This is extremely good news. If the Catholic Church does not call all men--Jews and Gentiles--to salvation in Christ then she has lost her raison d'etre.
God bless Benedict XVI.
What the Holy Father is saying is exactly what John Paul II said when he told the Jews that God's covenant with them is "never revoked." God's didn't "revoke" His Covenant with Israel -- He fulfilled it, magnified it, and transcended it, entering into a new covenant with the House of Israel just as prophesied. God did not reject His people -- He did not look on their violations of the Old Covenant as a reason to throw out everything He had promised them and start over with th Gentiles. No, in His love for His people He offered then a New Covenant. Thus, the Holy Spirit founded the Church with nothing but Jews -- the Gentiles only started coming in years later. As Jesus said, "Salvation is of the Jews." John Paul II said nothing so heretical and diabolical as the claim of some that the Old Covenant is a valid, salvific covenant for the Jews. Only the New Covenant is salvific, and it is that covenant with Israel through which all men, both Jew and Gentile, must be saved.
I would propose that the difference is in the clarity. John Paul II's statement need not be interpreted in discontinuity with the Church's perennial Tradition, but it lends itself to such an interpretation. Benedict XVI's statement, on the other hand, is more openly in harmony with the Tradition and therefore less prone to misinterpretation.
Jordan,
But did Jesus really say "Salvation is of the Jews or anything for that matter in John 4:1-42. It is only found in John. Strange that this is so since the passage has large implications and importance.
Thomaswannabe,
I disagree. The Catholic Church exists to spread the sayings and life of Jesus by example. If our example is not sufficient to convert Jews, Moslems, Hindus, athesists, etc., so be it. If these other Gentiles and Jews live a good life which basically means following some sort of version of the Commandments, Jesus' message is fullfilled IMHO. And thereby all good Jews and Gentiles will have everlasting life in Heaven with Him.
I recently read, and highly recommend, Many Religions, One Covenant, by then-Cardinal Ratzinger. An excellent collection of essays on the topic of the continuity of the Old and New Covenants. I agree with Thomist WannaBe that Benedict's recent catechesis is very good news.
Re: JPII, is there any corroborating material to the above interpretation, or is it wishful thinking of a sort. I only ask because he is reputed to have believed in a Balthasarian Universalism (witness all the negative buzz only now receding in regards to his strong ecumenical bent) which makes the covenantal distinctions seem a bit moot. In fact, Ratzinger is said to believe along similar lines: I wish communication on the controversial topics was clearer from the Vatican's end.
Should be an interesting cycle of lectures. It is nice that he refers to the "great" liberal theologian Adolf Harnack -- Ratzinger is far too good a scholar himself to indulge in the cheap Harnack-bashing of those who know nothing. I also note that since his arrival on the throne of Peter, the names of great Germans are being modestly put before the world -- Nietzsche most notably. And this is a good thing, since Germans have given the modern world its deepest theology, its deepest philosophy, and its greatest music and poetry. As to the Jews, there is nothing controversial in what the Pope says; he is not advocating a direct and aggressive mission to the Jews.
Archbishop of Canterbury's appeal for conversion of the Christians: http://www.guardian.co.uk/
religi...1735730,00.html
Realist, you wrote **The Catholic Church exists to spread the sayings and life of Jesus by example.**
No, the Catholic Church exists to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you..." That includes Jews, Moslems, Hindus, atheists, and all mankind. Without baptism there is no good hope that they will be saved (cf. Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors 16 and 17.)
**In fact, Ratzinger is said to believe along similar lines: I wish communication on the controversial topics was clearer from the Vatican's end.**
I agree. I would very much like Benedict XVI to clarify some of the things he has written and said as Father/Archbishop/Cardinal Ratzinger. This recent statement is good as far as it goes and I want to see good where there is good. But with Joe I would like to see even more clarity and far more boldness.
Contra Spirit, I believe it is a great weakness especially of John Paul II but to a lesser extent of Benedict XVI that there is such a heavy reliance on the categories of modern philosophy to seek to communicate Catholic truth. Those philosophies were often formulated consciously as anti-Christian. It's a very different situation than taking, say, the anticipatory philosophy of Aristotle and seeking to adapt his incomplete thoughts to communicate fuller Christian concepts. I think some of the confusion we have witnessed in the past forty years comes precisely from the attempt to take fundamentally anti-Christian philosophies and adapt them to communicate Christianity.
Thomist-WB,
I would put the matter somewhat more obliquely vis-a-vis "Spirit's" claim. I would simply express the doubt whether Benedict (or JPII) are recommending Harnack and Nietzshce as avenues by which to understand the Gospel. They obviously recognize that these figures are part of the intellectual legacy of the West and have to be understood. They may even offer occasional nuggets of insight. But whether the overall influence of, say, the liberal Protestantism of Harnack, can be seen as anything but a blight in the Christian intellectual tradition is another question.
Contra ThomistWannaBe, I do not see phenomenology as a "fundamentally anti-Christian philosophy". Phenomenonology is a method that lends itself to a philophical expression of Christian truth. The "anticipatory philosophy" of Aristotle contains much that is directly contrary to Christian truth, e.g., the eternity of the world. Aristotle had to be "baptized" to be useful to Christian philosophy every bit as much as did Husserl. More to the point, JPII did not appropriate the content of phenomenologists, so much as he applied the phenomenological method. Thomas, on other hand, appropriated the very words of Aristotle ("the Philosopher") in ways that were often not altogether happy, IMHO.
Thomist-WB,
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you..." Matthew 28: 16-20.
Tis a very powerful statement but is it from the historic Jesus? Being the last passage in Matthew's Gospel and being made during a post-Resurrection appearance gives rise to some tough questions such as why wasn't this given previous to the Crucifixion? And why the singularity i.e. it only appears in Matthew 28: 16-20?
http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/...JDB/
jdb018.html
"But did Jesus really say 'Salvation is of the Jews' or anything for that matter in John 4:1-42."
The Holy Spirit says He did, so He did.
"It is only found in John. Strange that this is so since the passage has large implications and importance."
How many times must God say something for it to be true?
"Re: JPII, is there any corroborating material to the above interpretation, or is it wishful thinking of a sort."
The corroborating material is the Christian nonnegotiable obligation to construe every public statement of a religious nature that a Pope makes in an orthodox sense unless it is impossible to do so.
If I am going to seek to understand what Jesus really said, I will rely upon the deposit of faith that is communicated in Scripture and Tradition as interpreted by the teaching authority of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, rather than upon the fallible pronouncements of a body of Modernist scholars who are too clever for their own (or anyone else's) good.
The ultimate futility of the Jesus Seminar is underscored by the Beloved Disciple:
'Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.' (Jn 20:30-31)
'This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.' (Jn 21:24-25)
The question that I would pose to Fr. Crossan and other is: do you perceive your relationship to Jesus as that of scholar to historical figure, or as that of disciple to Lord?
Dave et al,
We continue to fit the mold described by Thomas Carney (previously noted):
"The voices that speak to us from antiquity are overwhelmingly those of the cultured few, the elites. The modern voices that carry on their tale are overwhelmingly those of white, middleclass, European and North American males. These men can,
and do, laud imperialistic, authoritarian slave societies. The scholarship of antiquity is often removed from the real world,
hygienically free of value judgements. Of the value judgements, that is, of the voiceless masses, the 95% who knew how "the
other half" lived in antiquity.
The peasants form no part of the literate world on which
most reconstructions of ancient history focus. Indeed, the peasants-the pagani-did not even form part of the lowly Christian (town dweller's) world. They are almost lost to historical view, because of their illiteracy and localism."
Thomas F. Carney , The Shape of the Past: Models and Antiquity, Lawrence, KS, Coronado Press, 1975)
IMHO, tis time for us "pew peasants" to make judgements not dictated by these white, middleclass, European and North American males.
The highbrow intelligensia of the Jesus Seminar speak to the voiceless masses?
Tell it to the simple faithful of all social strata who seek a personal relationship with the Lord, not a statistical analysis of what the so-called "historical" Jesus allegedly "really" said.
"The voices that speak to us from antiquity are overwhelmingly those of the cultured few, the elites."
First among the voices that speak to us from antiquity are the apostles of Jesus. Simple fishermen and laborers who heard the Lord's call and followed. The "cultured few, the elite" -- that describes the Jesus Seminar, not the original voices of the faith.
And who will rescue the pagani from historical oblivion? The academics of the Jesus Seminar, of course: cultured elites, white, middleclass, European and North American males.
I like the way Realist framed it: "The Catholic Church exists to spread the sayings and life of Jesus by example. If our example is not sufficient to convert Jews, Moslems, Hindus, athesists, etc., so be it. If these other Gentiles and Jews live a good life which basically means following some sort of version of the Commandments, Jesus' message is fullfilled IMHO. And thereby all good Jews and Gentiles will have everlasting life in Heaven with Him.
Realist former Convergent | 03.20.06 - 6:16 pm | # "
Certainly, seems to me we have our hands full dealing within our own one and only Catholic Church and are in no position to make overtures into other religions territory.
Additionally for me Benedict is far more measured on this issue than some would like us to believe.
"Benedict XVI when meeting the Jews in the synagogue of Cologne, on August 19, 2005.
Jews and Christians – Ratzinger said on that occasion – remain joined by the one, eternal covenant established by God. And also therefore “in those areas in which, due to our profound convictions in faith, we diverge, and indeed precisely in those areas, we need to show respect and love for one another.”"
I very much like and appreciate the gentle and kind way how Benedict reminds us that we are all brothers and sisters with much love for one another to spare.
Well in that light, it seems however not clear to me at all how one can get from such a quest to "show respect and love for one another" to the perceived renewed emphasis/ desire to convert the beloved brothers and sisters to ones own religion (other than by ways of good example that is, as Realist points out).
If the old unpleasant issue of conversion is on the burner again however for some. I have to wonder what they are thinking has changed from the last time around , where this eventually perhaps contributet to disrespect and antisemitism.
For me the task of 'conversion' of Jews in the 21st century could only be attempted in a spirit of a true give and take in order to honor and respect one another.
For example:
Yes, our Lord perhaps chooses twelve apostles- in reference to the 12 tribes of Israel. I am sure our Jewish brothers and sisters would very much wonder in this context how come we than emphasize so much the one?
Similar our protestant brothers and sisters wonder how we come to continue to find ways to enhance/embellish the Virgins role.
Dr. Blosser, I agree that Benedict XVI was not giving an endorsement of Harnack/Nietchze. I'm concerned more broadly with attempts to utilize modern systems of philosophy heavily influenced by the likes of Hegel/Heidegger in the service of Christianity, when arguably those philosophies have a rejection of Christianity as one of their starting points. Rahner was the prince of this sort of thing. But these matters are not my speciality at all. Rather, I'm groping to understand how, for example, Church authorities could have been so easy to understand in the centuries leading up to Vatican II and often so difficult and confusing after. It has been proposed to me by a very fine Catholic philosopher that it is precisely that the modern Popes (especially John Paul II) are heavily influenced by modern philosphy. And that makes some sense, but I'm ill-equipped to evaluate it. Forgive me for probably speaking quite beyond my abilities.
Grega wrote: **it seems however not clear to me at all how one can get from such a quest to "show respect and love for one another" to the perceived renewed emphasis/ desire to convert the beloved brothers and sisters to ones own religion**
How can the attempt to convert someone to explicitly embrace the Catholic Faith be anything other than an act of charity? Certainly the methods used have to be in line with charity, but the desire of conversion to the Catholic Faith is what the Church has always understood by fundamental charity.
Realist, the page you reference doesn't raise any "tough questions" about why this saying isn't placed prior to the Crucifixion. I know it's hopelessly naive of me, but as with others here, I would suppose that the reason it's placed post-resurrection in St. Matthew's Gospel is because that's when our Lord said it. I just don't see any evidence to the contrary and it's evidence that matters. Your site also doesn't explain the rationale behind what I would argue is an arbitrary and unfounded conclusion that sayings that occur only once in the four Gospels are considered less historical.
I recommend that you read Craig Blomberg's "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels" and put the Jesus Seminar so-called methodology into perspective.
Now, since I've said some hard things about Vatican II on this blog, how about a really great citation from that Council:
"19. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1 )." (Dei Verbum 19).
Dave,
Karen Armstrong and Elaine Pagels are not "white, middle age males" but well educated members of the opposite sex with many books worthy of reading by any middle aged white male elite Catholic bloggers.
And to extend the time line:
A follow up on Thomas Carney's observations:
And "What the Church teaches"- i.e. what the elite, elderly, white males have been dictating as truth for the last 2,000 years in order to keep us "pew peasants" from knowing all the facts and to keep popes, bishops, kings, queens and dictators in power.
Of course the Pope is not praising the "liberal Protestantism" of Harnack -- this has been refuted by Catholic writers since Loisy, L'Evangile et l'Eglise! What he is praising, and rightly, is Harnack's greatness as a scholar. Harnack not only mastered all of early Christian literature, he brought an agile, critical theological mind to bear on its at every step. His books remains extraordinarily instructive and thought-provoking today. In addition he fostered numerous projects of great importance for the transmission of the patristic heritage in the twentieth century. He is he single person of the last three centuries to whom scholars of early Christianity and the Fathers owe the greatest debt. "The Essence of Christianity", however, is one of his weakest books.
I don't think Ratzinger relies on modern philosophy at all -- in fact I think his philosophical culture is very slight. Even his theses on Augustine and Bonaventure are rather devoid of reference to the Neoplatonic background in Augustine's case and to scholastic ontology in Bonaventure's.
JP2 did have a rather murky phenomenology that made his talks on the body very obscure, but B16 has always been an amazingly pellucid writer. The encyclical on "Faith and Reason" embraces a spectrum of philosophical approaches, but all are quite simply described, and their respective strengths and weaknesses judiciously signalled. It is a group composition, with little trace of John Paul II's characteristic language.
To say that the pre-Vatican II Popes were extremely clear is misleading. Paul VI was clarity incarnate, whereas if you try to read the encyclicals of Leo XIII or Pius XI you may find much that is extremely murky. The only murkiness I find in post Vatican II documents is in some of John Paul II's.
RfC,
Armstrong and Pagels are still part of the cultural elite. They have their own slant and agenda, and their own designs on power of a sort. No one is pure.
Let's assume as a given that the Canon of Scripture was finally assembled by privileged European males who countenanced slavery and other abominations. What of it? Cannot God use whatever imperfect human instruments he chooses to communicate his Truth? A rich man gave Jesus his burial plot. A cultured, "elite" Jew who murdered Christians spread the gospel to the far corners of the Roman Empire.
God writes straight with crooked lines. Let us be done with the hermeneutics of suspicion and its attendant whining.
BTW, if the Gospels are nothing but the construct of the evil rich, then why do they so much more support the preferential option for the poor than they do, say, capital gains tax cuts?
The voices of antiquity are indeed mostly those of the elite. But Scripture is rather an exception here. How many of the prophets belonged to the elite? Not Amos, anyway. Paul was of an elite, but threw in his lot with the non-elite. Jesus was not of any social elite and his teachings draw on popular wisdom. The gnostic writers often considered themselves to be a spiritual elite, and the determination of the Canon represented not only the decision of an elite, the bishops, but also the approbation of the common people who uses the texts in church. Christianity as a social movement was rooted mainly in the lower urban middle class rather than in any elites.
Bottom line: The original and true Church was taken over by the elite, elderly, white males starting approximately with Constantine. The "pew peasant" revolution is not yet complete. Time for Vatican III !!!
Thomist-WB, I agree on your point emblemized by Rahner, and other second-hand Heideggerians in theology.
"Spirit," I agree on that JPII isn't always clear, and I've wondered if that came, in part, from his early work struggling to translate Scheler, on whom he did one of his two doctoral dissertations. Scheler was notoriously eliptical in his writing, as is JPII. Still, both have remarkable occasional insights, and JPII's theology of the body may not be entirely pellucid, but its implications surely run deep, as the work of many scholars have begun to attest.
Rahner was at his best in his early, philosophical period (Geist in Welt and Hoerer des Woertes); his later works are philosophically slack. He gives an existential depth to transcendental Thomism that owes something to Heidegger, although he is very far from Heidegger in his Thomist-Kantian synthesis. When he speaks of the transcendental reach of the human mind, he makes it feel much more momentous and religious than in the similar arguemnents of Joseph Marechal and Bernard Lonergan.
Heidegger is said to have praised him as the only theologian who understood him (meaning probably that Rahner had the kind of depth, authenticity or force of questioning thought that Heidegger appreciated).
"How, for example, Church authorities could have been so easy to understand in the centuries leading up to Vatican II and often so difficult and confusing after."
This is a fantastic observation! The fact that Spirit of Vatican II disagrees rather confirms it, as his posts are "often so difficult" themselves.
As for quoting Harnack and others, Benedict XVI is showing his Ivory Tower roots there: who outside of the academy of 30 plus years ago is going to have had even a brush with the guy?
http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatst...mts/
bishops.gay
fuller text here
Harnack is still studied by any serious student of theology. His History of Dogma remains the foundational work in the field.
Many of Harnack's works are still in print in German and in translation. http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/...adolf%
20harnack
http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obi...2126291-
3157838
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obi...2566114-
7962038
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obi...2566114-
7962038
My links won't work, but just search any outlet of amazon.com and you'll see that Harnack is still a hot name in theology. Ratzinger refers to Harnack in many of his works, always respectfully.
However, Ratzinger does not speak of ordinary human beings with respect, as the document I posted inadvertently above shows (http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatstmts/bishops.gay)
.
He loves cats and books, that is clear.
Care to date this?:
"These lesser societies and the larger society differ in many respects, because their immediate purpose and aim are different. Civil society exists for the common good, and hence is concerned with the interests of all in general, albeit with individual interests also in their due place and degree. It is therefore called a public society, because by its agency, as St. Thomas of Aquinas says, "Men establish relations in common with one another in the setting up of a commonwealth."(36) But societies which are formed in the bosom of the commonwealth are styled private, and rightly so, since their immediate purpose is the private advantage of the associates. "Now, a private society," says St. Thomas again, "is one which is formed for the purpose of carrying out private objects; as when two or three enter into partnership with the view of trading in common."(37) Private societies, then, although they exist within the body politic, and are severally part of the commonwealth, cannot nevertheless be absolutely, and as such, prohibited by public authority. For, to enter into a "society" of this kind is the natural right of man; and the State has for its office to protect natural rights, not to destroy them; and, if it forbid its citizens to form associations, it contradicts the very principle of its own existence, for both they and it exist in virtue of the like principle, namely, the natural tendency of man to dwell in society."
Or this?:
Attention must be given also to another matter that is closely connected with the foregoing. Just as the unity of human society cannot be founded on an opposition of classes, so also the right ordering of economic life cannot be left to a free competition of forces. For from this source, as from a poisoned spring, have originated and spread all the errors of individualist economic teaching. Destroying through forgetfulness or ignorance the social and moral character of economic life, it held that economic life must be considered and treated as altogether free from and independent of public authority, because in the market, i.e., in the free struggle of competitors, it would have a principle of self direction which governs it much more perfectly than would the intervention of any created intellect. But free competition, while justified and certainly useful provided it is kept within certain limits, clearly cannot direct economic life - a truth which the outcome of the application in practice of the tenets of this evil individualistic spirit has more than sufficiently demonstrated. Therefore, it is most necessary that economic life be again subjected to and governed by a true and effective directing principle. This function is one that the economic dictatorship which has recently displaced free competition can still less perform, since it is a headstrong power and a violent energy that, to benefit people, needs to be strongly curbed and wisely ruled. But it cannot curb and rule itself. Loftier and nobler principles - social justice and social charity - must, therefore, be sought whereby this dictatorship may be governed firmly and fully. Hence, the institutions themselves of peoples and, particularly those of all social life, ought to be penetrated with this justice, and it is most necessary that it be truly effective, that is, establish a juridical and social order which will, as it were, give form and shape to all economic life. Social charity, moreover, ought to be as the soul of this order, an order which public authority ought to be ever ready effectively to protect and defend. It will be able to do this the more easily as it rids itself of those burdens which, as We have stated above, are not properly its own.
This?:
For some, Marxism remains essentially the active practice of class struggle. Experiencing the ever present and continually renewed force of the relationships of domination and exploitation among men, they reduce Marxism to no more than a struggle-at times with no other purpose-to be pursued and even stirred up in permanent fashion. For others, it is first and foremost the collective exercise of political and economic power under the direction of a single party, which would be the sole expression and guarantee of the welfare of all, and would deprive individuals and other groups of any possibility of initiative and choice. At a third level, Marxism' whether in power or not, is viewed as a socialist ideology based on historical materialism and the denial of everything transcendent. At other times, finally, it presents itself in a more attenuated form, one also more attractive to the modern mind: as a scientific activity, as a rigorous method of examining social and political reality, and as the rational link, tested by history, between theoretical knowledge and the practice of revolutionary transformation. Although this type of analysis gives a privileged position to certain aspects of reality to the detriment of the rest, and interprets them in the light of its ideology, it nevertheless furnishes some people not only with a working tool but also a certitude preliminary to action: the claim to decipher in a scientific manner the mainsprings of the evolution of society.
The social teaching of the Church is a godsend in that it provides a coherent framework for one's social thinking, whereas philosophers left to their own devices fall into eccentricity more often than not. But the language of papal encyclicals is not very attractive.
"Harnack is still studied by any serious student of theology. His History of Dogma remains the foundational work in the field."
Baloney. Father, considering the fact you claim to be a Catholic, and I also imagine your seminary days are a good 20 years past, what would a priest, especially one exiled to Japan, even know about what's studied in today's Protestant seminaries? Besides, any priest who would write such nonsense as"Ratzinger does not speak of ordinary human beings with respect" betrays that distorting factors have eaten away at his judgement.
"The social teaching of the Church is a godsend .... But the language of papal encyclicals is not very attractive."
As opposed to that genius Harnack. Whose attractiveness is attested to by his rave reviews at Amazon.com, where I also not that the latest titles by Bishop Spong and Gordon B. Hinckley also get an awful lot of props. I actually prefer the social teachings of Deepak Chopra, a very "hot name" in helpful theorizing...
**The social teaching of the Church is a godsend in that it provides a coherent framework for one's social thinking, whereas philosophers left to their own devices fall into eccentricity more often than not. But the language of papal encyclicals is not very attractive.**
Well, Father, I grant that the citations you provide are dense. And yet in the end I understand them. Perhaps my phrase "easy to understand" was not well chosen, but nevertheless I can attentively read those citations and write a summary of what it meant. With too many post-conciliar writings, I'm unable to do the same. I'm still very much a Thomist wanna be (but I fear I'm old now to cultivate a proper philosophical grounding), but I consider myself reasonably well educated and reasonably intelligent. I have always held that the fault lies with the writer if he can't communicate his ideas in such a way that a reasonably intelligent person can understand them.
Ultimately I think you and Dr. Blosser are correct, that this is primarily a characteristic of John Paul II. As he dominated the landscape for so long the lack of clarity strongly colors the post-conciliar landscape.
Also, I agree concerning the clarity of Card. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's writing as compared to that of his immediate predecessor. How refreshing. Now he needs, as he himself has said, the courage to stand against the wolves--and not just stand against them, but drive them from the flock.
I'd be curious to hear reactions from Fr. O'Leary and Dr. Blosser (and anyone else, of course) to this evaluation of modern philosophy and its relationship to Christianity:
"What, at bottom, is the whole of modern philosophy doing? Since Descartes—and indeed rather in spite of him than on the basis of his precedent—all philosophers have been making an assault on the ancient soul concept under the cloak of a critique of the subject-and-predicate concept—that is to say, an assault on the fundamental presupposition of Christian doctrine. Modern philosophy, as an epistemological skepticism, is, covertly or openly, anti-Christian: although, to speak to more refined ears, by no means anti-religious. For in the past one believed in “the soul” as one believed in grammar and the grammatical subject: one said “I” is the condition, “think” is the predicate and conditioned—thinking is an activity to which a subject must be thought of as cause. Then one tried with admirable artfulness and tenacity to fathom whether one could not get out of this net—whether the reverse was not perhaps true: “think” the condition, “I” conditioned; “I” thus being only a synthesis produced by thinking. Kant wanted fundamentally to prove that, starting from the subject, the subject could not be proved—nor could the object: the possibility of an apparent existence of the subject, that is to say of “the soul,” may not always have been remote from him, that idea which, as the philosophy of the Vedanta, has exerted immense influence on earth before."
(Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, n.54)
TWB has a point. While I do not agree that all of modern philosophy consists of an "assault on the ancient soul concept" (that is certainly not the aim of the phenomenological movement), it does appear that the concept of "soul" has largely disappeared from view in modern philosophy, to be replaced by the concept of "person". Perhaps at issue here in TWB's observations is the possibility that "person" is a somewhat murkier concept than "soul". Nietzsche is at least correct in stating that "the ancient soul concept" is a "fundamental presupposition of Christian doctrine". What has been the loss and gain involved in the virtual disappearance of that concept from modern philosophical discourse?
And the opposite side of the coin: what has been the loss and gain involved in the emergence of the concept of "person" in modern philosophy and theology? "Person" is certainly a key concept in Ratzinger's thought, as it was, of course, in Wojtyla's.
TWB:
"How can the attempt to convert someone to explicitly embrace the Catholic Faith be anything other than an act of charity? Certainly the methods used have to be in line with charity, but the desire of conversion to the Catholic Faith is what the Church has always understood by fundamental charity."
Certainly BenedictXVI carefully avoids the word conversion - maybe as an act of charity.
Interesting to see how you in just few short posts later go on to deconversion and 'good housekeeping' issues
You write:
"Now he needs, as he himself has said, the courage to stand against the wolves--and not just stand against them, but drive them from the flock."
Who in your opinion are these 'wolves'? Since you refer to the pope and that he has to chase them from the flok I take it you mean persons within our church.
Personally, I believe there are way to many these days (particularly amoung the US catholics)that are so eager to exclude, to push away to get rid off -
very uncharitable for sure.
How can anybody in his/her right mind expect that 1 Billion catholics are anything other than a rather very diversed bunch of humans - most certainly a great many will not have much love lost for what some here and in other venues propose as the 'new' direction of our church- going forward by going back in time.
If you want to worship anno 1950 style - I am all for allowing this - just do not force me to do the same. Or tell me in case I prefer a bit more hopping and adancing and joy that I do not pay proper reverence.
If you enjoy the authors of antiquity - great - just do not act all surprised if some of us enjoy just as much more recent theologians or philosophers.
Yes, most certainly you perhaps have the 'annoyance' of very liberal leaning sections of the flok. Some would love to see female ordination, some certainly do fully embrace those with samesex attraction, some would like to see married clergy, some more democratic structure and lay participation - many would like all off the above and more. So what - I say - I trust that our creator is very much at peace with his creations as long as we indeed display the required amount of charity. Our Lord certainly was rather generous in his acceptance and love for everybody - we should not shame him by falling into petty fingerpointing amoung another.
Our Lord was not busy excluding folks, but rather invited everybody to the table.
Have you noticed by the way that liberal folks are not talking about pushing out the brothers and sisters with more conservative and traditionals views?
**Who in your opinion are these 'wolves'? Since you refer to the pope and that he has to chase them from the flok I take it you mean persons within our church.**
The most obvious are those in positions of authority--bishops, priests, theologians--who teach contrary to the Catholic faith as it has been defined by the Church's Magisterium. It is an act of charity to put a heretic out of the Church--charitable for those who remain and are no longer within his influence and charitable for him, that he may be brought to his senses and repent.
**Our Lord was not busy excluding folks, but rather invited everybody to the table.**
I presume that if I counter with the numerous sayings of our Lord about dividing parents against children and siblings against each other, or His sayings about shunning those who will not "hear the Church", or His warnings about wolves coming in to devour the sheep--not to mention the numerous teachings of His Apostles to the same effect elsewhere in the New Testament--I'll be told that there are grave difficulties in knowing whether He really said any such thing and whether the Apostles really got things right.
And that would be pointless. You and I would need to start a great many steps back, since you seem unaware that what you are holding out to us isn't Catholicism at all, but secular liberalism in a paper-thin religious wrapper. Until you would admit to that, the conversation wouldn't get very far.
**Have you noticed by the way that liberal folks are not talking about pushing out the brothers and sisters with more conservative and traditionals views?**
I had not noticed that. Some of the greatest animus that I have experienced as a traditionally-minded Catholic is precisely from those liberals who have long since abandoned anything resembling orthodox Catholicism and are outraged that anybody should suggest that they have the basic integrity to leave the Church whose teachings they no longer believe.
Why is it that the Catholic Church is the only institution on the planet that isn't allowed by liberals to define the criteria of its own membership?
TWB:
I very much appreciate the honesty and clarity of your thoughts. Yes maybe you are hitting it right on when you write:
"You and I would need to start a great many steps back, since you seem unaware that what you are holding out to us isn't Catholicism at all, but secular liberalism in a paper-thin religious wrapper. Until you would admit to that, the conversation wouldn't get very far."
I certainly would admit to being very much influenced these days by secular liberalism and believe it or not I am well aware that a good number of my positions are not those of the Catholic Church or Catholicism.
I certainly do not expect that some of my personal held believes will anytime soon (or ever) become catholic teaching.
In the end, if the catholic church indeed chooses to reemphasize obedience and dogma over personal conscience -as some very much studied and fine believers like yourself request - chances are many of us liberals will not be in the way.
However, I personally think that you set yourself up for disappointment if you hope that even this perhaps conservative leaning Pope will engage in any clear language or action leading to anything remotly close to a clean house.
Seems to me, Benedict stresses harmony and understanding much more than some bellingerent cushy US conservative catholics would like to see.
Yes you are perhaps correct, there is more than a whiff of dishonesty when we liberals play our games of pick and choose.
In my view this is however just as dishonest behaviour as that of conservative catholics that proudly call themself Pro -life - when they are really better described as Anti Abortion.
We will continue to see shifting alliences. Some of us liberals will be very much at the side of the catholic church when it comes to most social justice related issues, poverty, global perspective and environmental issues. Some (not all) of the conservatives will be at the churches side when it comes to role of homosexuals, strict understanding of abortion and male only priesthood.
Also obedience might come easier to all those that do not necessarly think that a diversed democratic society is the best way to govern.
Our church government structure certainly is better descibed by a term like monarchy than democracy.
Thus for me it is rather obvious that the conflict between modern believers raised in a democratic society and church will not go away anytime soon.
Make no mistake in the end many of us liberal seculars, moderates as well as modern conservatives will insist on a clear seperation of church and state.
This might mean for example that the catholic church can say what has to be said within the context of strict dogma, scripture and tradition - while we as a society nevertheless continue to pursue with much less hesitation issues like Stem cell research, legal unions, all forms of birth control, civil divorce, etc.
Thomist, did you not notice that one of the three "dense" texts I posted is precisely a post-Vatican II one?
Nietzsche is attacking the classical concept of the Soul as found in Plato's Phaedo, and he feels himself close to the Buddhist attack on this. But Nietzsche would no doubt keep the word soul (Seele) in a non-metaphysical, spiritual sense, as any man of soul must do.
Consider, for example, how fond James Joyce is of the word "soul". (I have a very long piece on this which I hope to revise and post on my weblog.)
Joe on Harnack: to say I have no idea what Protestant seminaries teach their theological students is not quite correct -- I do have some notions -- and I am aware that American students of theology are often linguistically challenged and cannot read Harnack's pellucid prose in the original. I notice plenty of doctorate theses in theology and patristics that cite Harnack abundantly and argue with him. He is far from being the dead duck you imagine. If he were, why would the Pope still bother mentioning him?
_Our church government structure certainly is better descibed by a term like monarchy than democracy.
Thus for me it is rather obvious that the conflict between modern believers raised in a democratic society and church will not go away anytime soon._
Good observation. The closer one gets to the Heart of the Church, the more intense one's longing for the Return of the King.
The Church doesn't support democracies. Let's be absolutely clear on this point. Democracies assert that power and authority come from the people. Holy Mother Church insists that power and authority come from God. Since the people are not God, there is a necessary contradiction here.
I studied philosophy, like all good young socialists, thirty years ago or so. I am not a scholar, but actively work to deepen my understanding of my Faith.
I once met a man that had not left his house for seventeen years. His son thought that he would enjoy speaking with me, because I was a "thinker".
His father had spent time in a mental institution after attempting to kill his wife with a knife.
During our conversation, the gentleman stopped, looked at me and said, “Beware of the books." When I read the comments above, that is what keeps coming to mind. "Beware of the books."
Most of the people posting here are much more knowledgeable than I about philosophy and theology. But Jesus came to fishermen. To people that didn't have the "advantage" of Nietzsche and Harnack.
There seems to be a lot of "missing the forest" in these posts.
One man's opinion.
The Vatican tolerated democracy from around the time of Leo XIII and spoke positively of democracy for the first time in 1943, I believe.
"Much of democratic socialism stood and stands close to the social ethics of catholicism, in any case it [Socialism] considerably has contributed to the development of a social conscience" --Ratzinger (pope Benedict XVI)
"Democracy can be found in any regime that is not totalitarian," PAUL VI said. "It requires a society of free men, equal in dignity and fundamental rights, a society that takes note of personalities, of responsibilities and rights."
In the same letter he had also spoken of the function of the press in a democracy, urging that the people be properly informed, adding even more cogently, however, that "the people must strive to judge and weigh the information they receive. And the instruments of diffusing (the news) must not be at the exclusive disposition of any single political viewpoint."
Pius XII on democracy:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPA...DOC/
P12XMAS.HTM
Depending on what one means by "democracy," there can be a reconciliation of democracy to the Catholic faith -- democracy too can be baptised. But that implies that a nation has been converted to Catholicism. Western civilisation has been moving away from the true faith for centuries now, and Catholics have done little to stop it.
Michael, point well taken.
Sed contra, there is no reason why bibliophilia and Christian charity cannot go hand in hand.
The story of Benedict XVI and his thousands of books strikes me as poignant. Clearly he is a man who loves books. Just as clearly, according to all who have gotten to know him, he is a man who loves people. Above all, he is a man who loves God.
Dave,
I am not suggesting bibliophilia, or anti-intellectualism is a positive track either. What I am saying is that Dr. Blosser has a different perspective than, say, RFC or Spirit of Vatican II.
From a Catholic perspective, then, it seems clear that it isn't the books or scholarship that "makes the man". It is fidelity. Faith. Acquired by GRACE, and by "dying to self".
Michael, I said "bibliophilia" (love of books) not "bibliophobia" (fear of books). My point is that a love of books and a reference to them in discussions about the Catholic faith need not hinder a charitable approach to the issues and our differences on them.
Someone, I believe it was Fr. Joseph (Spirit of Vatican II), made the oblique remark that Benedict XVI loves books and cats. The barely veiled implication was that Benedict XVI does not love people. (In fact, that suggestion was brought out explicitly in a subsequent post.) Not a very charitable thing to suggest, IMHO.
Also, regarding the point that faith, not books, "make the man", Benedict XVI, with his two thousand book libary, would be the first to agree. Yet on a Catholic blog hosted by a philosophy professor, a bookish discussion is probably unavoidable. 
Fr. O'Leary wrote: "Thomist, did you not notice that one of the three "dense" texts I posted is precisely a post-Vatican II one?"
No Father, you got me. I didn't look up where the texts were from. But I think I gained some insight by the discussion above. Probably my difficult is with certain writings of John Paul II specifically, not post-conciliar statements in general.
Grega/Anonymous wrote: "I certainly would admit to being very much influenced these days by secular liberalism and believe it or not I am well aware that a good number of my positions are not those of the Catholic Church or Catholicism."
Okay. And I realize that my tone above was rather accusatory and I'm sorry for that. One of the curses of writing anonymously is that (for me, at least) I'm tempted to write more strongly than I would if my real name was on it.
"However, I personally think that you set yourself up for disappointment if you hope that even this perhaps conservative leaning Pope will engage in any clear language or action leading to anything remotly close to a clean house. Seems to me, Benedict stresses harmony and understanding much more than some bellingerent cushy US conservative catholics would like to see."
I agree with you. I do not *expect* any such action; I simply hope for it. I believe it is his duty. It is any shepherd's duty to protect his flock by driving away wolves. And I'm sure you can understand that, at least from a traditional Catholic perspective, someone who from within the Church promotes homosexuality, or abortion, or contraception, or stem cell research, or liturgical abuses, or a Protestant view of the Eucharist, etc. is indeed a wolf. That the Popes of late have emphasized "harmony and understanding" over the proximate danger to souls posed by heretics in prominent positions within the heart of the Church is indeed a great source of disappointment for me.
I hope that you realize that my concern stems from the fact that the world is a dangerous place for our souls and that it is the Church's job to help souls avoid the rocks and reefs that can so easily lead to spiritual shipwreck.
Spirit of VII: I'll admit that if Benedict XVI is quoting Harnack, the guy still attracts readers and admirers. But I'll add that what seems to me to have made liberal Protestantism become so detached from the concerns of many folks is quoting those like Harnack. And Barth. Et al. Which does put me at odds with pretty much most of the Academy. Ah well.
Barth is simply the greatest theologian of the last century, and his foremost students are Catholics (Balthasar, Bouillard) -- if Barth is an evil influence, why not Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, St Thomas? Do you think Christianity is an inherently anti-intellectual religion? For my part, I think Protestant churches are in a much healthier state theologically than the RCC precisely because of their rich biblical and theological culture. I am hoping that as a theologian Benedict will do something to restore the theological wealth of the RCC, beginning with the Roman pontifical universities.
Benedict loves people, no doubt. But what he writes about gays in the text I posted a linked to does not show this love or even basic respect. I stand by this.
On the autonomous merits of democracy, I think Thomas Aquinas would be helpful. God, the primary cause, is the ultimate source of authority, but he works through secondary causes such as the institutions of democracy. These are rooted in natural law, not divine revelation, and therefore there is no need to baptize them in order to render them legitimate.
Dave,
My bad. My only excuse is that I went to public school. : )
'Benedict loves people, no doubt. But what he writes about gays in the text I posted a linked to does not show this love or even basic respect. I stand by this.'
Fr. O'Leary, I have read the text. It seems that unless we agree with you that homosexual orientation is not only not an objective disorder, but is in fact a positive good, you will persist in the view that we lack "love or even basic respect" for homosexual persons. Oh, well. I think that we've reached a stalemate.
Yes, to say that the homosexual orientation is an objective disorder, not willed by God, a result of original sin, is incompatible with love and respect for gays. In fact, more and more Catholic theologians are realizing this and are busily reinterpreting the statements perpetrated by Ratzinger so that their meaning is now made out to be that not the orientation as such but the positive desire for proscribed acts is objectively disordered.
Homosexual sensibility and the affective development of homosexual love and friendship are indeed positive goods. Again to deny this turns out to be incompatible with love and respect for the persons involved; just as if you subscribe to H. Eysenck's theories on the intellectual inferiority of blacks you cannot really pretend to love and respect them; and note that the pseudo-science on which Ratzinger drew is of a lower order than Eysenck's (one thinks of pseudo-psychoanalysts like Bergler and Socarides).
From the disputed text:
'Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.'
That's not pseudo-science, Father, it is sound moral theology.
The fact remains: in your view charity requires that we love the sinner AND the (orientation toward) sin. That's not love, it's bad theology.
Morever, the comparison that you draw between the Church's teaching on homosexual orientation and racist-motivated pseudo-science is simply outrageous.
'[It is] not the orientation as such but the positive desire for proscribed acts [that] is objectively disordered.'
Father O'Leary, is it accurate to say that you at least agree that a "positive desire" to engage in homosexual acts is an "objectively disordered" desire?
Father O'Leary, is it accurate to say that you at least agree that a "positive desire" to engage in homosexual acts is an "objectively disordered" desire?
Reply: Not necessarily.
I wished merely to clarify that this is the nub of current church teaching and that Ratzinger's effort to go beyond Persona Humana 1975 by making the homosexual orientation itself objectively disordered has misfired and has been neutralised in the theological reception.
As I have frequently explained here, I believe that a development in church teaching on homosexuality is long overdue, and cannnot be achieved without widespread processes of dialogue and consultation.
A more positive appreciation of the homosexual orientation will undoubtedly have an incidence on the sexual ethics preached by the Church. Precisely fear of this is what led Ratzinger to say that the orientation as such is objectively disordered.
'A more positive appreciation of the homosexual orientation will undoubtedly have an incidence on the sexual ethics preached by the Church. Precisely fear of this is what led Ratzinger to say that the orientation as such is objectively disordered.'
Dream on, Father. You are living in a fantasyland.
Yup, I have a dream.
So long as the homosexual orientation tends in most cases to find fulfillment in the unspeakable acts that homosexual persons perform upon each other, it will continue to be recognized by the Church for what it is: an objective disorder.
I wish, Father, that the next time you visit your favorite gay bar in Tokyo, you might have the courage to show some REAL love to those poor, pathetic people: encourage them to repent, turn their lives over to Christ Jesus, and seek help for their affliction.
Of course, I have no illusions that you will actually do any such thing, but it needed to be said.
End of discussion, as far as I'm concerned.
I will say this, not to further the debate. Believe it or not, Father, I like you. I've never met you, yet there is a genuineness and humaneness that comes through your posts. Your arguments about homosexuality are wrong, IMHO, but I like you.
Know this, too. I've worked with many gay people in my day. Without exception, I have liked each of them. The one with whom I worked most recently, I can say that I actually felt love in my heart for him. He was and is a person of warmth and sincerity, a person who loves and needs to be loved. I hope and pray that he finds the truest love, the merciful love of our Blessed Lord. Pray for him, Father. Pray that he turns from sin and falls in love with Jesus Christ.
So long as the homosexual orientation tends in most cases to find fulfillment JUST AS THE HETEROSEXUAL ORIENTATION DOES in the SEXUAL ("unspeakable" is the language of homophobia) acts that homosexual persons perform WITH ("upon" is the language of homophobia) each other, it will continue to be recognized by the Church for what it is: an objective disorder. (Hardly, since it is created by God. Heterosexuality also was regarded as an objective disorder by Manicheanism, and some of that trickled over into Augustine's view of sexuality as tainted in some special, nasty way).
I wish, Father, that the next time you visit your favorite gay bar in Tokyo, you might have the courage to show some REAL love to those poor, pathetic people (that is, of course, the language of homophobia): encourage them to repent, turn their lives over to Christ Jesus, and seek help for their affliction (I urge you to repent as well, and to seek help for what psychoanalysts regard as an affliction, namely homophobia).
Of course, I have no illusions that you will actually do any such thing, but it needed to be said. (I have the same sense of hopelessness in regard to your homophobia, something that seems ingrained in US culture -- see Brokeback Mountain), but hope believes against hope.)
End of discussion, as far as I'm concerned. (I hope not, because you have just cut yourself off from a lot of fine people whom you trash as afflicted pathetic half-men or untermenschen.)
Dave | 03.25.06 - 2:04 am | #
I will say this, not to further the debate. Believe it or not, Father, I like you. I've never met you, yet there is a genuineness and humaneness that comes through your posts. Your arguments about homosexuality are wrong, IMHO, but I like you.
THX
Know this, too. I've worked with many gay people in my day. Without exception, I have liked each of them. The one with whom I worked most recently, I can say that I actually felt love in my heart for him. He was and is a person of warmth and sincerity, a person who loves and needs to be loved. I hope and pray that he finds the truest love, the merciful love of our Blessed Lord. Pray for him, Father. Pray that he turns from sin and falls in love with Jesus Christ.
NOT SURE WHAT "worked with" MEANS. IN THE SAME BUSINESS or worked with them in some therapeutic or pastoral role?
I know many gays who have found love BOTH in the Church (the love of the Savior) AND with a human being (in fact even binding themselves to that other human being in a civil union or in one case in a civil marriage -- that latter case being the union of two women theologians).
You may ask what kind of Church would accept gay couples? I would say, a Christian Church.
"Worked with" in the same business. I am neither a therapist nor a pastor.
The pseudo-scientific "homophobe" rhetoric adds nothing to the debate. I have resisted labeling you. It would be nice if you extended the same courtesy to me.
I disagree with your view of what constitutes a "Christian" Church. What a surprise, eh? Let's leave it at that.
You did not resist labeling all gay people in what most of them would consider a demeaning way.
Psychoanalysts do not, I understand, consider homophobia an unscientific category.
I just posted a piece on George Moore, the Irish novelist, on homosexuality on my weblog.
The sexual acts in which homosexuals mutually participate (is the language of "mutual participation" more acceptable to you than the homophobic "perform upon" language, Father?) are unspeakable. I stand by that. The Bible uses the word "abomination", I believe. This is not a matter of labeling homosexuals in a demeaning way, it is a matter of speaking the truth about what is involved when homosexuals act out their orientation. You do not like hearing the truth spoken on this matter, you do not accept the truth of the Catholic faith (as communicated by the teaching authority of the Church), you would prefer to hide from the truth, so you resort to pseudo-scientific labelling. It seems that labelling empowers you, Father, especially when your argument is weakest. That's not my problem. In other words, I will not sit still in whatever psychobabble box that you and your therapist friends might try to construct for me. My conscience tells me that what the Catholic Church teaches about homosexuality, i.e., that the orientation is an objective disorder and the act is a moral evil, is true. If your conscience tells you something different, I am willing to accept that. However, I will not accept the use of some stupid, B.S. rhetorical label that has been cooked up by ideologically motivated therapists to prop up their unsound moral theology.
Just because those therapists consider their theory "scientific" does not make it so. And just because a gay couple believes that their unholy union is blessed by God does not make it so.
Father, my apologies for my statement above that you "would prefer to hide from the truth". That wasn't fair. Suffice to say that you do not accept the truth as communicated by the Magisterium. I stand by everthing else stated in my last post.
Perhaps we can find something to agree upon here. How about this. I am willing to accept that a homosexual person can believe in Jesus Christ and thus become a true child of God, and yet persist in a state of objective sin according to the teachings of the Church. The persisting in sin does not effect that person's essential justification in Christ (which comes from the assent of faith), yet it does affect that person's santification in Christ (which comes from a daily process of repentance, conversion, and struggle against sin within the community of the Church). Where I think we can agree, Father, is on the point of essential justification, which depends solely on faith in Jesus Christ, and which cannot be taken away from the homosexual person, no matter how much his lifestyle might conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Where we will continue to disagree, I think, is on the question of santification and one's relation to Christ within the community of the Church.
What do you say, Father? Can we carve out that small piece of common ground?
Objective morality/ subjective innocency -- all that has been resolved long ago. Paul VI taught that objectively immoral actions can be diminished in guilt, inculpable or subjectively defensible. The simul iustus et peccator stuff applies all across the board as well. And the pastoral principle of epiekeia recognizes that if people are doing the best they can, though unable to break with an objectively sinful habit or situation, that is to be recognized.
My issues are totally other than this. I am concerned, as is the Catholic Church, to resist hateful homophobia, which causes many murders and other forms of viciousness every day, and which freely uses biblical language in a fundamentalist way.
American homophobia is peculiarly vicious and well-entrenched. Let us not forget that America is founded on the massacre of the "injuns" on the explicit foundation of biblical language (the holy wars of ancient Israel).
Father, I am going to take a break from blogging for a few days. I will give some thought to what you've said.
Regards,
Father Joseph, I Googled "epiekeia" and came across your article on Pastoral Accommodation. It is an interesting read. Again, I will give it some thought.
Regards,
Father: Didn't you summarily declare the Catholic Church an un-Christian church?
Thx Dave.
Chris, I did not make this summary declaration. But of course the Catholic Church has often behaved in un-Christian ways -- toward the Jews for example -- hence the papal repentance ceremony of a few years ago.
I did say that the kind of Church that accepts gays couples is a Christian church. It is a wild leap of "logic" to deduce from this a summary declaration that the RCC is not a Christian church.
1. The Catholic Church does not fully and formally accept gay couples who are sexually active. That choice does not logically entail that it is not a Christian church. It might be argued that it would be MORE Christian to accept gay couples more warmly.
2. In fact, however, many Catholic communities informally accept gay couples. Furthermore, in pastoral treatment they are privately encouraged though the sexual dimension of their relationship is objectively disapproved.
3. So the Catholic Church is laboring toward a more Christian attitude on this front. There have been huge developments in pastoral practice and even in teaching. That growth and development is another sign of a Christian church.
I think I understand. Do you mean that a Christian Church would accept homosexual couples warmly, but that even Christians who don't accept them warmly are still Christian? What I took you to mean is that the mark of a Christian Church is that it warmly welcomes active sodomites. I assumed that you meant your statement as one could say "The five marks of the Chruch are ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, APOSTOLIC and welcoming of sodomites."
My apologies for misunderstanding.
"active sodomites" is demeaning language not found in current church documents.
Do not forget that homophobia kills, as well as causing a psychic holocaust in spiritual abuse of millions of defenseless young people. Careless words cost lives.
I dare say that far, far more people are killed by actively pursuing their same-sex attractions than are killed by those who hate homosexuals. And of course, even worse are careless opinions that cost immortal souls, whether expressed through misguided compassion or not.
Homosexual sex is gravely immoral and homosexual attraction is intrinsically disordered. There is no such thing as a "good homosexual expression of sexuality".
It seems to me, that some people live in an either/or world. Either we must embrace and support homosexuality or hate homosexuals. It's a false dichotomy. I love those with same sex attractions but I recognize the grave danger it poses, epidemiologically, psychologically and spiritually.
Most all of us have a strong inclination toward some sin(s). It becomes most dangerous when we rationalize it or embrace it as "good". God cannot forgive and heal that which we refuse to bring before Him for forgiveness.
God is pleased with the sincere fight against sin, the one who perseveres in repentance, picks himself up and re-engages the battle.
Since the Garden of Eden, life has been a proving ground for our wills. No sin, no rebellion will be allowed in heaven. When we embrace sin or rationalize it, we exhibit the disobedience, the rebellion that led to Lucifer's ouster from heaven and Adam and Eve's expulsion from Eden.
True compassion, therefore, must neither condemn the sinner nor confirm him in his sin.
Same-sex attraction poses nothing but dangers? You reduce gays' sexuality to a kind of disease?
You may claim to love gay people nonetheless, just as someone who regards Jews as accursed or blacks as racially inferior might claim to love them.
That homophobic rant again http://youtube.com/watch?v=9K-wEUCCvE0
Father, what is your point? That the moral theology articulated by many on this blog implicitly supports the insanity of Iron Shiek? Do you think that we give Iron Shiek a wink and a nod? What are you trying to insinuate by posting this disgusting video clip???
Dave, I have nothing against moral theology. But this blog has much more than that -- have you read the Dale Vree postings about "fags and queers" and about "rump raiding in ancient Rome" -- they are homophobic.
Or have you read THE PINK SWASTIKA? It is clearly homophobic, and I learned about it on this blog. If the bloggers here fail to distance themselves from such hate literature, and indeed ardently recommend it, you cannot object if I show them the ugly face that hatred shows when it is adopted by men who are more stupid and primitive than the academics here. I call them to repent of the sin of homophobia.
I am relatively new to this blog. So far, I haven't seen a blogger here who would fail to distance themselves from hate literature and its ugly fruit. Perhaps I haven't been around long enough.
Spirit, my point is simple: you spend a great deal of time warning about the dangers of homophobia, how it can kill.
Do you acknowledge that homosexual sex as typically practiced (especially between men) has killed far more people than the homophobes you focus upon?
I don't want homosexuals dead, either by others or by their own actions.
And yes, isn't ANY inclination toward that which is morally and epidemiologically dangerous is a bad thing? The inclination towards sex with people of the same gender is dangerous. The inclination toward sex with multiple women is dangerous, too. I don't think it's a good idea to confuse people by suggesting if we just wait long enough for a new development, they may not have to resist their dangerous inclinations and urges.
Homophobia isn't a sin, anymore than arachnophobia is a sin.
"Do you acknowledge that homosexual sex as typically practiced (especially between men) has killed far more people than the homophobes you focus upon?" Have you tallied up the murder of homosexuals because of their sexuality (or supposed sexuality) under Hitlerism, Stalinism, the Inquisition, the massacre of alleged sodomites (perceived crosss-dressers) in the New World? And do you refer to AIDS in such a callous manner?
"I don't want homosexuals dead, either by others or by their own actions." Many homophobes do. Many homophobes gloated over AIDS as a disease that would kill off gays.
"And yes, isn't ANY inclination toward that which is morally and epidemiologically dangerous is a bad thing?" By that standard heterosexuality is also a bad thing. Where is your logic?
" The inclination towards sex with people of the same gender is dangerous." As is the other-gender orientation. But both have produced great spiritual blessings to humankind.
" The inclination toward sex with multiple women is dangerous, too."
Yes, it is known as male heterosexuality.
"homophobia isn't a sin" -- true. But it is an unfortunate condition that has caused many tragedies between homophobic parents and their gay children. Persons afflicted by homophobia, a purely negative condition, suffer a lot. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a disposition to love, beauty, and pleasure, all of which are positive values. Of course to foment, encourage or even approve of homophobia, instead of seeking to heal it, is objectively sinful, as the Church indeed teaches.
Oh, Spirit. As I read your latest comments to the effect that homosexuality (in its manifold expressions, including objectively sinful acts) is a many-splendored thing, I begin to understand the impatience of bloggers like New Catholic , Michael Hugo, and others. Are you trying to bait a homophobic reaction, so you can accuse us?
'Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a disposition to love, beauty, and pleasure, all of which are positive values.'
This is sophistry. It is the HUMAN NATURE of the homosexual person that is disposed toward the goods mentioned above, not his homosexuality as such. The latter is disposed toward perverse acts that are objectively sinful.
Nope, the HOMOSEXUAL ORIENTATION is oriented to love, beauty and delight. Have you not read the Phaedrus, quoted with warm approval by our Pope?
The orientation to specific acts that are judged immoral is viewed as disordered concupiscence, as would be the orientation to adultery or masturbation, but this is not to say that sexuality as such is disordered.
Benedict finds in the relevant passage from the Symposium a "hint" of the Biblical truth that man naturally seeks his other half, i.e., a WOMAN, not another man. The Platonic myth is indeed open to homoerotic interpretation, but that is not how Benedict interprets it. Nice try, Spirit.
Heterosexual orientation is orientation toward acts blessed by God, unless disordered by concupiscence. Homosexual orientation is orientation toward acts condemned by God, and is itself a form of concupiscence.
What is callous about squaring with the fact that the kind of sexual practices typical among homosexuals is deadly?
Why do you think that homosexuals suffer such an incredibly disproportionate share of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS?
Regarding your claim about "many homophobes" want people who have same sex attractions dead, what statistics and studies can you cite? Looks like ipse dixit to me. And regardless, unless you are claiming that I personally want them dead, it's irrelevant to my comments.
And no, there is not an equivalence between heterosexual sex and homosexual sex in terms of danger, either morally or epidemiologically. I have provided much evidence previously, a good deal of it from "gay friendly" sources, that prove this (at least epidemiologically). And morally, homosexual activity is also wrong, sinful. Therefore it is inherently morally dangerous. Not so with heterosexual sex.
I've been quite patient on this, Spirit, in the hopes that you would be reasonable, but I agree with Dave that you simply seem to be baiting. Either that or you are very dull-witted. I tend to think the former.
I'm at a loss to understand why you are allowed to spread this nonsense here.
Sexual orientation is not just orientation to acts. As Plato shows, it is orientation to love, beauty, and the Good. Read Benedict on the Phaedrus -- a homoerotic work -- you can find the quote on my weblog in "Love Conquers All: An Encyclical and its Intertexts" (archive: Church and Culture Today);
"the kind of sexual practices typical among homosexuals is deadly?"
Nope, they CAN be deadly just as the kind of sexual practices typical among heterosexuals can be. Ever heard of syphilis?
"Why do you think that homosexuals suffer such an incredibly disproportionate share of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS?" I think you mean MALE homosexuals. The reason is promiscuity, presumably. Have you statistics for female homosexuals too? And please note that statistics on incidence of STDs vary from year to year and from country to country. Moreover, the differences between different categories of subjects are ones of degree, not of kind. They can found counsels of restraint but not an indictment of a particular sexual orientation as such.
"Regarding your claim about "many homophobes" want people who have same sex attractions dead, what statistics and studies can you cite? Looks like ipse dixit to me. And regardless, unless you are claiming that I personally want them dead, it's irrelevant to my comments." Murders of gays are widespread -- in Italy for example -- and are symptomatic of a murderous attitude in the hearts of many. He who says to his brother, "thou pervert, thou queer, thou fag" has already subscribed to this murderous attitude. And every gay person has been the recipient of such abuse.
"you simply seem to be baiting."
Really? Along with Plato?
"I'm at a loss to understand why you are allowed to spread this nonsense here." Speaks volumes.
Commenting by HaloScan
