|One of these popes had a vision of a Church moving through history and one doesn't. The one who doesn't may force a split with the laity and clergy who still hold the vision of the other.|
I mentioned yesterday that I was engaged in research into the era of the Vatican II Council. The more I read the more I am convinced the 'reform of the reform' is a smoke screen to hide the fact the Vatican is all about maintaining centralized control with a cultic celibate priesthood. And I think this is true for political and not religious or spiritual reasons. The more I read the more I am convinced the Church will either go into schism in the West, or the Vatican will be forced to accede to the creation of Auchthonomous regional churches. Apparently I'm not the only one. The following is taken from Huffington Post.
Catholic Schism: Diarmaid MacCulloch, Influential Church Historian, Predicts Major Division In 'Silence In Christian History'Huffington Post - 7/11/2012
(RNS/ENInews) Influential church historian Diarmaid MacCulloch said he believes Christianity faces a bright future, but predicted the Roman Catholic Church will undergo a major schism over its moral and social teaching.
"Christianity, the world's largest religion, is rapidly expanding -- by all indications, its future is very bright," said MacCulloch, 60, professor of church history at Oxford University and an Anglican deacon. His latest book, "Silence in Christian History," will be published in the fall by Penguin.
MacCulloch said in an interview that "there are also many conflicts" within Christianity, "and these are particularly serious in the Roman Catholic church, which seems on the verge of a very great split over the Vatican's failure to listen to European Catholics." He predicted that Catholicism faces a division over attempts by popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI to "rewrite the story" of the 1962-1965 Second Vatican Council by portraying it as a "minor adjustment" in church governance, rather than as a "radical move to change the way authority is expressed."
"Conflict in religion is inevitable and usually healthy -- a religion without conflict is a religion that will die, and I see no sign of this with Christianity," MacCulloch said. "But the stance of the popes has produced an angry reaction among those who want to see the council continue. No other church in history has ever made all its clergy celibate. It's a peculiarity of the Western Latin church, and it looks increasingly unrealistic."
The Vatican's refusal to allow Roman Catholics to talk about married or female clergy was "not the reaction of a rational body," MacCulloch said.
MacCulloch, a specialist in early modern history and a fellow of the British Academy, co-edits the Cambridge-based Journal of Ecclesiastical History and was knighted in early 2012 for services to scholarship.
Among numerous awards, he was the 2010 recipient of the Cundill Prize in History from Montreal's McGill University for his 2009 book "A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years," which was accompanied by a BBC television series.
I'm off to work, but thought this important enough to post this AM without any more comment from me.
Not to mention that celibacy was imposed to allow the Church in the West to keep its property intact and prevent it from being inherited by sons and daughters of married clerics. We've also seen that celibacy is not concurrent with chastity, it is now as it was in past centuries interpreted as a prohibition against clerical marriage, not a prohibition against clerical sexual activity, and sadly, not a prohibition against sexual abuse and exploitation of children and youths who put their trust in those who abused them and permitted the abuse to continue. Diarmaid MacCulloch is worth listening to, but the Vatican continues to tune him out the way they do those of us who understand change is inevitable, no matter how much the institutional Church resists it.ReplyDelete
"Not the reaction of a rational body" is such a perfect phrase. In very few understated words, it speaks volumes--especially about the leaders of a church that has always trumpeted itself as one wedding faith and reason. I really appreciate D. MacCulloch for speaking the truth about what's going on in the Catholic church, when so many "outsiders" who try to do that get slapped at by the faithful for--so they want to claim--being anti-Catholic!ReplyDelete
NB. McCullough has proven anti-Catholic prejudices, and says things here which are obviously false, and has an obvious vested interest in smearing the Church. Why any Catholic would take his article seriously, let alone highlight and share it in agreement, is completely beyond me.ReplyDelete
P.S. What's "cultic" about not having sex!?
An official policy for Not having personal intimate relationships, is a deprivation that leads men into the horrible hypocrisy of the Roman sex scandals. It is in fact a cult of sexual perversion . It is anti-christ. That is why every church that follows in the Way of Christ has and will take this and other similarly truthful articles very seriously! It is only those without personal integrity that call this man anti-Catholic.Delete
So why then is sexual abuse present in a similar scale in education, childcare, judiciary, government, protestantism, Islam and Judaism?Delete
It can't all be because of Catholic Priesthood, so to link clerical celibacy with sexual abuse is profoundly flawed.
Linking the priesthood as somehow more Christlike than other groups is also profoundly flawed. This is one major reason why Catholicism is so deeply in need of reform.Delete
Not necessarily more holy, but the priestly vocation is one of inherent closeness to the life of Jesus even when it is one where the closeness has been perverted.Delete
No reform is necessary in this area. Only improvement in communication.
Being critical of the Catholic hierarchy is not being anti-Catholic unless you make the great mistake of equating the Church with the hierarchy.
P.S. Not having sex is no big deal unless one mistakes not having sex with sanctity. Then it's cultic.
I read the article and about 500 of the comments that followed. Not too many ad hominem remarks like those "invictus" throws around here.Delete
What I found was a discussion about whether the RC church could survive the loss of so many members when it had only the closed system authoritarian thinkers remaining. Not too many felt those leaving would form another church. Not in this day and age of literacy in this global village.
Catholics definitely have rituals and practices that attempt to overcome sexual desire that fit in the category of "cultic". Mortification of the flesh, anyone?
You can easily find recommendations on how to overcome masturbation, porn, homosexuality, sexual fetish, plain old lust, etc. through specific prayers and fasting. I won't link to the websites. One gave me a chuckle because it recommends people trying to overcome sexual temptations should seek out others with the same desires.
p2p, when was the last time you heard in a pulpit a member of the clergy describe any capital sin other than lust? The clerical system is run on fear. It has forgotten about the even more serious sins of envy and greed because in their fear, the RCC is a system that takes its energy from envy and greed. It has become a system that hides even its own inability to live lives that are not based on lust. Perhaps, lust is not such a serious sin as they would have "the simple people " understand. One other thing certain is that clerical celibacy is and has been dead for over 1000 years in the Roman church. dennisDelete
I doubt any of you go to Mass often enough to say.Delete
For myself, I can't remember the last time I heard a sermon specifically on the sin of lust!
Perhaps this obsession with lust is an American or a liberal malaise?
Wrong again doubter.Delete
Would you like a pastoral letter of reference? #$&^^@#!!!
My pastor is a very nice man with his greatest strengths in areas other than preaching. We do hear about sexual sin, not so much about wrath, greed, envy, gluttony, sloth, or pride. To his credit he does emphasize love as the primary message of the gospel.
But... I am in Canada where the RC church is a less polarizing and less political entity. We have a multi-party political system here with a Christian Heritage party that is in 100% compliance with church teachings. It received 0.84% of votes cast in ridings where the party ran candidates. Overall the Christian Heritage party received 0.13% of the vote.
Back to my pastor, almost every week he invites those present who have not been baptized to join the church. Unfortunately he hasn't a clue of how to bring back those who have left. That's not entirely his fault, he's a company man. What could he do to bring a divorced person back to the church? What if he wanted to start a program for divorced parents? I know for sure he has to wait for approval and funding from the bishop if he wants to run a youth program. The Baptist church down the block and the Pentecostal Evangelical church across town can act immediately to serve their congregations. Pity.
It is the nimble, the quick to respond and adjust who will survive.
The seven deadly sins oughtn't really be the usual focus anyway, to be fair, regardless of whether lust usually steals the show. This most recent Sunday was about evangelism, and given that homilies generally are drawn from the daily gospel reading there will naturally be a diversity of messages. If a priest is hammering lessons on combating lust into gospel stories with important other messages, something is - as you say - not quite right.Delete
I'm saddened to hear that there is so little pastoral support for separated Catholics. They're a fairly prominent lay group in my home parish, and I'd assumed they existed in most parishes with that kind of demographic. Alas, not yet.
It doesn't take much money (if any) to begin a network of support though, so perhaps rather than seeking funds, someone ought to seek permission for the activity and take it from there?
Why should a priest have to seek permission to minister to the divorced? The need is there. So is the prime directive of the gospel.
That's the problem with the RC church. And it easily explains why someone in need of counsel would not wait for the RC church when there are plenty of programs existing in other churches.
Oh, right. In our parish the support group for separated Catholics is a lay thing not dependent on the parish for a priest or (afaik) external funds. I assumed that's what we meant here.Delete
A priest has a responsibility to minister to all Catholics. Of course a priest wouldn't need any permission to help such Catholics, because his duties apply wholly and equally to all of the faithful. If he failed here, he'd be in breach of his duties and probably some sort of Canon Law somewhere too.
(There is one Church only, p2p. I don't remember the Bible referring to a plurality of them.)
Just wanted to add my 2 cents worth that you are absolutely correct. I don't know whether to call it schism, or the creation of national churches, since I have no idea how this will all shake out, but the Vatileaks has set the curia into internecine battles from which it cannot survive. (Not anonymous: Betty ClermontReplyDelete
I think that John XXIII's vision of the future, starting Vatican II, will prove truer over time than that of Karol and Joe's. I think John truly understood Sister Lucia's Fatima Prophecy while John Paul and Benedict used it for pure PR deception mojo.ReplyDelete
"In fact, I think that in fifty years, I believe that historians if they are able to be honest will paint the source of the present crumbling western culture on three people. They will be Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and John Paul II. Not a true axis of evil so to speak but maybe a goofy “Gang of Three” who set the western civilization down a wrong road toward Global fascism and away from human liberation and freedom – a secular real time salvation. "Delete
McShea, thank you for the above reference. The above quote from the material is particularly relevant. The secularism that so harms us all is the fascism that IS ROME. It has harmed civilization and taken us, at least temporally down a bad path. The only group that can in fact respond to correct this path is the laity and those religious and clergy that work with them toward a more truthful attempt to follow The Way of Jesus Christ. The current autocracy the is Rome is a leadership that has been rejected by the CAtholics of the west that have simply voted with their feet and left the men who have lost all integrity. I don't think it began just with JP II but unfortunately has been a part of Catholicism for a very long time----- a megalomania that has inspired the popes. This is a failure of vision and the ability of these men to listen to the whisperings of the Holy Spirit. It is a failure of the leadership to listen to the nurturing words of he spirit. It is a failure to act on Her wisdom. It is a psychological sickness that has become Institutionalized in the Roman Church. It is more than a shame, it has become harmful disregard of the needs of the People of God. The primary cause of the problems in the leadership is blinding fear of loss of position by the ordinary men that hold the offices of bishop and pope. It is greed and envy that cause this blinding fear, and to cover for these (sins) emotions, the leadership has made sex, at least in the laity the only mortal sin. Yet only about 1/2 of these men are celibate at one time. This is a hypocrisy the has become very well recognized by the laity and the thinking "People of God."
May we obtain peace through understanding and may we not hesitate to lead lives that follow The Way of Christ. dennis
Before the Second Vatican Council there had only been twenty other Ecumenical Councils in the history of the church. I’d say that if JP II and Benedict are trying to portray the significance of the Second Vatican Council as only minor adjustments in the life of the church that they diminish what was truly a remarkable event. Many may want to forget what is written in the documents of the Second Vatican Council. The vision of those documents, inspired by the Holy Spirit, will live if not in our time will in years to come.ReplyDelete
For a church that often has boasted of it great pastoral sensitivities, how do you explain the loss of at least thirty million Catholics in the US in recent decades. I suspect some of that sensitivity lives beneath the purview of the bishops. The ban on talking about issues that affect the life of the church, like women priests, married priests, the place of celibacy, and sexuality is so contrary to the spirit of that Council in 1962-1965. Power and money and control seem to have replaced pastoral sensitivity. The irony is that Benedict wanted to restore Catholicism to the west and particularly Europe. Benedict has failed.
Conservative catholics may want those with progressive views to leave the church. It’s so very pastoral of them. The vision of Vatican II still lives. Progressive catholic voices will continue to be a reminder of that movement of the Spirit in the Catholic Church fifty years ago.
What is in the documents is orthodox. Radical, as Christianity has always been radical, and also orthodox.Delete
Not a single document of the Second Vatican Council approves the following things approved in this blog; married priests, Protestantism, the New Age movement, gay marriage, contraception, or abortion.
So, be careful when championing the Council! ;-)
Some of those thing were not discussed which is unfortunate and one of the unfinished works of the Second Vatican Council.Delete
I do think that Protestantism was not looked on unfavorably. However, the Spirt of the Council was one to engage the world in a discussion of the issues, not like the condemnations with its subsequent efforts at control that have been the mark of JP II and Benedict.
The Spirt of the Second Vatican Council still lives no matter all the effort of those who would try to silence the Spirit.
It is my understanding that the Second Vatican Council was in complete recognition of the events of World War II, and was a direct result of the Truth poured out as a consequence of those events that the Second Vatican Council had to be, commenced into being.Delete
It was the result of all the suffering from the war that spoke of the consciousness of its evil force. It was the lived experience of hell on earth that propelled VII into existence, in my view of things.
A lot of things were not discussed. Certain things were prioritized. The danger of nuclear weapons and a total consciousness of the devastation and hell a nuclear war would bring in another war propelled Life into the Church, for our Good and for our well-being, imho.
The Holy Spirit is, after all, the sign of Life itself. Were it not for VII, we would not be here.\, imhho
"However, the Spirt of the Council was one to engage the world in a discussion of the issues, not like the condemnations with its subsequent efforts at control that have been the mark of JP II and Benedict."ReplyDelete
Those same popes' dedicated ecumenical efforts bore fruit in the Anglican Ordinariate, the Declarations of Balamand and Ravenna, and the Courtyard of the Gentiles.
Given that such fruits can never be nurtured by "condemnations", I'd plead for you to reconsider your rhetoric and examine your prejudices!
The Anglican Ordianariate! Looks to me like a dying organization looking for support anywhere it can find it.ReplyDelete
This story is a year or two old. I was out walking in my old neighborhood when a friend came up and asked about the associate at the local Catholic Church who was welcomed with his wife and children because he could renounce, I suppose, all the things Rome doesn't like. Rome took him in. The local bishop made him an associate. My neighbor said, "I'm confused".
So now anytime the church says that if something happens that it doesn't like by saying that it will confuse the faithful. I will just tell the story of my neighbor. So much for celibacy. OK. And let me add: so much for the Anglican Ordinariate.
The Anglican Ordinariate has some of the most clued-up and inspiring priests I've met, and the courage of those who seek a catholicity of faith isn't to be dismissed in the terms you do.Delete
I don't follow your story, btw. I've never heard of the Church possessing "associate" membership. It's not a cricket club.
wild is referring to an associate pastor position. Also I doubt many women would find a priest from the Anglican Ordinariate 'clued up', no matter how inspiring.Delete
Most of the girls and women I know and who have met Ordinariate priests have found them to be clued up and sound, and none of them have had any problem with one, so at least this patch ofreal experience contradicts your personal hypothesis.Delete
Wow, I don't think I have run across a more lost group of supposed Catholics than this. I see that RU486 is alive, well, and spreading his brand of false/heretic/pseudo-Catholicism to others as spiritually vapid and historically inaccurate as himself. And yet the very obvious link between the modernist theology adopted by Vatican 2 and all of the problems facing the Church today is lost on all of you who pay lip service to Christ and yet hate Him and what He truly stands for to the very core of your souls.Delete
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.