The New Pope

Parent Cafe
81

<p>TheDad, I’m curious. You obviously feel that the Catholic Church has, at some level, value. Otherwise you would probably just find another religion closer to your viewpoints. So, what about the Church do you value? What makes it worth trying to change to fit your views? Why not just find another religion/church if you don’t agree with all of the beliefs and requirements of the Church? </p>

<p>Not trying to argue whether the Church should change, just what makes it worth changing to you personally.</p>

<p>Docmom, thank you for your excellent and thoughtful post.</p>

82

<p>Docmom, I’m pretty sure that I read in the paper last week that the current Pope is virulently anti-relativist…as an Episcopalian, I guess I’ll be going to hell, according to him…that hasn’t changed.</p>

83

<p>Carolyn, will you leave your country if Hillary Clinton is elected president?</p>

84

<p>Anti-relativism does not mean, and has absolutely nothing to do with, others’ salvation. It does mean that Truth, in an absolute, no matter what anyone thinks except God, kind of way, exists. It is total, absolute. Relativism means that one thing can be true for me, and another for you, and yet another for TheDad, and they’re all right.</p>

<p>Another way trying to defend relativism (which, let me be clear, I am not) is to say, “There are no moral absolutes.” Of course, upon closer examination it becomes unfailingly clear that this is a self-refuting statement: “There are no moral absolutes, except this one statement that says there are none.” It doesn’t hold up logically.</p>

<p>Whatever is morally absolute, what I am calling Truth, exists no matter what you, I, Catholic bishops, the Dalai Lama, atheists, or any one human thinks about it. It exists outside of our thoughts or opinions, and is unwavering. </p>

<p>People should seek absolute Truth and not their own truth. The Catholic Church should (and does) always seek absolute Truth and not their own truth. This is the anti-relativism of which the new pope speaks. </p>

<p>Seeking Truth is a lot of work. It does not come as easy as just taking the information thrust at us day to day from the media, our families, or wherever and saying this is my opinion. It is seeking the <em>ultimate</em> opinion, the only one that matters. </p>

<p>Individuals within the Catholic Church, at whatever level including the popes, sin every day. Everyone falls short. Sometimes these mistakes hurt thousands of people, as in the Inquisition. In sinful quests for power, <em>some</em> individuals of all religious persuasions make extremely bad choices. Free will means that no matter your religious persuasion you are allowed to sin and hurt others, as much as you are allowed to do God’s work and love others.</p>

<p>One final note: The Catholic faith is clear we are not to judge others’ salvations. We believe Christ founded a Church, we believe it is the Catholic Church, we believe it is protected from teaching error (“the gates of hell will not prevail against it”), and we believe Christ’s saving actions come through this Church he founded. Exactly <em>how</em> this happens we do not know, and quite frankly, it’s God’s business, not ours.</p>

<p>St. Paul even said he was “working out his salvation in fear and trembling.” If he wasn’t sure about his own salvation, far be it from any of us to decide for anyone else - we’d better be working out our own salvations in fear and trembling, love others, and keep our nose out of trying to play God and decide whether or not they are “saved.” This is one of my biggest gripes about evangelical Christians: “are you saved?” While this was the same tack the Catholic Church took during the Inquisition (it is our responsibility to convert others) the Church is far ahead of evangelicalism in learning we don’t push others to convert, that it must be of the heart, and in the words of St. Francis, “Evangelize constantly; when necessary, use words.”</p>

85

<p>Please don’t assume that any in the Catholic Church who are less vocal regarding changing certain Church disciplines & practices (as opposed to dogma & doctrine as docmom has noted the differences) are living unexamined lives, murmuring empty pieties or are smug and self-righteous. Sounds mighty close to judging & that’s not my job.</p>

<p>Those who wish to be vocal about change can certainly do so…I don’t think the Catholic Church would ever tell someone to love it or leave it, though it’s been described that way here. I think some posters questions re: if you are very dissatisfied with the Church, why do you stay? is being looked at as if the poster said (under their breath) “why don’t you go?” I don’t think that is the intent at all. It’s really just asking what keeps you there (in the Catholic Church), as Carolyn outlined in the question above. And I must say, The DAD if you don’t want to answer specifically on a public messageboard about what you DO value in the Catholic Church, you are free to say so, but your retort to Carolyn says nothing really, imho.</p>

86

<p>Also Carolyn thanks for the catholic forum link.
And docmom, I’ll add thanks as well for your posts…it’s helping me make more sense amg discipline/practice issues & dogma/doctrine.</p>

87

<p>Moreover, Carolyn, matters such as the status of women, contraception, AIDS, priestly pedophilia, etc. are not a component on beliefs and requirements of the Chuch; they are current policy stances on contemporary issues, and can change as much as the Church’s stances on usury, democracy, slavery, and for that matter, eating fish on Fridays.</p>

<p>If the Church does not reconcile itself with the status of women, it is ultimately going to be as relevant and have a following as large as the Hare Krishnas dancing at the airport.</p>

<p>Btw, Carolyn, I missed your post from last night. The post V-II Catechism was, in fact, one of the early battles of the conservatives rolling back the tide. A number of aspects of it were bitterly fought at the time and the conservatives won. For now.</p>

<p>DocMom’s post about absolute Truth is interesting in its implicit supposition that the Church has something approaching a monopoly on same. Aside from the numerous errors the Church has made over the centuries–one of my catechumenists said that the Church’s very enduance and survival in spite of all these errors was a sign of the Holy Spirit–the Church would do well to recall St. Peter and approach the world with more humility and less arrogance. St. Peter, you will recall, constantly leapt to conclusions about What Was Right only to have Jesus slap his forehead and ask, “Why me?”</p>

<p>DocMom’s post, which you laud, mixes fact, well-reasoned opinion, red-herrings, and concludes with a thinly veiled personal attack on me.<br>
At which point I will give her all she can handle.</p>

<p>On sex and avoiding pregnancy: We were not married in our “home” Church, a decision I regretted even at the time but seemed to be in the best interests of the logistics for two sets of families flying in from out of town and where the reception was, etc.</p>

<p>The priest who officiated at our wedding was the kind who preferred non-questioning, authority-yielding, non-intellectual…superstitious peasants, actually. </p>

<p>We had the mandatory pre-Cana counseling sessions (along with Engaged Encounter) and the fourth and final session was titled “Sex, IN Marriage,” and you could hear the italics for the word “In” in his voice.
He advised us that, if we wished to avoid pregnancy, we should go bowling instead [of sex]. To this day, we can not pass a bowling alley without thinking of this. He also said that the finger of God was present in every act of intercourse…if TheMom and I had looked at each other, the ball game would have been over then and there. The Holy Spirit must have been working to help us keep a straight face.
At least it made for good ice-breaking conversation between the two families when they met at the rehearsal dinner.</p>

<p>Post interrupted by a phone call: Jewish friends says, “He’s a better Pope for us than for you.”</p>

88

<p>Irishbird, my response to Carolyn was very on point: I will not leave my spirtual home without a fight. It’s <em>my</em> home. And the disputes aren’t about essential points of doctrinal belief. The closest alternative is the Episcopalian Church…and they’re having very similar skirmishes within that Communion.</p>

<p>I suppose it’s not out of realm of possibility that conservative Episcopalians will leave for Rome and that liberal and moderate Catholics would leave for the Episcopal Church but while “Never” is a very long time, I don’t see it happening and I would be very sad if it did.</p>

89

<p>Ok, people, help me out here. </p>

<p>How does this
“Individuals within the Catholic Church, at whatever level including the popes, sin every day. Everyone falls short. Sometimes these mistakes hurt thousands of people, as in the Inquisition. In sinful quests for power, <em>some</em> individuals of all religious persuasions make extremely bad choices.”
relate to absolute, non-relavist truth? Killing people in unpleasant ways doesn’t ‘count’ against the absolute truth quotient because it wasn’t dogma or doctrine … is was just a picadillo? </p>

<p>Certainly, many religions are guilty of atrocities comparable to the Inquisition. I likely lost ancestors in Spain, perhaps you did in the north countries during the reformation. All bad, all horrible, and all possible because of unfavoring believe that their one true church was right.</p>

90

<p>The DAD- I just think she was asking what you like about being Catholic & what you value; no one says go, or don’t work for change, but you’ve only offered what you believe (iyho) is wrong and/or stupid (possibly) with the Catholic Church.</p>

<p>But I guess I should let Carolyn speak for herself.</p>

91

<p>Didn’t the Pope say that he’d rather have a smaller “flock” of true believers than a large one of ?? (I’m paraphrasing here) people who didn’t heed his word? To me that sounds like “love it or leave it”…</p>

92

<p>Ohio_mom, the point is that just because someone in a church, even in a position of great power is in that church, doesn’t mean they don’t sin, and doesn’t mean that occasionally a person makes it pretty high up on the ladder and sins in a deep and incredibly hurtful way. That, however, has never changed dogma.</p>

<p>TheDad, you said, “DocMom’s post, which you laud, mixes fact, well-reasoned opinion, red-herrings, and concludes with a thinly veiled personal attack on me.
At which point I will give her all she can handle.” </p>

<p>For starters, I sincerely did not mean to attack you. I sincerely do not understand your conviction to stay in this faith when it <em>seems to</em> (I don’t know you so I may be wrong) make you incredibly angry and uptight. </p>

<p>Let me ask you this: Why this church? Why this religion? You called it your home - is it your home merely because you were born into it? Your family is still Catholic? Or is it your home because, as an incredibly intelligent adult, you believe certain things the Catholic Church professes to believe (what I would call dogma or doctrine)? Do you believe in absolute Truth? Or do we all individually define Truth and it doesn’t exist outside of any of us?</p>

<p>Rather than attacking Catholicism, I’ll ask you to defend it and your choice to be Catholic. I’ll admit I don’t get it, and I am trying to understand.</p>

<p>And please point out the red herrings. I didn’t intend it, and if I did it, I’d like to learn from it.</p>

93

<p>Docmom -
thanks for the clarification, but I am afraid that still just don’t understand the logic. My religious beliefs are experiential rather than faith-based, and perhaps that is the problem. Or, I could just be dense - I never had much luck following geometric proofs, either.</p>

94

<ol>
<li><p>There are currently thousands of married Catholic priests. While about 85% or so of the world’s Catholic population belongs to the ROMAN Catholic or Latin rite church, the other 15% or so belong to other rites WITHIN the Catholic church. The Eastern rites within the church, notably the Marionites, have always had married priests. I am NOT talking about Greek-, Russian-, Serbian-Orthodox Churches, but about other rites within the Catholic church. These rites believe in the pope and papal infallibility, get the same encyclicals as everyone else does–including On Human Life (contraception), but never had mass “said” in Latin and don’t demand celibacy of their priests. There are Marionite rite Catholic churches throughout the US, BTW. Additionally, Episcopalian, Anglican, and Orthodox priests who are married and convert to Catholicism can still be priests and stay married. So, there is no need to reinvent the wheel here–the Latin rite would just have to adopt the same rules as the other rites have on married priests, which is, in fact, what it has done for married convert priests. </p></li>
<li><p>Some sacraments can be performed by deacons. Throughout the US there are thousands of married deacons who baptize and marry people. The baptisms and marriages they perform are every bit as valid sacramentally as those performed by priests. I believe that in certain circumstances they can also hear confessions and give the sacrament of the sick. It’s really only the Eucharist/transsubstantiation which can only be performed by a priest. (Confirmation is usually only performed by a bishop, except at Easter, and I’m only almost sure only bishops can perform ordinations.) Seminarians become deacons about a year before they are ordained, and they too can perform some sacraments before they are ordained. </p></li>
<li><p>It is clear that not only were the early priests married, but the Church permitted divorce and remarriage. I can’t tell you where in the Acts of Apostles it says it, but when the apostles decided they needed some assistants, the criteria for choosing them included that the men chosen must only have been married once. Now, I seriously doubt that they were concerned about choosing widowers. It’s clear they were excluding the divorced and remarried from the priesthood, but not from the Church itself. Even Christ himself didn’t say you could never be divorced; he just limited the grounds to lewd conduct, including adultery. The convoluted way the Church now tries to interpret this part of scripture is a requirement that a married deacon agree that he will not marry again if his wife dies and that, if not already married, he won’t marry (which is why virtually the only unmarried deacons are seminarians awaiting ordination as priests and elderly widowers.) </p></li>
<li><p>When it comes to the Church’s teachings regarding contraception, a little historical perspective is in order. There was a time --I’m talking 13th, 14th century here–when the prevailing view of Catholicism was that it was a mortal sin for a man to have sex with his wife if she had gone through menopause because the intent of sex was procreation and intercourse without the possibility of procreation was therefore a mortal sin. However, should a man be so unfortunate to have a wife that lived that long–somewhat unusual in that era–it would only be a venial sin for him to have sex outside marriage with a woman who was young enough to have children.Yes, it wasn’t really adultery if your wife had gone through menopause. (And, no, this is not a Harvard Lampoon parody–read a little medieval history if you doubt me.) During the same era, the bulk of the litigation in Church courts --which were the only real courts at the time–was made up of actions for annulments of marriages.</p></li>
</ol>

95

<p>Well me neither, so we share that. I think I am more right-brained, however. I’m always kind of amazed that our country is basically 50/50 politically and wonder if it’s the thinkers vs. feelers. Maybe faith is the same way, <em>although</em>, I’ve always said you can’t have the facts of the faith without the spiritual/emotional tie, either. </p>

<p>In 1994 when I decided, upon three years of serious reading, that I had to stay Catholic, that was merely and completely an intellectual decision based on facts. I did not “feel” anything for the Church at that time. About a year later I made a retreat called Cursillo, and I really fell in love with Jesus in the most deep and meaningful relationship in my life. I know that sounds ridiculous to many here, but it’s exactly the way it happened, and it stuck. It was a phenomenal conversion experience. Now I am overcome with emotion almost every Sunday at mass, although someone told me that’s because when you get older you get more emotional and cry more (I’m all of 45!). </p>

<p>So now I believe I have both, and it is really working for me in a complete, all-encompassing way. I have questions about some Catholic practices and opinions, and the annulment issue drives me crazy in the unfair way it is administered, but overall I don’t want the Church to ever change for <em>me</em> and <em>my</em> objective ideas. I’m glad they set the bar very high. They should, and I should be lucky to meet half of it.</p>

<p>Most people should try to be intellectually honest about their choice of religion. My best friends in our neighborhood are non-orthodox Jewish, and we have great discussions. If I weren’t a believer in the resurrection of Christ as an actual occurrence I think I’d happily be Jewish!</p>

96

<p>Docmom,
one of things that I hope we can all agree on is that there is much of surpassing beauty within the Roman Church. The middle ages - not the happiest times - gave us the cathedrals and much of the music. I was brought up as an Espicopalian but the day John Kennedy was shot, my mother took me to a Roman church, out of respect, to pray for him. I still remember the candles and statues surrounding us - very sad, very beautiful. Certainly there is emotional understanding as well as rational knowledge. When the two are truly and honestly in concert you have a marvel - St. Terresa come to mind.</p>

97

<p>True, very true</p>

<p>but that gets lost for me when I see idiots thinking that a stain on a highway is an image of the virgin mary(its in the news)</p>

<p>what sort of coutnry have we become when we dont care about looming stagflation, healthcare, education, quality of life, etc etc… but we do care abotu some stain on concrete</p>

<p>for all we know, it could have been caused by a transient peeing on it…</p>

<p>if someone disagrees please correct me</p>

98

<p>No, no disagreement here. I laughed out loud at people going to view a salt stain on a highway wall.</p>

<p>Ohio_mom, you make a good point about the true genius of the art and architecture of that period. I think it is so easy to look back at history with our historical rose colored glasses and knock what appear to be craziness on their part. I wonder what future centuries will say about us - probably that we all were so smug about being “right”, in the same way we look back at their smugness (and incorrectness) centuries ago. </p>

<p>Or maybe only the bad stuff makes it as a “story” through to the future - thank God they did commission Michelangelo during that sordid time, because we at least have physical evidence of Good. I’m sure there was plenty of good happening during the Salem witch trials, of which we will never hear.</p>

<p>Jonri, excellent points. I also believe that those converted Episcopalian and Methodist ministers who apply to carry their vocation over to their new Catholic faith (not all do) have the requirement that, if their wives were to die, they vow to not remarry. Also interesting about 13th century and the menopause thing. It is such an intriguing concept to think of Church/State being one entity, and everyone belonging by default. Sounds crazy now…</p>

99

<p>docmom,</p>

<p>I’m a little surprised by the hostility of some of the posts that have responded to you.</p>

<p>Everyone, it seems, expects perfection.
In particular–and amazingly–those who have a difficult time relating to the metaphysical fact of absolute truths–that is to say, relativists–seem to expect perfection more than those who believe that there are certain truths that orient life both spiritually and materially.
Those who cling to absolute relativism are often unaware of the conundrum they have placed themselves in: you cannot be both ‘absolute’ and ‘relative’ simultaneously.</p>

<p>I found your story very inspiring.</p>

<p>Carolyn,
I sympathize with your curiosity. With so much resentment and venom you would think that people would lose their faith–but then, I suppose this is a testament to the power of faith: you can say or think whatever you care to, but you cannot believe what you do not believe, or cease believing what you do believe.</p>

<p>Amazingly, Benedict has barely changed into his new duds and many feel certain he has already proved himself to be a bad pope, forgetting Paul’s little trip to Damascus, and the grace of the almighty.</p>

<p>Faith, hope and charity are indeed sacred and rare commodities.</p>

<p>(13th century was one of the greatest periods in human history!..apropos of this web site (CC), the first universities appeared)</p>

100

<p>On the matter of priests being permitted to marry, I had an experience working for a Capuchin Franciscan priest for a few years - I couldn’t afford to pay for catholic school for D, so we struck a deal: I worked in the rectory office several nights each week in exchange for D’s tuition.</p>

<p>The rectory housed the pastor and four other priests. Their day began with prayer and the schedule of masses; then numerous appointments in the community (sick calls, school visits, funerals, hospital visits, etc.); they lunched together as a community, then, their workdays typically extended far into the night with more sick calls, members of the parish coming to the rectory for counseling, marriage issues, pre-marital counseling, family matters, ect. Then, evening prayers, and they did not eat dinner - worked right through it. When they had a few minutes to spare they would write their homilies for future masses.</p>

<p>Some of the appointments they had with parishioners went on for hours. I never knew what any of the appointments were about - they were very strict with confidentiality - but I was constantly in the position of trying to decide if I should interrupt, because of the large number of people needing their help. They didn’t want anyone who was hungry or in need of assistance to be turned away, ever. The phone rang off the hook too - part of my job was to answer and route calls, and the phone was never silent. </p>

<p>Hungry and homeless persons would ring the rectory doorbell as well - sometimes, the pastor himself would cook dinner for whatever hungry person waited outside for a meal. He would also hand out cash - $5 or $10 here or there - sometimes several times each night - for hungry or homeless persons who needed food, money for medicine, sometimes gas, and sometimes he would even arrange for hotel rooms for a few nights if there were children involved. Several times he left with people to go pay their electric bills. One particularly cold night, I saw him retreat to his room and remove the blankets from his own bed and give them to someone standing at the door waiting for help. </p>

<p>Because I worked in the evening following my regular full-time job, I only observed their work directly from about 5:00 to 10:00 p.m. - however - to a person, they were all incredibly consistently busy. Far too many people with very disparate needs - none of the priests ever had time to rest. During holidays, the pace and workload seemed to double.</p>

<p>I worked in the rectory for three or four years until I could finally afford to pay D’s tuition from my regular career position; in all those years the scenario never once changed, and the pace never slowed.</p>

<p>Given what I observed, as a practical matter, I do not see how it is possible for priests to ever marry - there simply wouldn’t be any emotional or physical energy left to give to a marriage partner.</p>