That's the title of an "On Faith" column by Tom Reese, the Jesuit political scientist cited in the post below on the bishops spring meeting in Texas. Father Reese's take is that the bishops' agenda "will keep it busy but it will not deal with the real issues facing the church: how to interact with Obama and how to respond to the exodus of one third of Catholics from the church."
Absent from the agenda is a discussion of how the bishops should interact with the Obama administration. Will the vocal bishops continue to set a negative tone or will the conference seek common ground with the administration on issues of poverty, health care, nuclear disarmament, immigration reform, global warming, the economy, peace, etc., while politely disagreeing on abortion and stem cell research?
Since there is no episcopal leadership pushing for civil engagement, the Obama administration should not hold its breath. The only thing that may turn the bishops around is a roaringly successful visit of Obama with the pope in July. Word is that the pope is looking forward to the visit. How many bishops would meet with Obama if he visited their diocese?
Nor do the bishops give any indication that they know they are on a sinking ship. One third of Catholics have left the church. Any other organization would try to find out why and develop a plan to get back their members or customers. Have the bishops commissioned a study of these former Catholics? No. Data doesn't count.
The bishops, like the leaders of GM, Chrysler and the Republican Party, think that old strategies (emphasize orthodoxy and play to your base) will work. They blame the exodus on secularism, consumerism, individualism and sin.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Your Name of June 18, 2009 10:43 AM -
Based on claims that you made that I know have been tested, I find that your claims are untrustworthy. It appears that your study and investigating has been poorly done.
Well, I'll address a few of the more common "changes" you have mentioned:
•At the time that Pope Pius IX was speaking, it was in very limited terms. The Church has always been opposed to chattel slavery. That is, the treating of human beings as no more than mere objects like livestock. The Church, including St. Paul, recognized valid forms of servitude which include such forms as selling oneself into servitude as a serf or the reasonable compulsory labor of prisoners.
•Likewise the form of usury condemned by the Church in the middle ages is fundamentally different from the loans of the banking industry today. In the past it was largely used as a way to exploit the poor and not a legitimate means of economic expansion. There is a great deal to the differences and I recommend reading the following: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0607uan.asp
•Meat on Friday is a discipline not a doctrine. It is similar to the Holy Days of Obligation which can be changed by the local ordinary. The same is true for the List of Forbidden Books which could be changed by the Vatican.
•Declaring something to be near occasion of sin is not doctrine; it is advice given by the Church and is subject to error or, in this case, insensitivity.
•The Galileo affair was the Church speaking out on science which is not infallible and was a mistake. It is not doctrine.
•Extra ecclesia nulla salus is infallible. The Church has always taught this doctrine and continues to do so. It has, however, done a better job of explaining how those who are not officially in the Catholic Church are, in fact, capable of attaining the salvation that flows through Christ’s Church. Further reading: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp
Any claim that the Church has changed can be challenged quite easily. This is just a sample. It's why we know that we carry the Truth of Christ which does not change. God is immutable and so too must be His fundamental teachings.
EF has missed badly explaining the obvious changes in doctrine over the years .. Take a shot at this change , EF. The church taught for 200 years that democracy and small r republicanism was puke.. now 'mikie' likes it.Irish abuse just taught us that when the state and Church combine people suffer horrors.. keep'em separate and use force if necessary..
The Church never condemned democracy or republicanism. It urged caution that it is not the cure-all promised by the early adopters. While democracy can be a great thing, when not guided by right reason it can allow evil like any other form of government. This continues to be true today.
We have to guard our democracy and use the election process to guide our the government towrds the good.
It is always a challenge for Christians to be visible and vocal in the political process. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find a consensus among Christians as to what being visible actually means. Being distinctly Christian might mean praying in the name of Jesus, or it might mean praying in the name of thr Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It might mean that only genuine Christians vote Republican and yet there are many devout Christians who vote Democrat. A question that we may want to ask ourselves relates to what is meant by being distinctly Christian? When we are able to identify what being Christian is, then I think we will get a clearer picture of how vocal and visible Christians must be in forming the moral fiber of this nation. Until then, we have the example of 80 men to follow.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.