Can the Bishops Heal the American Church?

Crisis: Politics, Culture & the Church | June 2002 | George Sim Johnston

[american colleen]

I don't see Archbishop Flynn as one of the "good guys". I read recently that 9 of 11 Catholic Schools got high marks from the Gay Lesbian Bisexual transgendered whatever it is organization for their curriculum.

That is just plain gross. WHY do MOST of the Archbishops/Bishops/Priests feel that the Catholic Church has to "go with the flow" and please and not offend the secular world. We are supposed to be the light of the world.

[Askel5]

Doesn't look good ... I'll keep reading. Thanks for the flag.

[ThomasMore]

The laity constitute 89 percent of the Church, and these scandals among the clergy did not occur in a vacuum. Do we pray for priests? Do we foster vocations among devout and intelligent young men? Are we supportive of parish priests, who have very difficult jobs and often only hear complaints? Are we charitable toward their human failings?

I agree with much of what he has to say, but come short on this one. Don't lay this issue of depravity off on the laity. You can't have it both ways; we have a higher calling but we're not fully responsible for our actions. All the devout Catholics I know pray for and are supportive of their priests, foster good vocations and are more than charitable. What does that have to do with some sodomite imposter who's wrecking my family; the Church!?!? When it comes to these perverts and heretics I only respect the office; but like the early fathers, I hold their actions and doctrines in contempt.

[ThomasMore]

They're tempting fate if they think a program like Courage will mitigate the risk.

My fear is that they will take the easy way out!

[Askel5]

WHY do MOST of the Archbishops/Bishops/Priests feel that the Catholic Church has to "go with the flow" and please and not offend the secular world.

Because unfortunately there is a long history of powerful Catholics carrying water for political figures ... Archbishop Spellman's complicity in Roosevelt's eugenic policies being a stand-out for me.

In the wake of the Notre Dame stealth conferences on birth control in the 60's, several prominent Catholics (having been thoroughly conditioned by "foundation" monies and following the lead of utterly compromised Notre Dame president Hesburgh) took the lead in facilitating the State's sanctioning and enforcing of artificial contraceptoin as population control policy by testifying to Congress that they had no right to "impose their beliefs" on others and "speaking for Catholics" would shut up and sit down as the State proceeded about its objectives.

This was in stark contrast to the first half of the century where Catholics were at the forefront of forestalling the State's incursions into population control and the deconstruction of morals.

And, unfortunately, it's these Catholics-in-name-only who served as a model for today's "I'm personally opposed, BUT ..." Republicans and conservatives who by their caving on their personal convictions, allow the State to run roughshod over the populace and impose its "values".

The State is people. If you are a person whose "personal values" comport with the objectives and means of the State, you are ALWAYS well within your rights to impose your views of abortion, pornography, "de facto" unions, homosexual marriage, sexual education, environmentalism, anti-tobacco, etc. etc. on EVERYONE using the brawn of the State who's only too happy to play Big Brother in this regard.

Only if you stand for truths and those enduring moral laws which derive from God and are exemplified in large part by the moral codes of every human civilization since the beginning of human history, are you required to leave your personal convictions at home and play an impotent hypocrite in the Public Square.

[american colleen]

Thanks for the reply. WOW! You have a way with words!

[sockmonkey]

I read recently that 9 of 11 Catholic Schools got high marks from the Gay Lesbian Bisexual transgendered whatever it is organization for their curriculum.

I was ranting. I meant 9 of 11 Catholic schools in Minneapolis. Here are the links I said I would post which mention Archbishop Flynn, and the homosexual friendly agenda in his Archdiocese. He apparently professes one thing publicly, and then turns around and does the exact opposite or, allows his employees to do it: catholicparents.org
defenders.org

[ThomasMore]

Mt. Saint Mary's is one of the most orthodox and non-gay seminaries in the U.S.

It's not quite as rosey as it seems. I have a very orthodox friend who just dropped out of seminary (the Mount) because of the overbearing homosexuality that is there(shower games that are just overlooked by the formation team; nightly visitations and sexual favors). He is discerning going elsewhere!

[ThomasMore]

This has resulted in the mess that we are in now - starting before JPII but freefalling for the last 30+ years.

Clericalism is alive and well.

[american colleen]

I knew what you meant. I've been ranting a bit today as well. It's a tough time and some days are harder than others. For the last couple of days they (the DA office) here in Boston has been deposing Bishops. Yesterday it was McCormack and today it is Archbishop Banks - both worked in the Chancery under Cardinal Law and both reassigned "problem" priests. I'd just like to ask both of them (and Cardinal Law) how they, as educated, called men, could have been so stupid and hateful towards the young in their flocks. I just do not understand it. Then, I look around and wonder how JPII (who I love and admire) could have been travelling around for 20+ years while this garbage as well as the freefall of Catholic teaching was going on. You are supposed to take care of your own house before you take care of someone else's. And I think the hurt is greater for us because we truly do look on one another as "family", and no one can hurt you like a family member can.

Thanks for reading my rant! And I will check out your links.

[maryz]

WHY do MOST of the Archbishops/Bishops/Priests feel that the Catholic Church has to "go with the flow" and please and not offend the secular world.

In a paper written in the 40s ("On the Reading of Old Books," an introduction to a new translation of Athanasius, included in God in the Dock), C.S. Lewis writes:

[Athanasius] stood for the Trinitarian doctrine, 'whole and entire,' when it looked as if all the civilized world was slipping back from Christianity into the religion of Arius -- into one of those 'sensible' synthetic religions which are so strongly recommended today and which, then as now, included among their devotees many highly cultivated clergymen.

As noted, Lewis was writing in the 40s about Athanasius (4th century?). It's not a new problem. Granted as the world these people are trying to keep up with gets worse, the problem gets more appalling.

[american colleen]

Yes, I am. However, you must understand that although obedience is good - Faith is better and is a virtue of higher rank. Our parents, our Priest, our Bishop or even the Pope cannot command me in obedience to do something against God or my soul.

Oh, Oh. Sounds like a "personal interpretation" problem.

The Church obliges Catholics to keep holy the Sundays and Holy Days by hearing one whole Mass if they are able to do so. If there is no Mass available, but only the New Mass, I must skip it and keep Holy the Lord's Day by doing the next best thing.

What is the next best thing!?!?!

[maryz]

I agree with much of what he has to say, but come short on this one. Don't lay this issue of depravity off on the laity.

I agree -- I especially liked his emphasis on the importance of cleaning things up to prevent new instances, as opposed to concentrating on what to do when they occur. But other sections, like the one you quote, seem more like filler, and the article would have been more forceful without them.

[maryz]

Archbishop Spellman's complicity in Roosevelt's eugenic policies being a stand-out for me.

I am embarrassed by my ignorance, but could you elaborate? I knew eugenics was popular in the 30s and into the 40s, when the Nazis "gave it a bad name," but pretty much all I know about it I read in Chesterton's Eugenics and Other Evils. I did not know Roosevelt was into it. (Spellman, of course, is just full of surprises.)

[Askel5]

the state, by allowing people to choose whether to do things like use contraception, is forcing good Catholics to accept it and is violating their freedom to impose their version of morality by law.

You ready to go toe to toe and defend your (and the state's) version of morality against mine?

I think we should. We might have a better idea of who's being snookered here with faulty science, absolutely malleable public opinion, "lifeboat" ethics and flat out lies.

That's how it should have been done from the get-go. Unfortunately, the blissfully ignorant don't always pay a lot of attention to the exact means by which the so-called "people's will" is forced on them ... court case by court case as rubberstambed by Legislators and FORCED on the population at large.

Because my argument is strictly free of artificial sweeteners (and thus may taste a little sour to a sweet tooth like you), I have every confidence I can beat you on the merits.

[american colleen]

As noted, Lewis was writing in the 40s about Athanasius (4th century?). It's not a new problem. Granted as the world these people are trying to keep up with gets worse, the problem gets more appalling.

I know it is not a new problem, but at least Athanasius was dealing with people who cared enough about God to embrace some sort of Christianity. What I see (as a result of the non/bad/lukewarm teaching of the churches over the last 30 or so years) is a rejection of religion, a feeling of the irrelevance of God in our lives and/or no thought at all given to God's place in the lives of human beings. Imagine that only 35% of Catholics believe in the Real Presence?

[Bellarmine]

Yes, I am. However, you must understand that although obedience is good - Faith is better and is a virtue of higher rank. Our parents, our Priest, our Bishop or even the Pope cannot command me in obedience to do something against God or my soul.

Oh, Oh. Sounds like a "personal interpretation" problem.

This view on obedience that you call "personal interpretation" is the view of such doctors of the church as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Robert Bellarmine. Certainly, you are not accusing them of "personal interpretation?"

Remember, the first law of the church is the salvation of souls. If we obey a command contrary to the faith, the claim that we were just being obedient will not suffice on judgmement day.

[Askel5]

By the way ... NO DOUBT we should also address the question of whose system allows the State the most power over peoples' lives.

Despite your continued anti-clericalist chirping on the dire prospect that would be my imposing my strictly Catholic beliefs on you, I know you will be pleasantly surprised to find that my arguments would results in a drastic reduction of the State's intervention in folks' private affairs and ensure the maximum rightful sovereignty locused always most closely to the individual.

There's a reason the State is always interested in the "consequence free" solution for folks. The State knows (as do I) that authority only comes with responsibility.

As folks cede responsbility for their actions -- primarily by availing themselves of the State's artificial realities and taking part in the Legal Lotto that shunts the brunt of paying for one's own mistakes to a deep pockets insurance collective or corporation -- they also cede their claim to authority over their own lives, even.

This is why folks don't really have choices anymore. The most glaring example being dimwit women who -- seeking to "have it all" courtesy of the State's making all things equal -- end up with nothing but a woeful life of "choices" to short either their career or their kids.