The Church

[Nevada Hoya]

newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/03/a_call_for_a_catholic_reformation.html

Interesting article, actually open letter to the Pope on what the Church needs to do to stop the migration out of the church, by an Egyptian Jesuit. Comments?

[EasyEd]

Written by a Jesuit. What do you expect?

The religious element in our country that has enjoyed, by far, the largest expansion is the evangelical Christian element and their values are just the opposite of what the author espouses. They are the real conservatives of the Christian belief system. The only modern thing they seem to have adopted is in the liturgy where they make use of music that appeals to the young. Their beliefs are strictly "what's in the Bible".

[DFW HOYA]

Three points.

1. The author has a very-Eurocentric view of the Church, particularly ignoring the significant growth in Africa, India, and Asia, much less the growth in the Americas. His major beef seems to be that teachings on "marriage, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, married priests, the divorced who remarry again, etc. etc., no longer affect anyone." Well, maybe not among his European friends, but Church teaching is not a popularity contest.

2. The author has a very Jesuit-centric view of the Church, and I do not mean this in a complimentary way. The Vatican has distanced itself in recent years from the S.J.'s who push social justice ahead of faith, and there are those who suspect the Vatican would not mind seeing the order diminished and marginalized in the coming generations while other orders take a more active role in Church affairs.

3. The fact that this article appears in Sally Quinn's corner of the web further de-legitimizes this article. "On Faith" often reads as somewhat paternalistic and dismissive of Catholicism. Those Catholics who are to the right of the Holy Trinity Church line of faith (once described as Chris Matthews as the church where there are only two sins, nuclear war and racism) are viewed as simpletons or reactionaries. Where are the articles discussing the continued decline in mainline Protestantism, or even Judaism? Why are evangelical and LDS communities growing worldwide as well? Or are these stories the gentry really don't want to consider?

(On disclosure, I live in a diocese that has doubled in population within the last 10 years, just added two auxilliary bishops, has a downtown church with a average Sunday mass attendance of over 11,000 (despite the fact that no one really lives downtown), and is about to pass the Baptists as the largest religious group in a city once known as"the buckle of the Bible Belt". Good leadership and a good message still win out--maybe Rev. Boulad neds to ask why Europe seems less willing to fight that good fight.)

[Nevada Hoya]

Agreed that Quinn's "On Faith" can sometimes be described as "Anti-Faith." It also gives a great forum for those readers with a grudge against the Catholic Church.

But I think Father Boulad is right about France's abandonment of the faith (and other European countries showing lax practice of the faith). Just not sure his fixes for this are what needs to be done.

I know from speaking to people who lived under Communism that the practice of religion was more cherished than it is now under democracy in Europe. Sort of a variation of the saying that "there are not atheists in foxholes."

[SFHoya99]

My actual attendance of Church correlates strongly with the quality of my Priest's homilies. Good leadership and a good message win out -- but while I don't agree with everything said here, what people choose to focus on and the way it is said are important.

Much of my Catholic education pre-Georgetown rarely discussed Faith, Morality in any philosophic sense, etc. It was dictated rules that mostly centered on me not having sex before marriage and not being gay.

The Catholic Church has, in many areas, allowed its Faith to be reduced to that. There is so much more to be found in religion that no one ever finds out about.

[The Stig]

Mar 31, 2010 18:38:17 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Their beliefs are strictly "what's in the Bible".

Not really. They may claim that to be the case, but their beliefs are really "the parts of the Bible that we like." It's the same for every sect out there. Everybody's a 'Cafeteria Christian' of some sort.

For a humorous but still very relevant look at fundamentalism, have a look at The Year of Living Biblically: www.ajjacobs.com/books/yolb.asp

[CAHoya07]

Mar 31, 2010 22:18:04 GMT -5 The Stig said:

Mar 31, 2010 18:38:17 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Their beliefs are strictly "what's in the Bible".

Not really. They may claim that to be the case, but their beliefs are really "the parts of the Bible that we like." It's the same for every sect out there. Everybody's a 'Cafeteria Christian' of some sort.

For a humorous but still very relevant look at fundamentalism, have a look at The Year of Living Biblically: www.ajjacobs.com/books/yolb.asp

Agreed - SF more or less said the same thing too. As Rev. Jim Wallis has said, if people really concentrated on "what's in the bible," they would concentrate a lot more on alleviating poverty than they currently do.

To be honest (and I will probably get killed for this), I love the Jesuits BECAUSE I feel they put social justice ahead of faith. If you are doing the right thing for others, who cares what you believe? Actions are far more important than faith. May not be the most religious way to look at it, but it is what I believe.

[SFHoya99]

A lot of people talk a good game.

Actions are actually having a good game.

It's not religious, per se, but if you haven't read How to be good by Nick Hornby, you should. Aside from being one of the best contemporary writers out there, the book makes you think quite a bit about how far you should go -- and how little most of us do -- if we truly executed on what we (claim to) believe.

[Bando]

Mar 31, 2010 18:38:17 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Written by a Jesuit. What do you expect?

The religious element in our country that has enjoyed, by far, the largest expansion is the evangelical Christian element and their values are just the opposite of what the author espouses. They are the real conservatives of the Christian belief system. The only modern thing they seem to have adopted is in the liturgy where they make use of music that appeals to the young. Their beliefs are strictly "what's in the Bible".

I'm not really in the church anymore, nor is this really on topic, but when did Catholics start looking at Evangelicals with admiration? I ask only because they were really seen as the enemy when I grew up, from liberal and conservative Catholics alike. In fact, the only time my mother ever expressed worry about a girl I was dating was when I dated a member of the Dutch Reformed church a few years ago. Maybe it's just an Irish or northeastern thing.

[Boz]

Well, it WAS Dutch. I'd be concerned too if I were one of your parents.

;D

(clearly, I have no answer to your more serious question; I don't recall any specific enmity in my childhood. More animosity existed in between Catholic parishes -- which I file under "surprise to no one" -- than between Christian denominations).

[DFW HOYA]

Apr 1, 2010 10:42:19 GMT -5 CAHoya07 said:

To be honest (and I will probably get killed for this), I love the Jesuits BECAUSE I feel they put social justice ahead of faith. If you are doing the right thing for others, who cares what you believe? Actions are far more important than faith. May not be the most religious way to look at it, but it is what I believe.

Except that it's functionally inconsistent. Yes, faith without works is dead, so to speak, but the New Testament stresses that salvation is a result of grace through faith and not by works alone. Just doing something but having no belief structure behind it is incomplete, but faith with works is worth aspiring to.

Apr 1, 2010 13:29:46 GMT -5 Bando said:

I'm not really in the church anymore, nor is this really on topic, but when did Catholics start looking at Evangelicals with admiration?

I'm not sure that's the case, but evangelicals have been more receptive of Catholics in recent years due to a perceived sharing of values, such as Rev. Billy Graham, who took his share of criticism from the fire-and-brimstone Protestant factions for engaging in dialogue with the Vatican and speaking well of the Pontiff.

Overall, those denominations that stand for something seem to be growing verus those that stand for everything:

www.the-tidings.com/2010/031910/newsbriefs.htm

[CAHoya07]

Apr 1, 2010 13:49:24 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Apr 1, 2010 10:42:19 GMT -5 CAHoya07 said:

To be honest (and I will probably get killed for this), I love the Jesuits BECAUSE I feel they put social justice ahead of faith. If you are doing the right thing for others, who cares what you believe? Actions are far more important than faith. May not be the most religious way to look at it, but it is what I believe.

Except that it's functionally inconsistent. Yes, faith without works is dead, so to speak, but the New Testament stresses that salvation is a result of grace through faith and not by works alone. Just doing something but having no belief structure behind it is incomplete, but faith with works is worth aspiring to.

What if you have a belief structure behind your actions, but it's not faith in God but a belief to do good for others, because they are fellow human beings, and it's the right thing to do?

My problem is probably more with organized religion than the Catholic Church and Jesuits, since I believe actions >>> faith. But I'm probably taking this thread way off course.

[strummer8526]

Apr 1, 2010 14:58:44 GMT -5 CAHoya07 said:

Apr 1, 2010 13:49:24 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Except that it's functionally inconsistent. Yes, faith without works is dead, so to speak, but the New Testament stresses that salvation is a result of grace through faith and not by works alone. Just doing something but having no belief structure behind it is incomplete, but faith with works is worth aspiring to.

What if you have a belief structure behind your actions, but it's not faith in God but a belief to do good for others, because they are fellow human beings, and it's the right thing to do?

My problem is probably more with organized religion than the Catholic Church and Jesuits, since I believe actions >>> faith. But I'm probably taking this thread way off course.

No, I don't think it's that far off course. I was about to post something very similar. And for me, I even maintain belief in God, Jesus, etc., but I have lost all faith in man's ability to operate a hierarchical organization that competently shares, teaches, and embodies the teachings of Christ.

I think faith in something is still important—faith in a higher being, faith in the fact that there is a purpose in life, there is a "right" and a "wrong," faith in some basic teachings, etc., etc. But for me, I no longer see "faith" as being equivalent to following the Church as an institution. I don't see how anyone can still accept the Church as the legitimate intermediary between humanity and the entity/teachings in which we are supposed to have faith.

[DFW HOYA]

Apr 1, 2010 16:11:43 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

I no longer see "faith" as being equivalent to following the Church as an institution. I don't see how anyone can still accept the Church as the legitimate intermediary between humanity and the entity/teachings in which we are supposed to have faith.

Well, a lot of people do, and the Magisterium of the Church is as full and as legitimate an intermediary between God and man as it was when it was in Matthew: "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

In this Easter season it is always important to reflect upon the dichotomy between belief and faith. Belief is an idea or concept of that which we can understand, while faith is a concept that which we cannot totally understand, and sometimes people are willing to deny one to support the other. But both work hand in hand in Catholicism, even if it is a difficult concept for people to grasp. Maybe that's why faith is the proverbial journey and not the destination.

[EasyEd]

Well said, DFW.

[Nevada Hoya]

Apr 1, 2010 10:42:19 GMT -5 CAHoya07 said:

Mar 31, 2010 22:18:04 GMT -5 The Stig said:

To be honest (and I will probably get killed for this), I love the Jesuits BECAUSE I feel they put social justice ahead of faith. If you are doing the right thing for others, who cares what you believe? Actions are far more important than faith. May not be the most religious way to look at it, but it is what I believe.

Well, I would think that Saul of Tarsus would disagree.

[Nevada Hoya]

I have often struggled with what constitutes faith. Many times faith comes from believing what others say. If we have faith in Jesus and the Bible, it comes originally from reading the words that other humans, however inspired, have written down. I think eventually it will become a transcendence from these words to belief and faith in Jesus and God, because the words of the Gospel and the actions of Jesus were so powerful that they engender belief and faith.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Apr 1, 2010 21:38:55 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Apr 1, 2010 16:11:43 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

I no longer see "faith" as being equivalent to following the Church as an institution. I don't see how anyone can still accept the Church as the legitimate intermediary between humanity and the entity/teachings in which we are supposed to have faith.

Well, a lot of people do, and the Magisterium of the Church is as full and as legitimate an intermediary between God and man as it was when it was in Matthew: "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

In this Easter season it is always important to reflect upon the dichotomy between belief and faith. Belief is an idea or concept of that which we can understand, while faith is a concept that which we cannot totally understand, and sometimes people are willing to deny one to support the other. But both work hand in hand in Catholicism, even if it is a difficult concept for people to grasp. Maybe that's why faith is the proverbial journey and not the destination.

This is one part of Catholic doctrine I still don't get. I can see why it can be infered that Jesus intended to make Peter his representative on Earth (the "rock" ambiguity aside, of course). Why do Peter's successors get to bind things in heaven and on earth? Where does Christ imply that? Is it in the establishment of a "church"? And how does that lead to the Cardinals electing Peter's successor, rather than the pope himself appointing his successor?

Thanks in advance for the education.

[DFW HOYA]

Apr 5, 2010 9:56:25 GMT -5 Coast2CoastHoya said:

This is one part of Catholic doctrine I still don't get. I can see why it can be infered that Jesus intended to make Peter his representative on Earth (the "rock" ambiguity aside, of course). Why do Peter's successors get to bind things in heaven and on earth? Where does Christ imply that? Is it in the establishment of a "church"? And how does that lead to the Cardinals electing Peter's successor, rather than the pope himself appointing his successor? Thanks in advance for the education.

I guess Georgetown doesn't teach the concept of apostolic succession anymore, but here goes:

1. Nothing ambiguous about Peter. To rename Simon bar Jonah as Petros (Greek for "rock") and entrust him with duties with the other Apostles gathered, there was no armbiguity that he was chosen to lead the church and was given the keys to the kingdom to accomplish this.

2. The quote from Matthew above gave the church the "keys to the kingdom". Apostolic sucession ensures a linkage between the present day Church and the tenets of its origin. Catholic apologists (and I use the literal meaning of the term and not what people think of as "apologist" today) will note that this is the only structure of a church cited in the Gospel and that all Protestant denominations are man-made in comparison. (LDS adherents will argue otherwise but that's a whole other topic...)

2. Apostolic sucession begins in the Acts of the Apostles and in the succeeding epistles. As the bishops of the church taught the next generation, their sucessors (beginning with the 72 discliples) were heirs to the line of teaching directly established by the apostles. It also helped to distinguish among early heresies by determining if a claim was taught by predecessors or had sprung up on its own.

Note as well that not only Catholicism has a doctrine of apostolic sucession, but ther Eastern Rite, most Orthodox churches, and even Anglicanism. Patriarchs of the Eastern churches are selected by their peers in synods.

3. Just as the apostles chose their successors, so the present day successors choose the successor as Bishop of Rome. Originally, a bishop in his region selected his own sucessor but the rise of false claimants and antipopes led to a more formal selection process in the 12th century; however, the concept of apostolic sucession is still very much in force, as each of the cardinals are part of a line of sucession.

[Jack]

James Carroll, while certainly established as an opponent to Benedict, is no dummy:

www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/04/05/rescue_catholicism_from_vatican/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed2