Posted on 01/31/2011 8:43:14 AM PST by Alex Murphy
Fundamentalism is not confined to Islamic religions. In fact fundamentalist movements are to be found in all societies and religions, including Catholic Christianity.
Fundamentalism is a form of organised anger in reaction to the unsettling consequences of rapid social and religious change.
Fundamentalists find rapid change emotionally extremely disturbing and dangerous. Cultural, religious and personal certitudes are shaken. Consequently, fundamentalists simplistically yearn to return to a utopian past or golden age, purified of dangerous ideas and practices.
They aggressively band together in order to put things right again – according to what they decide are orthodox principles. Sometimes they turn to all kinds of bullying – emotional, political, even physical violence at times – to get things back to “normal”. History must be reversed.
Because fundamentalism is at depth an emotional reaction to the disorienting experience of change, fundamentalists are not open to rational discussion. Here in Australia, for example, there is a political fundamentalist movement to preserve the “pure, orthodox Australian culture” from the “endangering ways of foreigners”.
It matters little to adherents that such a culture has never existed. Anthropologically every culture is the result of constant contact and mixing with other cultures over years.
Fundamentalists have become especially powerful and vociferous within the Catholic communities in recent decades. Their fundamentalist reactions are the result of the impact of two massive cultural upheavals colliding.
First, there is the cultural revolution of the 1960s. The credibility of ever value and institution, including the churches, were questioned. This had profound social, economic and political consequences that continue to this day. Second, there is impact from the immense cultural changes generated by the much-needed reforms of Vatican II.
Catholic fundamentalism is an often aggressive reaction to the anxiety-creating turmoil of these two cultural and religious upheavals. It is an ill-defined but powerful movement in the Church to restore uncritically pre-Vatican II structures and attitudes. Here are some signs of this fundamentalism among Catholics:
Nostalgia for a pre-Vatican II Golden Age, when it is assumed that Church never changed, was then a powerful force in the world, undivided by misguided devotees of the Council’s values. The fact is that the Church and its teachings have often changed. Some statements have been shown to be wrong and were either repealed or allowed to lapse.
Our best witness to the truths of our Catholic beliefs will be our inner peace built on faith, charity and concern for justice, especially among the most marginalised.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever read the actual Vatican II documents? http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm
You just might learn how wrong this article is. Perhaps it might be more productive to learn what you’re posting about. By the way, Latin IS the official language of the Church. Gregorian chant still is supposed to have pride of place, musically. Largely, the issues post-V2 were a product of those more progressively-minded modernists who took advantage of both the times and then-current circumstances. Read the documents, Alex.
Natural Law, awesome post.
I think NL must have hit a nerve. ;-D
Please cite the post in which I said that the article was right.
She certainly hit one among the Catholics ;)
In so many words? 1, 2, 4, 20. If you’re continuing to defend it, what other motivation might you possess?
LOL you call that defending it? God help those Catholics who post threads about Presbyterianism then!
brooklyn dave:
However, teachings on “economics” do not impact Dogma or Doctrine. Christ did not come into the world to teach economic theory or to win the Nobel prize for economics.
Their are clearly those Catholic Theologians that are not in favor of Free-Markets, and their are those who are.
There are those that believe in Markets, as I do, but recognize that their is a need for “appropriate Government Regulation” [not appropriate] such as the SEC reporting requirements that Publicly traded companies have Audited Financial Statements, that the SEC has reporting and disclosure requirements that most be met if a company wants to sell its stock on the NYSE, appropriate regulations that try to stop insider trading, etc.
I think the term, as you note, is “Traditionalist” as those of us who are more Traditionalist see Liturgy as something that should flow organically from the great Liturgical Tradition and not be ad hoc, etc. I also think that Traditionalist Catholics are way more social conservatives, first and foremost, and are probably judicial conservatives sort of like the 5 Catholic Justices on the Court who I would think even our Protestant Friends on FR, and [those who are not our friends] appreciate. I also think those of us who are Traditionalist respect and are also strong on National Defense but we may at times question the need for the US to intervene to much in the affairs of other country. Sort of Like G.K. Chesterton put it, the true Christian fights not for what is in front of him, but for what is behind him. In other words, a just war is one where you are defending yourself from evil, never where you are the agressor, etc.
Now, this guy who wrote the article is clearly in the “so called Spirit of Vatican II” camp and sees the growing movement towards orthodoxy and a reconnection of Vatican II with all that came before it as a challenge to how they see the Catholic Church in the 21st century.
I would be willing to bet that this guy who wrote this article “crapped in his pants” when Cardinat Ratzinger was elected Pope [praise God he was]
Regards
Natural Law:
Fr. Arbuckle seems to be one of the ole kumbaya Catholics from the 1960’s and part of that generation that is slowly passing from the scene. It is just his view and if you read the blog, it does not represent the Australian Bishop conference nor the Diocese of Sydney, which is under the pastoral care of Cardinal Pell, clearly a Benedectine Man [i.e. theology and Liturgical tradition consistent with Pope Benedict].
I think you’ll find that protestant “fundamentalists” are often in sympathy with catholic “traditionalists” when the common enemy is the pseudochristian-Left even while we disagree on other issues.
We don’t take the term “fundamentalist” as a pejorative, although in catholic terms the better term is as some have said “orthodox” or “traditionalist”. Gerald chose the term “fundamentalist” because he doesn’t like either you or us.
Only in contrast to how unawesome and unremarkable the original post was. Once you realize what the anti-Catholic cabal is up to rebutting is really pretty simple. False claims are rebutted with the truth and mindless assertions are rebutted with thought and the wisdom of the Church fathers.
Alex, I do not malign Presbyterians. My grandfather and great-grandfather were Presbyterian ministers. Their family followed that from John Knox on. Yes, that branch of my family is Scottish.
When you post an article, and others comment, some in assent, and some in attempts to refute it (with varying amounts of success), where, exactly, did you perform the metaphorical shrug of your shoulders, as if to say, look, I thought this was interesting, and so on? As I said, in so many words. If the only comments that you make an attempt to refute is one aimed at rebutting the posted article, isn’t that de facto support FOR the article? I propose that it is.
I’ve no wish to malign you, Alex. If your overall position is one of dissatisfaction with the Church, then perhaps that’s how it has to be. Please bear in mind, however, that while a number of us don’t agree with that position, few if any would be likely to post an inaccurate article such as this one.
This article is heavy on hysterics and sparse on specifics.
To the author I recommend Zoloft.
We shall know them by their fruit (and some of them actually are fruit, but that's the topic of a completely different thread). If you expect fairness, objectivity and balance from the anti-Catholic posters in FR you will be very disappointed.
The only discernible agenda they have is to besmirch the Church. Why? The only answer I can come up with is Crosier envy.
That's because it's more of an ethnic slur than a theological designation. Otherwise it would be applied to Black people, while it never is.
Most people seem to equate it with "trailer trash."
Oh, thank you for that, NL. That was classic.
Then it’s good to have more “trailer trash” Catholics rather than cafetaria Catholics.
Thnks. Now Ratzinger will set the record straight. JP II was too sick at the end to do anything.....re; sex abuse etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.