, when it is handed down I'd just hate to be standing in the shoes or minds of any of these recent blokes who at every turn have endeavoured to undo, or re-interpret, Vatican II!
Personally I have now lost all hope in seeing the spirit that animated the collective episcopal leadership at Vatican II being restored. The collapse of the institution will continue. Benedict will create his "purist" remnant far more successfully than anything JPII or Ottaviani ever achieved. It will not convince the youthful generations of the future though. The fascinating question now, in my opinion, is what sort of institution they (the coming generations) end up creating to replace this one that nurtured our generation and those that came before us? Will they have a sense that they even need an "institution" like the Church or will something completely fresh evolve as the mechanism through which society nurtures and develops the "spiritual" dimension? I sense there continues to be enormous "spiritual energy" in the world — perhaps more than at any other recent period. At present it seems to be in a phase of 'rejecting the old certitudes' without necessarily yet having an alternative set of coherent answers. Society seems to be in a "searching phase" for both answers and for some kind of structure that supports whatever the "answers" might indicate needs to happen — what part a "spiritual or religious structure" might play in the future of human civilisation.
My own sense is that some kind of structure will be required but that could be flowing from my own innate conservative nature. I am open to the possibility at least intellectually that what emerges in the future will not require "structure" in the sense we have thought of the meaning of that word in the past. For example, and this is just one possibility, if there is a structure in the future it might be more in the nature of the United Nations, or the Parliament of the World's Religions, or the sort of structure the Orthodox and Eastern Churches have long operated under.
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedAmbition in the Church
While he does have an ideological core for sure, I also have this sense that had the "ecclesial political climate" been running in a consistently different direction to what it has been under JPII and Benedict this guy is such an ambitious and 'political animal' he'd have been equally prominent in that alternative climate.
That is the point I was making about politicians in general, except that politicians in a democratic system have to look to the voters to find their room for manoevre - otherwise they are out at the next election. On the other hand, politicians in an absolute monarchy are always looking up to see where the winds are blowing in the upper echelons.
But these comments are not confined to George Pell. Ratzinger himself is a classic, and I am sure that you can point to just about anyone who has got as far as they have in the ideologically straight jacketed days of JPII to find similar examples.
As for what the young pew deserters are going to look for, I guess it is just wait and see. But you see a little bit of the pull of religion in all the Anzac stuff, in environmentalism, not to mention crystal balls, tarot cards, Deepak Chopra, the Bagwash Rajneesh, resurrected and marketed with a new name, "Osho", as well as various other forms of Christianity or Islam that they decide are more "authentic".
But on the other hand, I think a lot will just accept the mysteries that they see about life as being just that and not needing any other explanation, which after all just creates more. They will try to live good and useful lives according to their lights, and will accept the inevitability of their passing and the wiping out of their cerebral hard disks, just like seems to happen with every other animal on the planet.
I think what we are seeing is a separation of religion from what might be termed "spirituality", the need to refresh the spirit, and people will do that in the different ways that they find most useful and that works best for them.
lockedNo more catechism?
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Saturday, May 08, 2010, 22:27 (1138 days ago) @ DavidC
David,
Yes, yes, yes up to when I came to this paragraph
I'd like a catholicism that entirely abandons the notion that salvation is a matter of true belief (no more Catechism of the Catholic Church) and entirely embraces the truth that God is love, unconditional, absolute, unbounded love.
I've been mulling on it since I read it earlier today. I agree up to a point about abandoning "the notion that salvation is a matter of true belief" and "entirely embraces the truth that God is love, unconditional, absolute, unbounded love." It's the bit in parenthesis that worries me. I don't have a sense that the Catechism per se is the problem — I use it a lot (and it was interesting to learn, or be reminded further down this thread, that earlier in his career Christoph Schönborn played a prominent part in its production). To me the problem is again this sector that doesn't know how to use it, or scripture, and tries to literalize everything in creation. I do think we need these texts which attempt to 'sum up' as it were the body of our collected collective wisdom and insight. To throw out the texts makes us little more than the barbarians in earlier phases of our history who 'burned books', or people at the stake, or who attempted to introduce 'indexes of forbidden books'.
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedNo more catechism?
by DavidC , Sunday, May 09, 2010, 10:56 (1137 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Brian,
I had a qualm or two when I wrote the parenthetical remark. I had two reasons for leaving it in. First is that I think the "true belief" obsession of Christianity in general, not just catholicism, is a disease that distorts the Gospel message. It makes Christianity a matter of the head (primarily) and less of the heart, actions, and mode of being. My second reason is that the CCC depends so heavily upon the salvation-history, inherent sinfulness of man, sacrifice, and redemption story that requires an elsewhere God to be intelligible without it.
Of course there are other things in the CCC not so dependent on "God's plan of salvation". I imagine that any Catholicism that develops will have some form of catechism that sets forth what it is.
My thought is not to ban the catechism, just to not use it because it would not be useful to the reformed catholicism I have in mind. At another point in my post I spoke of acknowledging all that the church has been and done and that would include the CCC reasons for accepting a different version of Christianity as truer to Jesus' intent.
lockedNo more catechism?
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Sunday, May 09, 2010, 11:07 (1137 days ago) @ DavidC
Yes, David, those thoughts sit comfortably with me. I agree with your sense that the present Catechism has been heavily influenced by Atonement Theology. That's perhaps understandable given the 'political' climate in which it was written and who were its major sponsors (JPII and BXVI).
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedWEEKEND FORUM: Let us brain storm a positive vision of Catholicism...
by Helen , The other side of Australia, Saturday, May 08, 2010, 17:15 (1138 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
After attending the lecture by Sandra Schneiders this week, I have a much more positive view of what the Catholic Church should be as opposed to what it is.
Now why can't women preach? Sandra had far more to say about Jesus and the Gospels and the history of interpretation of the Bible than the priests at my local parish will ever know. Thank goodness I was able to attend, but it still saddens me to think that we only ever hear male voices when talking about God.
Helen
Let us light a candle and say to the dark, we beg to differ
lockedFemale voices talking about God
I totally agree with you, Helen. It is possible to hear female voices, as you have just done, but we have to take decisive action to hear them - look for a book, read a good religious journal, notice a radio or TV broadcast coming, find something on the internet. In the ordinary way, the average Catholic hears her priest in the parish and the spokesMEN who are quoted in the daily press.
Lift up your voice, Helen, be not afraid. Are there any discussion groups in your parish or area that you could contribute to and be strengthened by?
At least on Catholica no one is trying to silence the women - on the contrary, thank you fellow-Catholicans. 
Gaspode
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet. - Gerard Manley Hopkins
lockedFemale voices talking about God
by Helen , The other side of Australia, Saturday, May 08, 2010, 17:37 (1138 days ago) @ Gaspode
Dear Gaspode
Thanks for your support - as for my parish, well they have just introduced altar bells - the first time I have heard them at this church in 20 years. So you see, there would be no discussion groups I could possibley belong to - we are fast going back to the past never mind the future!!!
Helen
Let us light a candle and say to the dark, we beg to differ
lockedFemale voices talking about God
Hi Helen - I'm just back from mass, and being as how it's mothers' day this weekend, we had an additional 'reflection' (which is what you call a homily when it's given from the usual homily lectern, but not by the priest). This was a reflection on the experience of motherhood, by (gasp) a mother - she didn't actually mention God, but it was a near miss, and she was very practical and honest, and quite funny (especially for the other mothers and grandmothers present). One small step for womankind, but not yet a giant leap.
We also had the sanctuary bell re-introduced by our last pp but one, and it still survives, at least some of the time, but given how people-centred our liturgy is, I don't find it especially offensive.
Gaspode
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet. - Gerard Manley Hopkins
lockedFemale voices talking about God
by Helen , The other side of Australia, Saturday, May 08, 2010, 20:50 (1138 days ago) @ Gaspode
[quote]We also had the sanctuary bell re-introduced by our last pp but one, and it still survives, at least some of the time, but given how people-centred our liturgy is, I don't find it especially offensive.
[/quote]
But the parish I belong to used to be so progressive and the Parish Priest who retired (he was after all 70) was the most spiritual, encouraging, full of support for the laity, one of us type of bloke - and now we get conservative overseas trained priests who are bringing back the old ways, which does include the altar bells. As my friend the retired PP reckons, "wait they will bring back the altar rails as well", which may sound far fetched, but hey, we know it happens.
Helen
Let us light a candle and say to the dark, we beg to differ
lockedFemale voices talking about God
Helen,
In our diocese any mention of Vatican II brings stares and hurtful comments. Any thoughts of Paul's message of "neither male nor female" are out of the question. Sometimes I wonder if the Church had had female clergy how the child abuse situation would have played out. Maybe we need to rediscover Jesus before the theologians buried him in doctrine and rituals.
My wife and I have two wonderful and bright daughters that would have been great priest and have given so much to the world. Both are very spiritual individuals but neither will set foot inside a Catholic Church. We still attend Mass, but each Sunday it a little harder knowing the paradigm of doctrine no longer fits the changing cosmology of our universe. Jesus has already given us the kingdom and our future shared divinity has been assured.
lockedFemale voices talking about God
by Helen , The other side of Australia, Monday, May 10, 2010, 01:20 (1137 days ago) @ RLWalters
In our diocese any mention of Vatican II brings stares and hurtful comments. Any thoughts of Paul's message of "neither male nor female" are out of the question. Sometimes I wonder if the Church had had female clergy how the child abuse situation would have played out. Maybe we need to rediscover Jesus before the theologians buried him in doctrine and rituals.
Your diocese sounds like mine!
I wonder if in fact we are part of one global diocese and that we are only lulled into believing that we belong to a diocese in a geographical location just to keep us quiet!! 
Helen
Let us light a candle and say to the dark, we beg to differ
lockedGlobal Diocese???
R.L.Walters [USA] said – “Helen - In our diocese any mention of Vatican II brings stares and hurtful comments. Any thoughts of Paul's message of "neither male nor female" are out of the question .. My wife and I have two wonderful and bright daughters .. but neither will set foot inside a Catholic Church. We still attend Mass, but each Sunday it a little harder knowing the paradigm of doctrine no longer fits the changing cosmology of our universe. Jesus has already given us the kingdom and our future shared divinity has been assured.”
HELEN responded – “Your Diocese sounds like mine. I wonder if, in fact, we are part of one Global Diocese and that we are only lulled into believing that we belong to a Diocese in a geographical location to keep us quiet!!”
Global Diocese????!! Whatever happened to the “Bishop of the Universe” – Chris Toohey, former Bishop of Wilcannia-Forbes in western New South Wales?
Where is MY Bishop [Archbishop]? I don’t know. He never talks to me and I never talk with him – not in any deep and meaningful way. E-mail? I tried that a few times with my PP – using the Email Address that he provided in the Parish Bulletin. But such “posts” are not en-couraged. They are dis-couraged. We are reminded of the “good old days” before Vatican Council II [1962-65] when the Laity were expected to “pray up, pay up and shut up”!
We are “growing closer and closer APART” – around the Globe and within the Cosmos.
Whatever happened to the Cosmic Body of Christ’s Incarnation – and of OUR incarnation?
Grahame
____________________________________________________________
[1] http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?id=47307
[2] http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?id=47320
lockedWEEKEND FORUM: Let us brain storm a positive vision of Catholicism...
by curlie que , Saturday, May 08, 2010, 17:34 (1138 days ago) @ Helen
Wish I could have joined you!!!!!!! 
lockedHelen, interesting info. in their weekly newslette which I just received.
Karen Walsh Homilist 8-9 May 2010
Mother’s Day, Common Dreams (progressive spirituality conference), Common Ground, and all spoken about by a 'common' mother!
Our homilist this weekend is Karen Walsh.
Not unusual but always great to see.
lockedSt Mary's S. Brisbane
by Helen , The other side of Australia, Saturday, May 08, 2010, 17:45 (1138 days ago) @ desi
I would love to see this at St Mary's Cathedral Perth or St Mary's Cathedral Sydney!!!!
Helen
Let us light a candle and say to the dark, we beg to differ
lockedSt Mary's S. Brisbane
Karyn Walsh is a truly remarkable woman.
The St Mary's site usually has videos of previous homilies
PaulW
lockedSt Mary's S. Brisbane, Homilies
by desi , Australia, Saturday, May 08, 2010, 18:47 (1138 days ago) @ PaulW
lockedWEEKEND FORUM: Let us brain storm a positive vision of Catholicism...
by Jerome , Saturday, May 08, 2010, 23:17 (1138 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
I believe that we are all on a journey to do the best with our lives according to our talents and abilities.
The best we can do always involves others.
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life”
What exactly is the “the way and the truth?”
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
It is a very personal thing, but it must involve others.
It must involve community
Community is about personal interaction.
I do not see any hierarchy in that.
I do see ponds with ripples.
I see persons in community and that community has ‘good energy’
I see like minded communities interacting and networking.
I see the emergence of talented people who can articulate and animate others.
I recognise the crucial element of subsidiarity.
I see a network that continually seeks to put today’s issues in terms of the common good of humanity and creation as a whole.
I see leadership that is focused on promoting that sacredness of creation and humanity in a humble, respectful and fearless way.
I see a ‘common good’ being promoted that is inclusive of all cultures.
I see Catholicism as a major contributor and leader in that movement.
lockedPositive: A challenge for old progressives to use their wisdom
A positive article from NCR that speaks to this thread, looking at the possibility of 'old progressives' working with the educated young who are seeking but not finding in the RCC.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/young-voices/challenge-old-progressives
Lots of interesting comments, too.
Gaspode
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet. - Gerard Manley Hopkins
lockedPositive: Mysticism, prophecy, alive and well. Thanks Be To God
by Helen , The other side of Australia, Sunday, May 09, 2010, 00:56 (1138 days ago) @ Gaspode
lockedUn-Blinding Young Catholics
On 30 June 1962 – 103 days before Vatican Council II started on 11 October – the Bureaucrats of the former “Holy Office” issued their “Monitum” warning the world’s Bishops to blind the minds of the Faithful – especially of Young Catholics – to the Prophetic Writings of the Jesuit Mystic or “Seer” Pierre Teilhard (1881-1955).
As a result – 45 years after the Council – the vast majority of Catholics around the world know nothing about the Cosmic Christology and Christic Cosmology of the first six centuries of the Church.
Overshadowed by the Neo-Arianism of Islam for nearly 1300 years since the death of Muhammad (570-632), we have re-discovered the Cosmic dimensions of Christ’s Incarnation and the Christ-centred nature of the Cosmos only in recent decades, thanks mostly to the work of Teilhard [1] – Mystic and Prophet.
Grahame
______________________________________________________
[1] Joseph Ratzinger [now Pope Benedict XVI] 1971 “Introduction to Christianity” Herder & Herder, p.52
lockedWEEKEND FORUM: Let us brain storm a positive vision of Catholicism...
by Helen , The other side of Australia, Sunday, May 09, 2010, 00:29 (1138 days ago) @ Jerome
Jerome, you have said most aptly what I consider to be the way to go - not in the future, but now. And what we need to tell ourselves that we are networking even though not in a physical sense as in the past.
This is a new way of being Church - cyber communities. We have gone down this road before, but never mind, it is obviously something that is going to crop up time and time again, as this one vision for what it means to be Catholic in the 21st century. Now isn't this something to consider - this has never happend in the history of the world before where virtually those who' share a vision can come together as one and 'sing from the same hymn book' so to speak. It certainly is a community as far as I am concerned.
Helen
Let us light a candle and say to the dark, we beg to differ
lockedWEEKEND FORUM: Let us brain storm a positive vision of Catholicism...
by William , Sunday, May 09, 2010, 02:32 (1138 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
We should try to keep all our Catholic Institutions open to the poor, especially our Catholic Schools.
A "preferential option for the poor" should be maintained in our Catholic Schools. If we find that we cannot afford to keep our schools open to the poor, the schools should be closed and the resources used for something else which can be kept open to the poor. We cannot allow our Church to become a church primarily for the middle-class and rich while throwing a bone to the
poor. The priority should be given to the poor even if we have to let the middle-class and rich fend for themselves.
Practically speaking, the Catholic Schools must close and the resources used for "Confraternity of Christian Doctrine" and other programs which can be kept open to the poor. Remember, the Church managed without Catholic Schools for centuries. We can get along without them today. The essential factor is to cultivate enough Faith to act in the Gospel Tradition, namely, THE POOR GET PRIORITY. The rich and middle-class are welcome too. But the poor come first.
locked
WEEKEND FORUM: Let us brain storm a positive vision of Catholicism...
by Dolores , Northeastern USA, Sunday, May 09, 2010, 03:00 (1138 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
The church has always put priests (bishops ... pope) on a moral pedestal.
Lay people are supposed to be able to look to them as moral guides.
Any time they stray it affects us all "The priest is doing it so it mustn't be all that bad".
Whatever the wrong action - it all works at destroying our Catholicism.
Finally, a forum to take our Catholicism back - Thank You!
We can't undo the past but we can change today (and hopefully guide tomorrow).
Just some of my thoughts:
Recognize that God does not reside only in a Church.
That He is “alive and well” in the secular highways & byways. Stop saying ”when you leave mass and go out into the secular world” as if Jesus is with us at mass but we leave Him at the church door.
I have found church to be of the greatest value when it is empty – just Him and me. I tell Him (out loud) of all the wonders and horrors of my life. And then listen to His reply. That was the part I was especially missing, I said prayers but never listened.
It’s not because He “lives” only in a church but because the quiet church gives me a chance to hear Him above the turmoil of daily life.
Embrace and teach all the various theologies accepted by the church, not just Aquinas’ theology of atonement. Understanding Scotus’ theology of joy – that the Incarnation was always an integral part of creation and not a response to a mistake – changed me, my understanding of the Incarnation (Jesus saved us from our sins by His life of which His death was a part), my reaction to and relation with others.
I now see that Jesus saved me by His life, by doing the “right thing” at each moment no matter how hard that seemed to be. Even if that meant death.
The “right thing” is as different for each one of us as we are different.
The only rule I hold to is love.
Stop creating answers to unanswerable questions.
We do not know what Heaven or Hell will be like, who will be there, whether or not animals will be there etc etc. We have no first hand account so stop trying to make up answers.
My personal viewpoint is that God has no need of creatures “doing Him homage”, singing His praises etc. He is GOD – He needs nothing else. So, when we walk through the doorway between this life and the next, He will simply ask, “Do you want to be with me?” Our answer to Him directly will determine if we “go to heaven or not”. Doing “the right thing” (from a very personal perspective) during life will prepare us for our answer to His question. (And no, I don’t believe we can knowingly cheat by living a life of sin but expect to answer Him “yes”. But this is getting too much in the realm of the unanswerable.)
That is my point of view and I don’t force it on anyone nor do I feel the need to justify it to the church or attempt to align it with “church views”.
Simplify, Simplify.
Go with Love, Go with God
Dolores
lockedWEEKEND FORUM: Let us brain storm a positive vision of Catholicism...
Church? How about world?
Everybody thinks they have the "only true way," even the Buddhists!!! Every Christian "denomination" (as as far as I can tell, every major religion and the minors too) can't seem to exist without becoming an organization where personalities are more important than the principle and experience of love. I really don't think there's any "fixing" institutionalism. There aren't any "answers." No amount of imagination will fix what's wrong with our world. What especially won't fix it is our limited pea-brains, cogitating to come up with the Great Unified Theory of Everything Theological.
I'd like to live in a world where people don't have to compete to be the "only" anything.
I'd like to live in a world where people were willing to share from what they had.
I'd like to live in a world where people could be both humble and conscious of their intrinsic value.
I'd like to live in a world where people would just slow down and be kind to one another.
I'd like to live in a world where people took care of each other.
I don't and I do.
Every day I allow the person and presence of Christ to help me "let go" of myself a little more, I start seeing and hearing others a little more. And when I do that, I can spread a little kindness.
Every minute He helps me let go a little more of me, I find a little more of my true self.
Maybe what would help is to just start noticing the good He does in each of us when we see His face in others, in the church, our neighbors, and that person staring back from the mirror.
For example, every Sunday when our pastor prays that part of the mass where he has to pray that we live in unity with the pope and the bishop, he sort of rushes past it and slows down when he gets to the saints and all God's church.
I notice that. It always gives me a little giggle. That's nice too.
And every single week, I get a front-row seat (since I sing in the choir) of the magic and miracle of the congregation singing and clapping and the wonder and mystical experience of the blessing of the gifts. And people hug each other when we share the sign of peace.
It doesn't occur to me that all this is "the church." It's my church, no, it's our church, that's all. And that's enough. Eventually, this will probably change too. Everything does. But not this week.
Remember this one? Corny then, corny now (although the rap makes it a little less so). But . . . it's a good analog for "Love one another, as I have loved you."
lockedA "tempering" counter thought...
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Sunday, May 09, 2010, 13:21 (1137 days ago) @ Dawn Elaine
Dawn,
![[image]](http://www.catholica.com.au/misc/bookimages/Collapse_JaredDiamond_210x315.jpg)
The thing that worries me though — albeit that I wonder if it is just my own insecurities and conservative nature — is that civilisations' 'forget'. This is the essential point of Jared Diamond's book of about a decade ago: "Collapse — How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive".
The question I'd put forward is: do we need a structure in order to survive? I must ask my own children how they would respond to that question. Perhaps a supplementary question might be in the context of this present brainstorm: How much is the survival of civilisation dependent on a religious structure or institution? The conservatives, including Benny and friends, think European civilisation is "going to pot" because the influence of the institutional church is waining. But is European civilisation really "going to pot" (present economic crisis not withstanding)?
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedA "tempering" counter thought...
I think it was Amanda who told me about a documentary on one of the Aussie TV stations about the first 500 years of Christianity. I do not think there is a need for an institutional church at all.
Heresy? Maybe. But if this be heresy, then I think what is needed is more of it.
Christ's compelling command before he left this world/dimension was, "Go and teach all nations." The early church formed, I believe, as He intended the church to be. But to spread the gospel in the context of what the world was at that time required organization. And there was a highly oiled machine in Rome that did the organization/nation-conquering thing really well, or at least, really effectively. And just as it was crumbling, along comes this Christian message. And, it seems to me, in order to get the job done, God allowed folks to use what already existed to do just that. In the process, all the flaws and limitations of organized nation-conquering came right along with the passing of the gospel story.
Then along comes St. Francis and St. Clare and they essentially said, "Uh, you're doing it wrong." And they lived their lives in a way that showed that to be true. But everything has its time, and they were way ahead of theirs. They were also limited by living in the time and context of the world as it was then. I respectfully have to say that St. F seems to have weenied out, but that was okay too, because he got the idea going again.
Since then, the gospel has indeed been preached in every nation. Sadly, those of us who claim to be His followers have done such a piss-poor job of being His face to those around us that most thinking folks in Western society say with Gandhi, "Your Christ I like. Your Christians I do not like." Most of us have forgotten what St. Francis said, "Preach the gospel constantly. Use words when necessary."
So. Here we are. In what I truly believe is, if not the "end times" of Scripture, at least a critical point of massive shifting of reality as we have known it. Maybe they're both the same thing. In our Western society, we certainly have substituted our brains for our hearts/souls. But the time for the now old Roman system of organization/nation building is over, both in the world around us and in Christian denominations everywhere.
Do I think we can "do" anything about it? Not other than recognizing every day our complete inability to manage our lives and a constant turning over of our wills to Christ, of being absolutely willing to do what He tells us to do, especially when it comes to the people right around us in our families, neighbors and communities.
We can't even "fix" our own lives, let alone re-structure a crumbling, rotten organization that has fulfilled its purpose. Better, I think, to start where we stand and let the rest take its course.
lockedWEEKEND FORUM: Let us brain storm a positive vision of Catholicism...
by U2 , Sunday, May 09, 2010, 13:59 (1137 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Dear Brian,
You mentioned that there might be some forum to focus on or display religious/spiritual art. There was an article in cathnews this week regarding this. If there was a web page which would showcase contemporary religious/spiritual art with Catholica this may be a way of convey images of spiritual thought and reflection where words may not be able. As a religious/spiritual contemporary artist I would welcome the opportunity and it may be a way of promoting a positive image of religion/spirituality to the broader community. If you read the cath news article I also mentioned a need to showcase the works of homeless and disadvantaged artists or disabled artists. Remembering the great contribution of Arthur Stace the homeless man whose "Eternity" was featured on the Sydney harbour bridge at the start of the new millenium.
lockedThe importance of the arts and architecture — let alone more contemporary art...
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Sunday, May 09, 2010, 19:15 (1137 days ago) @ U2
U2, I can't find the article on CathNews to which you refer. I'm most interested in what you write. To me one of the key reasons for the 'success' of Catholicism rising to become the numerically strongest religious institution in the world is that for centuries — almost two millennia — it seemed to have an intuitive understanding of the symbiotic relationship that religion needed to have with the arts. Artists and theologians are essentially engaged in the same quest — the theologians exploring the relationship between "things spiritual" and "things non-spiritual" through words and ideas, the artists exploring that same relationship through symbols, non-verbal and/or non-textual ideas and concepts. As I wrote recently, for some reason around the 1920s in the early twentieth century the institution suddenly lost its nerve — and began perceiving of the arts as some "work of the devil". The politicians in the Church began trying to hold the fingers and put the minds of the artists into straitjackets and guide them as to what they were allowed to explore. The result has been the disaster that has ultimately led to a discussion like this one we're presently engaged in. Benedict's attempts to dictate what is "sacred" in art, music and costume is the end play of a tragedy — rivalling the best of what totalitarian regimes endeavoured to impose on the arts.
Our resources here at Catholica are limited but I am endeavouring to pay attention to this aspect. About a month ago, Liz (Billy) from our community who is a Queensland artist, produced a video based on a song by contemporary singer Jane Siberry. YouTube will not allow it to be uploaded with the soundtrack intact. I suggested to Billy that she approach the musician and see if a copyright release could be obtained. That came through yesterday and Billy and I worked our butts off yesterday to try and get it uploaded so that I could run it as a further support commentary on Catholica this morning. After finding a way to transfer 250Mb of data from Brisbane to Linden and then uploading it to the Catholic video channel we find we still have to go through a further process with YouTube to remove the block on the sound track. Between the pair of us I don't know how many hours have been invested in this exercise for a three and a half minute "bit of art" — my own experience editing videos suggests to me that Billy has probably already put a couple of days in on the exercise. And that doesn't include the contribution of the composer of the music, Jane Siberry. The production of art works is frightfully expensive. Artists gravitate to where there are patrons willing to support them — and who provide them with "real freedom" to explore at the boundaries of ideas. Those concepts are totally foreign to the conservative elements who presently control the institutional agenda. They are petrified by freedom. For century though institutional Catholicism was the single biggest patron of the arts, including architecture. Today I have little doubt that neither Michaelangelo or Jesus himself would be employed, or sponsored, by the institution.
I'd appreciate having a link to the article you have referred us to. Billy and myself are continuing to resolve the copyright issues to bring you this video Billy has produced which intersects with much of the discussion on Catholica over the last month or so. She originally produced it as a response to Benedict's Pastoral to the People of Ireland.
Cheers,
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedThe importance of the arts and architecture — let alone more contemporary art...
by U2 , Monday, May 10, 2010, 12:56 (1136 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Dear Brian,
The article that I referred to in Cath News was on the Cathblog on 6th May 2010 and was written by Christine Hogan, I made two comments about the article, my name is Ros. The blog was titled "Art conveys corporate values". I entered the Blake Religious Art Prize last year but I am dismayed that there are few forums in which to display religious/spiritual art. I think the church is loathe to promote any work that is in any way controversial but the Blake is always at the cutting edge. There is the Mandorla art award and the Needham Religious art prize but I would like to see religious/spiritual art in online web galleries. I appreciate that at Catholica there may not be resources for such a venture, but I thought if I brought it into people's awareness then this would be a positive thing. I could submit some images if there was any interest. I try not to buy into the elitism of the art gallery system and try to sell my artwork at very affordable prices. I reached the "Director's Cut" Online exhibition of the Blake Religious prize last year and was a finalist in the Garrett Eastman spiritual art award in 2008. Thank you for taking an interest in my reply.
Cheers,
U2
lockedU2, this week I intend getting back to doing a lot of work on our marketplace. Why don't we set up a "gallery" there for aspiring religious artists to display and sell their work. We already have most of the infrastructure in place to make it happen. It can start off in a small way and we'll see how it builds. I'll also look into incorporating a facility where visitors can comment on the works and/or generated discussions on various themes. It sound like a great idea to me. Leave it with me and I'll see what I can make happen.
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedWhat a great idea...
by U2 , Monday, May 10, 2010, 16:11 (1136 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Dear Brian,
Thanks for your response I found it very encouraging,and if you are able to organize a web gallery of art at some stage in the future that would be fantastic! Thank you for taking and interest in my idea and issue.
Sincerely Yours,
U2
lockedWEEKEND FORUM: Let us brain storm a positive vision of Catholicism...
Christ was very direct in his statements of what "His Church" was to be, how it's diciples were to act, and what he expected from members who adhered to His message. He taught by example that what matters are those who are at the margins of society, who are powerless, who are unable to change their circumstances despite their efforts. He also taught that leaders of His Church were to be servants of the members. He taught that simplification of the Law was the aim, not rigid codification of the view of men. Christ didn't just teach this from an ivory tower, He confronted the use and abuse of power in His own temptations, so he understood the lure of power. I believe that this is the cross he wants us to bear.
My vision of the Church is one in which these hard, straightforward ideas are relentlessly pursued, conveyed, and lived out in everyday life. If this were to be done, the secondary goals of uplifting every member of society, ensuring justice, and eliminating double standards in the Church would follow naturally. There would be no need for the medieval governance structure under which we now suffer, no need to reinforce the sometimes fantastic tales of Saints and Sinners that many focus on because they have no other way to reinforce their faith, and there would certainly be little or no need to set up punitive tribunals for sexual perverts; that is a function for secular government. We need not jump through hoops for a true expression of faith; to the contrary, by complicating things as we have, we fail miserably. I am struck at the similarities between mankind's performance in the New Covenant and that of mankind's performance in the Old Testament Covenant: we screw it up repeatedly, never seeing that God wants us to focus on the simple rules that he has given us, not the complex rules that we make up so that we can ignore the rigor of simplicity.
lockedWEEKEND FORUM: A non-Dogmatic, Democratic Constitution for the Church
Brian,
Thank you for the invitation to suggest ideas for the church of the future. I think I would start not with a Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) but rather with a Democratic Constitution FOR the Church.
A dogmatic constitution on the church is essentially a theological reflection on the meaning of "church". What we need today and for the future is an actual constitution which is democratically accepted by all members of the church community or by all the 'children of God' - and not just the bishops! Just as in a democratic community we each have one vote by virtue of our membership of that community, so too by virtue of being a child of God we all stand equal in the ecclesial community and have an equal right to cast a vote for the type of institution our church should be in the 21st century.
As with politics, it is rarely political theory that needs reforming rather than concrete instantiations of political theory in constitutions which flow from it or when, so to speak, the tyre hits the road as theory is forged into practice. Political theory and political debate is generally well-ahead of political custom and practice. Political constitutions lag well behind political debate.
So too with theological and philosophical debate, it manages to do a better job of keeping abreast of the times than the non-academic, ecclesial institutions which flow from it.
In the case of the Constitution for the Catholic Church (the code of canon law), its used-by date has come and gone. What is needed now and for the future Church is for each member of the ecclesial community to be enjoined in an active discussion on a democratic constitution for the church, or to be invited to ratify such a constitution put up for consideration by the experts in this field.
That's how a community works, giving equal voice to each of its members.And a democratic constitution would enshrine such rights.
John E
lockedWEEKEND FORUM: Let us brain storm a positive vision of Catholicism...
Brian,
Great idea for a forum. Maybe we should examine how we view our Catholicism in light of the changing cosmology of our universe. Now that the Church has learned that the Earth is no longer the center of the universe it might be wise to consider the paradigm by which its doctrine was determined. A good place to start would be with Jesus and what he was trying to accomplish and what was the real purpose of his life. As the theologians created the layers of doctrine our friend Jesus seems to have been misplaced. He taught a way of life. He was not about creating silly doctrines and rituals to be acted out in beautiful buildings for the mere sake of control. Until we make our Church a truly catholic or universal way of live with tolerance for all people we will remain the exclusionary elitist organization that we are today. Infallible absolutism was not what Jesus was about. He showed us the kingdom of his father but we still think we need to earn it when it is already here if we would only let it touch us.
lockedWEEKEND FORUM: Let us brain storm a positive vision of Catholicism...
I haven't read most of these entries yet but I want Catholicism to be a bounded plurality, a whole range of possibilities that encourage humans to be adults, that teach us how to think not what to think, that is here for the good of all. I do not know how but the power games have to stop.
lockedAs so much of my thinking began with Vatican II......
by desi , Australia, Sunday, May 09, 2010, 18:46 (1137 days ago) @ Enda
I have just discovered that I saved this site/link some years ago and on reading it again I think that it gives some great reflections/writings on Vatican II, especially in relation to the Church.
Bishop Butler worked to spread Council teaching. But even after “this miraculous Council”, as he called it, he remained concerned that if the Church failed to adapt, it would risk irrelevance like the coelacanth, that living fossil, thought to be extinct until a live specimen was found in 1938. Immediately after the Council Butler wrote:
Catholics believe that the Church cannot perish….in virtue of the guaranteed assistance of God… [but] the question could have been asked, in the years before Vatican II, whether the fate of the coelacanth was not likely to be the fate of the Catholic Church. (Theology of Vatican II, Rev. Ed. 1981, DLT, p8f)
http://www.vatican2voice.org/default.htm
This is a link from within the main site:
My Vision for the Church of the Future
By Cardinal Dr. Franz König
http://www.vatican2voice.org/90problems/vision.htm
IMHO this is a terrific site/resource.
lockedAdded to our links page...
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Sunday, May 09, 2010, 19:50 (1137 days ago) @ desi
Thanks, Desi, I've now added that website to our links page:
http://www.catholica.com.au/links.php#VIIvoice
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedAs so much of my thinking began with Vatican II......
Thanks, Desi, for that wonderful link to the Vatican II Council website --- It brought back many fond memories of 3 years of weekly seminars by the seminary professor's exploration of each new decree & its implications for the Church.
We Catholic high schoolers underwent them as "beta testers" for the diocese's catechisis of the reforms that were later sent out to the parish priests to spread to their people...
I wonder if the Curial revisionists have also "re-translated" the English version of the official documents of the Council, as they have in the Liturgical Mess???
Otherwise, how can so many clear directives of the Council be so steadily ignored by the Roman bigwigs???
lockedA collective response to wlarue, JohnE, RL Water and Enda
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Sunday, May 09, 2010, 20:13 (1137 days ago) @ Enda
Thanks for this set of perceptive and pithy perspectives, wlarue, JohnE, RL Water and Enda. I've got a heap of other stuff on my desk to attend to at the moment — including a large multinational that might be trying to pursue us for a copyright breach. I have to respond to that urgently tonight. It was an innocent breach as I do take copyright issues seriously so I am hopeful I can resolve this by negotiation otherwise it could cost us a grand. We operate on a shoestring here and a grand represents a serious threat to our budget particularly coming on some high expenses at the moment for the renewal of some of the technical facilities we use. It's separate to the issue I was discussing separately concerning Billy's video. As a consequence of that I don't have time to respond in detail at the moment but I just wanted to acknowledge your inputs and thank you for them. I think this is an exciting conversation.
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedA collective response to wlarue, JohnE, RL Water and Enda
Brian,
I pray all goes well on the legal issue.
I'm in the process of writing a paper on Truth, Doctrine, & Faith and how they pertain to our Church. Just making it through the denotative meanings of those three words has been a considerable task as it has led me down many connotative paths. If we could only get it across to the hierarchy of our Church that if we were told the total truth about our "infallible" doctrine we would probably all remain in the pews, and open the doors for many more to return. The cosmology paradigm has changed and such ideas as original sin and infallibility are blocking us from a right relationship with the Divine.
Sincerely,
Richard
lockedA Word of Caution
RICHARD-WALTERS [USA] said – “I'm in the process of writing a paper on Truth, Doctrine, & Faith and how they pertain to our Church. Just making it through the denotative meanings of those three words has been a considerable task as it has led me down many connotative paths. If we could only get it across to the hierarchy of our Church that if we were told the total truth about our "infallible" doctrine we would probably all remain in the pews, and open the doors for many more to return. The cosmology paradigm has changed and such ideas as original sin and infallibility are blocking us from a right relationship with the Divine.”
Richard, I repectfully “warn” you!
Pierre Teilhard SJ (1881-1955) dared to question such ideas as “Original Sin” – considering our “changing cosmology paradigm.”
He was “silenced” by Rome and exiled to China for 20 years [1926-46]. He was more formally “silenced” by the former “Holy Office” in 1962 – 7 years after his death.
And he remains “silenced” – officially.
Grahame
lockedA Word of Caution
Grahame,
They have already tried to silence me on the local level. Our parish Holiness Code Inquisitors have their eye on me. But at seventy years of age they had best hurry the procedings. I keep trying to understand what excommunication means in the current age. At times I wonder what Jesus would have said about the subject?
Richard
lockedA Word of Caution
by Helen , The other side of Australia, Monday, May 10, 2010, 10:55 (1136 days ago) @ RLWalters
Richard, go for it!! That is what I like, someone who has reached the wisdom of their years (and I ain't that far behind - years that is,!!) and is still searching and will not give up.
And may I thank each and everyone one of you who have contributed to this discussion - it has been most enlightening, entertaining, thought provoking and educational (wow how many adjectives will fit on a pin head?). Thanks Brian for starting the topic - oh heck, this does sound a bit patronizing when I read it back, but what else can I say?
And to show that as we get older we get braver here is an absolutely true story - it was emailed to me by a most reliable source:
at Easter Sunday mass in a small town and the priest after starting his homily OK launched into an anti-abortion tirade . An older Irish sounding woman up the back, got up and shouted "It's Easter Sunday Father, Christ is risen, Alleluia" and walked out ! Several other women and men followed her and my aunt and others applauded. Don't know who the bloke was, but the laity are definitely revolting.
I suspect the hierarchy are too thinking that we the Laity are revolting!
Helen
Let us light a candle and say to the dark, we beg to differ
locked"Poor banished Children of Eve"?
HELEN quoted an Email where the Sender said - "At Easter Sunday Mass in a small town the Priest - after starting his homily OK - launched into an anti-abortion tirade. An older Irish-sounding woman up the back, got up and shouted "It's Easter Sunday Father, Christ is risen, Alleluia" - and walked out! Several other women and men followed her. My aunt and others applauded. Don't know who the bloke was, but the laity are definitely revolting."
In the half hour before each Mass in my parish, the leading ladies pray as "Poor banished Children of Eve" - asking God's Mother to show unto us - after this, our exile - the Blessed Fruit of her womb - Jesus.
10-15 minutes later, the Priest shows unto us the Blessed Fruit of Mary's Womb in the form of Bread and Wine transubstantiated by the Power of the Holy Spirit.
Personally - I am NOT a "poor banished Child of Eve" and I never have been. I was chosen IN Christ before the World was made (Eph.1:4) and that is where I expect to stay - IN Christ - forever.
"Christ is Risen! Alleluia!"
Could I dare to announce that Good News in my parish church?
locked
WEEKEND FORUM: Let us brain storm a positive vision of Catholicism...
by BarryS , 'Uralla, NSW', Monday, May 10, 2010, 11:57 (1136 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
I am currently under investigation, I believe.
Several weeks ago we had a relieving 80 year old priest for the weekend, who when he says Mass, wants us to change the way we serve at Mass & conduct the Mass to fit in with his ideas.
I had found a reference from Rome on Catholica where it stated that a visiting priest has no authority to change any of the procedures while he is relieving in a parish.
I copied it & took it to Mass & proceeded to give it to him. He got very upset with me and started telling me off, so I told him I would report him to Rome if he continued this conduct.
He replied that "Rome would not even have heard of him."
I said it just shows how insignificant he really is in the church & he tried to order me out of the sacristy. I insisted that I was the acolyte for this Mass & I had no intention of standing down.
He must have reported me to our PP, as he spoke to me in friendly terms at Mass yesterday & said he would see me when he finds out more about the whole story.
Maybe I'll be excommunicated!!!!!!!!!
BarryS
I live for those that love me
For those that know I am true
For the heaven that smiles above me
& awaits my coming too
For the cause that needs assistance
For the wrong that needs resistance
For the future in the distance
& the good that I can do.
lockedWEEKEND FORUM: Let us brain storm a positive vision of Catholicism...
Dear Barry,
In view of the number of saints that have been excomunicated, disciplined & silenced by Vatican officials & the current number of Bishops who are ready to deny Communion, both to public figures & millions of just plain Catholics for various reasons of their own, AND the number of enablers of clerical sexual abusers of the innocent who have NOT had any religious penalties, most everything that comes out of Rome nowadays seems to be just Orwellian doublespeak.
Try not to lose any sleep over the possibilities...
I think of Hell as the permenant absence of the presence of God & something that people bring upon themselves by their choices & conduct throughout life. They don't want Him in their lives & He permits them their desire...
Sometimes I have some rousing arguments with Him about some current stage of my life, when I don't understand "Why me? What good is this situation in helping me to make this world a better place for my being here?" "Where are You leading me?"
So I go back to basics -- tending my garden & taking care of myself, my cat, my friends & my neighbors as best I can.
lockedHow "tolerant" was Jesus?
BRIAN said – “Let us brain storm a positive vision of Catholicism.”[1]
RICHARD-WALTERS of USA responded – “Great idea for a forum. Maybe we should review how we view our Catholicism in light of the changing cosmology of our universe. Now that the Church has learned that the Earth is no longer the center of the universe, it might be wise to consider the paradigm by which its doctrine was determined.”
A good place to start would be with Jesus and what he was trying to accomplish and what was the real purpose of his life. As the theologians created the layers of doctrine, our friend Jesus seems to have been misplaced. He taught a way of life. He was not about creating silly doctrines and rituals … Until we make our Church a truly catholic or umiversal way of life with tolerance for all people, we will remain the exclusionary elitist organization that we are today.”
Jesus showed us the kingdom of his father. But we still think we need to earn it when it is already here; if we would only let it teach us.”[2]
At the Heart and Crown of the Universe there is what Pierre Teilhard SJ (1881-1955) called “The Phenomenon of MAN” [= Homo Sapiens, male & female]. In the whole of the known and knowable Universe, we have [at least as yet] found no other Forms of Matter to match our genes and the brains that stem therefrom in Molecular Complexity and Reflective Competence. By was of OUR Brains [if we choose to use them] we are collectively able to gain Reflective Insight into the Inner Form or Information of everything – even the Depths of God (1 Cor.2:10). We may even come to SELF-awareness and DEATH-awareness – the Biology of Ultimate Concern [T.Dobzhansky 1971]. With dying, death and disintegration all around us, we may ask, “Who will rescue ME – the essential I – from this ever-changing body doomed to die?” (Rom.7:27). As the “Mystery of Man” deepens, we may discover our SELVES to be God’s Sons and Daughters in the course of an historical and psychological process in which Constraint and Freedom – as well as the wieight of SIN and the breath of the Spirit – alternate and stuggle for the upper hand.[Pope Paul VI 1972 “Octogesima Adveniens” n.37]
Certainly – Copernicus and Galileo displaced Mankind and our Planet Earth from the Geometrical Centre of the Universe. But Intellectual and Spiritual Centrality are far more important. As even the much-maligned Charles Darwin sensed, “There is more in Man that the mere breath of his body.” In the last words of “The Origin of Species” [1859] he said, “There is GRANDEUR in this view of Life.” 16 years later, Gerard Manley Hopkins SJ wrote “God’s Grandeur” with Christ as “the dearest freshness deep down things.” So the word that comes nearest ro describing the Universal Influx of Jesus Christ is “INFORMATION.” And the whole History of the Universe is that of its progressive Indformation by Christ.[Teilhard 1918 “Writings in Time of War” Collins 1968 p.254]
Thus truly spiritual Human Bings have “food to eat” that Unspiritual Creatures know nothing about (Jn.4:32; Mt.7:6). But how “tolerant” are we expected to be towards people. All living organisms are “:informed” from the PAST [from their History} and from the PRESENT or world OUTSIDE their SELVES. But Human Beings as such are unique in that we may be informed from within – from INSIDE the Centre-Point of their own SELVES – Christ being the “Centre of Centres.”
In that context – Sinful Persons are those who refuse to deepen and enlarge their own spirituality. Worse are those who obstruct the Spiritual Development of other people or even cause them to curse God. Are we expected to be “tolerant” towards such “human” predators and parasites? How “tolerant” was Jesus? To Simon-bar-Jonah, newly nicknamed “Peter” [the Rock], Jesus said, “Get behind me, Satan!” And for one who causes harm to little children, it would have been better, Jesus said, if he or she had been drowned in the depths of the sea with a great millstone around the neck! Was he “tolerant” towards the men proposing to stone to death the “woman taken in adultery”?
__________________________________________________________
[1] http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?id=47246
[2] http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?id=47306
lockedThanks, everybody, for all the good ideas!
by Alan , 'Between Joy and Paradise, Texas', Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 06:33 (1136 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Here are a few things I think could be changed. They are stumbling blocks, IMO, to any sort of 'reunification' in the church. These are definitely among the main reasons why I will never get any closer to the RCC than my present Anglicanism.
The idea that I MUST believe in:
1. The Immaculate Conception. I think it detracts from the wonder of God-become-man that in order for that to happen God first had to create an original-sin-free woman. Jesus cannot really be one of us because his mom was perfect. If "all have sinned and come short" then why do I have to believe in an exception?
2. The Ascension of Mary. This only makes sense if it was intended to keep people from worshiping chicken bones as if they were Mary's knuckles. Personally, I believe she was buried in a flooded tin mine in Glastonbury.
3. Infallibility of the Pope. I guess the best argument when one is losing an argument is to assert, "Because I say so!" Not.
4. Transubstantiation. Sorry, I don't have the time to go into this. Let it be sufficient to say that I am not a Medievalist.
There is a lot of arrogance and self-centerdness from which the church must free itself if there is to be a church in the future.
'"Fairy tales do not teach children that dragons exist.
Children know that dragons exist.
They teach children that dragons can be killed."'
locked
