|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 26, 2017 8:55:17 GMT
I agree my thread title is rather sensationalistic, but I can't help that. I always try to apply the principle of charity and assume the best and most sensible motives of people.
But I really wonder whether radical Catholics-- those who demand the usual liberal reforms of the Church-- actually do want the Church to die? Or perhaps they simply view its diminution into irrelevance with equanimity?
I'm prompted to this question by the fact that so many of our religious orders seem to have little problem with "managed decline", to judge from their rhetoric.
When the catastrophic effect of liberalization on the Church of England, and other Christian bodies, are pointed out to such people, they seem uninterested.
Do you think many liberal Catholics, such as the more active members of the Association of Catholic Priests, have subscribed to a kind of "death of God" theology-- which may have theistic or atheistic or agnostic interpretations, but whose general thrust seems to be that the ultimate act of renunciation and self-sacrifice for Christians is to renounce their claims to truth, or the exclusive truth? I really get the impression they feel that Christianity was, perhaps, a particular phase in the evolution of world-consciousness, one to which they are personally attached but whose decline should be accepted?
|
|
|
Post by Account Deleted on Sept 26, 2017 14:49:26 GMT
I wouldn't call myself a liberal with regard to Church reformation, so I can't really comment on the mindset of what drives liberals in the Catholic Chuch.
All I know is that wherever they are going, they want the Church to go with them.
On one hand, disillusioned Catholics who leave for Protestant churches I find a more intellectually honest approach. There are, of course, those who remain Catholic (even if only nominal) with decidedly hostile motives toward it - that can't be denied - but on the other hand, some liberal Catholic reformers remaining in the Church, rather than leaving it, can and do (I think) display that the Church genuinely means something to them.
I'm in two minds about them, and so it really depends on the individual cases (and we can not judge the heart).
Others (what I suppose we tag "conservatives"), like myself, perhaps feel there's more benefit to be gained from a different attitude to the Church, one that holds that the Church (or any religion, for that matter) must guide and nourish them, not vice versa. It all boils to self-righteousness: do I lead, or do I abandon myself to Divine Providence, and trust, and let God lead? In practical terms, we are nourished by the Church, but we also build it with our efforts, so it's a fine balance, as much of conscience as will.
"Truly, truly, I tell you, when you were young, you dressed yourself and walked where you wanted; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.”
I'm reminded of Pope Benedict's warning and encouragement: expect a much smaller, but more devout, core Catholic Church.
|
|
|
Post by annie on Sept 26, 2017 17:26:27 GMT
In the past fifty years, recruitment into religious orders in Ireland has dropped like a stone. After Humanae Vitae, priests, nuns and seminarians in their hundreds just upped and left. Married people looked on in astonishment - what about their vows? The changes in the Mass, the turning around of the altars, the whitewashing of walls and removal of statues were all prompted by a desire to get us closer to our "separated brethren" but it had the affect of alienating many others. The religious orders had been asked by the Pope to look again at the charisms of their founders for a renewal of their work in the world, but without new members, it confused the older ones and drew the younger ones away from community life. Lay teachers were brought in to replace the retired teaching nuns and brothers and now we see empty convents throughout the land. New orders such as Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity and older ones - the Poor Clares, the Carmelites and the Dominicans have been more successful in their recruiting. Once we sent huge numbers abroad to the mission fields but they were no longer needed as much once the native peoples had their own nuns and priests. Not everyone is suited to monastic or community life as it is a challenging one. There will always be some who will take up the challenge and spur the rest of us on. The fallacies of "the Spirit of Vatican II" are getting a "dead cat bounce" at the moment but the Church, as promised by Christ, will prevail. I recently came across this piece about one of the theologians at Vatican II which you may find illurinating www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/april-10th-2015/the-holy-cardinal-who-died-in-a-prostitutes-home/
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 29, 2017 21:44:42 GMT
I think quite a few self-described "liberal Catholics" really do wish the Church to die, or at least to be transformed into something so different that it is unrecognisable as the same body. Look at Fr Flannery's original article (the one that got him suspended) where he says that he no longer believes that Jesus founded the church but that it was developed many years after His death by a power-seeking group of His supposed followers. How can someone who believes that attach any value at all to the historic Church? There area number of reasons for the fall-off in religious vocations (some socio-economic - more opportunities outside religious life, religious reacting against rigorist superiors, more exposure to secular education) but at the heart is a loss of faith. It's meant to be participation in Jesus's sacrifice - if it's not that, then what's the point? As Flannery O'Connor said in another context, if it's just a symbol then to Hell with it.
|
|
|
Post by Account Deleted on Sept 30, 2017 2:35:50 GMT
The trouble with using Fr. Flannery as an example of a liberal Catholic is that he is one of a few media-courting "theologians", holding and promulgating views at the extreme edge (or outside?) of the Church. I doubt the numbers of his ilk out there far outweigh the more numerous liberal, a-la-carte, nominal, lay cultural Catholics who don't really have the time to think (or care about) Fr. Flannery's heretical sophistry. It is as equally irrelevant to them as the Church's actual teachings.
Keep in mind that nearly 80% in Ireland still claim Catholicism as their religion. It seems to me, from what I hear, that those majority are not actively seeking the death of the church, but simply excuse away their non-involvement by the doctrinal intransigence of the church (especially on the usual hot-button doctrinal teachings on sexual morality), which is what constitutes "liberalism" of the ordinary Catholic today. They firmly believe it inevitable that the Church will at some point have to change it's teachings to match society mores now (which it won't - doctrine is highly immutable and not meaningless).
If they could suddenly no longer find a priest or a church there at moments in their life when they (or their loved ones) want them, I suspect they would feel quite bereft.
The other type, referred to in the OP (the ones who think Christianity just a vanishing sociological phase), are closer to an atheistic/agnostic mindset than anything else, and wouldn't call themselves Catholic, never mind a liberal one.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 4, 2017 20:57:58 GMT
I wouldn't call Fr Flannery a theologian; he is a publicist of certain theologians' views and seems to be moving slowly towards the logical conclusion of those views (whether or not those theologians follow or even recognise their own logic) This piece from FIRST THINGS is quite relevant here - it discusses SILENCE in the light of the "death of God theology" which has already come up in this thread. The writer argues that SILENCE is part of a tendency to replace seeking sympathy for others through love of God with attempting total identification with others and determination to spare them suffering whatever the cost, and how this attempt, which is essentially an attempt to be God, rapidly leads to compassion fatigue and burnout. Given that some prominent Church figures praised SILENCE as a model for future evangelisation, this is quite worrying. www.firstthings.com/article/2017/10/empathy-is-not-charity
|
|
|
Post by Account Deleted on Oct 4, 2017 22:12:42 GMT
I wouldn't call Fr Flannery a theologian; he is a publicist of certain theologians' views and seems to be moving slowly towards the logical conclusion of those views (whether or not those theologians follow or even recognise their own logic) I don't either - hence "theologian" in quotes. But I do think he tries to present himself as one, to the masses.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Oct 5, 2017 6:03:37 GMT
I was thinking about liberal Catholics, who I agree are a minority, rather than the vast number of nominal/cultural Catholics. I really mean the kind of Catholic who is actively involved in liberal Catholicism, attends seminars, reads America magazine etc.
|
|
|
Post by annie on Oct 5, 2017 10:30:08 GMT
Perhaps they have "Dad" issues, like many communist/leftist types, and so are in constant rebellion against any sort of authority, wanting to replace it with themselves?
|
|
|
Post by annie on Oct 6, 2017 7:20:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 12, 2017 21:57:49 GMT
Another way of looking at it is that they don't see the Church as a corporate body autonomous from society, possessing its own internal structures and sometimes needing to stand apart from society and judge it. Instead they have a Hegelian view - that civilisation necessarily evolves in certain directions and that the church's role is to accept and be part of that evolution and to care for the wounded (naturally on the basis of the standards of society as a whole, not any standards of its own).
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Oct 12, 2017 22:51:47 GMT
That's the second time today I've seen "Hegelian" used disapprovingly to describe developments in the Catholic Church...
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Oct 14, 2017 9:00:00 GMT
Another way of looking at it is that they don't see the Church as a corporate body autonomous from society, possessing its own internal structures and sometimes needing to stand apart from society and judge it. Instead they have a Hegelian view - that civilisation necessarily evolves in certain directions and that the church's role is to accept and be part of that evolution and to care for the wounded (naturally on the basis of the standards of society as a whole, not any standards of its own). I don't think that liberal Catholics like the word 'judge' anymore. Maybe that is an indicator of what they want from the Church. The ability to live their lives, do right and wrong as they see fit, while dipping into their Catholicism for the bits they like and the bits that make them feel good about themselves.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Oct 14, 2017 10:35:31 GMT
Perhaps they have "Dad" issues, like many communist/leftist types, and so are in constant rebellion against any sort of authority, wanting to replace it with themselves? Just watched an interesting video of Jordan Peterson talking to the feminist Camille Paglia. At one point she suggests that a lot of gay people she knows have deep issues with parents. In her experience many gays have had a distant father and suffocating mother influence. I suspect that this whole area is ripe for research. It is repeated so often that there may be some substance behind it. My only fear with this is what you define as best practice if you did find a correlation between parental attitudes and being gay? For example when does a mother move from being a caring parent to a suffocating parent? When does a father who likes to keep a small but healthy distance from his children become a distant or stern Dad?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 15, 2017 19:06:09 GMT
"Hegelian" is used by many trads to describe the attitude of liberal Catholics. I think it can be overdone (e.g. when it is used to rule out any Newmanite development of doctrine - Newman proposes various tests to distinguish between a legitimate development and a distortion - or to deny that any sort of historical adaptation is ever necessary). The legitimate use of "Hegelian" as a criticism is to criticise such views as (a) there is a direction of history discernable by the enlightened, such that views which the enlightened see as out of touch with said direction must simply be wrong and irrelevant (b) statements of doctrine and devotional practices are historically conditioned to such an extent that it is not possible to learn from the past; there must always be a series of clean breaks and new beginnings. Anyone who has seen the gloating on Fr Flannery's Twitter account over the summary sacking of Cardinal Muller as Prefect of the CDF will know that liberal Catholics are quite capable of "judging" when it suits them.
|
|