All across the Liberal Universe, a simultaneous cry was heard,"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!"
Making the Archdiocian "newspapers" independent would go a long way in improving the hierarchy. Currently these papers only feature "goody news" written or approved by the Archbishop.
Where were these newspapers during all the secret scandal years? Why are there never any op-ed pieces? I live in Philadelphia. There are two large Catholic universities in the area and many more smaller ones. Never is there an article by a theology professor from one of these universities. Actually there are no articles from any theologian from any university. Very sad and very disturbing!!!
Make that "archdiocesan".
R former F, I'm not sure what to make of the news "control" issue you raise, though I recognize it as a vitally good question. On the one hand, I see the interest of the Church in maintaining control over what goes out under its masthead as being "Catholic," both for the public and for the faithful, though it obviousnly has done a far from perfect job of that. On the other hand, I recognize your point, which is the necessity of some accountability independent of a potentially corrupted local chancery office and hierarchy. I don't know what the answer to that is. I don't know if there is more than an imperfect one to it. Good question, in any case.
Independence is no guarantee of hard nosed reporting. The Reporter touts its independent status, but don't hold your breath for searing critiques or exposes of Roger Cardinal Mahony or Bishop Robert Lynch (he of the multi-millions in no-bid contracts and a six-figure sexual harassment settlement). Ditto the equally independent Commonweal Magazine and Rembert Weakland.
Human nature being what it is, independents of any stripe will protect "their guys."
Oh, to be a fly on the wall at these USCCB [numb]skull sessions:
Let’s see, fellas, “lay ecclesial ministers” distribute the Eucharist. They perform baptisms and weddings. Surely if they can perform baptisms they can perform confirmations – what reasonable person would argue against that? And the “sacrament of the sick – sickness optional” is performed freely these days — surely a competent LEM could do that.
Hmm, confession. Now bear with me here, gents: “sin” is one of those embarrassing “defensive” Trentian notions we would be better off without, so let’s do some soul-searching: does modern man really need confession? Naw! Let’s morph it into some kind of general absolution shindig -- confession cancelled due to lack of interest, chuckle chuckle!! Now, the Mass . . . . these LEMs are not priests of course, so they do not fall under the interdict that only men can be priests, right? OK, so, if we give them the ability to perform Mass now (only under the most extraordinary of circumstances, of course, snicker, snicker), we can sneak woman LEMs through the back door later, before anyone notices.
Thumbs up, people, that’s using the old bean! Now there really is no difference between priests and LEMs!! But gee, “lay ecclesial minister” is such a mouthful! Modern man finds such verbiage unpleasant, and is guided by the Holy Spirit to speak in acronyms. So hey, since priests and lay ecclesial ministers are indistinguishable anyway, let’s roll them up into the same ball of wax, call it LEM, and be done with it! It’s only fair, and Christ was the font of all fairness [was it fairness? I can’t recall, it was some big word . . . .], so surely He would have wanted it this way.
We’re done, good and faithful servants! Last one to the open bar has to translate “Pascendi Dominici Gregis” from the original Latin! Oops, just kidding, Rog! Somebody get Rog a paper bag, quick!
What’s that, Fabian? What about Holy Orders?? Gee, I thought we just covered that!! You’ve really got to start paying attention, Fabian!!
Have you seen the article in chiesa from yesterday (Nov 20th)? When I read your headline, I thought this was your commentary on that topic.
Ralph and future LEM?
Were not all the first century CE/AD priests actually LEMs??
Jesus did not have a "priesthood" did he? Apostles and disciples, yes.
And when did all these "trappings" start? A Bishop in full regalia reminds me of someone living in the era of the divine right of kings.
Welcome to the LEM era!!! Time to return to our roots.
"Jesus did not have a 'priesthood' did he?"
He did, and still does. As we heard yesterday on the Solemnity of Our Lord Jesus Christ the King of the World, Jesus is the Eternal Priest who offered Himself on the altar of the Cross. He is made forever a priest in the order of Melchizedek.
JP,
There you go again with those OT phrases.
It's not just in the Old Testament. It's also in the New -- the Letter to the Hebrews, in particular. Also, the Preface for the Mass of the Solemnity of Christ the King is not exactly an Old Testament text. They use "OT phrases" too, so I consider myself in good company.
Of course JP2 appointed some good bishops, but I think it is pretty universally agreed that the episcopate was of much higher moral and intellectual quality in Paul VI's time. We saw the theological incompetence of the bishops at the Synod, when the Pope had to interrupt their footless meanderings with a short lecture on the basic elements of eucharistic theology. As for moral fiber, these bishops are chosen as yesmen to be yesmen, not to bring the questions of their flock to Vatican ears; hence the disastrous loss of authority of the Vatican, nakedly exposed in the abuse scandals.
Lots of hate here against Hunthausen and Gumbleton, casually smeared as "renegades" -- Gumbleton's peace pulpit on the NCR is hardly renegade stuff.
Fr. Spirit:
Why always the casual use of the word "hate"? Anger, yes. Frustration, perhaps. Astonishment, certainly. Bemusement, most likely.
But I see the same emotions and attitudes towards people from people on your side of the fence as well. It just seems like one of the many ways that are used to say, "Shut up."
Hate may be too strong. But unjust smearing is not.
"it is pretty universally agreed that the episcopate was of much higher moral and intellectual quality in Paul VI's time"
I keep waiting for the punch line, Fr Joe, but it doesn't come. I would say that it is "pretty universally agreed" among dissidents, liberal protestants, and unitarians that "the episcopate was of much higher moral and intellectual quality in Paul VI's time". For the rest of us, the choice is like that of choosing whether Certs is a candy mint or a breath mint. I might give you the nod on this one, though. Forty plus years of execrable governance is likely to produce a worse result than merely sixteen.
Ralph,
Here is a re-run of my post on Amy Welborn's blog ("Amy for Pope" is one of my new slogans).
"Ordaining nuns is also a great idea, IMHO. My sister-in-law is a Sister in the St. Joseph order, Pittsburgh Diocese. Last Sunday, she gave the homily at Mass. I did not know that was allowed but tis a great idea.
And with respect to the Sacraments starting with Baptism. Since original sin is no longer so "original" as per most contemporary Catholic theologians, Baptism is now more an "intro into the Church ceremony" since no sin is being forgiven. A lay minister definitely can handle that. My son's father-in-law, a lay minister/deacon, baptized both my grandsons.
Marriage, well that always was "between and not among".
Confirmation? Should we wrap that into Baptism since there is no rush to remove sin?
Reconciliation- Some wise guy noted "Those are my sins Father, now it is your turn". A bit caustic but true in a way. Time to remove the middle guy? A good act of group contrition/absolution by the people?
Communion- probably too much tradition to change the "theo" thinking here but there are the "Transubstantiationers" vs the "Transignificantioners". And then there are those like JD Crossan who really confuse us pew sitters. His analyses (The Historical Jesus) concluded that the Last Supper is not historic. 16. negative rating-. Supper and Eucharist: (1a) 1 Cor 10:14-22; (1b) 1 Cor 11:23-25; (2) Mark 14:22-25 = Matt 26:26-29 = Luke 22:15-19a[19b-20]; (3) Did. 9:1-4; (4) John 6:51b-58."
From my rationale and common sense review of our religion:
"Holy Orders is relevant but not complete without access by females and married members."
RFC,
Granted, you are the midget Fr Joe keeps in his stovepipe hat.
JP,
The Letter to the Hebrews as per most biblical scholars was not written by St. Paul. Anonymous writers are hardly the making of the inspired Word.
Picking out bits and pieces from the OT is disturbing especially referring to Melchizedek who is mentioned only briefly in Genesis. If we have declared the stories of A&E, Noah and Abraham as myths or embellishments, how can one consider Melchizedek to be historic?
"The Letter to the Hebrews as per most biblical scholars was not written by St. Paul."
Maybe, maybe not. Ancient tradition has always grouped the letter right in the midst of the Pauline epistles, and that tradition cannot be ignored.
"Anonymous writers are hardly the making of the inspired Word."
Then I guess we'll just have to throw out the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Judith, Job, Esther, most of the psalms, Lamentations, Wisdom, the two books of Maccabees, the additions to Daniel, the four books of Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Jonah, the four Gospels, and Acts. All of those books or chapters are anonymous. We'd be left with a very, very tiny Bible if God did not have the ability to inspired anonymous authors to write Holy Scripture.
"Picking out bits and pieces from the OT is disturbing especially referring to Melchizedek who is mentioned only briefly in Genesis."
You'll have to take that one up with God, since He's the one who inspired the Old Testament, and who inspired the New Testament authors to interpret the Old Testament.
"If we have declared the stories of A&E, Noah and Abraham as myths or embellishments, how can one consider Melchizedek to be historic?"
Who are "we"? The Church certainly has never declared that the stories of Adam and Eve, Noah, and Abraham are myths or embellishments. On the contrary, the Church maintains that they really existed. Indeed, if Adam and Eve never existed, how come we, their descendants, exist? If Noah never existed, why did Jesus refer to him and to the flood as real? How can Jesus be the Second Adam if there never was a first Adam? How can the flood prefigure baptism if there never was a flood? Or perhaps when I, my wife, and my children were baptised, it didn't really happen, but was just a myth or embellishment?
But then I know that many deny that baptism does what the Church says it does, so it is only logically consistent that they would also deny that the flood did what the Bible says it did.
Realist objects to the Church's doctrinal and liturgical approach to Melchizedek -- and yet the Roman Canon famously refers to him as a real person and to his offering of bread and wine as something that really happened and that God really accepted. Lex orandi, lex credendi.
JP,
We have discussed A&E before. Common sense "says" that we have one common ancestor. Common sense also says that there were no magical gardens, knowledge trees or talking snakes.
Noah, one my favorite heros, would be a secondary first ancestor if you believe the literal Bible with all of life being destroyed except Noah and his kin. Most biblical scholars believe that if there was a flood at all, it was localized.
Abraham's age at his passing was 175. It is obvious no one lives this long. The National Geographic who sponsers many biblical history studies to include tracing DNA to a common ancestor concluded that Abraham if he was real at all was probably three separate individuals.
Professor Finklestein (Tel Aviv University, author of "The Bible Unearthed") states, "Abraham is beyond recovery. Without any proof of the patriarch's existence, the search for a historical Abraham is even more difficult than the search for a historical Jesus."
If we cannot establish an historic Abraham, how can we use Melchizedek for validating anything?
These embellish stories were added to later Scripture to enforce prophecies. To take them literally does a disservice to God's gifts of Reason and Common Sense.
As per our three children who each attended and graduated from Catholic grade schools, high schools and colleges, the mythical and embellished nature of the OT is standard teaching in religion and philosophy classes.
"We have discussed A&E before. Common sense 'says' that we have one common ancestor."
So does all available scientific evidence.
"Common sense also says that there were no magical gardens, knowledge trees or talking snakes."
Unless, of course, there was a garden, two trees, and a demonic force coming in the guise of a reptilian or serpentine beast. If that's what happened, then "common sense" is actually common nonsense.
"Noah, one my favorite heroes, would be a secondary first ancestor if you believe the literal Bible with all of life being destroyed except Noah and his kin."
Yes, the Old and New Testaments explicitly teach that all post-diluvian human life on earth is descended from the three sons of Noah.
"Most biblical scholars believe that if there was a flood at all, it was localized."
I don't know if it's "most" scholars who believe that, but it's a pretty widespread belief all the same, and it could well be correct. The flood need not have literally covered the entire planet to have brought about the death of every human life except for the eight souls on the ark.
"Abraham's age at his passing was 175. It is obvious no one lives this long."
Well, not any more, anyway.
"The National Geographic who sponsors many biblical history studies to include tracing DNA to a common ancestor concluded that Abraham if he was real at all was probably three separate individuals."
Ah yes, the infallible magisterium of National Geographic magazine. Who could argue with that?
"Professor Finklestein (Tel Aviv University, author of 'The Bible Unearthed') states, 'Abraham is beyond recovery. Without any proof of the patriarch's existence, the search for a historical Abraham is even more difficult than the search for a historical Jesus.'"
No proof of the patriarch's existence? The Jews have only been writing, singing, and talking about their father Abraham at least since the 1400s B.C. If that doesn't count as evidence, then I guess we'll have to regard thousands of other ancient persons as of dubious or unverifiable existence too.
"If we cannot establish an historic Abraham, how can we use Melchizedek for validating anything?"
Because God says he existed.
Like I said, your arguing with the Old and New Testaments, and with the teachings of the Church. We Catholics believe that Jesus is the true and ultimate Melchizedek, King and Priest of Peace. We've believed that for nigh on 2,000 years. We're not going to stop believing it just because some hack comes along 2,000 years later and says Melchizedek never really existed.
"These embellished stories were added to later Scripture to enforce prophecies."
Prove it.
"To take them literally does a disservice to God's gifts of Reason and Common Sense."
On the contrary, it is a disservice to reason and common sense to refuse to take something literally that is intended to be taken literally. If it's not intended
to be take literally, then and only then is it wrong to take it literally.
"As per our three children who each attended and graduated from Catholic grade schools, high schools and colleges, the mythical and embellished nature of the OT is standard teaching in religion and philosophy classes."
I am well aware of the fact that Catholic education and biblical scholarship has been thoroughly infiltrated with liberal Protestant heresy and balderdash. Some of the balderdash is not heresy -- it's just balderdash -- but some of it is contrary to the Catholic faith. For examples, just check out the introductory essays and footnotes in the New American Bible. It has been evident for some time that Catholic schools and universities are not very good at transmitting the Catholic faith.
Did the biblical authors intend all their stories to be taken literally? There is not proof that they did so. In any case even the most vigilant and fact-based historiography of antiquity -- Thucydides, Livy, Tacitus -- does not have modern positivist notions of literal narration, so how much less the literatures of national epics or folk-tales? The conflicting strands it the two versions of the Joseph novella, united in the text of Genesis 37-50 are only a banal confirmation of the fictional element in it. It is of course irrational and alien to common sense to insist that legendary material about giants, floods, people living for 900 years, talking animals etc. must be taken literally. Again I urge you to consult the documents of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, notably The Interpretation of Scripture in the Church, or some such title, 1991 or so, for a clue to the current enlightened approach of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic faith is not biblical fundamentalism, and biblical fundamentalism far from being the seal of orthodoxy is the mother of many heresies.
Et al,
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURI...IA/
PBCINTER.HTM
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH
Pontifical Biblical Commission
Presented on March 18, 1994
And Happy Thanksgiving to All and to all good night!!!
"Did the biblical authors intend all their stories to be taken literally?"
Of course not. The Church has always understood that.
"In any case even the most vigilant and fact-based historiography of antiquity -- Thucydides, Livy, Tacitus -- does not have modern positivist notions of literal narration, so how much less the literatures of national epics or folk-tales?"
Actually in terms of accuracy, faithfulness, and critical judgment, the Bible's historical matter compares very favorably, or is even superior to, the pagan historiographers. But it only stands to reason that the Author of Truth would be able to ensure that His Scripture contains no false statements, particularly in matters of history.
"The conflicting strands in the two versions of the Joseph novella, united in the text of Genesis 37-50 are only a banal confirmation of the fictional element in it."
Yeah, I've considered the arguments that there are conflicting strands in the Joseph narratives, and I'm immensely unimpressed.
"It is of course irrational and alien to common sense to insist that legendary material about giants, floods, people living for 900 years, talking animals etc. must be taken literally."
I don't insist that they "must" be taken literally. I only say that they "may" be taken literally, that there is nothing in the Catholic faith that forbids such an approach, and that such an approach was favored in the Church until the 20th century -- a fact that a Catholic cannot lightly push aside.
"Again I urge you to consult the documents of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, notably The Interpretation of Scripture in the Church, or some such title, 1991 or so, for a clue to the current enlightened approach of the Catholic Church."
I've read it, thanks. Even though it's not a magisterial document that is binding on the faithful, but is advice and insight for the consideration of the CDF, it is still a useful and (mostly) helpful document. Of course it reflects the biases of its authors, who are or were adherents to the modernist-influenced approaches to Scripture that were invented by liberal Protestant heretics in the 1800s and infected the Church in the 1800s and 1900s, so the document must be used with some degree of caution, but despite its flaws it still acknowledges much of the great tradition of Catholic biblical scholarship of the past two millennia.
"The Catholic faith is not biblical fundamentalism, and biblical fundamentalism far from being the seal of orthodoxy is the mother of many heresies."
And of course I agree that biblical fundamentalism, whether it comes from traditional Christians or modernist exegetes, is incompatible with the Catholic faith.
No offense, but will you people just give it a rest and get on with it!?
Et al(minus Fagan),
I see even the members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission take votes.
"2. Out of 19 votes cast, the text of this last paragraph received 11 in favor, four against and there were four abstentions. Those who voted against it asked that the result of the vote be published along with the text. The commission consented to this."
Sounds a bit "Jesus Seminarian" to me.
)
Hey Jordan,
I really enjoy reading your interaction with Father SoVII. It seems we frequent the same boards and are of the same bent of mind. Shoot me an email when you get a chance.
jcaputo@cshore.com
James P. Caputo
Happy Thanksgiving folks.
Ralph, I'd like to see you host questions at a session of Theology on Tap.
Realist, liberal Catholics who think there was no hierarchy prior to Trent -- or at least Innocent III -- haven't read their Patristics. St. Ignatius of Antioch, a contemporary of St. John the Apostle, clearly distinguishes between the Episcopate, the Presbyteriate, and Deaconate.
I don't mean to derail the discussion here, or bring up something off-topic, but I was wondering if anyone else noticed what the Holy Father had to say about usury the other day. I know modernist heretics like to bring up usury as an example of a Catholic doctrine that has been radically revised. They think the development of the doctrine regarding the sin of usury can justify their attempts to overthrow what the Church has always said about contraception, abortion, fornicatin, adultery, homosexuality, euthanasia, and women's ordination. But Pope Benedict XVI seems not to have noticed that the Church (so they claim) no longer believes usury is a grave sin.
I don't know what B16 said the other day but I have always believed that usury is sinful. What the Church condemned in the past under the name of usury, however, was not what we now call usury but rather the practice of taking interest on loans. Or so I have understand; John A Noonan has written a book on this, which I have not read. If the Church in fact altered its teaching on the licitness of lending at interest (something that was regarded as a dirty job best left to the Jews -- see the situation in Venice for example), then that is a good argument for the possibility -- or rather the obvious reality -- that it can alter its teachings on other subjects as well.
... I have always believed that usury is sinful.
I wonder whether the scholastics anywhere address the question whether it is meritorious for a person to find that the Church agrees with him.
If the Church in fact altered its teaching on the licitness of lending at interest . . . then that is a good argument for the possibility . . . that it can alter its teachings on other subjects as well.
Why should this even matter to you, Father?
Noonan's book, "The Scholastic Analysis of Usury" is pretty good except in one very important matter. He claimed that unspecified Medieval scholastics (the only place in the book in which he fails to identify the source) "approved" loans to the State. No -- St. Thomas allows (not the same as approval) interest on government loans because 1) taking interest on a loan is not objectively evil [what's evil is taking interest on a loan made for a purpose that does not of itself generate a profit], 2) people will not lend to the State without some return, and the State may need more money than it can raise from taxation to meet immediate needs, so 3) the lesser evil of usury is permitted so that the greater evil of the State being unable to carry out its function is avoided, under the principle of double effect. The biggest problem with State usury, though, is that it is frequently implemented as a solution rather than a temporary expedient.
All I know about what the Pope said abotu usury comes from a Nov. 23 Zenit article. I hope it doesn't violate any of Da Rulz to copy/paste it here:
Benedict XVI Assails "Social Plague" of Usury
VATICAN CITY, NOV. 23, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI condemned the "social plague" of usury and said that it should be combated through prevention, solidarity and education.
The Pope made his appeal at the end of today's general audience, which gathered more than 25,000 pilgrims, including 2,000 members of the National Anti-Usury Consultancy.
This association of volunteers of Christian inspiration celebrated their 10th anniversary by attending the audience in St. Peter's Square, and a Mass celebrated later in St. Peter's Basilica.
"Dear friends," the Holy Father said, "your presence in such large numbers gives me the opportunity to express my heartfelt appreciation for the courageous and generous activity you carry out in support of the families of people hit by the deplorable social plague of usury."
"I hope that many people will stand alongside you to support your worthy commitment in the field of prevention, solidarity and education," he added.
The Italian National Anti-Usury Consultancy offers guarantees to banks or technical assistance to free from their grip victims or possible victims of being charged excessive interest rates, and encourages cultural endeavors and activities of formation to promote respect for legality.
"If the Church in fact altered its teaching on the licitness of lending at interest . . . then that is a good argument for the possibility . . . that it can alter its teachings on other subjects as well."
The doctrine has obviously developed, but (contrary to what many seem to think, or have been misled to believe) it hasn't been altered from "usury is evil" to "usury is good." Yet that is exactly the kind of change that modernists are seeking on the doctrines pertaining to contraception, abortion, fornication, adultery, homosexuality, euthanasia, and women's ordination. They don't want development, or growth in understanding -- they want total reversal of everything the Church has ever said.
Dr Blosser,
If its a tavern with a rack in the game room, I might consider it!
Ralph
Excuse me, the doctrine HAS been changed from *lending money at interest is evil* to "lending money at interest is good*. You use the word usury in an obfuscatory manner to sow confusion.
To explains more clearly
the church condemns EXCESSIVE interest rates as usury -- you learnt that in your catechism
the church USED to condemn ALL interest rates as usury -- but developed its doctrine
likewise it condemns all extra-marital sex as fornication
but a development could come where some premarital sex and homosexual sex is no longer considered fornication
"the church USED to condemn ALL interest rates as usury -- but developed its doctrine"
Since it has already been shown in this discussion that the Church NEVER condemned ALL interest rates as usury, it is your statement that is at best obfuscatory. Therefore there is no analogy one can draw from the example of the usury doctrine. Our culture has seen economic changes that brought about a development in the usury doctrine, but human nature has not changed since God made Adam and Eve, and it never will change -- and only such a change in human nature would enable the Church to change what she says about sexual matters.
In any case, the common misperception is that the Church formerly condemned usury and now does not condemn usury at all. For example, one time a friend of mine wanted to write something arguing in favor of the Church abandoning what she has always taught in the area of sexual morality, and he wanted to use the usury example to prove his point, so he asked me (knowing I was somewhat better informed about such things than he was) to help him clarify the issues. At the end of our research, he found that he'd been misinformed -- contrary to what he'd been taught in RCIA, the Church still condemned usury as a sin. So he changed his mind about writing what he'd originally planned to write. He'd discovered that the issue wasn't as simple and clear-cut as he thought it was.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/
15235c.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/
08077a.htm
Father O'Leary:
When, and under what circumstances, did the Church "develop" her teaching about usury, in your opinion?
JP shifts the grounds of argument without conceding that his earlier argument was wrong. That is bad debate manners.
The he introduces a new argument -- that the church never condemned taking interest on loans. Yet the Catholic Encyclopedia articles he posts shows that it did.
If either of you wish to be taken seriously, read Nooonan on the subject, carefully, and come back to me.
I cite Noonan because he is the primary source of my claim which you guys dismiss, and because he is also the primary authority on the subject. I have read several articles trying to undercut him and I note that they are written by rightwing catholics with a clear agenda, inferior scholarly credentials, and convoluted, unconvincing arguments.
And I repeat, that the church once condemned taking interest on loans, as such, and now accepts that practice.
Equally it may accept forms of sexual expression that it condemned in the past.
It will continue to condemn usury and unchastity, of course
"JP shifts the grounds of argument without conceding that his earlier argument was wrong. That is bad debate manners."
Really? And what do you think my earlier argument was? As far as I can tell, I haven't shifted the grounds of argument at all. I've really not done much here besides note that there is a common misperception that the Church no longer condemns usury, but that the Pope doesn't seem to be aware that the Church no longer condemns usury.
"Then he introduces a new argument -- that the church never condemned taking interest on loans."
I never said the Church never condemned taking interest on loans. Once again, please re-read what I actually did say.
"I cite Noonan because he is the primary source of my claim which you guys dismiss, and because he is also the primary authority on the subject."
Noonan also wrote a very useful monograph on the Church's doctrine regarding contraception, and yet he still believed the Church would and could throw out her doctrine and allow Catholics to commit the mortal sin of using artificial contraception.
"Equally it may accept forms of sexual expression that it condemned in the past. It will continue to condemn usury and unchastity, of course."
Yes, and eventually the Church will accept certain forms of murder that it condemned in the past -- it will just decree that we spell it "merdure" in the hopes that no one notices the change in doctrine.
If all you are saying is that the church has always condemned usury, in the sense of the word "usury" in Benedict's speech or the catechism, then what are we arguing about? I completely agree that the church has always condemned usury. You also agree with me that the church condemned taking interest on loans and no longer does so. This is one of many changes in church teaching on moral matters. That should be uncontroversial. The fact that Noonan's researches can be and have been used to argue for a chane in the teaching in contraception -- a possibility seriously considered by the Vatican in the years before Humanae Vitae -- in no way discredits his researches. It is utterly futile to argue that the church has never changed her teaching on any moral matter -- the huge weight of History is against you. And again I suggest that you would benefit from STUDYING such works as Noonan's rather than hopping around the internet in search of straws to support your untenable position. If you do that you will be bandied about in a circle of magisterial fundamentalists (who use exactly the same bad hermeneutics as those who seek to iron out any appearance of contradiction from the Scriptures) and will never learn to appreciate and love the rich and varied and ever-developing texture of Christian (and biblical) history.
I can send Alberto Melloni's essay on the confiscation of Vatican II to anyone who wants it.
[O'Leary's letter from the Irish Times, which he reproduced at this point on 11/27/05 was deleted by the webmaster for violation of Rule 3 on "dumping." All viewpoints are welcome, but comment boxes may not be used as a dumping ground for dissident screed.]
[O'Leary's letter from the Irish Times was deleted for reasons given at the bottom of the previous comment.]
"You also agree with me that the church condemned taking interest on loans and no longer does so."
My understanding of it is that the Church condemned virtually all taking of interest on loans, but now only condemns some taking of interest on loans.
"the same bad hermeneutics as those who seek to iron out any appearance of contradiction from the Scriptures"
Like, f'rinstance, that which was required by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus . . . .
Fr. O'Leary:
To avoid further editing or deletions of your extensive quotations from articles and letters from the Irish Times and other vehicles for your point of view, please post the originals of such items on your own website and with links to them on our comment boxes.
Shorts excerpts to make a point are fine. Lengthy quotations in the genre of agitprop are not. There are plenty of venues for such material elsewhere.
--Thank you.
Anent this thread and a couple of others on PB's site - It's 40 some years since V2, and to read comments here about heterodox and renegade bishops (Hunthausen, Gumbleton, Mahoney,etc.) and several gay bishops, "lay popesses" running parishes, terrible liturgy, and other issues, I wonder, as an Anglican who is distressed by the struggles in our Communion over many of the same issues, why it is so easy for some of the commentators on this site to so peremptorily and airily to say our troubles are simply proof that we are not a "real" church. Yes, I know that Roman Catholicism has a final authority that will settle all those matters, but it's been 40 plus years for you and about 30 or less for us. We should all face it like it or not, as Fr. O'Leary does, that the genie is out of the bottle - attempts to restore purity will probably be about as successful in the RC Communion as in ours. I know there are dedicated pods of young people such as Thos. Aquinas College, and Ave Maria, and there are those in the Anglican Communion too, but by and large the people in their 20's and 30's are wrapped up in the post-modern zeitgeist,and what we are talking about doesn't resonate with them. May the Gates of Hell not prevail against either of us.
Commenting by HaloScan
