Is it time to move on?

Erose · Oct 24, 2012

steve_bakr said:
He's asking questions, but he has said he is not planning on leaving the Catholic Church.

From my reading of Christian history, I have learned that doctrine develops, as Blessed John Henry Newman would say.

Sometimes our understanding of what is moral changes as the centuries reveal to us more about our faith. For example, in the matters of slavery, usury, and democracy. Examples are available in the history books. I don't feel threatened by this; I rather feel encouraged.

I think it is fair to ask if more might be revealed to us as difficult life situations face us as individuals and as a Church. Even the Catechism says that the Church will learn more about our faith as the centuries go by.

Another thing I learned about the changes in the Church's positions throughout history is that almost invariably they are resisted, even for centuries.

Blessed John Henry Newman was fired as an editor by his Bishop for his writings, called "the most dangerous man in England," and under suspicion by the Vatican until the Pope died. His successor made Newman a Cardinal.

This cycle of suspicion, investigation, discipline, and ultimately recognition is a common one for many of our famous theologians.

But change happens. Whether or not that change is in matters of faith and morals is a rather painstaking and hairsplitting discussion. One thing I believe, however, is that we as the holy Catholic Church will continue on as an amazingly diverse Body.

I think we also need to understand the historical environment of certain teachings. For example the Catholic Church has never endorsed slavery, but it did recognize that slavery was a fact of life. So the Church outlined how a Christian should treat slaves and how slaves should treat their masters.

Usury has always been a sin.

The Church does not have an official teaching of what method of government that should be used, but rather warns of the dangers of these specific forms of government and tries to establish guidelines for Christian politicians and lay people.

She has come out against certain forms that by their very nature are immoral such as communism and socialism.

Root of Jesse · Oct 24, 2012

steve_bakr said:
Fact correction. According to Roman Catholic historian Paul Johnson, the Church condemned slavery belatedly. It was the Quakers who first took a stance against it.

Also, usury meant any and all interest. In our day, the word has evolved to mean something like excessively high interest. Usury, in the original sense, is condemned in the Old Testament.

BTW, I love our Church, but I'm not comfortable with revisionism.

You have to go back much farther than that. The Catholic Church did not see a difference between a slave and a free man, in fact, in one homily I can find, St. John Chrysostom says that "he who has immoral relations with the wife of a slave is as culpable as he who has the like relations with the wife of the prince: both are adulterers, for it is not the condition of the parties that makes the crime".

Primitive Christianity did not attack slavery directly; but it acted as though slavery did not exist. By inspiring the best of its children with this heroic charity, examples of which have been given above, it remotely prepared the way for the abolition of slavery. To reproach the Church of the first ages with not having condemned slavery in principle, and with having tolerated it in fact, is to blame it for not having let loose a frightful revolution, in which, perhaps, all civilization would have perished with Roman society.

weariedsoul · Oct 24, 2012

GNJ said:
Perhaps the wrong place for it, but;

I have often been called a "Pick and Choose Catholic", because there are certain views of the Church that I just don't agree with regarding homosexuality, abortion, the place of women and sex. We can all agree that the human race has moved forward tremendously since its dawn, both biologically and culturally, and with this progression more and more people have become accepting of homosexuality and abortion, and we now realize that women are equal to men and that sex is not just an act to procreate, but also a method of physically connecting with the the person you love.

And I was thinking today; if anyone were to acknowledge and accept these progressions, wouldn't it be God Himself? The being we spend our lives walking under the guidance of. I mean, this guy has been keeping an eye on us for thousands of years. You'd think that He would be the first one to get onto this stuff. I think that the Catholic Church may be a little behind the times with their policies (for lack of a better word) on this stuff.

Does any one agree with me? Or is this just wishful thinking on my part?

Im not an RC member, but if i may, i would like to post a scripture. Its true the world thinks it has progressed. I would like to offer some advice from scripture concerning the world. Beware friend, the world is not our home

2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
2Ti 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
2Ti 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

weariedsoul · Oct 24, 2012

And that world needs the Lord.

steve_bakr · Oct 24, 2012

Erose said:
I think we also need to understand the historical environment of certain teachings. For example the Catholic Church has never endorsed slavery, but it did recognize that slavery was a fact of life. So the Church outlined how a Christian should treat slaves and how slaves should treat their masters.

Usury has always been a sin.

The Church does not have an official teaching of what method of government that should be used, but rather warns of the dangers of these specific forms of government and tries to establish guidelines for Christian politicians and lay people.

She has come out against certain forms that by their very nature are immoral such as communism and socialism.

I think you're doing some hairsplitting, which you don't have to do. We're Catholics here. I'm reporting what I've read of Christian history books, one written by a Roman Catholic

BTW, The oiginal meaning of usury is paying or receiving interest, which the Church eventually acknowledged had become part of the economy.

TheOtherHockeyMom · Oct 24, 2012

What makes socialism immoral by its very nature? Links to church teachings or personal thoughts are both welcome.

steve_bakr · Oct 24, 2012

Root of Jesse said:
You have to go back much farther than that. The Catholic Church did not see a difference between a slave and a free man, in fact, in one homily I can find, St. John Chrysostom says that "he who has immoral relations with the wife of a slave is as culpable as he who has the like relations with the wife of the prince: both are adulterers, for it is not the condition of the parties that makes the crime".

Primitive Christianity did not attack slavery directly; but it acted as though slavery did not exist. By inspiring the best of its children with this heroic charity, examples of which have been given above, it remotely prepared the way for the abolition of slavery. To reproach the Church of the first ages with not having condemned slavery in principle, and with having tolerated it in fact, is to blame it for not having let loose a frightful revolution, in which, perhaps, all civilization would have perished with Roman society.

I'm not reproaching the Church, which eventually accepted slavery and then condemned it belatedly, according to Roman Catholic historian Paul Johnson. I read history, I don't write it. I'm sorry if I seemed to reproach the Church.

The whole point was that the Church's teaching develops over the centuries, which is confirmed in the CCC.

I will say, though, that Paul Johnson's book, "The History of Christianity," seemed inordinately negative about the Catholic Church. He seemed to concentrate on every flaw, but it was reportedly factual. Initially, I was looking forward to reading a Roman Catholic historian's book, but it was really quite depressing.

I also read, "The Oxford History of Christianity," and several others. So, if you want to point me to a work that is factually different than what I've stated, feel free.

Root of Jesse · Oct 24, 2012

The Church accepted slavery not as a doctrine, but as a fact of secular life. I'll tell you that I know that American Catholic priests had slaves. That does not make it a doctrine, and it doesn't make it so that Catholicism endorses/endorsed slavery.

I doubt that you will find a document that states that the Catholic Church bans slavery. That does not mean that she endorses slavery.

This is not a matter of doctrine. Doctrine does not change, though understanding of doctrine deepens. For example, you and I have defended the "Outside the Church there is no salvation" Papal Bull. Our understanding has deepened, it has not changed.

MKJ · Oct 24, 2012

steve_bakr said:
BTW, The oiginal meaning of usury is paying or receiving interest, which the Church eventually acknowledged had become part of the economy.

Yup. Many aspects of the modern economy would have been considered usurious in the middle ages.

It was only after Calvin told everyone that it was ok that the Church changed her mind about that.

Hmmm. Might be something to rethink.

Fantine · Oct 24, 2012

Hey, Steve, what would the Church have thought about buying businesses, loading them up with debt, laying off the employees after looting their pension funds, and selling off the company in pieces--all the while making 50% annual profits over a 15-year period?

Surely that would be Usury to the twelfth power....

MKJ · Oct 24, 2012

TheOtherHockeyMom said:
What makes socialism immoral by its very nature? Links to church teachings or personal thoughts are both welcome.

It depends somewhat on what you mean by socialism.

In all the documents I've read, it is used to mean when the government owns all the means of production. So, all business is owned by the state which employes individuals. The idea is that because the state is in a sense made up of the people, that all the people own the economy, not just the few rich.

What the Church says is that you can't abstract ownership that way - people are not the same as an abstraction of a person. God did not give us land and resources to own in some sort of abstract trust, but specifically and concretely - we are really responsible for things. All human beings have a right to own, directly, the things they need to make a living - land or tools or whatever. The substance of the economy. That kind of private property is the birthright of all of us.

None of this means that it isn't ever appropriate for government to own some businesses. Post might be a good, non-controversial example. But the more you abstract ownership of the economy, the more you are actually putting it under the control of the few.

steve_bakr · Oct 24, 2012

Fantine said:
Hey, Steve, what would the Church have thought about buying businesses, loading them up with debt, laying off the employees after looting their pension funds, and selling off the company in pieces--all the while making 50% annual profits over a 15-year period?

Surely that would be Usury to the twelfth power....

Scandalously so, and destructive to society.

eastcoast_bsc · Oct 24, 2012

Fantine said:
GNJ, if you want to understand today's Church, you need to read "The Next Christianity" by Philip Jenkins.

A caveat--you will need to drink lots of kava-kava tea or other natural anti-depressants while reading, because it is a really depressing book.

I first saw Jenkins' article in "The Atlantic" (referenced here)

The Next Christianity - Philip Jenkins - The Atlantic

and, glutton for punishment that I am, bought the book.

Jenkins' well-researched theory is that Catholicism (and Christianity) is going to be more and more ruled by the priorities and needs of what he calls "the global South" rather than Western Europe, North America, and the Pacific Rim countries.

Oh, this doomsday scenario is so depressing--hard to revisit it again. But it provides the most comprehensive explanation of why your logical and compelling desire won't be met, GNJ.

Just a heads up on James Carroll. He was a writer for many years at the Boston Globe here in the city. James Carroll was a failed Seminarian, unsure of his reasons. But James Carroll has made a career out of bashing anything and everything regarding the church.

Are we supposed to be made in Christ's image, or James Carroll's ? Is our faith supposed to be about sacrifice , or about our personal needs ?

Is the very essence of Christianity about picking up our crosses, and following Christ , or is it about what we all want as individuals ?

These are some of the questions, I feel we need to examine.

TheOtherHockeyMom · Oct 24, 2012

MKJ said:
It depends somewhat on what you mean by socialism.

In all the documents I've read, it is used to mean when the government owns all the means of production. So, all business is owned by the state which employes individuals. The idea is that because the state is in a sense made up of the people, that all the people own the economy, not just the few rich.

That's more along the lines of how I understand communism. The idea of socialism as I learned it is that the workers own the means of production compared to communism where the government owns the means of production.

ETA...did a little homework and found this comparison chart. This goes along with what I remember, and I'd be interested in hearing if folks thought this was about right.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism

If this is on track, then I can understand the problems with Communism but not with Socialism

Fish and Bread · Oct 25, 2012

TheOtherHockeyMom said:
That's more along the lines of how I understand communism. The idea of socialism as I learned it is that the workers own the means of production compared to communism where the government owns the means of production.

I was always taught that socialism means that the government owns all the means of production, full stop. I think that's it's traditional definition, and probably what the Church is against. A lot of the encyclicals against "socialism" were actually aimed at the Soviet communists and like states and movements, some of which identified as communist and others which identified as socialist, but which at the time had largely similar ideologies.

It's just that in recent years you've had political parties in Europe that identify as "Socialist" that really are espousing something that would have traditionally simply being though of as liberalism, and not socialism as we once knew it, which is blurring the definition of the word in public thought. Also, of course, there are right-wing Americans who think that everything that is anything short of vulture capitalism is "socialism". But that's not what the Church was talking about way back when.

Historical context is always important when reading church documents, I feel.

princess_ballet · Oct 26, 2012

MKJ said:
Yup. Many aspects of the modern economy would have been considered usurious in the middle ages.

It was only after Calvin told everyone that it was ok that the Church changed her mind about that.

Hmmm. Might be something to rethink.

Let us hope not. This is precisely the reason Middle Eastern economies have not progressed like those in the west.

TheOtherHockeyMom · Oct 26, 2012

princess_ballet said:
Let us hope not. This is precisely the reason Middle Eastern economies have not progressed like those in the west.

Interesting...Middle Eastern economies are not progressing like western ones because they basically follow the Bible closer than we do when it comes to usury?

Fantine · Oct 26, 2012

eastcoast_bsc said:
Just a heads up on James Carroll. He was a writer for many years at the Boston Globe here in the city. James Carroll was a failed Seminarian, unsure of his reasons. But James Carroll has made a career out of bashing anything and everything regarding the church.
.

I'm not quite sure where James Carroll came into Philip Jenkins' book, "The Next Christianity."

I have heard of James Carroll. My peace group showed his movie, "Constantine's Sword," a few years ago.

Carroll, a National Book Award winner and columnist for the Boston Globe, is a
practicing Catholic whose search for the truth leads him to confront persecution and
violence in the name of God - today and in the Church's past. He discovers a terrible
legacy that reverberates across the centuries- from the Emperor Constantine's vision of
the cross as a sword and symbol of power, to the rise of genocidal antisemitism, to
modern-day wars and
conflicts sparked by religious extremism.
At its heart, CONSTANTINE'S SWORD is a detective story, as Carroll journeys both
into his own past - where he comes to terms with his father's role as a three-star General
in the U.S. Air Force preparing for nuclear war - and into the wider world, where he
uncovers evidence of church-sanctioned violence against Jews, Muslims, and others.
Visiting the Air Force Academy, he and Jacoby expose how some evangelical Christians
are proselytizing inside our country's armed forces and reveal the dangerous
consequences of religious influence on American foreign policy.

Oh, it also says he's a former priest, not a former seminarian.

http://firstrunfeatures.com/presskits/constantines_sword/constantine_pk.pdf

And although I agree that our foreign policy is endangered by evangelical influence (one reason why I'm not voting Republican and why perhaps repealing 'don't ask don't tell' will keep the evangelicals in the military from getting too much power) it doesn't have anything at all to do with "The Next Christianity," which is on a different topic entirely.

Rhamiel · Oct 26, 2012

weariedsoul said:
And that world needs the Lord.

AMEN BROTHER!

princess_ballet · Oct 26, 2012

TheOtherHockeyMom said:
Interesting...Middle Eastern economies are not progressing like western ones because they basically follow the Bible closer than we do when it comes to usury?

We discussed this at length in one of my middle eastern studies classes. They don't allow for any type of loans. They believe that charging an interest rate is a sin (making money from money). It has changed in the recent past (at least a decade or so ago) and you are seeing them progress economically now.

When you don't have people loaning money, you cannot have a growing economy. It "doubles" in a sense the money that is out there. Basic economics 101.

Is it time to move on?

Newbie

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Christian

Contributor

Christian

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Contributor

Dona Quixote

Contributor

Christian

Veteran

Contributor

Dona nobis pacem

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Dona Quixote

Member of the Round Table

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency