Hopefully, one of these Popes, the Cafeteria Catholics will get the idea that the Church is simply conserving the teachings given to Her by Christ, and that an adoption of "My Pet Doctrine Which Happens to Completely Coincide With the Latest 21st Century Prevailing Opinion" isn't going to happen.
For now, I give them credit for their unshaken but misguided "faith". They seem to think that either the Winds of Change (aka the Un-Holy Spirit) are going to convert Benedict, or if not, the *NEXT* Pope will finally be Progresso I.
I'm a Mormon, and thus the Catholic Church considers me outside the realm of Christian.
Why should I care if I don't recognize the authority of the Church? As long as they don't interfere with my religious freedoms, and vice versa, we should still get along fine. I'd hope that members of all other denominations would take the same stance.
+J.M.J+
Good riddens to the cafeteria! Been wondering when they were gonna shut that joint down, what with all the health code violations.
In Jesu et Maria,
I could not agree less.
Dogma and Ideology are one and the same. I find it amusing how people confuse their faith in texts that were written hundreds of years ago and translated and modified thousands of times with what they consider to be "objective" truths, revealed by God himself.
Dogma, just like Ideology is a creation of man, therefore open to interpretation.Catholic Dogma has not been a static thing in the past 2000 years, it has been "tweeked" all through early Christianity. How can we consider what St-Paul thought in the 1st century to be an undeniable truth? Because Popes of the past have said so. A careful reading of the new testament does not reveal much supporting the contemporary points of contention(i.e. Abortion, women priests, pre-marital sex, celibacy of priests) coming directly from Jesus himself. These interdictions were created by men.
As the history of the papacy clearly shows, the leadershp of the church has always used the holy texts and their personal interpretations of them to accomodate their political and financial aims. The papal seat is a dirty, dirty one, with a long history of treachery, greed and deceit. Why do people think it is an admirable institution which has some form of moral authority? There were orgies in the Vatican not that long ago. What a joke!
People who fear B16 are not unreasonable, he will further increase the divide between the church and an increasing number of modern, intelligent and reasonable people looking for something to believe in. The Catholic church has already alienated a great number of people with its old and unreasonable rules and regulations. The rise of fundamentalism (in other religions) is quite scary, but doing the same in Catholicism is not the answer.
The Church should be a living thing, an institution that preaches love, diversity and relativism, yes, relativism. It is impossible to have tolerance of other human beings without it.
As the Church has taken a new step in the wrong direction, it will continue to deny science and the nature of man, setting moral standards that are impossible to uphold. The church leaders themselves cannot even live up to them. Why not go back to the situation before Luther(who should be a Saint) came along? When indulgences were sold to finance the building of St-Peters and common people who did not understand latin could not read and learn what was in the holy scriptures? How quick we forget. The Church is continuing in its age old practice of trying to control the public mind and frankly, its kind of pathetic this day in age, when there is serious word to be done.
By electing a conservative, they will only continue to shrink their tax base (i.e. Europe and America) where people are no longer naive an uneducated (with the exception of the U.S. of course).
EX-Catholic,(French Canadian) Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Philippe,
By your standard of exegesis, there is no scriptural basis for prohibiting either arson of a dwelling or necrophilia.
"The Church should be a living thing, an institution that preaches love, diversity and relativism, yes, relativism. It is impossible to have tolerance of other human beings without it."
Actually, it's relativism - the absence of objective moral absolutes - that places human beings at the mercy of the moral whims of those in power who get to define what "tolerance" and "diversity" mean.
I get the sense that commentators like Andrew Sullivan would be relieved if the Vatican sponsored orgies on its premises. At least it would be addressing the "profound need for intimacy and sexual expression" that is being ignored by the current hierarchy!
I get the sense that people like Andrew Sullivan would be happy to hear that the Vatican is sponsoring orgies on its premises. At least it would be addressing the "profound need for intimacy and sexual self expression" that has been ignored by the current hierarchy!
Phillippe,
Yeah...that's what Christ came to do...tell people about the Modern and Reasonable News.
"Come, follow me...as long as you're comfortable with that."
You know...it's not as if there is some group of people who are genetically immune to sin. We are all sinners, and it's just as hard for "conservatives" or "traditionalists" to follow Christ as any "progressive."
We may have different obstacles, but we all stumble. Over and over.
It would be easier if we just un-dogmatized the existence of sin. But that would not be compatible with reality.
We are all constantly challenged to open our heart to Christ, every day, every hour and every minute.
Philippe Mari : Is that supposed to be a parody? I mean seriously, what a litany of silly, ignorant cliches. The Catholic Church doesn't exist to please disgruntled secularists who hate it.
And if you despise the Church so much, why should you care how it is governed, or by whom? Either you're enough of an objectivist to demand that everyone (catholics included) share your opinions, or you realize that there's something precious and necessary about the Church enough for you to want it to survive. Either way, there's hope for you yet. St. Philip the Deacon is praying for you, I'm sure...
Mon bien cher Philippe :
Tout d’abord un grand merci d’avoir, de façon concise et bien articulée, représenté les arguments de l’opposition. Je crois qu’ils y sont bien tous, et permettront à vos interlocuteurs, s’ils en prennent le temps ( et s’ils en ont la patience, en somme—vous voyez déjà comme ça se démène parmi les commentateurs), d’y répondre.
Quant à moi, il faut bien vous dire que je ne suis d’accord avec vous en rien : ni quant aux prémisses, ni quant aux inférences.
Je note, avec tristesse, que vous vous présentez en tant « qu’ancien catholique ». Je veux, si vous le permettez, entrer en dialogue avec vous. Mais au tout début je veux corriger une erreur de fait : Mais si, il est possible de suivre la doctrine morale de l’Église dans la vie de tous les fidèles, par la grâce. Le P. Garrigou-Lagrance, o.p., a écrit de belles pages à ce sujet, que vous pourrez lire en notre belle langue.
Je veux vous encourager à continuer d’approfondir sinon votre foi au moins votre connaissance de la religion de nos ancêtres.
N’en restez surtout pas à vos souvenirs de catéchisme à l’école. Il faut aller bien au-delà de ce niveau, sans bien sûr en nier le contenu.
Je vous envoi mon adresse électronique perso aussi.
En le Christ ressuscité !
Mort de ma vie, je voudrais pouvoir écrire en français comme ça, John.
Thanks for commenting Dave Mueller.
Peace be with you.
I would like to thank Mr Mari for setting the record straight. Now that the Church has been exposed there is no reason for Mark to keep this blog open. Let us all go home and watch Sex and the City.
And, BTW I do think that sarcasm has its place, especially in situations like these. Only let us remember to keep loving the people behind the silliness!
As a wandering protestant, I'd like to give an "amen" to Mr. Shea's comments. I find relativism irksome because it's so horribly, horribly patronising and demeaning - really, how does it show respect for religion to preemptively answer all theological arguments and differences with "don't you see? You're _all_ right! You _all_ have different routes up the mountain and different aspects of the universal truth"? At least before post-modern times mockers of the faith expected you to argue back, rather than assuming you're some closed-minded fanatic just for disagreeing with them.
I'll add my stamp of approval to the Dalai Lama's comments, too (not that I expect he'll ever know), if someone can kindly quote them or provide me a link.
One slight nitpick:
"For the Church, man is the only creature God has willed for its own sake. But for ideology, the human person is the means to an end."
This is a property of Christian dogma, but not necessarily of dogma in general. So, yes, any dogma will have the drop on ideologies if it starts off by asserting that human beings are fundamentally Good Things. Assuming, that is, you mean *political* ideologies, and avoid quibbles on what an ideology is.
Phillipe,
Yes! Relativism, tolerance, and diversity! Except that Catholic teaching is wrong, Catholics who believe what the Church teaches are unacceptable, and Catholics should really believe basically the same things that all other "enlightened" secular liberals think.
On second thought, maybe you should get a check up. Sounds like you have a bad case of undiagnosed tyrannical fascism.
John P.--your comments were lovely and charitable. My French is just good enough to understand what you wrote, but not good enough to respond in kind, alas. I'm praying that Philippe will respond positively. I've found that the type of hostility he exhibited is usually an attempt to suppress God's grace stirring in a reluctant heart.
I am shocked, SHOCKED, to learn that the Pope is Catholic!
Of course, none of my associates joined the New Church because we thought that "Swedenborgianism" is TRUE? Providence forbid!
To Philippe:
"The Church should be a living thing, an institution that preaches love, diversity and relativism, yes, relativism. It is impossible to have tolerance of other human beings without it."
But if relativism is the only standard, then there's no grounds to propose tolerance as an absolute good. Why shouldn't tolerance be relative also? You have undercut your own argument.
The truth is that only an objective principle such as the dignity of the human person based on being an image of God is strong enough to forestall attacks on human beings.
Relativism is an intellectual strain that eats its own brain.
- me
As a Protestant I am extremely delighted....nay, almost giddy with the selection of Benedict as the new Pope.
Imagine the Catholic Church having a leader who actually believes what the Church teaches! Oh the horror! I only had to look to see who was appalled and shocked (Andrew Sullivan, Cokie Roberts, most MSM) to confirm that the Holy Spirit was alive and well.
Sometimes you only have to look at who is against you to see how right you are.
Best wishes to Benedict, and may God continue to bless and protect him.
I'd like the Body of Christ with a side of Holy Spirit, but hold the birth control prohibition please. 
)
"As the history of the papacy clearly shows, the leadershp of the church has always used the holy texts and their personal interpretations of them to accomodate their political and financial aims. "
I guess that's why you're not Catholic.
Merci John P. d'avoir fourni une replique qui demontre de l'intelligence et de la sensibilite. Vous avez bien compris que je cherche a ouvrir un dialogue et entendre ce que les autres ont a dire. Je vais bien vous contactez a votre addresse personnelle, merci.
As a first experience in the universe of blogs, I think my comments caused a bit of a stir. Of course I was stating cliches, but so what? No one who replied was able to deny any of the "facts" I laid out. I did not set out to sound hostile, I must admit I was fishing for reactions and got them. Being called a fascist for example, confirms my fear that some people commenting should go back and hit the books, get their terms straight. The word relativism was thrown out there in reaction to Ratzinger's pre-conclave speech. Of course we can get stupid and say that everything is relative and that it can only lead to chaos, I have had these conversations all through university and thought we were beyond that. When I read someone who talks about "objective moral truths" (which is a complete contradiction in terms) I am affraid that my point was not well understood.
I am only questioning people's tendencies to blindly follow other peoples ideas and accept them as truth, revealed by god. I was only reminding certain people that there is a difference between the teachings of Christ and the rules and rituals of the Church. I write ex-catholic, not as an act of defiance, but in an attempt to attract the comments of people who can convince me of coming back to the church in an intelligent manner. I thought blog sites were about open dialogues, I did not expect to be criticized for not "towing the line". Accepting to give up your freedom of thought and conscience and accepting to live a lie in order to maintain a certain set of rules and morality is not a catholic concept, but that of certain existential philosophers.
Thanks folks
Philippe,
Your own post was not a model of the sweetness and light that you looked to see here. Unfortunately, you seem to have over looked the very comments that were trying to rationally reach out to you and only reacted to those who you see as calling you names. And you have a basic misunderstanding of the nature of faith and reason. If there is such a thing as the truth, then it is definite and unchanging; why do you assume that folks that have used their intellect to find this truth and then try to live by it have simply turned off their minds so as to better "tow the line?" You seem to assume that those who seek the truth should be able to find *anything* but Catholic Christian dogma on that road.
I too once rejected Christ and His Church, and spent many wasted years on the desolate shore that you now wonder on, looking everywhere for the truth but only finding emptiness and despair. It was only when I realized that the Church was right, and that Jesus Christ died so that I might share the life of God Himself in eternity, that I came to have faith (trust) in Him. My intellect, guided by the Holy Spirit, opened me up to the gift of faith and thus hope and love.
Keep on looking for truth Philippe, but do it honestly and courageously with no thought to what others might think of your findings. I have little doubt that in doing so you will find it in the end and no doubt of what that truth will be.
"The young skeptic says, 'I have a right to think for myself.' The old skeptic, the thorough-going skeptic, says, 'I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all.'"
GKC
No one who replied was able to deny any of the "facts" I laid out.
Well, you threw out about seventy-five egregious fallacies in the span of a few paragraphs, each of which could provide a day's woth of discussion. If I barge in on a conversation of strnagers, rant and rave and say that every single tiny aspect of their worldview is wrong, stupid, evil, and disgusting, and repeat a litany of ignorant complaints, I shouldn't expect them all to drop whatever they were happily discussing and spend a week addressing me, especially if I show no receptivity whatsoever to listening to them or giving their arguments a fair hearing.
I can assure you that I, and most of the people here, and especially a professional apologist like the proprietor of this blog, can explain quite lucidly why most of your "facts" are bunk and the ones that aren't in no way challenge our faith. But, you see, this conversation isn't about you, and if you want to discuss you instead of Pope Benedict XVI, you should do so in your own forum. Yeesh!
Phillippe, mon frere, that's "tweaked", not "tweeked". If you are so certain of your position you should not feel the least bit annoyed by those of us who still accept Catholic teaching.
Peace be with you.
To: Hieronymus
Instead of writing angry rants that are void of any substance, please write to me about why you think a conservative pope is a good choice and why you agree with the statement that Dogma and ideology are opposites. These are the subjects i have been trying to discuss. Others have understood this and have sent e-mail to my personal address(which I have posted). I am interested in what people have to say, I am open to discussion. Keep in mind, I am new to this.
Thanks
Philippe:
If you are new to this, here is my advice: Read. Think about it. Read some more. Think some more. Read some more. After about eight months of this, then write.
Good place to start reading: Cathechism of the Catholic Church; various Papal encyclicals and other church documents; Catholic Answers website; writings by GK Chesterton; this blog has some good links as well (I highly recommend Elliot Bougis' blog linked to here); some of Mark's books (particularly Making Sense out of Scripture).
Basic Catholic truths are not too difficult to understand on the surface; but a deeper understanding of them takes a lot of hard intellectual work that many are not up to or willing to undertake.
If you are new to this, it is paramount that you do the research first on your own, rather than expect everyone else to spoonfeed you. But I must say, your post showed very little intellectual curiosity (or basic courtesy) and smacks of someone who is fresh out of "University".
I find it amusing how people confuse their faith in texts that were written hundreds of years ago and translated and modified thousands of times with what they consider to be "objective" truths, revealed by God himself.
Let's examine your first "amusement". If it is not proper to rely on these translated texts, upon what precisely are YOU relying to determine God's words today? Should we also then throw away all works such as "Plato's Republic" because they were written thousands of years ago and have been translated and modified a thousand times? Why should we trust any translation of these texts any more or less than translations of the New Testament? For that matter, then, nothing can be known, say about anything that is more than 500 years old because it has been "translated and modified hundreds of times". See how silly your position is?
Philippe:
Not to pick on you too much, but let's look at the facts objectively - you are putting your four years at "university" up against a 2000 year tradition (founded by God Himself, no less) that includes some of the greatest thinkers in humanity's history - from Augustine to Aquinas to Anselm. Think about that for a minute. (PS, the Catholic Church invented the "University" too!)
Phillippe:
Very well. To begin with, what is "dogma"? I don't mean, "What do you think dogma is?" or "How does dogma make you feel?" I mean, "What does the Catholic Church mean when it uses the word 'dogma'?" If we are going to actually talk, then I need to have a sense of what you actually know.
Could you please answer my question?
Hello cmatt,
You assume so much and know so little about me. I have read Augustine, Aquinas, Abelard and Anselm, I admire them for trying to reconcile philosophy and religion, logic and ethics, proving the existence of God, etc. They made an effort to make sense of what they believed in, tried to find a tangible link between the human mind and the human heart. The "blind faith" people seem to be promoting on this blog is in no way admirable or worthy of consideration.It is contrary to the goals and work of these great men.
This is becoming a little ridiculous.
I wonder where you got the idea that I consider old texts to be unimportant or whatever it is you said.
I was talking about the human intervention that has, over the years, modified the content and meaning of the bible. There is alot to read on the subject, the return to translating the bible from the "original" ancient greek versions caused quite a stir in the Renaissance. Many passages were retranslated and ended up being a far cry from what was found in St-Jerome's version.
Plato's republic is a very pertinent book, as a Catholic you might not want to read this stuff. Even if Bruni tried to reconcile it with Catholicism after the resurgence of works by Plato during the Renaissance, he was not as succesful as Aquinas was with the works of Aristotle.
I am not putting anything in front of 2000 years of tradition and history,I am wondering why the Church no longer produces great thinkers who can at least lay down credible arguments that justify the practices organisation they are part of. Mark I will have an answer for you tomorrow
Ciao
Philippe,
Je suis l'Ed le premier, et j'utilise un nom de poste d'un autre blog pour me distingué de tous ces autres Eds. 
I did answer one of your factual points. You wrote:
A careful reading of the new testament does not reveal much supporting the contemporary points of contention(i.e. Abortion, women priests, pre-marital sex, celibacy of priests) coming directly from Jesus himself. These interdictions were created by men.
This standard does not, in fact, permit you to critique arson of a dwelling or necrophilia. There is no mention of either in the NT. There is mention of arson in the OT, but it is exclusively in the context of a fire that spreads to a field and destroys crops: no mention of buildings of any kind. Necrophilia is not mentioned anywhere in scripture at all.
By the way Cmatt, I was talking about Marsilio Ficino's "Theologia Platonica" of 1474, when I spoke of Bruni (I mixed up my Italian Humanists). I don't know what Bruni thought about Plato.
Can you suggest any good contemporary authors who can still defend things like:
1)the celibacy of priests 2)the rejection of homosexuals 3) the exclusion of women in the church leadership. 4) interdictions to use contraception
Thanks, peace
Now Mark,
By Dogma I mean:
"A complete system, covering human morality, human hopes, and the past and future history of the Universe" as Bertrand Russell put it so beautifuly.
Dogma is at once; the world view, governing principles and ultimate goal of the Catholic Church. It exists to uphold an " eternal" doctrine,which is understood as truth.
Now, are you telling us that: Catholic Dogma was "set up", "dictated" or "revealed" between the time spanning the last years of Christ on earth and the Papacy of St-Peter? And that it has remained unchanged since then? I certainly can't agree with that.
It would seem to me that Dogma has undergone changes all through the history of the Church.
Now can we really deny that Dogma has never been at the mercy of Ideology? It is the result of ideology.
And fear of change has always caused tension between liberal and conservative catholics. The very fact that we concern ourselves with the "Ideas" or "Ideology" supported by one Pope compared to another is proof enough that Dogma can be "altered" by a "liberal" Ideology(for example). Dogma was established by mortals according to their own ideologies. The new testament did not appear out of thin air, it is a collection of writtings, chosen and organised by men, according to the beliefs of their time and context. In that light, to say that Dogma and Ideology are "opposite" seems a quite accomodating for a Conservative, but false to anyone else, even if you believe that all who contributed possessed divine knowledge.
I understand that to a conservative Catholic, having a conservative Pope elected means that Church Dogma will not change in any way. It is this Dogma, in your opinion, that will be protected or that protects you from the "silly" whims of undecided liberals whose faith is weak. I understand that an organisation like the Catholic Church cannot change every time there is a new "flavor of the month", and go through a reformation every time the wind changes direction, but for God's sake (literaly), we cannot deny that certain fundemental questions have to be adressed by the Church's leadership.
The election of a Conservative is a great disapointment to anyone who thought that the election of a new Pope might finally lead the Church leaders to admit to certain undeniable truths about the Universe and mankind. I mean, yes, you could say (no matter what proverb you choose) that it is mankind that must adapt to the Church and not vice versa, but that is a simple question of faith. Yet this would mean that progressive or "liberal" Catholics do not really believe in the teachings of the "Church".
Seriously, does everyone here understand how demanding it is to be a real Catholic: respect Church Dogma and accept it completely( which is required if you are to consider yourself Catholic).
The Church leadership has not upheld its own teachings for the largest part of its own long history. How can the present Pope uphold Church Dogma, in its strictest form, at this point in time.
Wasn't it JP II who finaly led the Church to accept the model for the solar system that had first been put forward by Kepler and Galileo?
How come we don't have to refrain from eating meat on Friday anymore?
Funny how Dogma changes according to different Ideologies!
The Catholic CHURCH has always been a battleground for conflicting ideologies on human morality, "truth" as we are to accept it. Why rejoice when it seems as though the Church will cease to progress in accepting humanity as it was created? The enforcment of Church principles, as well as the concept of sin has been carried out with a large degree of "fluctuations" and to different degrees all through the history of the Church.
Marc, I hope you will read this and reply.
Phillippe:
Go back. Read my question. Do over.
I did not ask for a screed from you on what *you* think "dogma" means. I did not ask for what Bertrand Russell thinks "dogma" means. In fact, I specifically asked that you not give me this. Rather, I asked you to provide for me some evidence that you know what the Church means by the word dogma. If you cannot provide that, just let me know.
Please. Stick to the question. Don't pretend to read my mind and tell me what I think dogma is. I can supply that information better than you.
By Dogma I mean:
"A complete system, covering human morality, human hopes, and the past and future history of the Universe" as Bertrand Russell put it so beautifuly.
It is difficult to say if this was your first mistake, but it is unquestionably a mistake. A dogma is an accepted, authoritative truth. A Catholic dogma is an authoritative, accepted truth about faith and/or morals. The Catholic Church does not claim to have provided a "complete" system. It is arguable that the Protestant religion does make that claim in the form of sola scriptura; but sola scriptura is (perhaps ironically in this context) contrary to a number of Catholic dogmas.
In what sense have I not answered the question? I didn't give you what *I thought Dogma means or what Bertrand Russell thinks? Its a very common and well known word, I just thought Russell phrased it well.
Is this amateur hour or something?
Dogma is any doctrine asserted and adopted on authority. In this case, it is a system of teachings of religious truth as maintained by the Christian Church. What isn't clear here?
If I wanted to give my own definition of Dogma, I would say something like "belief without proof" or "from the greek word meaning: opinion".
And Zippy,Uhhh..... the Church has provided a complete system. Are you kidding or something?
Please reply and stop trying to avoid challenging the points I have laid out in a correct and coherent manner.
Bye
"And Zippy, Uhhh..... the Church has provided a complete system. Are you kidding or something?"
Uhhh, no, actually, I am not kidding. As I was considering what sort of arbitrage I wanted to get involved in in a reallocation of some assets this morning, tragically, the Church did not tell me what I had to do. Poor little old me, I had to do some of my own thinking. I just hate when that happens.
Some Protestantisms (possibly) and Islam (arguably) do try to provide comprehensive systems that answer/close all questions and comprehensively tell people how to live and what to think. Catholicism does not. We don't even claim to know whether or not Hitler is in Hell.
Furthermore, Catholicism will not be asserting a "complete system" even if you jump up and down, shake your fists, and claim that it does, Mr. I've-read-Acquinas.
Furthermore, Catholicism will not be asserting a "complete system" even if you jump up and down, shake your fists, and claim that it does, Mr. I've-read-Acquinas.
Heck, read Goedel's Theorem.
In what sense have I not answered the question?
In the sense that, when I asked you to tell me what the Church means by the word "dogma", you did not do that.
I didn't give you what *I thought Dogma means or what Bertrand Russell thinks
Perhaps it's that Quebecois and not English is your first language, but when you write, "By Dogma I mean..." and "...as Bertrand Russell put it so beautifuly", most speakers of English take this to mean that you are giving your and Bertrand Russell's definition of dogma and are not answering the question, "How does the Catholic Church define the term 'dogma'."
When you are ready to actually address my question, I'll be here.
1)Dogma is at once; the world view, governing principles and ultimate goal of the Catholic Church. It exists to uphold an " eternal" doctrine,which is understood as truth
2)Dogma is any doctrine asserted and adopted on authority. In this case, it is a system of teachings of religious truth as maintained by the Christian Church.
3)If I wanted to give my own definition of Dogma, I would say something like "belief without proof" or "from the greek word meaning: opinion".
Is the lighting and temperature in the room to your liking now , Bobby Fischer! Can you proceed with a real answer now instead of going around on tip toe trying to avoid commiting to saying anything mre on the subject. I did write "I mean" at the beginning of my comment, I am sorry if the "Dogma is" that followed didn't show up on your screen. I have more than answered the question, hope you're not chickening out here?
Philippe:
You seem to think this conversation is about winning. I think it's about trying to come to clarity. In order to do that, it's necessary to know what we are talking about. So, for instance, if I wanted to know what you mean by "dogma", the best way to find out is to ask you what you mean by it. Your definition may not be mine, but if I insist that what *I* mean by "dogma" is actually what you mean too, I would only be arguing with a straw man if you do not, in fact, hold that definition.
In the same way, you need to face the fact that, so far, you have only been giving *your* definition of the term "dogma" and then knocking that definition down. This is called a Straw Man argument. So, for instance, when you declare that "Dogma is at once; the world view, governing principles and ultimate goal of the Catholic Church" this is simply silly. As a Catholic, I can assure you that the "ultimate goal" of the Catholic Church is not dogma. The ultimate goal of the Church is union with God. You may as well say that the "ultimate goal" of driving is road maps.
Again. From *Catholic sources*, what does the term "dogma" mean? Until you are actually engaging that question, you are simply indulging yourself in a series of straw man arguments and talking to yourself, not to me. That's why I'm not answering you yet. You haven't said anything to me. You've merely said something to some phantom Catholic in your own imagination.
Hello Marc,
I still fail to understand what more you expect me to answer. But I am willing to try. What would you consider a credible "Catholic source"? I will go through my library this weekend if I must. The definition of Dogma I have given you (the whole thing, not the one sentence you have chosen to take out of context) does come from Catholic sources, indirectly at least. The Catholic monks that taught me in high school would agree that the definition given is sound and clear enough to proceed with this exchange.
You are telling me:
"Dogma exists to protect the truth about the human person." I understand what you were getting at. This is part of *your definition, and this is precisely what this whole discussion is about. Conservative Catholics, obviously defend this concept of Dogma as an undeniable, unalterable "truth" that is in no way the result of Ideology. I disagree and have been arguing the contrary.
As you said yourself about Dogma: "It's the only real *protection* we have have against ideology". This clearly exposes your point of view and I understand what you are getting at. This sounds alot like those right-wingers in the U.S.A. who take the Constitution literaly and think that it has always existed, can never be altered and that it protects Americans from crazy ideas and changes that could be brought on by Ideology.
I am arguing that Dogma is the result of ideology, therefore I will never be able to give you the definition you want to hear. You are trying to make me say something that will suit your argument as a Conservative.
Let's switch things around and let me ask you what the "Church's" understanding of Dogma is, seeing as you seem to speak for it. Have you forgotten what the discussion is about in the first place? Do you want examples? References?
Anyways, have a good weekend.
Thanks for finally acknowledging that you don't really know what you mean when you speak of what the Church means by "dogma". Now we can proceed a bit further.
Since you ask: In the Church’s understanding, “dogma” means “a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by Tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful.” Or, in plainer English, it means “What the Church arrives at when She finishes thinking a particular question through.”
By way of analogy, think of the way we came to know that the earth is round. It used to be an open question, whether the earth was round or flat. But science analyzed the data, thought about it for centuries, and, after much debate, concluded that the world is round. The roundness of the world is scientific “dogma.” Nobody wastes time anymore wondering if it might be flat and scientists do not bother paying attention to the few people who still do. Does that mean scientists are close-minded or that they forbid people to think? No, it means they can now think about more fruitful things since that matter is settled. It is the same with Catholic dogma.
Dogma does not forbid thought—it helps thought. The truths that Catholic doctrine and dogma reveal are not bars to thought, but aids to it. Like scientific dogma regarding the shape of the earth, the earth was always round—it just took scientists time to understand this truth. That is the way it is with defining Church dogma. The truth remains the same, but the Church’s understanding of it grows and develops over time. Dogmas sketch the shape of revealed reality so that we do not have to waste time trying to figure out if God is really one God in three persons, or if Jesus is really both man and God, and so on. Paying attention to the creeds, doctrines, and dogmas of the Church saves us valuable time and energy by keeping us from running off into the weeds, “discovering” exploded theories that were disproven 1,500 years ago, or forgetting crucial data, or misinterpreting basic points of revelation.
I use the term "sketch" above carefully. One of the differences between dogma and ideology is that the Church does *not* claim to have an explanation for everything. Church dogma is quite minimalistic. Instead of saying "Everything is explicable by this dogma" the Church instead say, "I don't know much, but *this* much I know: Jesus is God" or "Mary is Assumed into heaven" or "The Eucharist is the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus". Those propositions are absolute, but they are not All-Explaining. They don't tell you what to think about Mozart, or how to vote in the next mayoral election, or whether or not ghosts are real. Ideologies *do* tend to have answers for Everything.
More than that, though Ideology presupposes (just like your critique of the Church) that, at bottom, everything is about Power. That's the fundamental distinction, I think, between a Catholic worldview and modern ideology. The paradox is that Catholic teaching says that sin is part of the reality of life and that this is what causes us to order our lives as though everything is about power instead of love. However, the Church insists that love is more fundamental than sin. Ideology refuses to acknowledge the reality of sin (as a general rule) while simultaneously acting as though the selfish pursuit of power is the one and only reality of life.
It's easy to multiply examples of Catholic who have sinned and lived by the "Power first" credo. So what? Sin is a fact of life. The problem is really giving a serious account of sanctity (and of the ultimate source of sanctity, Jesus) that can plausibly fit into the cramped world of the ideologue.
Mark,
you have given a wonderful explanation about dogma. Am I off by stating that dogma is the revealed truth through a series of explanations and understandings?
I am thinking along the lines of the way in which the Jews use the midrash to explain the Scriptures. To be more explicit in my thoughts, I am seeing it as a way of explaining God's truth within the Scripture, and as the Scripture pertains to our lives and the questions of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
To give an example, we now live in an age where man's experimentations have led to a prolonging of some lives through the medical intervention by machines, such as a ventilator. We also live in an age where people have been attempting to clone human beings and desire to get hold of embryonic stem cells for research purposes. These are all questions that were not faced prior to the twentieth century. As such the Church needs to develop a reasoned and Scriptural response to all the issues that are raised because of a given set of confitions.
To take this example further, in the case of Theresa Schindler, the adulterous cheating husband perjured himself by claiming that Theresa allegedly stated that she would not want to live being attached to life support. Now, to tackle what really happened is going to get away from the subject matter, so I will use as an example the alleged death wish of Theresa (I say alleged because she did not say what they claim she said). The issue for the Church in this matter is defining when it is ok to withdraw feeding and nutrition from a patient. The Vatican of course came out against the travesty of justice in Florida, and if we were to look back at the declarations that were made, we can see how dogma (revealed truth) is defined in given situations. In other words to withdraw food and water from a patient who is minimally conscious because of a severe brain injury goes against both a natural human right and the understanding that only God knows when it is our time to die, and we do not have the right to hasten any one's death in the manner used against Theresa Schindler.
Maggie et al.,
"Am I off by stating that dogma is the revealed truth through a series of explanations and understandings?"
I'd put it this way: Dogma is explanation and understanding (and a series thereof) derived from revealed truth by applying all human faculties unto this revelation. Adding the trust into the truthfullness of the result.
That, Philippe, is not blind faith, trusting the Church and her dogmata does not free me from trying to understand and grasp it (in fact, I'm called to do that) but I may very well not succeed in this endeavour. Then I can either acknowledge that it's beyond my grasp and still trust the Church or reject it. That'd be the difference between a believer and a non-believer.
Marc,
Although I do not agree with some of the ideas put forward in your latest response, thank you for taking the time to write a clear response, I am certain that you are a busy man.
I am pretty sure many people following this discussion have also learnt something by reading your response.
I arrived on your blog through a link posted with an article in the Guardian (as a result, your hair in now slicked back).
My first negative comment was prompted by a number of smug and "smart ass" comments I came across on the site(regarding a variety of subjects). I found it all a little concerning and proceeded to writting an emotional and angry rant.
I often fear that Conservatism is gaining ground, with many who are sympathetic to this persuasion not always fully understanding what they are wishing for. I don't even know how Conservative you really are, but what I read on your blog (the comments mostly) gave me the impression that I certainly wasn't reading "progressive" or "liberal" points of view.
Picasso thought he was a communist.... Until he visited Stalin's Russia.
I think it would be difficult for people in the occident to have any recollection of what it's like to live in a society dominated by Conservative Catholicism. Unless you are from Quebec and maybe Ireland, living in a Conservative Catholic society can only be a distant memory. The negative impact on society, the poverty and misery that unfortunately comes with following the rules of the Church as they are applied on the "ground" were evident in these two locations before the great social reforms of the 60's. I would hope that people really make an effort to try and understand who and what they are ultimately encouraging with their comments.
Like the vast majority of people living in my region, I am still counted as a Catholic in the statistics, but not in practice. I have not sent a letter to the Archdiocese of Montreal asking to "debaptize" or cancel my membership, like many have done in recent years. While I admire and try to follow the example of Christ, like many, I have problems acknowledging the authority and credibility of the institution led by men on earth.
Seeing as one of the most important differences between Catholics and other Christian sects, is this belief in the institution and not only about faith in God, it is a difficult situation.
I will keep hoping that Conservatives not only regard themselves as the "watchdogs" or "protectors" of founding documents and doctrine they understand as truth, but remain sensitive to the true results and effect these things have on humanity.
I never thought that all Conservatives stop thinking as your response seems to suggest (I understand it is a classic Liberal argument used to discard Conservatives).
If the mortals running the Church finally decide to make much needed changes without feeling like they are showing weakness or not following tradition, there is a chance many of us will return to it. The considerations should not only be intellectual, but more in tune with who we are as people. In my understanding, all religions are about working towards an ideal, yes sin is a reality and Church leaders, like any of us have been guilty of sin on many occasions. The problem, in my opinion, is what the Church leaders present to the people as truth or moraly acceptable or not. They and their predecessors ultimately have control over it and hope they will use their power to enable change. Obviously, if I don't believe in the divine nature of the Pope and Saints, it is hard for me to agree with many fundamental elements. While reading your response carefuly, I think the definition we don't agree on is "Ideology".
Anyways, got to go back to work now, this has been fun. I wish you well and hope everything goes well for you.
P.S. John Pepino is a really nice guy.
This is my final response.
Phillippe:
Thanks for dropping by. If it's any consolation, I don't believe in the divine nature the Pope or saints either. Only God has a divine nature. He let's us share in his divine nature, but we don't have one by ourselves.
Hmm.
Probably no one will read this remark, since this thread seems to have petered out since the departure of Phillipe; but I'd just like to thank Mark for his superhuman patience and wisdom!
And Phillipe, if you're still dropping by, please remember that the whole idea of an organization run by mortals and having the power over who gets into heaven or not is absolutely CRAZY, and I wouldn't believe it if not for the fact that Jesus said so (John 20:23). In fact, the whole idea that God became a Jewish carpenter 2,000 years ago is a little crazy as well... can you dare to believe in that?
Great article.
Confessional Lutherans are quite happy with B16. Some harbor the notion of coming in en masse, as a unit. They've talked with him in the past, and they understood each other, and appreciated each other.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
