Papal pruning? A smaller but purer church may actually have more influence

WORLD ^ | 5/14/05 | Gene Edward Veith

[Tax-chick]

"Dear Mr. Sheed, Are you a saint, or not? Please be honest!"

[CatoRenasci]

Agreed, both on the resignation point and on what an ideal state would not do, However, we live in a real world where painful choices exist for everyone, perhaps especially for the faithful.

[Frank Sheed]

---"Dear Mr. Sheed, Are you a saint, or not? Please be honest!"---

No, I'm not a saint but am most definitely dead. I hope the Lord will have mercy on me in time. Purgatory is very real, I can assure you. I do get access to the internet occasionally though.

Frank

[nina0113]

Pick up The Last Crusade, by Warren Carroll, founder of Christendom [Catholic] College. Since reading it, I've been torn between ninenot's position of buying more ammo, and the Spanish martyrs' position of going to the wall singing hymns. I think you're right that the persecution will begin in our lifetimes. I'm 45, and am now (mostly) grateful that we weren't blessed with children to be responsible for in the coming days.

[TradicalRC]

the Muslims believe the exact same thing, it's their duty to bring you into their way of thinking.......

Actually, I find that democracies seem far scarier in terms of imposing their "enlightened" political system on the rest of the world.

[TradicalRC]

Over the past few weeks I've listened to my fellow Catholic friends explain to me that the Catholic Church MUST change...allow priests to marry, allow women to be priests, "lighten up" on abortion....etc.
I've reached the point where I now respond: "You need to find another Church".

They seem completely oblivious to the arrogance of saying in essence "This two thousand year old institution needs to change but it's asking way too much of me to change which church I will attend."

[TradicalRC]

Well put. It is our own hubris I fear to think the world should be remade so that it is easy to be a Christian.

And yet Christ prayed, "Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven."

[TradicalRC]

but what is God's law isn't exactly interpreted the same by all the religions so by agreeing to a secular law you take the chaos out of the process,

Men are chaotic by nature, interpreting any law by whatever suits their appetites. For examples of secular Chaos, try the first election of George W. Bush, Lincoln's abrogation of the Constitution during the civil war or for that matter ANY war that American presidents have gotten us involved in without consent of congress, Roosevelt creating internment camps for American citizens of Japanese descent or the fact that one court often overturns the findings of a previous court; so much for eliminating the chaos.

in a multi cultural, multi religious society, secular law is the only way to protect the rights of all....

Secular law only satisfies the whims of secularists, multi-culturalists and multi-religionists; it thinks precious little of American citizens that do NOT subscribe to secularism(Christian? You have to pay twice. Taxed for the secularist government schools and on your own for paying for private schools). Those who believe that American culture should be taught and promoted in American schools rather than multi-culturalism are also given a back seat (if any seat at all) As for religion, we were essentially a Christian nation and other religions enjoyed freedom here specifically because of the libertarian nature and moral ethos of the Christian faith. Those who undermine Christianity in America ultimately undermine trheir own true freedom.

[TradicalRC]

Those who argue for "liberty of conscience for all viewpoints" generally end by announcing that those who believe in objective, knowable truth ought to keep their ideas to themselves, you know: liberty of conscience for all viewpoints, except that one. Exactly. They hypocritically defend the idea of liberty of conscience then immediately start denouncing those they deem "beyond the pale". They start with easy ones like white supremacists or separatists, they move on to the Mormons and then of course to anyone who has the gall to take the Christian faith SERIOUSLY. Then the minority subjugates the majority, go figure.

[TradicalRC]

Those who don't accept that principle and wish to use the power of the state to insist on a particular viewpoint may well be among those whose viewpoints ought not be tolerated.

That is called statism. The only viepoint IS the viewpoint of the state. Others who disagree with the centralization of power with the state are becoming more marginalized.

[TradicalRC]

the idea is that anyone may participate in public life in accordance with the law. Accept an office of profit or trust under the United States (or any political subdivision thereof) and take an oath to uphold the law, then either uphold the law or give up the office.

Sounds like a perfect formula for the advancement of evil; everytime there is an evil law passed, those who see it as evil ought to resign.

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

[TradicalRC]

No court will, or ought, to give them any more weight than the views of any other foreigner, which is to say none whatsoever, about what the law of the United States is.

Can you please tell Justice Kennedy that?

[TradicalRC]

As to temporal authority, Christ instructed us to "render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

Cleverly stated, that. When/if one reaches the conclusion that ALL things ultimately belong to God. One has precious little use for Caesar.

Of course, there are those that love Caesar so much they want to hand everything over to him. Those types generally have precious little use for God. (Except as a scapegoat for the world's evils).

[TradicalRC]

A daring "medium brown."

Really? You post like a redhead.

[TradicalRC]

Now, for crying out loud, we have "Who's Deader" contests.

Pinging Hermann the Cherusker.

[Right_in_Virginia]

They seem completely oblivious to the arrogance of saying in essence "This two thousand year old institution needs to change but it's asking way too much of me to change which church I will attend."

I agree...absolutely.

[ninenot]

libertarian nature and moral ethos of the Christian faith

If you are using current definitions of the term, "libertarian" and Christian are not in the least bit related. In fact, Libertarianism is the antithesis of Christianity.

You might have meant 'liberal,' in the 17th Century sense, which would be less a slur on Christianity.

[Tax-chick]

Thank you! I may have red later in the summer, when the medium brown washes out and I look like my kids' grandmother again :-).

[Tax-chick]

LOL!

[TradicalRC]

I appreciate the point you are making. Precision in language IS important, but I was refering to the stance that Christians had historically and Scripturally had towards government; small 'l' libertarian, not big 'L' Libertarian.

In the old testament I often reference 1 Samuel chapter 8 as a starting point for Christian libertarianism. Christian libertarianism recognizes an ethos that comes directly from God which states in essence that the love of God and the love of man are indivisible. Liberal libertarianism on the other hand largely assumes an atomistic ethos which states that as long as I am not physically hurting another person or his property, anything goes.

Liberal, whether used in the classical, romantic or decadent sense of the word is man-centered, rather than God-centered, so I'm not sure that I WOULD use that term.

Again, I may be wrong and it would be interesting to have entire threads that revolve around the precise definition of terms, if only to increase our understanding of the issues and each other and to avoid a ton of entirely unnecessary arguments.