Sunday, October 5, 2014

It's largely progressive priests, not the laity, who want moral rules relaxed in the Church

While there's no shortage of progressive Christians who would love for the Catholic Church to change its teachings on all things sexual - they would see it as their successively forcing the capitulation of an old enemy - I don't think it's the laity who are clamoring for such change.

The laity who think the rules are wrong already do whatever they damn well please, and will continue to do so regardless of Church teaching. It's the progressive priests, I suspect, who really want things changed. They do not want to be associated with politically and socially unpopular positions, but being openly defiant in the Church is a good way to get defrocked and immediately lose authority, few would do even on principle. So, they hope for the next best thing: muddy the teachings so at the very least they don't have to talk about these or those sins, and can more robustly hint that they themselves reject them.

I suspect Cardinal Kasper doesn't want mercy for divorced and remarried Catholics. He wants mercy for himself. He doesn't have it in him to talk frankly about these issues, and explain why a given sin is a sin, but at the same time he wants to retain the authority he has in the church.

I doubt he is alone in that.

7 comments:

Craig said...

There are certainly laity who are invested in the notion of changing Church teachings in a progressive direction: I've met some of them.

I can't claim that I have much concept of how common they are -- but you'd only need a teeny tiny percentage of progressive laity to outnumber all the clerics.

On the other hand, what's the relative force being exerted on the institution by the two categories? There, it wouldn't be too surprising if the importance of the progressive laity was chiefly as a resource for progressive clerics to call upon in internal ecclesiastical struggles.

BenYachov said...

>I suspect Cardinal Kasper doesn't want mercy for divorced and remarried Catholics. He wants mercy for himself. He doesn't have it in him to talk frankly about these issues, and explain why a given sin is a sin, but at the same time he wants to retain the authority he has in the church.

I don't agree. He clearly wants mercy for others however he believes it might be possible to obtain this mercy in the form of a development of doctrine. A theological exception that proves the rule.

For example it is infallible dogma that there is no salvation outside the Holy Church. But non-believers by negation who follow any extra-ordinary grace God might give them can be saved. They thought not visibly members of the Church are ordered toward the soul of the Church.

Cardinal Kasper believes some development can be brought about that provides a similar exception that proves the rule.

(Personally I think he hopes in vain but you never know)

He has given his own ideas and other Cardinals have given their objections.

Now that having been said Kasper is guilty of over-reaction to criticisms of his thesis by stylizing it as an "attack on the Pope".

But OTOH that kind of equals the hysteria in the "conservative" & "traditional" Catholic blog sphere that actually implicitly puts forth the proposition that the Pope is "going to change doctrine".

Tedious!

I am somewhat sympathetic to Steve Kellermyer here thought I don't know who Raymond Arroyo is or if Steve's attack on him is justified.

Crude said...

Craig,

On the other hand, what's the relative force being exerted on the institution by the two categories? There, it wouldn't be too surprising if the importance of the progressive laity was chiefly as a resource for progressive clerics to call upon in internal ecclesiastical struggles.

I don't think they're distinct. The progressive laity - or at least 'the popular people' - are who many clerics want to be friends with. I don't think it's out and out force which is in play here more than a desire to shirk duty.

It's similar to how Congress suddenly finds the president is wholly justified in doing this, that or the other thing that Constitutionally/Legally speaking Congress is the only one authorized to do. But, that would mean some very unpopular decisions or calls fall to them, therefore..

Ben,

And I disagree in turn. I'd be open to that interpretation if Kasper gave any indication that he's interested in stating the moral lines that cannot be crossed clearly. He clearly is in the camp of 'No, it would be mean and heartless to say that, we should only say nice things to such people'.

But, of course, the conservatives are attacking the Pope.

A Cardinal who can only find the will to criticize the conservatives, who are bitter nasty people who are REALLY attacking the Pope instead of him, but unrepentant people who divorce, commit adultery, sodomy, etc, are gentle, timid lambs for whom soft words are a necessity, lest their souls be harmed, is no Cardinal I respect.

BenYachov said...

Oh I notice I forgot the link to Steve Kellermyer's blog I was referring too.

http://skellmeyer.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-rise-of-crisis.html

>And I disagree in turn. I'd be open to that interpretation if Kasper gave any indication that he's interested in stating the moral lines that cannot be crossed clearly.

It's all good bro.

you might find this interesting to explain Kasper.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/cardinal-kasper-really-said-divorce

Of course like I said. Kasper likely hopes in vain.
This has happened before. The media was predicting Pope Paul VI would change the church's teaching on birth control. The majority of people on his holiness' commission at the time endorsed and recommend he do so.

Humanae Vitae was born.

The Holy Spirit will do His job as Christ promised.

BTW on a related topic not too toot my own horn too hard but I called this....

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/10/03/Signs-Emerge-that-Liberals-Love-of-Pope-Francis-Is-Flagging

Like I said. The liberals shout "Hosanna" to Pope Francis when he calls for compassion toward gays(like Benedict before him BTW) but when he finally doesn't give them what they want they will shout "Give us Barabbas!".

Crude said...

I never bought into the 'Francis is a liberal' schtick, and I didn't think they'd love him for long. But you don't need to be liberal to make a mistake.

The Deuce said...

Sorry Crude, I hate to say it, but I think your Pope is a liberal. It's obvious that he's on board with Kasper: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-distances-himself-from-very-conservative-critics-of-kaspers-co

Where's the idea of repentance from sin here? It's all about "not stigmatizing" it.

The worst part has got to be where he starts:

“Young people who are not getting married at all. It is a culture feature of our times,” he said. “So many young people prefer to live together without marrying. What should the Church do?

So, you expect he's going to follow that up with how the Church can better communicate repentance and turning away from that sin, and help young people to marry again, right? Yeah, that would be a negative:

Expel them from its breast? Or, instead, approach them, embrace them and try to bring them the word of God? I'm with the latter position.”

"The world has changed and the Church cannot lock itself into alleged interpretations of dogma,” he continued. “We have to approach social conflicts, new and old, and try to give a hand of comfort, not to stigmatize and not to just impugn.”


The only genuine comfort the Church has to offer people is escape from the guilt and shame of sin to be had through repentance and turning to Christ. But that can never happen if you never talk clearly about sin, which can never happen if your priority is to avoid saying anything that could "stigmatize."

All that "pope humble" stuff is BS. This guy appears to be massively presumptuous that he's got it all figured out better than all those guys over the past 2,000 years from whom he derives what authority he has according to Catholic doctrine. Christianity is under attack like never before by the progressivist onslaught, largely because Christians have failed to teach our doctrines clearly and have conformed ourselves to what people want to hear. But instead of talking about how they can elucidate those doctrines better to fix this, the Catholic Church is holding a Synod to discuss how they can obscure them more (if not eliminate them) and conform more thoroughly to the world.

It's pathetic, and if they get their way it will complete the wholesale destruction of the Catholic Church that "the spirit of Vatican II" started, and Francis will be one of the biggest disasters in your church's history.

Crude said...

Deuce,

He may be a liberal. Hell, he may turn out to be a rotten pope. Those aren't exactly new to the Church.

But part of the problem is that the portions you quote? I agree with them, because this issue is complicated.

I'm socially conservative, but I'm actually not a fan of many social conservatives, because the fact that I agree with their positions doesn't keep me from realizing that they have - to put it mildly - fucked up very bad, and they continue to do so. They've had their role in the rot, and yeah, insofar as Francis seems to argue that part of that role has been a communication style that emphasizes nothing but condemnation, I think he is correct.

So I'd disagree that the Church is under attack just because we've 'failed to teach our doctrines clearly', at least such that we don't make it clear that this or that is a sin. We're also under attack because we haven't taught our doctrines clearly, by way of overemphasizing sin, underemphasizing forgiveness and a certain amount of compassion, and some general conduct. (I roll my eyes hard whenever I watch some guy ranting about 'homo marriage', because I wonder if he realizes what a goddamn toolbox he sounds like.)

And I recognize the problem there. I am saying we need to change our approach, that we've made a mistake in condemning things the way we have - and that what I'm saying also so often happens to be what progressives and quislings say as they agitate for corrupted doctrine, or at least it sounds a lot like it. But I am more interested in being effective and correct on this point than in proving my conservative credentials. Not a single thing I've said requires a change in doctrine, but it does require a change in approach.

We'll see what the Pope and the synod delivers. I strongly doubt his talk about the plain fact that people are cohabitating now more than ever means he's going to treat premarital sex as a non-sin, or dissolve marriage altogether.