Linear
The discussion on "emerging church" or church in "terminal decline"... (Main Forum)
by Brian Coyne 
, LINDEN, NSW, Monday, October 24, 2011, 11:51 (578 days ago)
I'm drawing attention to Tom Roberts' discussion with Noel Debien on ABC Radio last night as our lead commentary for today. As a result of that I've place this post at the top of our forum with a direct link to the ABC website and I've moved the discussion started by Angela a day or so ago to this lead post.
![[image]](../gc0/images_email/EmergingChurch_an_600x155.gif)
![[image]](http://catholica.com.au/images/CatholicaICO_30x30.jpg)
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
locked
Doing some motherly homework
by Angela , Newcastle NSW, Saturday, October 22, 2011, 18:00 (580 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
One of my daughters has texted asking me to tell her all about the "emergent church..young liberal catholics growing strength in USA".
She is due to visit next weekend and obviously thinks I am a fount of knowledge in all things religious lol
Google got me very confused.....
Am anxious to present my info well as NONE of my six kids has asked any religious question of me for many many years.
Thanks in advance for info and any advice presenting it succinctly to an inquiring adult daughter...
Am ever grateful to my supportive always helping out Catholica friends.
God Bless
Angela 
"Lucerna Pedibus Meis"
locked
Do know if this will help...but is a try ;)
by Roy , Saturday, October 22, 2011, 18:58 (580 days ago) @ Angela
Emerging churches are communities that practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures. This definition encompasses nine practices. Emerging churches (1) identify with the life of Jesus, (2) transform the secular realm, and (3) live highly communal lives. Because of these three activities, they (4) welcome the stranger, (5) serve with generosity, (6) participate as producers, (7) create as created beings, (8) lead as a body, and (9) take part in spiritual activities.
I had a look around with this term 'emergent church' ....bit confusing hey? 
.....but this one has some explanation you may find useful Angela.
I only read the first page though 
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html
locked
Don't know if this will help?
by desi , Australia, Saturday, October 22, 2011, 19:30 (580 days ago) @ Roy
Thomas P. Rausch reviews
The Crisis of Authority in Catholic Modernity
This looks like an interesting book and the review makes mention of the USA.
Modern Catholics, at least in North America and Europe, insist on their ability to think for themselves, even if Vatican officials, members of the hierarchy and even many of those preparing for the priesthood continue to presume a world of deference to their authority that no longer exists.
The sociologist William D’Antonio and his associates argue from their surveys that the Catholic Church in the United States has become virtually a voluntary association, with Catholics increasingly finding authority in their individual consciences.
lockedThe "emergent church": is it a reality?
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Saturday, October 22, 2011, 20:39 (580 days ago) @ Angela
Angela, Tom Roberts from NCR wrote a series called "The Emergent Church". It has recently been released as a book "The Emerging Catholic Church" and he sent me a copy a few days ago which I've begun reading and now handed over to Milly to write a review. In a way it is similar to our "exit stories" or the series run in America Magazine. This may be what your daughter is referring to.
![[image]](../marketplace/fpau/prod_images/9781570759468_210x311.jpg)
Personally I think the institution is now kaput. We're watching the formation of "an irrelevant remnant" largely peopled by those who get their rocks off on certain styles of liturgy, language and rubric, or who work themselves up into knots about rules and authority figures. I don't have a sense that there will be "an emergent church" in the sense that Tom Roberts envisages. If anything those feelings were reinforced by attending the American Catholic Council. Those who were excited and motivated by Vatican II — who might have been the nucleus for "an emergent church" — are now aged or ageing and the call was simply not passed on to our children. The new generations basically see most of their parents as mad for still persisting. (There are always exceptions of course to these generalisations.) The information published today of what is happening in Brazil only reinforces this general picture. My sense is if there is such an animal as "an emergent church" it's still a long way into the future and its shape will be discerned and formed by generations which are probably not even born yet. As pessimistic as it might seem, I think we're witnessing the final collapse of the Holy Roman Empire. It's collapsing just as the Middle Ages eventually gave way to the Enlightenment and the modern age; collapsing like the old Ancien Regime, feudalism, even the totalitarian empires of Nazism and Communism.
We'll try and get the review of Tom Robert's book done in the next week and publish it. I've uploaded information about the book to the Amazon pages of the Marketplace:
http://www.catholica.com.au/marketplace/amazon/1570759464.php
It is also available from Fishpond:
http://www.fishpond.com.au/product_info.php?ref=1368&id=9781570759468
or
http://www.fishpond.co.nz/product_info.php?ref=1556&id=9781570759468
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
locked
Fr Richard Rohr on the emerging church
by Dolores , Northeastern USA, Sunday, October 23, 2011, 02:31 (580 days ago) @ Angela
edited by Dolores, Sunday, October 23, 2011, 08:16
Angela,
Hopefully these videos from Fr Richard Rohr's webcast will help you in answering your daughter's questions.
All the videos for this webcast can be found at the cacradical channel on youtube.
Fr Rohr speaks of non-dual thinking and transformation and contemplation and ends with
The emerging church question is "What are you in love with? What have you fallen in love with? What do you believe in? Not who is going to hell but what is the heaven that I have discovered?"
Go with Love, Go with God
lockedTwo contrasting views of "the emerging church"....
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Sunday, October 23, 2011, 08:44 (579 days ago) @ Dolores
Thanks for those links, Dolores. I was curious at what Richard Rohr had to say and checked out the first video and in doing so found a whole heap of others down the right hand side of the page. After listening to Richard I had a look at the second one below which is a fundamentalist critique of the emerging church movement.
To me the second video is illustrative as to why it is too premature to speak of an "emerging church". As I keep writing, fundamentalism poses a massive challenge to modern human civilisation. We're dealing with forces in the psyche of these people that are more powerful than almost anything else known to humankind. It's like trying to negotiate with Islamic fundamentalists who fly jet airliners into tall buildings believing sincerely that they have been sent by God to impose Sharia Law on the world. There is simply no language any reasonable people can use to placate the fears and insecurities of the fundamentalists. They need certitude more than they need their breakfast each morning. They are not interested in "truth". Their need is for certitude. Catholicism suffers from this today as much as all of the other great religions of the world.
I do think there is a strong desire in many people for a new religious synthesis that challenges the fundamentalist synthesis of what the religious/spiritual quest is all about. I think Richard Rohr covers that well in the first video below. The people who are interested in that though are temperamentally not attracted to any kind of zealotry. They are not going to go to the barricades in defence of what they're searching for unlike the fundamentalists who will literally martyr themselves in defence of the certitudes they need more than their morning porridge.
We live at a fascinating moment in history and I would love to be around in a couple of hundred years' time to see what emerges from what is shaping up as a life and death struggle (certainly perceived that way from the fundamentalist pov). In the big, big picture I am confident the fundamentalists will not succeed. My confidence in that emerges from a look at the long sweep of human history — the Ascent of Humankind. Reason and common sense, tolerance and the rule of law, will eventually re-emerge triumphant as it always has since the first human crawled out of the first cave or the first embryo. There will be more wars and crusades though from the kindergarten elements with this unquenchable drive to prove their God, or their rules, or their way of looking at life, is superior to everybody else's God, or rules, or way of looking at life.
Richard Rohr on the Emerging Church?
How Dangerous Is The Emerging Church?
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedA further thought — Michael Dowd's "Evolutionary Christianity" series....
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Sunday, October 23, 2011, 09:27 (579 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
A number of websites might be worth checking out that do offer a contrast to the fundamentalist perspectives on religion and spirituality. Here are a few:
The Center for Progressive Christianity (International):
http://www.tcpc.org/template/index.cfm
The Centre for Progressive Religious Thought (Australia):
http://www.progressivereligion.org.au/
Parliament of the World's Religions:
http://www.parliamentofreligions.org/
Len Swidler's Dialogue Institute:
http://institute.jesdialogue.org/
Center for Global Ethics (another Len Swidler initiative):
http://globalethic.org/
The Global Ethics Foundation (Hans Küng's initiative):
http://www.global-ethic-now.de/index-eng.php
Evolutionary Christianity Series (Michael Dowd's initiative):
http://evolutionarychristianity.com/
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedI have just read your post, Angela, and am sure all the information will help.
by Bill Dowsley , 'Wombeyan, NSW', Sunday, October 23, 2011, 14:57 (579 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
I don't know about any 'emergent church', or whatever, but your 'adult daughter' learned years ago how a good woman and her good man live.....by witnessing her Mum and Dad.
You have done your job, dear woman, any extra given is a bonus.
All good wishes to you both.
lockedTwo contrasting views of "the emerging church"....
by Dolores , Northeastern USA, Sunday, October 23, 2011, 14:54 (579 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Brian,
I personally just can't be bothered with this fundamentalist viewpoint anymore. Including the fundamentalist view in the RCC. It has hurt too many people I know, driven them away from God because they have been driven away from the institution.
Which is why I so like the concept of non-dual thinking.
I especially like how Rohr expresses it in his book Everything Belongs.
I believe you are right when you say
The people who are interested in that though are temperamentally not attracted to any kind of zealotry. They are not going to go to the barricades in defence of what they're searching for unlike the fundamentalists who will literally martyr themselves in defence of the certitudes they need more than their morning porridge.
But I don't believe it's because the concept is not worth fighting for or that the people who believe it don't have the courage to fight. I believe it's because the concept of fighting "in defense of" the emerging church is totally alien to the concept "of" the emerging church. Especially to the concept of non-dual thinking.
I lurk at an apologetics board and am amazed at the number of threads about "did I just sin" or how irreverent the Novus Ordo is or how communion in the hand will cause the downfall of the Catholic church. It is so very sad to see how tightly wrapped up in rules they are and how they seem to go to mass spying on their neighbors or the priest ("are these the correct rubrics?" "should I inform the bishop?"). I want to yell "People Get A Grip!" And some people there do have a grip - though they do seem to get banned for some reason.
What I'm trying to say with all those words is that my life became too complicated to worry about everyone else and what was going to happen in the future. And when I precisely needed it, I read a story on CNN.com and clicked on a short video for Rob Bell. This began my foray into the concepts of the emerging church which led me to the videos by Fr Rohr.
The fundamentalists say the same things about Bell as they do about Rohr. Both Bell and Rohr are accepting of non-duality - of both/and rather than either/or - and I think this scares people who demand "There must be absolute truth" and "we must be able to understand it". But what if we can't understand the truth from our point of view. What if we are Flatlanders (Link) and can not realize or understand the truth "as seen" from God's point of view.
I tired of fundamentalists the day a preacher walked up my driveway to discuss his church and when I said I went to St Ann Catholic Church he replied "that's a very nice church but too bad you are going to hell!" I laughed and said well you have a nice day too and from that moment have taken fundamentalists (of all denominations including those living in Rome) with a big grain of salt.
Ah well, I think it's time for me to press submit before the server becomes overloaded again!
"Go with Love, Go with God"
locked
Two contrasting views of "the emerging church"....
by BarryS , 'Uralla, NSW', Sunday, October 23, 2011, 15:05 (579 days ago) @ Dolores
edited by BarryS, Monday, October 24, 2011, 11:24
When these fundamentalist door knockers come to my home, I invite them inside immediately.
I then place them in a corner of my room & don't allow them to move for at least an hour while I check their religion on the net, to show them how it is only a spin off for disgruntled church goers.
I then spend time lecturing them in the fullness of the Catholic Church as it was established by Christ, & that unless they convert to Catholicism they will be destined to live in HELL.
In that way I save a lot of my neighbours from being harassed by them.
Lately I have had no callers as I am obviously on their "do not call at this home list"
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.
lockedThank you all so very very much
by Angela , Newcastle NSW, Sunday, October 23, 2011, 20:19 (579 days ago) @ BarryS
I have much reading and thinking to do before the weekend visit of my daughter.
Will handle it much better when I discover the context of her questioning..
Bill thank you especially for your very kind words.
God Bless
Angela
"Lucerna Pedibus Meis"
lockedAn institution reduced to effective silence on key issues people would like discussed....
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Monday, October 24, 2011, 03:04 (579 days ago) @ Dolores
Thanks, Dolores. I think most people want to distance themselves from the fundamentalists. That's why the great majority have exited. The characteristic of the fundamentalists, it seems to me, is not actually their constant quoting of the rules. It is this need to constantly affirm (to themselves I'm sure more than anyone external to them) that God, or somebody, loves them. They need enemies and if they don't have them they'll artificially manufacture them. They need people they can figuratively point to and say, or think, "there, look there's a person who doesn't know the rules, or is not obeying the rules, (soto voce: look at me Jesus, I know all your rules and I can recite them standing upside down underwater holding my breath)".
I think that's why the entire abortion debate has become so lopsided. Here is this now massive contingent in society who patently (in the eyes of the fundamentalists) either don't know God's rules or are disobeying them. They (the fundamentalists) are actually not seriously interested in reducing the incidence of abortion in the world. The whole endeavour has become a circus on the part of this small sub-set trying to prove "look at me Jesus, or Your Holiness, I'm not like all those 'sinners' over there". The more "sinners" there are in society in a sense the better they feel about themselves. It is 'sick' behaviour.
What flumoxes me is not so much the behaviour of those individuals. It is the behaviour of an institutional leadership that seems everywhere to be encouraging that mindset — AND AT THE EXPENSE OF EVERYONE ELSE. This small remnant is simply incapable of "evangelising" the rest of the world or "re-evangelising" all those who have walked out the door. They're the ones largely responsible for the great majority walking out the door.
Understanding the psychology of the remnant sector is relatively easy compared to trying to understand the dynamic of what is going on in the ecclesial leadership — and, to some extent, the apathy of the great majority in allowing a small minority to "steal" their church from under their noses.
In the case of priests and bishops I sometimes wonder if it is simply they find it as difficult as all the rest of us to deal with these people. Unlike you and I though the bishops and priests can't just "walk away" or "ignore" this remnant element. But, it is impossible to have a rational conversation with these people unless you agree with them 110%. (Just try it for yourself on any of these websites most of us here are today familiar with. Or go watch "the brave ones" like TonySee or Peregrinus trying to defy the odds LOL.) The fundamentalist element are not open to any other points of view except their certitudes — and that even applies in conversation with priests or bishops.
Decades ago I can remember witnessing a small incident after Mass one day that gave me insight into the dynamic involved here. After Mass the priest was on his way back to his presbytery and he was confronted by one of those we'd today label as a member of the "temple police". I was watching this at a distance but close enough to discern that the person confronting the priest had one of those questions like the sort of thing you encounter on those Apologetics DBs. You could tell from the body language of the priest that all he wanted to do was get back to the sanctuary of his presbytery. He was not interested in any "theological debate" with this person over whatever the complaint was. The priest hardly said a word in response but he kept "nodding his head" in some sort of feigned agreement with whatever the person was accosting him about. All the rest of his body language and non-verbal communication through screamed out "for God's sake you nit wit would you get out of my way so that I can get back in that presbytery door over there as I have far more productive things to be doing with my day than engaging in some conversation with you". Over the years since I've come to the conclusion that a heck of a lot of this "mock head nodding" goes on "to get these people out of their hair". As I said, unlike most of us lay people they cannot simply walk away. They do have some kind of "pastoral responsibility" towards this element. On the other hand they learned long ago to not get involved in any extended conversations with these people because "you can never win" (unless you agree with them 110%). The quickest way to "get rid of them" is to feign agreement with whatever they are arguing.
The other problem, and I think this is massively greater, is that effectively this remnant element has effectively shut down all priests and bishops from actually "preaching from the heart" in their homilies and public ministry and witness. The "temple police" today are a massive problem. They literally can "bring down bishops" as the Bill Morris situation demonstrates so graphically. I have worked for bishops and I know, first hand, how scared they are of saying anything publicly that will cause that remnant element to go firing off letters to authority figures. When is the last time anyone heard a decent homily on anything to do with human sexuality (apart from priests or bishops themselves numbered in the remnant cohort)? Never. It simply does not happen today. Most normal priests avoid all the "contentious issues" (that are the favoured subjects of the remnant element) like they avoid a plague. I can tell you graphic stories of the "avoidance strategies" people in high places go to to avoid anything that upsets the remnant element. What I am trying to argue here is a contention that why this situation has arisen might not be entirely deliberate on the part of bishops and priests. It is more driven simply by their own "self-preservation" and "sanity".
One priest, now a bishop, once told me that it simply wasn't worth "the four or five weeks taken out of his life" if he got a complaint filed against him by the usual element who are always firing off letters to authorities. He explained to me how he'd be locked up for weeks drafting responses to the Archbishop explaining precisely what he'd meant in what he said in his homily (or something printed in the parish notices or the local Catholic newspaper), and then there'd be a succession of meetings with the Archbishop, or the VG, to respond to the complaint. Witness what went on between John Bathersby and Peter Kennedy, or between Bill Morris and Rome. The "four or five weeks" is no exaggeration. And it is not only the expenditure of time, and diversion from other work, it is the constant stress when you are put under any sort of investigation. This priest was explaining to me in answer to a direct question why he worried himself sick about not provoking that element in the congregation. The reality is that we have an entire institution that has effectively been "shut down" as a preaching or spiritual guidance mechanism for the great majority in society. The priests and bishops don't preach homilies on "human sexuality" anymore. Instead they drag in the likes of layman Christopher West to do all the talking in their dioceses — and then it looks as though the priests and bishops are actually "doing something" but in fact they don't have to expose themselves or say a single word that might get them into trouble. When they do "speak in public" it tends to be on pastoral matters that are of no interest to the "temple police" element. A good example of that are all the excellent Social Justice Sunday Pastoral Statements the Bishops of Australia commission each year.
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedIs it just trying to do too much?
by Dolores , Northeastern USA, Monday, October 24, 2011, 04:16 (579 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
edited by Dolores, Monday, October 24, 2011, 04:32
Brian, I have been lucky enough to have heard homilies that are "from the heart" based on personal experience. Years ago on Holy Thursday the priest humbly admitted that he was having doubts as to the reality of it all. He was struggling but in that sermon helped to end my struggle in letting me know that struggling was a part of it all. At Easter vigil last year my pastor gave a sermon truly "from the heart" which he prefaced with "I know we are all friends here so I can say this".
But I do agree with you that most priests adjust their talks to those who don't question the rules. My own experience has been that I can talk one-on-one with a priest and they understand "where I'm coming from". But when they get up in front of a crowd - the talk follows the standard, accepted format for general consumption.
What I have been wondering for a long time - is the Catholic Church trying to do too much for too many people? It has become an institution and as such sets up rules to be followed by all. But when I think of how vast the "all" is, I am amazed that the whole thing works at all. I've begun comparing the RCC to the US. We have federal laws governing 50 states. In New England we tend to question any law less than 100years old as being new fangled. In California, they eagerly break new ground as far as laws are concerned. Even if their laws contradict the federal laws.
Then you have the institution of the Church that sets rules for a over a billion people in 150+ countries (link). Unlike the US where the states can promote their own laws, the church demands we all follow the same laws. So what is not acceptable in a particular country may easily become the rule for the entire church. Until enough time passes and what was once unacceptable is now acceptable everywhere. Fr Rohr mentions this as the reason he believes women priests will happen but will be a long time coming. Not because of all the doctrinal reasons they spout but because of the pragmatic reasoning that it would not be accepted in certain countries and they do not want to alienate them.
Even though we speak of an Irish Church and an Australian Church and an American Church this really isn't true in fact. We are all forced to follow the same rules even though we may have vastly differing needs.
It is probably oversimplifying it but I like to think of it like the speed limit in the US. The standard speed limit of 55 mph (89 km/h) works well on highways through populated areas. But it is much too slow where you have long stretches of open empty roads in rural areas. When they began to allow higher limits these areas, people in the city complained of the potential accidents in the rural areas. Their arguments made sense given the number of cars in their area. But they were out of step with the rural areas.
So Rome has shown that it doesn't understand the needs of the rural areas of Australia. It probably can't comprehend them. I can't comprehend them - Toowoomba is the size of Montana?! And I read there are only 18 priests - do they really understand the picture? If not why?
The one thing I keep coming back to is their need to establish rules for such a huge disparate group. Not just guidelines but dogmatic rules. It must be overwhelming. And to try and understand people from all these areas and really understand their problems. How can that even happen if someone like Pell keeps acting like he's from Rome rather than Australia?
Thank you for your insights - they do give me an understanding of just how overwhelming these "temple police" people can be. It's so easy being just me and having the choice to ignore them and their rules. And that's just about little things. When you seriously consider abortion and the serious issues women (and men) must face, it gets too mind boggling. "They" choose only to see black and white when we live in a world of shades of grey.
Go with Love, Go with God
lockedA Godincidence if ever there was one !
by Angela , Newcastle NSW, Monday, October 24, 2011, 06:31 (578 days ago) @ Dolores
I couldn't believe it..unable to sleep last night, I had local ABC radio quietly talking to me as I tossed and turned..Thank goodness for long extensions for the earpiece lol.
Tom Roberts came on at 11pm discussing his book "Emerging Catholic Church" had me wide awake in no time!!
http://www.abc.net.au/sundaynights/stories/s3346148.htm
"Lucerna Pedibus Meis"
locked
Thank you for your "wakeup call".
by ray(O) , Toowong, Monday, October 24, 2011, 11:10 (578 days ago) @ Angela
Tom Roberts came on at 11pm discussing his book "Emerging Catholic Church" had me wide awake in no time!!
Having heard this podcast, I will try to get hold of his book.
This has been an excellent review of his own book. He comes across as someone who has a real vision for a renewed church.
He even used the expression "being church" and has a positive attitude for the future of what the emerging catholic church should be.
together in the Faith of Christ
Ray
lockedThank you for your "wakeup call".
by Angela , Newcastle NSW, Monday, October 24, 2011, 11:28 (578 days ago) @ ray(O)
Hi ray(o),
It is available through the amazon catholica site for under $16 American I think.. big special at the moment. I am trying to work out if available on Kindle at all.
God Bless
Angela
"Lucerna Pedibus Meis"
lockedAn institution reduced to effective silence on key issues people would like discussed....
Understanding the psychology of the remnant sector is relatively easy compared to trying to understand the dynamic of what is going on in the ecclesial leadership — and, to some extent, the apathy of the great majority in allowing a small minority to "steal" their church from under their noses.In the case of priests and bishops I sometimes wonder if it is simply they find it as difficult as all the rest of us to deal with these people. Unlike you and I though the bishops and priests can't just "walk away" or "ignore" this remnant element. But, it is impossible to have a rational conversation with these people unless you agree with them 110%. (Just try it for yourself on any of these websites most of us here are today familiar with. Or go watch "the brave ones" like TonySee or Peregrinus trying to defy the odds LOL.) The fundamentalist element are not open to any other points of view except their certitudes — and that even applies in conversation with priests or bishops.
Decades ago I can remember witnessing a small incident after Mass one day that gave me insight into the dynamic involved here. After Mass the priest was on his way back to his presbytery and he was confronted by one of those we'd today label as a member of the "temple police". I was watching this at a distance but close enough to discern that the person confronting the priest had one of those questions like the sort of thing you encounter on those Apologetics DBs. You could tell from the body language of the priest that all he wanted to do was get back to the sanctuary of his presbytery. He was not interested in any "theological debate" with this person over whatever the complaint was. The priest hardly said a word in response but he kept "nodding his head" in some sort of feigned agreement with whatever the person was accosting him about. All the rest of his body language and non-verbal communication through screamed out "for God's sake you nit wit would you get out of my way so that I can get back in that presbytery door over there as I have far more productive things to be doing with my day than engaging in some conversation with you". Over the years since I've come to the conclusion that a heck of a lot of this "mock head nodding" goes on "to get these people out of their hair". As I said, unlike most of us lay people they cannot simply walk away. They do have some kind of "pastoral responsibility" towards this element. On the other hand they learned long ago to not get involved in any extended conversations with these people because "you can never win" (unless you agree with them 110%). The quickest way to "get rid of them" is to feign agreement with whatever they are arguing.
The other problem, and I think this is massively greater, is that effectively this remnant element has effectively shut down all priests and bishops from actually "preaching from the heart" in their homilies and public ministry and witness. The "temple police" today are a massive problem. They literally can "bring down bishops" as the Bill Morris situation demonstrates so graphically. I have worked for bishops and I know, first hand, how scared they are of saying anything publicly that will cause that remnant element to go firing off letters to authority figures. When is the last time anyone heard a decent homily on anything to do with human sexuality (apart from priests or bishops themselves numbered in the remnant cohort)? Never. It simply does not happen today. Most normal priests avoid all the "contentious issues" (that are the favoured subjects of the remnant element) like they avoid a plague. I can tell you graphic stories of the "avoidance strategies" people in high places go to to avoid anything that upsets the remnant element. What I am trying to argue here is a contention that why this situation has arisen might not be entirely deliberate on the part of bishops and priests. It is more driven simply by their own "self-preservation" and "sanity".
One priest, now a bishop, once told me that it simply wasn't worth "the four or five weeks taken out of his life" if he got a complaint filed against him by the usual element who are always firing off letters to authorities. He explained to me how he'd be locked up for weeks drafting responses to the Archbishop explaining precisely what he'd meant in what he said in his homily (or something printed in the parish notices or the local Catholic newspaper), and then there'd be a succession of meetings with the Archbishop, or the VG, to respond to the complaint. Witness what went on between John Bathersby and Peter Kennedy, or between Bill Morris and Rome. The "four or five weeks" is no exaggeration. And it is not only the expenditure of time, and diversion from other work, it is the constant stress when you are put under any sort of investigation. This priest was explaining to me in answer to a direct question why he worried himself sick about not provoking that element in the congregation. The reality is that we have an entire institution that has effectively been "shut down" as a preaching or spiritual guidance mechanism for the great majority in society. The priests and bishops don't preach homilies on "human sexuality" anymore. Instead they drag in the likes of layman Christopher West to do all the talking in their dioceses — and then it looks as though the priests and bishops are actually "doing something" but in fact they don't have to expose themselves or say a single word that might get them into trouble. When they do "speak in public" it tends to be on pastoral matters that are of no interest to the "temple police" element. A good example of that are all the excellent Social Justice Sunday Pastoral Statements the Bishops of Australia commission each year.
Brian,
I had never thought of it like that, but what you are saying makes total sense.
My parish priest is a great pastor, and has no time for the temple police, but he manages to successfully walk the fine line with his bishop.
So what you are saying suggests that we the laity need to find ways to speak out in our parishes, not just on discussion forums preaching to each other.
In what ways can we evangelise within our parish so that others who think the way we do, know that they are not alone.
That is a challenge.
lockedAn institution reduced to effective silence on key issues people would like discussed....
by Jerome , Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 21:33 (577 days ago) @ flagrantheretic
Today I have read some posts on the forum that have special impact.
I think that they need re-reading and reflection.
I think we should all make attempts personally to answer the challenges in them.
John Churchman http://www.catholica.com.au/specials/exitstories/006_exitstories_251011.php
‘Instead of pay-pray-obey,
I chose to follow the call of the Holy Spirit
(out of the comfort zone onto a Great Adventure)
and to
Go, Grow, and Glow.’
flagrantheretic #87540
‘My parish priest is a great pastor, and has no time for the temple police, but he manages to successfully walk the fine line with his bishop.
So what you are saying suggests that we the laity need to find ways to speak out in our parishes, not just on discussion forums preaching to each other.
In what ways can we evangelise within our parish so that others who think the way we do, know that they are not alone.
That is a challenge.’
Enda #87566
‘How do bishops stand up to a pope who is wrong?’
PJgov #87569
‘We will not change the Church by walking away.’
These 3 posts in particular have occupied my mind, because they seek action rather than talk.
I would love to see a lot more posts that suggest ‘out of the box’ actions.
It would be interesting to learn about the results of every action that originated from a post on the forum.
What if all members of this forum actually approached their parish priest and asked the question: ‘How do bishops stand up to a pope who is wrong?’
Then all members would post on this forum the responses they received.
The ratings might go through the roof, Brian!
In the ‘Emerging Church’ discussions many times actions are mentioned that are about ‘social justice’ and ‘caring and sharing.’ Aren’t they the actions of people who put into practice the essence of last Sunday’s gospel:
"You shall love the Lord, your God,
with all your heart,
with all your soul,
and with all your mind.
This is the greatest and the first commandment.
The second is like it:
You shall love your neighbour as yourself.
The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."
Ynot wrote: #87320
‘If there is a problem in loving God
it does not lie in that mysterious doubt about whether god really exists or not;
it is found in our reluctance to go the whole way in living in truth, or in truly living.’
Thank you all for such thought-provoking posts.
Let us follow up with actions rather than ‘walking away’.
That, to me, is the action of an 'emerging church'.
lockedFr Richard Rohr on the emerging church
Thank you, Delores for the links to the videos. I did a little research and would like to add the following as a resource:
http://www.cacradicalgrace.org/resources/radicalgrace
This is the Center for Action and Contemplation library of its periodical publication Radical Grace. Each publication contains a wealth of topics that will be of interest to all.
The January-March 2010 issue contains many articles on Emerging Christianity.
Richard Rohr is very involved with the Center.
lockedFr Richard Rohr on the emerging church
Here are two links to the Radical Grace publications at the Center for Action and Contemplation
Emerging Christianity
http://www.cacradicalgrace.org/images/RG/2010/rg_2010_q1_med.pdf
The Emerging Church link
http://www.cacradicalgrace.org/images/RG/2008/rgqtr04_2008_web.pdf
lockedA discussion with Bob Kaiser and Tom McMahon on this "emergent church" business....
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 01:23 (578 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Dear all,
Earlier today I received an email from Tom McMahon with a short comment re the Tom Robert's interview. I had just finished replying to Tom in what was originally going to be a private email and then I received another email from Bob Kaiser offering a different take altogether on this "emergent Church" theme. I'm still not convinced by Kaiser's argument — and basically for the reasons I'd posted to Tom McMahon.
For your reflection and entertainment then here's the flow of correspondence...
From Tom McMahon:
Subject: Re: [Catholica] A radio conversation with NCR's editor at large, Tom Roberts...
Monday, 24 October 2011
Brian, thanks for the heads up. I am disappointed in Tom's version of emerging church. Tom
Response to Tom McMahon: (which might also serve as a part response to Robert Blair Kaiser's message below)
Yes, Tom, I don't think there is going to be "an emerging church" for generations — possibly even five or six generations or more. All these activities going on today — from Richard Rohr to Michael Dowd, John Shelby Spong to Hans Kung or Karen Armstrong, Joan Chittister or Michael Morwood, even ourselves — are basically exploratory by people who were turned on by the exciting potentials thrown up in the 1960s but they are basically not exciting the vast masses of young people today. It will be when a new "young generation" gets excited (like we were in the 60s) that there will be a new "emergent church" or "emergent Christianity". Young people are simply not going to be interested when they see the likes of Benedict "tottering around in his gold and lace vestments speaking in Latin". And the Ottaviani set has got firm control of the institution today and they are not going to let go. All the best priests and potential bishops got out around the same time you got out. Those left running the show today are either nutters or "politicians" (who don't believe in anything expect greasing their way up the hierarchical pole and will say whatever is necessary to please whatever the agenda is of the clique presently in charge. Watching George Pell is perhaps the best example of that anywhere in the world although you have a few in your country that would be good "runners up" to Pell.) I'm sure Benedict now is way out of his depth and the whole show is now being run by apparatchiks trying to second guess him all the time. They'll create their "smaller, purer church" with only 5% of the adult baptized continuing to participate and even when the Almighty is frog-marching them into Hades for their "success" in achieving that they'll still think they've been rewarded with heaven. What we’re basically watching is the scene from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest where the inmates have taken over the running of the asylum!
I've only read a little of Tom Roberts' book so far but between that and what I heard on the interview I think he's more written the obituary for Catholicism than some "hope-filling" picture of an "emerging church". Catholicism as we knew it is finished, kaput. The dreams of Vatican II cannot be resurrected while these zealots are around who stifle everything that Vatican II stood for. They're not going to die out as there is a remnant cohort in the young generations who operate from the same mindset. While many around the world got very excited by what came out of Vatican II we were also completely naive about the zealots who never accepted anything about Vatican II and who, at every turn, have manoeuvred themselves into positions of control and the ability to undo everything about Vatican II. Jesus spent a heck of a lot of time in the Scriptures warning of the problem that would be posed by zealots and pharisees in every epoch of history. They literally have the same mentality as the sort of Islamic terrorists who flew civilian jetliners into the WTC ten years ago driven by their obsession of trying to impose Sharia Law on all of humankind. Nobody can reason with these people. The forces in the psyche that drive these individuals are more powerful than any other forces known to humankind. Even the threat of death at their own hand does not scare them. They'll literally martyr themselves firmly believing they are "doing the Lord's work".
Both Milly and myself are actually pretty optimistic about the new generations. They are "spiritual" even if they are totally turned off by the institutional church and the nutters who run it today. They are still "exploring" the spiritual landscape even if on a different canvas to us. They tend to see us as still associated with the nutters who run the institution today even if we see ourselves as totally removed from the thinking of the Benedicts, the Levadas, the Raymond Burkes, the Charles Chaputs and the George Pells.
I think the best we can now do is to keep alive those ideas we explored during our lifetimes. I liken the younger generations today as a people "wandering in the desert" again. They are searching for answers. I suspect what they will eventually find is precisely the sort of problems we encountered. It will be at that point that some of them might re-discover our work and find themselves surprised to say "hey, look fellas, someone was here before us. These people were searching for the answers we've been searching for and they were doing all this a hundred years ago!"
I think you are correct. The Spirit of Jesus is still alive in the world. It's just no longer alive in the Church. The zealots kicked Jesus and the Spirit out when they rejected the insights of Vatican II. Our work has not been in vain. The Spirit knows what she is doing even if it all looks like a dog's breakfast to us at the moment. The Ascent of Humankind will continue and all those ideas that excited us were a part of that Ascent and not part of this "descent back into darkness" that has been encouraged by Alfredo Ottaviani and these two Popes, JPII and BXVI, who inherited the mantle of totalitarian thinking that was so influential in their homelands during their youth. They think they rejected Communism and Nazism but cannot see that they themselves think and act in the ways of totalitarian overlords. Their Nemeses taught them well!
We are privileged to have lived through a fascinating period in world and ecclesial history.
Blessings to you and Elaine too. Pass on our regards to all the people you introduced us to during our enjoyable but too brief stay with you.
Message from Robert Blair Kaiser:
Brian, I just heard the Roberts interview on your ABC, then read your remarks, objecting to Roberts by saying 'the institution is kaput,' then listened to Rohr talking about the emerging church (as you also suggested), then tried to get on your forum to insert my two cents worth. Of course, per usual, I failed because I had the wrong password. Question; WHY DO WE NEED PASSWORDS AT ALL? WHY ISN'T OUR NAME AND EMAIL ADDRESS SUFFICIENT?
Okay, now, to get my two cents worth into the discussion; not to pussyfoot around, Brian, I don't think you understand what Rohr and Robers are saying. You said again today that the institution is kaput. That's right. But that does not deny what Rohr/Roberts are saying. They are saying there's a new consensus emerging among every kind of Christian that is trying in a fitful way perhaps to 'FOLLOW JESUS.' And they do not care about affiliation with any Church, nor care (as Rohr was saying on one of your recommended YOU TUBES) to start a new one. The old denomination thing, he said, is passé. Younger generations are not only saying that; they're acting on it. They'e just going about trying to be instruments of Christ's peace in the world, and they couldn't care less about what the U.S. hierarchy is today saying is 'NON-NEGOTIABLE." These folks, Brian, are the emerging Church that Roberts and Rohr are talking about.
You, on the other hand, are still talking about reform of the institutional Church. I keep catching myself doing that, too. When you were reporting on Hans Kung's latest lament in early October, I tried (on Oct 6) to get you to see that you and Hans were living in the past, and I see now, in reviewing what I said then) that I had already written my response to your statement today. I was saying then the same thing that Roberts/Rohr are saying today; HERE IS PART OF WHAT I SAID ON OCT. 6;
... For centuries, perhaps, the people at large either went along with their popes (some very good men and some scoundrels, it didn't seem to make any difference) because they were either ignorant or uninformed.
Now, under the influence of two major factors, Vatican II (which gave them reasons to grow up) and the world-wide mass media, they've had their eyes opened to the sham (realizing the pope is not really a god, after all) that kept them obedient. With that realization, now, we should not be too surprised (in fact, maybe we should be delighted) that our people (particularly our young people) have "drifted away from the Church." It's not that they didn't get the lessons of Vatican II. I think they did, and they, by contrast with you and me, Brian, have had the guts to say, "We don't need the clerico-papal sham any longer. It's boring and a waste of time. We'd rather spend our time christifying the universe (a Teilhard expression), fighting for social justice, re-forming the institutions that oppress the poor (the banks, for example), and objecting (in the U.S. at least) to the alliance between the government and the country's biggest corporations, which do not only not pay their taxes but even get huge bailouts when their rapacious policies come back to bite them in the ass. We don't need "the Church," i.e., the hierarchs to help us do that. (In fact, many of our bishops are in bed with the corporate barons.) N.B. I WAS WRITING THIS BEFORE THE 99 PERCENT CROWD WERE MAKING HEADLINES SITTING IN IN WALL STREET.
Rather than be sad about this state of affairs (it's not a hope, Brian, it's a reality), we should applaud. Vatican II was not a failure. Utopia isn't here, of course, but the Fathers of Vatican II never said they were pushing for Utopia. They said we are members of a pilgrim Church making our zig zag course through history, never quite sure we are getting it right, getting crucified at times for our troubles, picking ourselves up (resurrecting?) after our falls and our failures and moving ahead.
You say that Hans said in that dialog with Padovano that the prospects of reform are virtually zero. I think you need to define what you mean by reform. Reform of the papacy? Forget it. I've already said why that is impossible. In 2006, Knopf published my book on the future of the Church (A Church in Search of Itself), and Hans was kind enough to write a blurb for that book, but he got it all wrong. He said that real reform of the Church has to begin in Rome.
In my book, I was saying just the opposite. I said that the people of God all over the world already live lives of wholeness in a variety of non-Roman ways, which meant that we were already re-formed in many ways. The only thing lacking: we, the people of God, had no control of the institutions and the churches and the schools that we built to work for us. We could leave all that stuff behind as we pursued the christification of the universe. Let the bishops have all that stuff.
Kaiser
There, Brian, is my addition to your forum thread on Roberts/Rohr. Post it if you will. (But, for the future, I really wish you'd get rid of that fucking password nonsense.)
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedFurther response to Kaiser...
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 02:12 (578 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Kaiser,
I think what I wrote in response to Tom is essentially agreeing with you. The only place where I disagree with you is that frankly I don't see an enormous body of young people "following" Hans Küng, Richard Rohr (or any of the other 'reform-minded' names I mentioned in my response to Tom). When I "tune in" on their conversations these days they are "deeply spiritual" and interested in social justice and building a better world (which, in a sense, is equivalent to "building the kingdom") but they wouldn't be seen dead in a church or even much associated with the likes of us (at least in public LOL). One place where there was a slight presence might have been the World Parliament of Religions but, from what I picked up, that was mainly an older audience also — basically the same sort of age ranges that we saw in Detroit at the American Catholic Council.
I think you HAVE influenced me. I'm actually agreeing with you pretty strongly today that I think "reform" (of the institution or of Rome) is a dead letter. As you write: "forget it!"
In what I write I'm not trying to diminish the importance of all these so-called "emergent church" developments going on in the world at the moment. I think they are an extremely important part of a conversation and consensus that is emerging. What I am basically disagreeing with is getting too enthusiastic about believing that overnight this is going to replace the remnant Church Benedict and friends are building. I think it is too early to say that. That's falling into the same trap all over again of believing that Vatican II was going to change the world and turn humankind on its head in the space of a few years instead of decades or hundreds of years. How wrong we were all about that, eh? Little did we appreciate the zealotry of the likes of Alfredo Ottaviani, Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger who had completely different ideas of what Vatican II was about to everyone else — and they made damn sure they were controlling the agenda while all the rest of us were singing our Kumbayas LOL!
In the past I've compared the situation to a situation similar to a personal one we all experience at one time or another. We sense "something is wrong" about something but we're not sure what. It's an intuition and we certainly don't have any solution. It might take weeks or months, possibly even years, until suddenly "the penny drops" and we find a solution. I think society as a whole is going through one of those sort of "moments". Collectively we sense "something is wrong" (with a whole lot of things in society not just Catholic or religious things) but we don't yet have answers. I detect that amongst young people as well. We're all searching. And I think that "search" is important. I just don't believe we are going to see some "new church", or "new version of Christianity", or "new Christology (understanding of Jesus)", emerging next week, or even in ten or twenty years time. That's as deluded as the hope we once all harboured that Vatican II was going to be an exciting new spring and understanding of our relationship with this mystery we try to condense into the word "God", with one another and in our understanding of "Church".
About the only thing that I am sure of is that all these "emergent church developments" that we're discussing here are going to play a part in the continuing "Ascent of Humankind" and the stuff Benedict and his friends are playing with will lead nowhere except to societal irrelevance. He's turning Catholicism into a sect of Christianity no different to the 30,000 or however many other sects or denominations there is. Benedict's version of Catholicism far from occupying some place of "primacy" in human affairs will be as about as relevant as the Amish or the many little "Spiritualist Societies of Little Old Ladies" are to human society at large.
Despite the lack of success you've had in getting the ACC organisers to take on board your Autochthony concept, I think "in the really big picture" you're on the money. The world is rejecting this idea of "Big Church" and the kindergarten concept of "my church, my God or my rules are bigger or better 'n your church, your God or your rules" — this whole deluded idea that "outside myChurch there is no salvation". Despite the kybosh put on the ecumenical thrust of Vatican II by Benedict and friends, the re-unification of Christianity is still underway. But it is not going to end up as some "mega Church under the Pope". What will emerge, I believe, is very much a huge collection of very autochthonous churches each respecting one another in their customs, cultures, practises but also seeking some universality in the authentic meaning of the word 'catholic' or even 'christian'. In the long picture I think the idea that you introduced to the discussion at the American Catholic Council is the one that will prevail as an important characteristic of whatever emerges as a new structure to replace the remnant and museum that Benedict built.
I am sorry about the passwords. One day I hope we might have the funding to employ moderators. At present we don't and I have to sleep sometime. I do not have access to anyone's passwords as they are all encrypted. You can easily change your password to something more easily remembered (and the new password will still be encrypted and known only to you and the computer where our website is located). To change your password you need to be logged in. Then simply click on your own name (which appears where the "log-in" link originally appeared). That takes you to your profile page where you can change a lot of things, including your password and email address. [The only thing you can't change is your user name. If you ever need to change your user name you have to contact us.]
If you've lost or forgotten your password it is simple to create a new temporary one. To do that go to the normal log-in page but instead of logging-in press the small "forgot your password" link. That will take you through a two-step process where a new password will be emailed to you. As I said above, once you have that you can quickly and simply change it to something more easily remembered or some "favourite" password you use.
Cheers,
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedLike its 1699
by Angela , Newcastle NSW, Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 06:38 (577 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Dear Friends,
I referred my daughter to this string..
from her reply a quote...
"heartening to think there are young religious types who don't want to party like its 1699"
God Bless
Angela
"Lucerna Pedibus Meis"
locked"Like its 1699" not a misprint..
by Angela , Newcastle NSW, Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 16:37 (577 days ago) @ Angela
I have had three messages asking me if the date should have been either 1969 or 1966.
No the quote from my not religious but obviously interested enough to comment daughter is correct LOL
Oh dear just took me 10 min to explain to my husband..
Please let me know if 'tis not understood.
Angela who may have been the only one to get it straight away
"Lucerna Pedibus Meis"
locked
"Like its 1699" not a misprint..
by Milly , Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 23:20 (577 days ago) @ Angela
I thought it was hilarious, Angela...and spot on!
Musica delenit bestiam feram.
locked
"Like its 1699" - sorry, I don't get it.
by CathyT , Adelaide, South Australia, Wednesday, October 26, 2011, 00:41 (577 days ago) @ Angela
Oh dear just took me 10 min to explain to my husband.
Please let me know if 'tis not understood.
Maybe it's because I haven't got around to reading all (or even most of) the posts in this thread, or maybe I'm just thick, but I don't get the 1699 reference. I hope it won't take you 10 minutes, Angela, but I would appreciate an explanation
Cathy Taggart
I splash in my poetry puddle
and try to keep God amused. - James Broughton
locked"Like its 1699" - my take
by Angela , Newcastle NSW, Wednesday, October 26, 2011, 01:10 (577 days ago) @ CathyT
Hi Cathy T,
I think..as her email to me was most brief.
On reading the thread my daughter (she is 31) has realised and is appreciative of the fact that there are currently young people who are interested in religion who are
happily involved but not playing /dancing /doing to the going back to the middle ages tune and style demanded by the party organisers (hierarchy).
Hope this makes sense. Am not usually up and about at this hour lol'
God Bless
Angela
"Lucerna Pedibus Meis"
lockedEdited with YouTube link
by Milly , Wednesday, October 26, 2011, 01:33 (577 days ago) @ Angela
edited by Milly, Wednesday, October 26, 2011, 22:40
It's also a take on the song by Prince where he sings that we're all going to 'party like it's 1999'...remember that song? Only Angela's daughter obviously thought that 1999 was a bit recent for the discussion...so pushed it back a bit further.....
Clear as mud?
Musica delenit bestiam feram.
locked"Like its 1699" - my take
by Angela , Newcastle NSW, Wednesday, October 26, 2011, 06:26 (576 days ago) @ Milly
Oh Milly,
Knowing my daughter that is much more like it!!
I thought she was reworking my oft repeated "back in 1969 when I went over to UK by boat.....etc etc"
Thanks for enlightening me..had heard of "Prince" though lol
God Bless
Angela
"Lucerna Pedibus Meis"
lockedThank you Angela and Milly
by CathyT , Adelaide, South Australia, Wednesday, October 26, 2011, 16:35 (576 days ago) @ Angela
I had never heard the Prince song mentioning 1999: now it makes sense. Though Angela, maybe your daughter was also thinking of your oft-repeated phrase; it's good to know she was listening to you!
Cathy Taggart
I splash in my poetry puddle
and try to keep God amused. - James Broughton
lockedThe other scenario that's a possibility...
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 09:40 (577 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Mornin' all,
Re-reading all of that again, I think the other scenario that is a distinct possibility is the one argued in this place by James, that what emerges in the future is not like anything we have known. Secular or wider society will take over the role of "moral policeman" as already seems to be happening and society will become far more agnostic about the need for some sense of a personal God "sittin' up in heaven sending down thunderbolts and miracles to water our crops, protect us from global warming and tsunamis, or cure our cancers". Society will perceive it has a need for God about as much as adults today have a need for Santa Claus. Religion and spirituality will be perceived in an entirely different construct to anything that humankind has known before. There are many signs pointing in that direction and James often points to many of them in the conversations in this place.
Now there's something else to shove in your pipes and smoke for breakfast this morning. Personally I think the religious and spiritual impulse in society is a long way from dead. The future does not belong to Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens any more than it belongs to Benedict Ottaviani and friends.
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedThe other scenario that's a possibility...
by georgeh , Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 09:58 (577 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
I like your post Brian.
It does seem to include everybody in a futures scenario?!
georgeh
lockedThe other scenario that's a possibility...
by desi , Australia, Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 10:29 (577 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Religion and spirituality will be perceived in an entirely different construct to anything that humankind has known before. There are many signs pointing in that direction...
Earlier today I posted an article giving details of a US Survey, interestingly this was the first stat. which they used.
An overwhelming majority, 88%, say "how a person lives is more important than whether he or she is Catholic,"
http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?mode=thread&id=87531
lockedThe other scenario that's a possibility...
I remember shortly after Vatican II, a priest friend saying that he thought it would a century or so before the Holy Spirit got through to the hierarchy. He foresaw what is happening - that the laity who had "caught the fire" would first try to bring about reform, then get "squashed" and, after trying in vain for change, would simply walk away and find God in their own way.
My view is that he is right, but he was optimistic about the time frame. There is certainly a far greater awareness of spiritual dimensions to life than previously, and many search in strange places, but the key is that searching is happening. Even if our young ones search in different places and ways, they are still "on the journey". No one who can think today is going to swallow much of the "junk religion" we were force-fed in the past. But what arises like a phoenix from the ashes of the
organized religion of today (of all churches) will be very exciting. A whole new Creation. But I don't think I will be here to see it, having hit the 70 mark. I hope my grandchild might, but think it could be more like her grandchildren.
God has Eternity, We only have time, so let's enjoy all dimensions of the journey of Creation towards eventual reunion with the Creator.
J A Holznagel
lockedThe other scenario that's a possibility...
Brian,
Personally I think the religious and spiritual impulse in society is a long way from dead. The future does not belong to Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens any more than it belongs to Benedict Ottaviani and friends.
To some extent, it depends on what you mean by "spiritual" and "religious".
Dawkins, Hitchens etc, would say that the awe created by the universe is a "spiritual experience". Brian Cox who produced the Wonders of the Universe series and who describes himself as a humanist, says,
Science is clearly economically valuable and clearly spiritually valuable. I don’t see why you would need anything else.
http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/527
I have a good friend, as agnostic and unbelieving as they come, but who has a stressful medical job, has no hesitation in going off to 10 day meditation retreats that he finds very helpful and enlightening. Although the centres are run along Buddhist lines, he has no inclination to become Buddhist or anything else.
If that is what you define as "spiritual", I don't think that inclination will ever disappear.
I also think that it is unlikely that the inclination that you describe as
...the need for some sense of a personal God "sittin' up in heaven sending down thunderbolts and miracles to water our crops, protect us from global warming and tsunamis, or cure our cancers.
is likely to disappear too quickly. But that is certainly the type of "spirituality" and "religion" that seems to be disappearing at least in Western society.
And I agree with you that the future does not lie with anyone in particular, whether Dawkins, Hitchins, Ottaviani or Ratzinger. What I do think is that humanity as a whole has to draw from all sorts of sources and points of view, in order to make a better world. That obviously does include science, but it also includes lots of other things, as Professor Peter Doherty said on the ABC Late Night Live last week, it includes what the theologian has to tell us, the novelist and the poet, as well as the good people whether religious or otherwise who are increasingly working in secular charitable organizations.
The human race seem to take two steps forward and one back, as we saw with the Americans after the Second World War, with the Marshall plan, with social democratic programs to help those less well off, with the idea of globalized justice with the Nuremburg trials with the United Nations etc.
Then we had the steps back Ronald Reagan, ("the rich aren't working because they don't have enough money and the poor aren't working because they have too much") and Margarent Thatcher ("there is no such thing as society, only individuals and families") and George Bush (Guantanamo, refusing to sign the treaties against torture, or for the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, not to mentions his wars). And of course, we have the clarion calls to the lizard brain in this country too over asylum seekers - Media Watch had an excellent one on this last night.
And we have to add to the one step back, Paul VI and Humanae Vitae, Josef Ratzinger with his and his predecessor's policy of covering up child sexual assault by clergy, and his refusal to support condoms as one way to reduce AIDS, and the support of the Latin American hierarchy appointed by John Paul II for the rich and privileged in those countries and the demonising of those working for the betterment of the poor as "communists".
And that is the problem with the Church at the official level. Another very good example is George Pell's comment on the latest case in NSW over claims against the Church. Reliance on legal technicalities mirrors the morality of James Hardie directors in sending all their assets to the Netherlands to avoid responsibility to asbestos victims. The very fact that there are now calls for reform of the law to force the Church to accept its responsibilities for the damage done by paedophile priests is an indication of how far behind it has fallen.
The Church is only going to be part of the human race's two steps forward when it ceases having to be taught be secular society on how to behave. At the moment, it seems it will only do so if it is forced to by law.
lockedThe other scenario that's a possibility...
James, it may be that the secular law is going to force the Church to change its practices, as appeals to moral law seem to have fallen on deaf ears.
Perhaps it is God's sense of humour at work, showing Benedict that all that is secular is not bad.
J A Holznagel
locked"Real reform has to start in Rome"...
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 13:43 (577 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Just re-reading what you wrote again back in October: you disagreed with Hans Küng's suggestion in your book that "real reform has to start in Rome". I actually agree with Hans Küng. But I also think that's precisely now why there will be no reform. The church is no longer an agency in the world recruiting from the ranks of "the best and brightest". The "best and brightest" left decades ago. (We've just had a book published in Australia a few months ago that despite the active discouragement from the institutional leadership to advertise it or promote it has been selling very well. It's the story of Roger Pryke. That book could almost be described as one of the definitive explorations of the exit of "the best and brightest".) Those who've greased their way up the hierarchical ladder will never "get it". Neither will the company men who've lost their voice.
I agree with Hans Küng in that if there was to be reform of the institution it has to be encouraged from the top. That is totally unlikely to happen. As I've written before, these guys will be being frog-marched into Hades for their stewardship and still totally convinced the Almighty has rewarded them with Paradise and the 95% who have "bugged off" are the ones on their way to Hades. Not even Jesus or the Almighty might convince them that they had misread the script if the 86% who have already walked out the door can't send them a message they understand.
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
locked"Real reform has to start in Rome?!!!"...
I can only repeat what John XXIII said when asked why he'd convened Vatican II: "to make the human sojourn on earth less sad."
For God's sake, let's find something to cheer about.
Tom Lee
lockedA few things to cheer about...
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 22:27 (577 days ago) @ Tom Lee
For God's sake, let's find something to cheer about.
Tom, how about these suggestions...
i) Anticipation of the next set of participation statistics for the Church in Australia;
ii) The reception the document from the Australian bishops about Bill Morris has been generating around the world;
iii) Benedict won't be around forever;
iv) That when he goes he'll be replaced by someone cut from the same cloth who will continue the exodus from the pews so ably orchestrated by himself and JPII;
v) That despite all of the above there is a tangible interest in "things of the Spirit" in the world at large even if it is very hard to spot it within the institution these days.
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedA few things to cheer about...
Tom.despite the appearance of so many things., this is a fantastic time to be alive, as so much is beginning to happen. People are waking up to the fact that we are more than bodies, and exploring the implications for this.
We are more aware of other people than at any time in history and are able to make even some small changes in lives, whether close to us or far away. While we see scenes of disaster and famine so often on TV, we are also able to see wonders such as glaciers moving to the sea, something not seen in this part of the world.
Many of us have more for which to be grateful than when we were children. Sadly, many people still live lives of quiet despair or downright agony but there are usually means to help now and more awareness of the plight of others, and the injustices which cause this misery. So we can raise our voices, if not our fists, in protest and make some small changes.
We see and hear of others who share our hopes and dreams and, even if now we see through a glass darkly, we hope for a better and fairer world for our descendants.
I became more aware of my good fortune when, after flying to England in just over a day, I visited the "Great Britain" ship in a museum at Bristol and saw the conditions under which my ancestors sailed to Australia. While we may complain about the lack of leg room in "cattle class" on today's aircraft, we have better space than our grandparents had even in the better quarters on these ships. I cannot imagine how my grandmothers coped with small children, being pregnant and travelling in such ships to the unknown but I am very glad that they did.
The greatest joy for me is breaking out of the old Catholic strictness of thinking and beginning to explore the wonders of the Universe, searching for the Creator with whom I will one day be reunited and on the journey, enjoying the company of such fellow explorers as I meet on Catholica.
J A Holznagel
lockedA few things to cheer about...
by georgeh , Wednesday, October 26, 2011, 08:38 (576 days ago) @ judith
Thanks for your positive post judith.
We all need to reform at all times I feel?!
We constantly need to try and see through that third eye?!
I guess Rome is also part of that search?!
georgeh
locked
