The problem of non-believing Catholics

[rug]

By Phil Lawler | January 15, 2014 6:11 PM

Back in September, Damon Linker wrote in the New Republic that liberal Catholics were likely to become disillusioned with Pope Francis, because the Pope was not likely to change Catholic doctrines. Now, writing in The Week, he reports that he’s even more concerned, because liberal Catholics don’t seem to care.

Linker, in case you’re wondering, is generally quite sympathetic to liberal Catholics. But he’s upset by the “gushing commentary” on the new Pope, because he sees no real prospects for the “doctrinal reforms” that are his fondest hope. There are too many “institutional obstacles,” he believes, to allow for changes in dogma.

(In case you couldn’t guess, the questions on which Linker wants “doctrinal reforms” are abortion, contraception, and the ordination of women. He also wants to see an end to priestly celibacy, but acknowledges that this is not a doctrinal issue.)

After making his argument that reform of the Roman Curia is not enough, and major doctrinal change is necessary, Linker participated in a radio call-in show, and was taken aback when one caller, “Trish from Kentucky,” took issue with his emphasis on formal Church teachings. “Doctrine for a Catholic, now, is not even an issue,” said Trish

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1012

Caveat: Lawler is a poltical rightwinger but these comments on doctrine raise questions that should be answered..

http://www.catholicculture.org/about/leadership/bio_phil_lawler.cfm

Here are the two articles by Linker, not a rightwinger (http://www.damonlinker.com/bio.htm), that he references.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114333/pope-francis-versus-vatican

http://theweek.com/article/index/255064

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

1. It's not so much that we liberal Catholics don't care

It's just that we have been systematically ignored or worse for decades. When we say that we have concerns about the Church, when we say "the refusal to ordain women is simply sexist", when we say "the arguments against contraception are based on a misconception about sex perpetuated by generations of celibates" and so on; "sit down and shut up" is about the best response we can reasonably expect. We would be overjoyed to get "there may be something in what you say". "Why don't you admit that you are a Protestant" is more typical and "you hate the Church" is not unheard of.

Some years ago, I tried joining an on-line Catholic discussion group. No one was interested in anything I had to say. And by "no one" I mean "not one single person". I did not get any substantiative response to any of my posts. In less than a week I was banned from that group as a "traitor" to the Catholic Church.

So why should I keep banging my head against a wall? The definition of "insanity" often attributed to Albert Einstein is "doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for a different result."

[rug]

2. I bet that was Catholic Answers.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

3. Actually, it wasn't.

I just looked, and the one I referred to doesn't exist any more.

But I have seen Catholic Answers, and I suspect I would not be welcome there. The current lead article is "Is Purgatory in the Bible", and the answer given is "yes". The actual answer is "no, not explicitly, but there are some biblical texts which can be interpreted as supporting it by straining a bit." What he should have said is that Tradition has cemented Purgatory in place, and Tradition is accepted as a source for revelation in Catholicism. But I suspect my response would not be acceptable.

Certainly my attitude that all is not necessarily for the best in this best of all possible Churches would not be welcome. Questioning the decrees of the Vatican is unthinkable, as is saying "I believe that this or that papal statement is wrong, and here's why" puts one beyond the pale. What I find particularly infuriating is that no one responds "I believe that your view is wrong and here's why", which would be an actual response, but rather I get an Ad Hominem (abusive).

In my experience, a lot of the people who dismiss my views do so because they don't know enough about the teachings of the Church to respond in a meaningful way. For example, I shall write "Humanae Vitae is poor moral theology because ...", and it will turn out that I am the only one who has actually read it. I once attacked John Paul II's Mulieris Dignitatem as having a majorly flawed (and fundamentally sexist) view of women in a discussion group and no one else had ever heard of it -- even though it underlies his views on the ordination of women.

Incidentally, the introduction to Dorothy Sayer's translation of Dante's Purgatorio has an excellent exposition of the theological views concerning Purgatory.

[IrishAyes]

4. Say, maybe that was the same group I stumbled into.

I posted an OP called Jesus Is Jewish, referring to an excellent scholarly article I'd found on that subject; it coincided with my own statement that a Jew can be a Jew w/o being a Christian, but not vice verse since we are grafted onto their tree.

Well, you'd think I'd committed blasphemy! A self-styled leader even found my location and threatened me with excommunication on top of whatever he might do himself. I was terrified.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

5. Of course a Jew can be a Jew without being a Christian.

The vast majority of Jews would say, vehemently and correctly, that they are not Christian. Given the, shall we say, dubious relationships between Christians and Jews over the years, it is quite obvious why many of them would despise Christianity and want nothing to do with it.

[IrishAyes]

6. Well, supposedly this was a group of Catholics, not any Jews that I knew of;

and it was the second half of my statement that stirred them up, even though I explained my reasoning. Not that we were to keep kosher either. And this wasn't even an original notion of mine. I've been blessed in the past with some highly educated Reform Jewish friends in NY and L.A., which is where I first picked up that notion and endorsed it heartily. And of course Jews for Jesus certainly consider themselves still completely Jewish, and they don't hold to many ancient practices and traditions. To me it just seemed reasonable. But this online Catholic group pitched a hissy fit at the notion of Christians being Jewish whether they know it or not, whether they like it or not. Regardless of whether those holding to the more ancient traditions welcomed them or not. It simply is what it is.

And I'm still perfectly happy with the thought. I do have a strong ecumenical bent anyway, and will always treasure the time I got to spend with such wonderful people. It would be great to hear what Pope Francis might have to say about that some day; but I'm already not the least bit concerned that he might call me a heretic.

While I'm on this roll anyway, I might mention that I also have strong Buddhist leanings. Any real Buddhist will say it's a philosophy, not a religion as it's often mistakenly called. At least in Asia there are practicing RC priests who are also Buddhist, and they're allowed to co-officiate at certain religious ceremonies with non-RC priests. Have been for who knows how long. That online group would've really flipped out if the discussion had lasted long enough for me to bring that up. But it's true and I'm more than fine with it.

Yes, I know history provided ample reason for mistrust. So I feel extra blessed to have known the liberal people I did, and to have been so warmly accepted by them. It set a good example for me! They weren't trying to change me, and vice verse.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

7. I misunderstood what you meant

I quite agree with you. Christianity is most certainly an offshoot of Judaism, although we have ditched many of the rules. Remember Galatians 3:29, which says "And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring" and also Romans 11, in which Paul tells us explicitly, "all Israel will be saved".

WRT Buddhism, have you ever read Thomas Merton's Zen and the Birds of Appetite? Merton himself was not entirely pleased with it, since he wrote in the preface that his book is "an example of how not to approach Zen". Still, I believe it is well worth reading.

[IrishAyes]

8. Yes, I'm a great Merton fan.

Sorry my writing initially led you to misconstrue anything I was trying to say. I'm not always clear, and I appreciate your extending the conversation so we could reach understanding. PS: thanks for the Bible verses. I'm especially bad to say, "Somewhere in the New/Old Testament..." I've read it all several times straight through, in different translations, and try to learn as much as I can about the context, but I'm the world's worst at recalling exact location. Half the time I need a concordance to find John 3:16!

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

9. I understand your problems with finding Bible verses

I also tend to say things along the lines of "I know Paul says somewhere ..." and then dive for my concondance. On-line searchable Bibles are very handy -- the NRSV at http://bible.oremus.org/ I particularly like.

I think I should re-read at least some of Merton's books, it's been years since I did. Since I just pulled Zen and the Birds of Appetite from my shelf so I could be sure of that quote, I shall start with that one.

[IrishAyes]

10. Sounds like a great plan.