tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post5952562370759699174..comments2024-03-23T12:05:23.537-05:00Comments on The Wild Reed: The Catholic ChallengeMichael J. Baylyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-10598468895926901632009-07-18T05:08:35.448-05:002009-07-18T05:08:35.448-05:00Thanks for your response, GS. And for an interest...Thanks for your response, GS. And for an interesting conversation.William D. Lindseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07246026074693891965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-89735051615880494562009-07-17T19:57:48.241-05:002009-07-17T19:57:48.241-05:00If I were as pretentious as you, Ms Lindsay, I wou...If I were as pretentious as you, Ms Lindsay, I would mention the Biblicum, the Gregorian, both in Rome (not that you know or care) or the Blackfriars as Oxford (that's in Great Britain), but I don't stand a chance against your superiority. Uncle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-18814268656169849352009-07-17T17:14:25.520-05:002009-07-17T17:14:25.520-05:00I really cannot be bothered by pompous illiterates...I really cannot be bothered by pompous illiterates, especially those that deceive and call it "truth." As I told Michael, I won't bother him, much less address you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-7064112520686598772009-07-17T17:11:38.036-05:002009-07-17T17:11:38.036-05:00You only prove "degrees" do not confer i...You only prove "degrees" do not confer intelligence. I can hold my own among Catholics -- Jesuits, Dominicans -- but if YOU confuse hierarchical for communitarian, you cannot even use words correctly. And don't impute to me something I neither wrote nor claimed. I did not mention Homeric poetry. You're nothing but a tinkling cymbal. Which is why I think your ideas are . . .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-3029954006814479402009-07-17T15:10:59.940-05:002009-07-17T15:10:59.940-05:00I'm sorry to be blunt, GS, but I'm afraid ...I'm sorry to be blunt, GS, but I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about.<br /><br />I do know Greek. I had two years of Homeric Greek in college and another two years of New Testament Greek at the graduate level.<br /><br />Of course, I know what the neologism homophile or homophilia means, because I can add two Greek words together and understand the sense of that combination, just as many folks can.<br /><br />I'm noting, though, that this Greek word was not even used in the texts to which you refer--not even the ones written in Greek. And that poses quite a problem for someone who wants to say that there has been a consistent teaching throughout Christian history condemning homophilia.<br /><br />Words matter, and it's shoddy scholarship to retroject modern terms into ancient texts and then claim the ancient texts were talking about terms we've invented at a later date.<br /><br />A license to practice speculative theology, conferred by Rome? What on earth does that mean? I've never heard of such a thing. <br /><br />I have a master's and a doctorate in theology from a Catholic university, and I'm not aware of anyone, lay, cleric, or religious, who graduated from that university and obtained a license from Rome to be a theologian.<br /><br />I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about.William D. Lindseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07246026074693891965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-12465180172088958812009-07-17T14:22:46.782-05:002009-07-17T14:22:46.782-05:00There is a HUGE mistake, one taking SPECULATIVE TH...There is a HUGE mistake, one taking SPECULATIVE THEOLOGY and considering it DOGMATIC DISSENT. The license to practice speculative theology is solely Rome's to confer, because it is inherently dangerous. Apparently, some laity think they're experts, but cannot decipher a simple distinction between "dogmatic" and "magisterium." Hell, I'm not even Catholic, and I know the difference. You guys just blow it out your mouths without thinking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-41817144819943663122009-07-17T14:19:41.187-05:002009-07-17T14:19:41.187-05:00If you knew Greek, you would know same-sex relatio...If you knew Greek, you would know same-sex relations were not "physis" -- not natural, which is how authoritative translations translate Romans 1. I have no idea what "unnatural" means, because the opposite of natural is artificial, and homophilia is not unnatural if 1400 different species engage in it.<br /><br />Whether it is "sinful," I leave to god to tell you through his oracles.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-48126508468082839752009-07-17T14:07:13.327-05:002009-07-17T14:07:13.327-05:00Homophilia is in most dictionaries, biology texts,...Homophilia is in most dictionaries, biology texts, and philosophical texts. Even Wiki has it. Your ignorance does not need further addressing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-61297588145918052882009-07-17T05:53:37.211-05:002009-07-17T05:53:37.211-05:00Gay Species, your analysis is perplexing.
On th...Gay Species, your analysis is perplexing. <br /><br />On the one hand, you claim that only certain dogmatic teachings have been infallibly declared de fide, and that moral teachings are treated by the magisterium as disciplinary and open to further discussion.<br /><br />But then you take away with one hand what you gave with the other, by trying to claim that the teachings against abortion and gay acts have a quasi-infallible status and have been regarded by the magisterium as unofficially declared, throughout history.<br /><br />You try to argue that there is some clear, consistent, unambiguous teaching "at all times" from scripture, the Didache, in natural law theory, and in Ratzinger's theology that always condemns what you call "homophilia."<br /><br />This is simply nonsense. First, there's a linguistic problem. What does homophilia mean? And do all the sources you cite use that term (no, they don't)?<br /><br />It's clear to me you're choosing the term because you know that the term "homosexuality," which is more often cited in such discussions, is very problematic here, given its late linguistic origin, and the problems of retrojecting a modern term into ancient texts.<br /><br />But the same problem is there with the term "homophilia," and it's even more problematic in this instance, because the term "homophilia" is both vague and non-standard Greek. <br /><br />And then there's the problem of lumping together disparate texts from wildly disparate periods and cultures, and claiming that they give some consistent testimony to a universal, always-held teaching.<br /><br />One has to look at each text in its own context, beyond our contemporary preoccupations and linguistic structures, and ask what it seems to be doing, if it adverts to a question like sexual acts between members of the same sex.<br /><br />Why this need to universalize teachings you yourself admit are disciplinary and not infallibly defined? And why the need to discount the abundant evidence that folks like John Boswell have found, that there has been a wide range of reactions to same-sex attraction within the Christian tradition over the years, and that when such attraction has been condemned, the reasons for condemning it have varied widely in different times and places?<br /><br />Why not admit, simply, what is clearly true: the tradition is much broader and multi-faceted than magisterial fundamentalists want to make it out to be? And our modern preoccupation with homosexuality as the end-all and be-all issue on which churches stand and fall is just not there for much of the course of Christian history?<br /><br />And the most fundamental, core aspects of our tradition, which must always be held in tension with everything else in it, make it extremely problematic to exclude anyone from the Christian community on the basis of sexual orientation, since our entire tradition is built on the impulse to bring in, bless, save, include, love?William D. Lindseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07246026074693891965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-21821799035623343242009-07-16T15:45:11.497-05:002009-07-16T15:45:11.497-05:00Dogmatic theologians insist only conciliar pronoun...Dogmatic theologians insist only conciliar pronouncements proposed <i>de fide</i> as either an article of faith and/or an instruction in practice is "dogmatic" -- i.e., unquestionable, unchangeable, inviolate. <br /><br />The two exceptions are the Dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the BVM, which were issued "ex cathedra," a power supposedly granted to Popes at Vatican I (but significantly restricted at Vatican II). The question is whether the episcopal college can abrogate its collegiality, and most theologians think not; so whether either of these infallible pronouncements are "de fide" is up for debate. The Church cannot violate its own methodology.<br /><br />The church's teaching authority <i>(magisterium)</i> are teachings to be given one's assent whenever possible, but it lacks the "de fide" status that conciliar statements require. Notice, that ONLY TWO DOGMATIC constitutions occurred at Vatican II <i>(Lumen gentium and Dei verbum)</i>; those documents are "infallible." Anyone who teaches to the contrary is "de facto" excommunicated a heretic.<br /><br />Everything else is either "pastoral" or "disciplinary" and can be changed on a moment's notice, including <i>Gaudium et spes,</i> which was a strange novation on Marxism.<br /><br />The Nicene Creed, the Homoousia of Chalcedon, the seven sacraments, are "infallible pronouncements." To date, NOT ONE moral pronouncement has been established "infallibly." Abortion came very close during the Pontificate of JPII -- but he lack episcopal collegiality and deferred. Meanwhile, the magisterium has always, everywhere, and at all times condemned homophilia -- from Scriputres, the Didache, by Natural Law Theory, by Ratzinger's "intrinsically disordered" theory, and I can assure readers it would be the second most likely Moral Axiom to be defined "infallibly." The magisterium has never waivered on this teaching, and individual dissent -- remember -- is heterodoxy, schism, and apostasy.<br /><br />Anyone who has read the history of Christianity vis-a-vis homophilia (e.g., Louis Crompton's <i>Homosexuality & Civilization </i> -- Harvard, 2003) will quickly come to understand that Christianity regards homophilia as "debased, unnatural, futile, worthy of death." The word "faggots" arose because homophiles were burned at the stake -- with ecclesiastical approval.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-21193273659657990982009-07-14T23:21:33.388-05:002009-07-14T23:21:33.388-05:00Anonymous, it's interesting, how you keep tryi...Anonymous, it's interesting, how you keep trying to frame this discussion. It's very Kafkaeseque. It's a story of an innocent person who is called by the authorities to the office of the authorities, and suddenly finds himself accused and guilty of a crime he hasn't done and couldn't have done.<br /><br />Nothing the innocent man could ever say or ever do will remove from him the mark the authority figures have placed on him, in the Kafkaesque world. If he protests his innocence, the authority figures will simply point to the mark on his forehead.<br /><br />It wouldn't be there, would it, if he were innocent?<br /><br />It puzzles me that some brothers and sisters in Christ seem intent on placing their gay brothers and sisters in Christ in that no-exit, no-salvation place, and then on chiding them if they refuse to accept the imposed judgment that they are guilty and incapable of life in the Spirit.<br /><br />When you ask what pope or theologian holds that the life of the Spirit through the experience of faith is fundamental in the church, I am baffled? Can you really have gotten yourself so far outside the mainstream of the tradition, with your search for absolute authority (and handy weapons to bash many of your brothers and sisters)?<br /><br />Can you really have any doubt about such a fundamental aspect of our faith, which is deeply grounded in the gospels and St. Paul, and runs through Origen, Augustine, Benedict, Hildegarde of Bingen, Thomas Aquinas, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Newman, Franz Jaeggerstaetter, and on and on, right up to Benedict and John Paul II and the catechism?<br /><br />I do understand your pique. For some time now, those who want to place that authoritarian frame around everything have had their way in the church, and it must seem vexing that those you've framed as outside the experience of faith and as guilty are refusing more and more to accept the frame you place on our lives.<br /><br />But that's how it is with the Spirit in the church. It keeps working, calling, moving, even when we want to stop everything and construct a world comfortable for ourselves and those like us.<br /><br />You might jump in and try the water, the water the Spirit continuously troubles. It's wonderful. It does make us question much that we've taken for granted.<br /><br />But the world we see when we do that, on the other side of our sad little certainties, is well worth seeing.William D. Lindseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07246026074693891965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-3778191354116134112009-07-14T18:55:28.425-05:002009-07-14T18:55:28.425-05:00A very good discussion. Thanks everybody!A very good discussion. Thanks everybody!Mark Andrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01258953474190833657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-30043766638492510932009-07-14T18:52:27.578-05:002009-07-14T18:52:27.578-05:00Michael,
This will be my last post on the matter ...Michael,<br /><br />This will be my last post on the matter then. Thanks for your time on the topic.<br /><br />What you see as triumphalism and condescension is truly neither from my perspective. I don't claim to be better than you, William or anyone else for that matter. I actually view all of us, in the grand scheme, the same. We each have our vices and sins to overcome, though they may be different ones.<br /><br />What I say here isn't out of any sort of fear. I'm not afraid of what you are saying, I just find it to be false. I could probably describe your position as condescending as well as you continually assert that my position and that of the Church is hateful, illogical and fearful and that you and your "side" really have the answers. <br /><br />The theologians you cite always display various forms of religious or moral relativism and a clear view that they somehow know more than the Church. That has never been the way real Catholic theologians have operated. It is one thing to explore the depths of the Gospel and Church teaching, it is quite another to attempt to undermine it at every turn to justify vice and sin in the name of freedom.<br /><br />I'll conclude by once again pointing out that you seem unable to cite any magisterial teaching to support your conclusions on infallibility. Simply referring to dissenting theologians who agree with you doesn't cut it.<br /><br />All of the above doesn't mean I'm better than you or any of those of your mindset. I say it with the hope and prayer that you AND I will both work to be more faithful to Christ and His Church. God knows we, and all other sinners, need help in that area.<br /><br />Thanks again for the back and forth, it gives me greater insight into your positions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-44698923211651461682009-07-14T17:28:14.534-05:002009-07-14T17:28:14.534-05:00I also think the perspective of Jesuit Phillip End...I also think the perspective of Jesuit Phillip Endean is worth highlighting. Endean, in reflecting on the work of the great Karl Rahner, reminds us of the authentically Catholic perspective which recognizes that “dogmas of tradition exist not as truths complete in themselves, but rather as resources for helping us discover the ever greater glory . . . of the God whose gift of self pervades all possible experience.”<br /><br />Basically, to quote one of my favorite lines from the movie <em>Ben-Hur</em>: “The world is more than we know.”<br /><br />And whereas I, and others, find hope in such a description of reality, I sense, Anonymous, that your response would be one of distrust - maybe even fear. As a result, I believe you're clinging so desperately to aspects of the known that you prop them up as idols, from whose shadow you dare not venture (or allow others to venture) out into the world.<br /><br />Yet as Endean reminds us, “Christian fidelity is not a matter simply of preserving a heritage unsullied, but rather of courageous engagement with what is new, with what seems strange.”<br /><br />His words recall those of Pope John XXIII: “We are not on earth to guard a museum, but to cultivate a flowering garden of life.”<br /><br />Endean goes on to say that, “The proclamation of the gospel is permanently interactive: no one is untouched by the grace of God, and the proclaimed message will be heard aright only if it somehow interacts – in ways that might be surprising, creative, or unprecedented – with the self-gift of God already present. It follows, too, that Christianity is permanently growing and in process.”<br /><br />“What Christianity is committed to,” concludes Endean, “is not the claim that its traditions possess the whole truth, incontrovertibly, but rather the claim that its traditions possess one resource among others – admittedly a privileged and indispensable one – for continuing to discover God’s truth.”<br /><br />I really haven't much else to add to this conversation. I thank you for sharing your perspective here, Anonymous, but feel it would not be a good use of my time to engage your way of thinking any further. <br /><br />Peace,<br /><br />MichaelMichael J. Baylyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-64987443210916564342009-07-14T17:27:54.438-05:002009-07-14T17:27:54.438-05:00Good grief, Anonymous, I read your latest comments...Good grief, Anonymous, I read your latest comments and just cringe. I keep thinking they can't get any worse in terms of both condescension and triumphalism - and yet they do!<br /><br />I think that what I find most disturbing is your relegating of theologians to the status of stenographers for the Vatican. What a betrayal of Catholicism’s rich intellectual heritage!<br /><br />I don't reference and/or quote from the theologians I do so as to change your mind, Anonymous. Rather, I do it for the benefit of others less of your way of thinking. I'm aware that others are following this thread - others who recognize and appreciate the important role of theologians in our tradition; who recognize and reject that closed-circuit system of circular logic that you insist comprises the totality of Catholic theology. It's for them that I cite the theologians that I do.<br /><br />I don't recognize - nor do I wish to be part of - the "church" you're describing. Oh, to be sure, the narrow, fundamentalist understanding of Catholicism that you put forth has existed within the Church for quite some time. One of the best ways I've heard it described is as the ‘Big Book of Doctrine’ school of theology.<br /><br />In his book, <em>Treasures from the Storehouse</em>, Catholic theologian Gary Macy makes some insightful observations that are relevant to this discussion.<br /><br />For instance, he suggests that the Catholicism's fundamentalist strain's aversion to diversity <em>cannot</em> be said to be the theology of our forebears, who as Macy documents, embraced a theological tradition which recognized “each generation of Christians [as being] equally graced by God, [and] striving to fulfill God’s will as they understand it.”<br /><br />No, the theology that today’s so-called traditionalists embrace is far more narrow, prescriptive, and authoritarian. It's Macy who describes it as the ‘Big Book of Doctrine’ school of theology.<br /><br />“This strange form of authoritarianism,” says Macy when describing this particular school of theology, “fomented both by the ultra-montanism of the late nineteenth-century papacy and by Enlightenment anti-clericalism, understands Roman Catholicism as fundamentally an attempt to provide the definitive answers to all questions, usually in one ‘big book of doctrine,’ whether it be Thomas’s <em>Summa</em>, Denzinger’s <em>Enchiridion</em>, or lately the Roman Catechism of the Universal Church.”<br /><br />Macy points out that Church history shows that “in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a truly autocratic notion of Church was propagated with great success and then read back into the rest of Christian Catholic history. [In the] twenty-first century we are still wrestling with this terrifically successful campaign of misinformation.”<br /><br />We certainly are.Michael J. Baylyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-83449726276970518482009-07-14T16:32:05.725-05:002009-07-14T16:32:05.725-05:00I would like to underscore and extend somewhat a v...I would like to underscore and extend somewhat a vital dimension of Anonymous' last comment:<br /><br />Catholicism and Orthodoxy are about the last major vocal institutional defenders of (to put it most simply) realism in metaphysics and what is often called in shorthand objective truth in epistemology. (Ayn Rand doesn't count - it's the one thing she respected about the Catholic Church, but she disagreed about philosophical axioms because she a priori adopted a purely naturalist philosophy. I digress.) Any argument in favor of fundamental human rights that does not in some important way ground itself similarly is bound to founder on the shoals of utilitarianism and philosophical pragmatism. So, advocates for the fundamental rights of women and gay folk need to remember that this aspect of the Church's teaching tradition is more fundamental to the success of their own arguments than they may realize.<br /><br />A world where utilitarianism and philosophical pragmatism form the dominant philosophical language is a mine in which all peoples without productive value to the majority (such as gay folks, the unborn, the disabled, the terminally ill et cet.) are like canaries in the mineshaft.Liamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-37111782241176898592009-07-14T16:13:46.539-05:002009-07-14T16:13:46.539-05:00Michael and William,
I'm wondering why both o...Michael and William,<br /><br />I'm wondering why both of you consistently refer to dissident theologians as though their writings are "proof" that the Church teachings on this issue are wrong. I would appreciate any direct quotes from Church councils, papal encyclicals or other such documents that support your positions on infallibility, sense of the faithful, etc.<br /><br /><br />I wouldn't use Gaillardetz if you actually hope to change the mind of myself or anyone else on my "side". He is a typical dissident theologian who supports homosexual acts, women's ordination, has a quite flawed view of the structure of the early Church and a narrow view on papal infallibility and the magisterium. In other words, he fits perfectly with the viewpoint you espouse. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I believe it is best to just read/quote what the magisterium has actually said. Otherwise it devolves into a "my theologian is better than your theologian" argument which goes nowhere. <br /><br />William, you say "The Spirit-led life of faith always has priority in the church". A pretty strong statement, care to back it up with a quote or passage from a council or pope? It seems more like your opinion than anything else. How do you KNOW that any actions are truly led by the Holy Spirit? Just your gut feeling? Maybe you've convinced yourself some actions are good or should be considered good just because you want them to be. You assume that the faithful are led by the Holy Spirit and the magisterium is not or at least isn't listening.<br /><br />It really comes down to what you or I or anyone really believes. Do we believe that there is an absolute, objective Truth that can be discovered or not? Does that Truth change based on cultural times and places or not? Does the "institutional Church" as you refer to it, really have the protection of the Holy Sprit as promised by Christ to the apostles or not? The Church throughout Her history has always taught that there is an absolute, objective Truth revealed by God, that is doesn't change based on culture, etc. and that the Holy Spirit has led and continues to lead the Church into all Truth.<br /><br />Do you really think the positions you take would be supported by any of the Apostles? Any of the Church Fathers? Any of the saints? Any pope in history? Can you find official support in any Church Council? Or is your only support from the uncited, vague parallel "traditions" you continually refer to and modern dissenting theologians?<br /><br />It is like a child who is kicking and screaming because they can't do what they want or get their way. Sometimes the parent has to do or say what is best for the child even if the child doesn't like it. It has nothing to do with authority. The parent simply has a responbility to tell the truth and try and protect the child. <br /><br />I always tell my moral theology classes that the Church can't stop them from doing anything but it can teach the Truth in the hopes that they will listen. Heres hoping that one day you and others of your mindset would finally listen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-6180351150858216132009-07-14T13:52:18.189-05:002009-07-14T13:52:18.189-05:00Michael, thanks for the wonderful quote from Richa...Michael, thanks for the wonderful quote from Richard Gaillardetz. I find it very helpful.<br /><br />You quote Gaillardetz to say,<br /><br />"Even the teaching ministry of the Church, while exercised in a uniquely authoritative way by the ecclesiastical magisterium, also requires the Spirit-assisted insight of all the faithful."<br /><br />Yes. That's exactly my point in my responses to Anonymous. The Spirit-led life of faith always has priority in the church, because without that experience, there is no reason at all for the magisterium or for questions about authority.<br /><br />I find it distressing when the attempt is made to play the experience of the faithful, led by the Spirit, against the magisterium (or, usually, against very reductive notions of what some people believe the magisterium teaches), in a way that erases and denigrates the lived experience of faith, under the impulse of the Spirit.<br /><br />Unless that lived experience is held in balance--and sometimes in tension--with the authoritative sector of the church, there is really no need for the church at all. If the church and the life of faith are really in the final analysis all about authority, we might as well have a ticker-tape machine issuing daily messages to the faithful about what we need to believe that day, and do that day.William D. Lindseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07246026074693891965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-25925415287652771862009-07-14T13:24:18.290-05:002009-07-14T13:24:18.290-05:00Looking back over some previous posts, I came acro...Looking back over some previous posts, I came across <a href="http://thewildreed.blogspot.com/2009/05/spirit-and-faithful.html" rel="nofollow">one</a> that includes the following quote by Catholic scholar and theologian Richard Gaillardetz. It’s a quote that's pertinent to the discussion on this thread.<br /><br />“. . . By appealing to the Holy Spirit as the source of all gifts the council was able to reconcile what had often been opposed. For almost four centuries Catholicism had rallied around authority of church office (e.g., pope and bishops) while classical Protestantism stressed the indispensability of charisms given to all the faithful. In [the document <em>Lumen gentium</em>] the council contends . . . that both office and charism find their source in the work of the Holy Spirit. The authority of church office and the Spirited insight of the faithful cannot be put in opposition to one another because they share the same source. The Spirit builds up the life of the Church in different ways. Even the teaching ministry of the Church, while exercised in a uniquely authoritative way by the ecclesiastical magisterium, also requires the Spirit-assisted insight of all the faithful.”<br /><br />Peace,<br /><br />MichaelMichael J. Baylyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-53335696989354474212009-07-14T07:17:00.352-05:002009-07-14T07:17:00.352-05:00"But the Church HAS made infallible statement..."But the Church HAS made infallible statements on issues such as homosexual sex acts, artificial contraception and women's ordination."-Anonymous<br /><br />And here, Anonymous, is precisely the problem. Consider that, using this criteria, a likely 95%+ of Catholics--at least in the first world--are material heretics brings this entire discussion to a head. Yes, Gay Species, Lumen Gentium does describe the hierarchical nature of the Church, but that document also reoriented the Church to be acknowledged first and foremost as the People of God. The People of God. I'm not going to set one aspect over against the other in this. I DO believe that authority and hierarchy are important facets of Church life, but NOT isolated from the larger recognition that all the baptized are led by the Holy Spirit. That, in turns, has value for this discussion on infallible teachings. The infallibility of the pope and councils and bishops makes sense theologically ONLY once the infallibility of the CHURCH is defined. Otherwise, we're talking about a subtle form of not only funny-mentalism, but also idolatry...which, Gay Species, is even more to the point of Paul's message in Romans 1. As William has said, what tilts me more to the 95% than to hierarchical teaching is that the hierarchy is NOT even listening to the faithful in these matters. "Listen" for me should at least invite dialogue. When the U.S. bishops released their most recent pastoral statement on homosexuality, they did not call a single gay man or woman to speak about their experiences, their hopes, their anger, their love of Christ...or anything else. Just from a human organizational process, this invites rejection. How does this build "communio," a term that JPII rightly used often to describe the Church? What is "communio" about this dynamic?kevin57https://www.blogger.com/profile/01681985465980196347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-91344185633135453752009-07-13T20:18:01.325-05:002009-07-13T20:18:01.325-05:00Anonymous and Mark,
Thank you both for your comme...Anonymous and Mark,<br /><br />Thank you both for your comments. Michael has addressed your concerns far more elegantly than I could ever do.<br /><br />I find your insistence that some brick wall pf authoritative "truth" stands over against the Spirit-led experience of countless Catholics who continue to seek God's will for the church in various areas baffling. Especially when the issues we're discussing are far from closed, except in your own minds, and when the process you want to use to shut out discussion is essentially a process of circular reasoning, which seeks to discredit the faithful lives and Spirit-led experience of countless believers by announcing that some issues are closed because, well, because you say that they are closed.<br /><br />Wouldn't our church be far richer--not to say more catholic--if we paid closer, serious, and respectful attention to the experience of countless faithful believers which points to ongoing clarification of open theological and ethical issues?<br /><br />Your belief that the quest for authoritative truth stands over against and forecloses the valid religious experience of millions of the faithful troubles me. It seems driven more by a kind of fundamentalism that is difficult to reconcile with catholicism at its best, than by catholic values and catholic insights.<br /><br />I seriously doubt that, regardless of how hard those within the church who want to discredit the religious experience of gay believers, of many women, and of millions of married couples practicing contraception push, those gay believers, women, and married couples are going to renounce our experience of the Spirit. <br /><br />And as small, certain-to-a-fault, and ill-informed groups within our church continue trying to read huge masses of the faithful out of the church, when the issues at stake are not even church-dividing or core theological issues, our church continues to experiences a mass exodus of believers in Western nations including the U.S., and in the process loses its ability to proclaim Christian values effectively to the culture.<br /><br />A sad situation, isn't it? So much energy and so many gifts offered to the church from many quarters, while tiny watchdog groups within the church are intent on patrolling the boundaries and assuring that those gifts and that energy are not received by a church desperately in need of what is being offered.William D. Lindseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07246026074693891965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-78133140378636167482009-07-13T19:17:42.332-05:002009-07-13T19:17:42.332-05:00Mark,
I know it was the Spirit - God's Spirit...Mark,<br /><br />I <em>know</em> it was the Spirit - God's Spirit of love - that gently led me to come out and accept myself as a gay man, even though the thought of being gay was for many years the last thing I wanted to consider. Like many, I tried to hide from that possibility, that truth.<br /><br />Yet God's Spirit of love is a relentless thing - forever drawing us to greater depths of awareness and expressions of wholeness. I realize that I'm a better man, a more conscious and loving person as a result of trusting the Spirit and living my life truthfully as a gay man.<br /><br />I wonder if it's possible for us to agree that the primary work of the Spirit is to led us ever deeper into the truth of who we are in relation to ourselves, others, and God? And is it possible to think that when we pool the experiences and insights of such leadings, such journeys, we develop and expand our collective wisdom and insight into God's truth manifested through and in our lives - <em>all</em> our lives? <br /><br />If such ways of thinking are possible, then the differences between whether we're living this truth and thus growing into wholeness as straight people or gay people, as men or women, etc., don't seem that important. <br /><br />What <em>is</em> important is that we're embodying that same Spirit that Jesus embodied and, in doing so, bringing justice and compassion into the world through our thoughts and actions. "By their fruits you will know them . . ."<br /><br />I don't experience or witness either homosexuality or homosexual relationships being <em>intrinsically disordered</em> so as to hinder such embodiment. Similarly, I don't see women being somehow lesser than men and thus limited in how they can be agents of such embodiment. Yet there was a time when the Church viewed women as very much inferior to men. (And in terms of ordination, the institutional church still does.)<br /><br />Yet the church changed. No theologian today would describe women as the "devil's gateway." I believe the church has also changed in its understanding of gay people (no more burning "sodomites" at the stake!} and that it will continue to change.<br /><br />I have other thoughts to share but such sharing will have to wait as I want to take advantage of the last hours of light and do some planting in my garden.<br /><br />Peace,<br /><br />MichaelMichael J. Baylyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-48487001629162877682009-07-13T18:37:14.899-05:002009-07-13T18:37:14.899-05:00A comment about Bill Lindsey's last post: whe...A comment about Bill Lindsey's last post: when the result of all my searching and seeking results in the realization, whether slow or sudden, that the Holy Spirit thinks just like I do, I worry.<br /><br />I don't want the Holy Spirit to agree with me. I want to agree with the Holy Spirit. There is a difference in terms of who is leading and who is following. <br /><br />It is illogical for the Holy Spirit to lead us into opposite, irreconcilable views of the same issue.Mark Andrewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01258953474190833657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-56610165133799117332009-07-13T16:34:59.260-05:002009-07-13T16:34:59.260-05:00William,
I am also baffled by your line of reason...William,<br /><br />I am also baffled by your line of reasoning or lack thereof. You appear to be saying that if some theologians say an issue isn't "closed" than it isn't regardless of any Church teachings on the matter. You also generally say that the Holy Spirit is leading people of your thinking and that those of "my" thinking are just flat wrong and not listening to the Spirit.<br /><br />This is where we have a problem that is difficult to overcome. What you refer to as the "institutional Church" (and I'd include myself in that line of thinking) believes the Spirit has guided the Church into the Truth on these matters. You claim that "we" are wrong and you and those of your line of thinking are actually the ones heeding the Holy Spirit. I think you'd agree that one side IS very, very wrong. People can discuss these issues all they want (and I have no problem with that), but it won't change what the Church teaches. <br /><br />This has absolutely nothing to do with insiders and outsiders or some sort of power struggle that you are projecting onto the Church. It has to do with all of us being sinners in one form or another through our actions and the opportunity to repent and turn to God for forgiveness and healing.<br /><br />I guess in the end, this debate will rage on because I don't see your side coming around to the teachings of the Church and I don't see the Church changing her teachings on these issues. This is especially true considering the seminarians, younger priests and even new bishops these days are much more orthodox. In speaking with seminarians I know for the Archdiocse of St. Paul and Minneapolis, they couldn't think of even one classmate either at college seminary or major seminary (that's almost 200 potential priests from various dioceses) that would be even considered mildly "liberal".<br /><br />And the ultimate answer I guess will be discovered when each of us dies: Heaven, Purgatory or Hell. I'll stick with the Church, Her magisterium and the promise of Christ to the apostles as the true roadmap. I will pray for you and I hope you for me.<br /><br />"The gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few." Matthew 7:13-14Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-88671945148993859022009-07-13T14:59:10.532-05:002009-07-13T14:59:10.532-05:00Anonymous, I find your way of reasoning about what...Anonymous, I find your way of reasoning about what you regard as infallible, defined positions of the church truly baffling.<br /><br />Essentially, I hear you saying that, regardless of the ambiguity and multifaceted nature of the tradition on many issues, there is an established, infallible position on these issues, which must be taken as the norm for all subsequent theological reflection.<br /><br />But because you prescind from theological reflection (as your last statement admits), you have no way of establishing that infallible position except by circular argumentation: it's established, and I therefore declare it as established.<br /><br />This is theological balderdash. Michael is right--very much so--about the open-ended nature of many of the moral declarations of the church. I understand your need to force conformity with regard to those declarations, and even your need to regard them as "authoritative" and unquestionable.<br /><br />But your wish to make what you regard as infallible authoritative and unquestionable is not going to suppress theological discussion of issues you regard as closed, because the Spirit-led experience of the people of God continues to probe these "closed" issues. <br /><br />That's what life in the Christian community is all about: living, under the impulse of the Spirit, the life of faith, and living it in common with others who share the experience of faith--and reflecting together with others who want to understand and extend the experience of faith.<br /><br />The Spirit-led experience of faith comes before questions authority. It has to do so. We have no need for authority or questions of authority if we don't have authentic religious experience as the ground for such questions.<br /><br />The premature, coercive concern with authority among some of the faithful today suppresses the Spirit and the Spirit-led experience of faith. This concern is not primarily about encouraging others to grow in the experience of the Spirit and the life of faith--or encouraging oneself to grow in the experience of the Spirit and the life of faith.<br /><br />It's about the desire to control, coerce, establish boundaries, create definitions that make some insiders and others outsiders. Those are understandable impulses in the life of any human community, including the church. Definitions and authority are important to any human community.<br /><br />But in the Christian community, these serve the experience of the Spirit and the life of faith. They do not precede and dominate that experience. <br /><br />I am sorry that you and others who share your concern on this thread find it difficult to imagine that those who remain open to the Spirit's leading regarding issues of sexual morality and the ordination of women are experiencing the Spirit authentically. I'm sorry that you seem to have concluded that only your experience of the Spirit and that of others who share your views is authentic.<br /><br />I am, however, convinced that the Spirit is at work in the lives of many of us who do not share your views--including non-apologetic, openly gay Christians who celebrate our sexual orientation as a gift of God and an essential component of our experience of God. <br /><br />Perhaps your view of the church--and your experience of God--would be much richer if you accepted that many of those you imagine as outcasts are capable of experiencing the Spirit authentically.<br /><br />Re: the church's multi-faceted, complex response to the reality of gay persons in all societies throughout history, at all times, in all places, you might read John Boswell, who shows that the church's response to that reality has been anything but the uniform (and uniformly condemnatory) position you want to promote as "the" "infallible" and "authoritative" position.William D. Lindseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07246026074693891965noreply@blogger.com