The Catholic "religious leaders", being placed in positions of moral authority by their flock, now have the audacity to tell people how they should vote. Not only that, but threaten them with hell if they voted for the wrong person!!! Article here.
The priest said that Catholic's vote for Obama was "material cooperation with intrinsic evil". Ugh, and raping little boys is only deserving of priests going to retirement homes for the rest of their Catholic service?
Please don't get me wrong. I am not anti-Catholic. But I do think that just about all of Western, organized Christianity has become completely irrelevant. It is unable to do the thing that our world needs most" help people on the spiritual journey of life. This is just another adventure in religion missing the point.
Religious people give all kinds of authority to the people they see as "leaders". Then the leaders have the obligation to tell, persuade, cajole, threaten, guilt etc. to get the "flock" to do what the leaders think is right. It happens all the time, in just about every form of organized religion, but it has reached idiotic heights in western Christianity.
Perhaps we should quit placing ourselves under the authority of "leaders", and learn to trust ourselves when it comes to spirituality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I don't think that his stance is correct since voting is usally a more complicated than one issue.
But I think it would be appropriate for the Church to refuse communion to someone who says/votes (as in Joe Biden's case i think or the SLU basketball coach deal that came up last year) that I am a Catholic but I think abortion is OK. If he's says that he's Catholic yet says he is proabortion... well he can't have it both ways.
The church is to have a stand on right/wrong in the public areana. Not as a way to progress spiritually but as to what should be the ideal for people to live by.
Steve, what do you believe the purpose of church is?
If it is to be a voice for public morality that is one thing. They are then nothing more than a political action group. However, if it is assumed that they are a kind of spiritual authority, that is another thing. And judging by the results, a resolute failure in that area.
My point is that as long as a person continues to submit themselves to "spiritual authority" they do not have to have personal responsibility about their own spirituality. This keeps them hostage to a "church" that can withdraw their fellowship for not voting appropriately. Maybe the solution is to take responsibility for our own spirituality and quit looking to "spiritual leaders" and groups for our "salvation".
Hey Roger, can I jump in? "What is the purpose of the church?" That is a difficult question to answer since ecclesiology ranges from a very high sense in infallible-Christ-appointed-seat-of-Peter-authoritative-magisterium of the Roman Catholic to a very low sense in the coffee-shop-as-long-as-we-both-say-we-believe-in-Jesus-we're-the-church thread.
In the context of this article, we're talking about the teaching authority of the church--can the church discern what revelation truly means and does it have the authority to not only teach its members but also exert canonical means of enforcement (i.e. the denial of the sacraments for those who blatantly choose not to conform their lives in obedience)?
It is very "post-modern" to think that we should all be responsible for our own spiritual growth and development and very "Protestant" to think that all we need is faith, Scripture, and the Holy Spirit to teach us. We can each find our own way and God, who is Faithful and True, can be relied upon to draw all things into Himself.
What is working it's way out in the article is who has teaching authority? (I'd like to point out that a priest is *not* an authoritative teaching office in the Roman church. The Bishop's hold that position with the Bishop of Rome being their spokesperson and head. That said, you cannot take the statement of a single priest and lay it over the whole Catholic church.) In lower churches, an elder board (episcopae-bishops) are assigned similar authority.
I laud Catholics for their consistency, though. They have clear teaching--the "thread of logic" for an abortion stand is very easy to follow from man being created in God's image/stewards of creation to the sanctity of all life. They also place just as much emphasis on the care of the elderly, disabled, oppressed and general dignity of man under the same "thread".
But those who enter into communion/membership with the Catholic church understand this authority. I don't agree that this means they have abdicated their responsibility for spiritual growth. In many ways submission and obedience can be our greatest teachers.
"I am not anti-Catholic."
Yet, you fail to mention the fact that this priest was reprimanded by his own diocese for his improper behavior.
"Ugh, and raping little boys is only deserving of priests going to retirement homes for the rest of their Catholic service?"
Same sort of anti-Catholic bigotry we stumbled across in the media coverage back of the sex abuse crisis back in 2002, mislabeling it as "pedophilia". Many of these priests were convicted and sent to jail. No faithful Catholic could deny that justice had been done in these cases.
"But I do think that just about all of Western, organized Christianity has become completely irrelevant. It is unable to do the thing that our world needs most" help people on the spiritual journey of life."
Who are you to make such a judgment? Can you literally attest that Western Christianity has failed to help any of the 2 billion people who adhere to it on their spiritual journey? That is a lot of people to speak for. You also forget that spirituality implies some sort of religious faith.
"Then the leaders have the obligation to tell, persuade, cajole, threaten, guilt etc. to get the "flock" to do what the leaders think is right."
You obviously have no familiarity with Catholicism as this more closely echoes that which goes on in many American Protestant churches.
You obviously do not have a clear conception of what "church" means in the Catholic tradition. Such a concept is closely identified with the COMMUNION of the human family as a whole, not necessarily with a particular institution. Please do not criticize that which you do not know about, nor even wish to even try to understand. If you actually knew anything about what Catholicism is all about, perhaps there would be a thread of validity to this post.
(All of this is said with love and a smile.)
It's my opinion, so I guess I can have it. I really could care less what the Catholic church decides to do to it's own members. I don't pretend to understand Catholicism, so sorry if I ruffled feathers.
I have no desire to get in an argument. I would be happy to change my title for you though. Because the point is that religion itself misses the point. A system of rules, regulations and obligations merely keeps its members deluded in my opinion. But, you may have to withdraw from your flavor of institution to experience what I'm talking about. Most people are just not willing to make that leap of "faith".
Bob, I am way beyond postmodern. It is painful for me to even think about arguing about the topics you are bringing up. As long as you are happy in your deepest self, depending on someone else's authority for the biggest questions in life, it's all good.
Bill, not sure I know you, but HI. I figured people could read the article on their own, so I just didn't post every detail. I'm busy guy, so I rarely get time to post at all.
You said, "Who are you to make such a judgment? Can you literally attest that Western Christianity has failed to help any of the 2 billion people who adhere to it on their spiritual journey?"
I can't answer for things I didn't really say, so I'll just say: I am someone in a very different place than you are at the moment. Peace in the journey!
Roger,
I agree with you that people should not lean on someone else's authority for their own "spirituality". But I don't think that is the purpose of the Church (i.e. to be a kind of big brother's watching you so you better do what he says).
But I can see why people would get the impression that is what the Church thinks it is. I guess that may be why Jesus says, "be careful what you hear" and lays responsibility as much on the listener as the preacher.
The Churches that I have attended have never told me how to vote. I think that I would leave if it happened. Again, I think that guy crossed over a line and should not be regarded as appropriate.
:I can't answer for things I didn't really say, so I'll just say: I am someone in a very different place than you are at the moment."
Well, I would not expect you to be coming from the same place as me, but you did say, and I quote, "just about all of Western, organized Christianity has become... (unable)help people on the spiritual journey of life." I simply would like to know how you were able to arrive at this judgment. I can attest that Western, organized Christianity has helped me and many others as well in the "spiritual journey of life." I do not know your religious beliefs. I know you say you are against religion yet speak about spirituality. Spirituality implies religion. The two cannot be separated as spirituality is merely how one put's their religious beliefs into practice and commune with the Divine Other. I do know this, my Catholicism leads me to look for the good and the truth in all religions and faiths. This is something you seem unable to do, as in this post you only look for the bad in Christianity. I guess that is where we differ. While I believe in tolerance, you appear to only be able to look for the negative in worldviews which are different from your own.
Please know that I mean these comments in the most respectful way possible. I obviously do not know you, just as you appear to know next to nothing regarding Christian faith and spirituality. Any judgments I might make are limited as they are based solely off of my perception from this single post.
Bill,
You are correct in that you don't know me, nor the experiences I've been through to come to these judgments. Feel free to read my past posts, you may find that you relate in some ways.
My beliefs are what they are. Born from the experiences I've had in life. I just call it as I see it.
You said: "I know you say you are against religion yet speak about spirituality. Spirituality implies religion."
Not necessarily. Religion, as I define it, is simply a system of rules, regulations and obligations to which an individual must submit them self to be included in a particular denomination or religion. (So, I am talking about organized or institutional religion here.) That system may, or may not, be helpful in the spiritual life of the individual. Keep in mind we may need to define "spiritual life" too.
I find it interesting that you use the term "my Catholicism" because it implies that you have your own version. Which speaks to my point in a way. Everyone, in the end, designs there own religion influenced by their own particular practices and emphasis or de-emphasis of particular doctrine, even within the smaller confines of denominational belief as compared to all world religions.
You said: "I guess that is where we differ. While I believe in tolerance, you appear to only be able to look for the negative in worldviews which are different from your own."
Bill that is a quite a judgment for a person filled with the Holy Spirit to make of a another human being. Don't you think? If you read a few of my other posts you might find that my judgments come from a place of personal experience in institutional religion, as well as an open mind and research in eastern religions. I can see why you might think that I am being intolerant by just looking at this post though.
I'll be posting some other thoughts that may explain my point of view a little better. Feel free to drop back by.
Find peace bro!
"I find it interesting that you use the term "my Catholicism" because it implies that you have your own version."
Not really. I call it "my Catholicism" not because I have my own version, but because it is a force which I have espoused, body, mind, and soul, and is at the core of my very being. It is something which is very personal to me. Also, although the Catholic faith is one, but there are countless ways of expressing it spiritually. It is very much a faith of spiritual pluralism.
I guess we just use completely definitions of the word "religion". I use it to describe the system of beliefs a person adheres to and do not view it in a legalistic manner.
I have read through some of your posts and do see some commonalities between us, even though I ascribe to Catholicism while you seem to be very anti-religious establishment.
I understand that this is your blog and you can write whatever you wish. I do not dispute that. Your blog is public, though, and I only respond in a particular manner because many of your comments in this post can be construed as very offensive to someone who adheres to a Catholic spirituality. My own experience comes in the context of living in a country which has ingrained anti-Catholic religious roots. My faith is one which is attacked from all sides, secularist and Protestants alike.
As I said, my judgment was based off of that one post. Whoever said I was "filled with the Holy Spirit" when I wrote that comment? Being a Christian does not imply perfection. In fact, being a Christian implies admission of one's own spiritual brokenness and imperfection and involves the quest for that inner peace.
I do not really view this as am argument, but rather I dialogue. I hope you see it the same way as I feel argument not to be conducive in the least. I can see you are a spiritual person and have no problem that your spiritual quest does not come within the context of a particular organized religion. I know organized religion is not for everyone, but that does not mean it is useless. From my viewpoint, there is still truth and common ground to be embraced between us. You must understand, when I see something which appears to be a distortion of my personal faith (i.e. Catholicism), I have a tendency to want to approach the situation from dialogue in attempts to clear up the misconception and present it in a clear light.
I apologize for my wordy comments. Like I said, I'm not trying to argue or debate, simply just to engage in constructive dialogue. I can try my best to comprehend the context from which you come, but if I see something which appears to distort something very personal to me, I will try to clear it up. If you would rather me not read your blog, then I will stop reading. It is not my intention to harass you or be disrespectful of your experience.
Bill,
You are welcome here bro. I'm sure we have much common ground. Did not mean to offend, I just point out what I see and how I see it. Please don't be offended if I don't respond at length, time is short....
Roger, it just seems as long as the focus remains on religion and religious practice the adventure in missing the point will continue. Religion makes this mostly about moral codes and people adhering to those moral codes. Law was suppose to show us that our self effort would always fall short but instead religion still holds it up as the thing to adhere to and people find cleaver ways to make the failure of others always look worse than their own. Love and grace make no sense in that environment.
I love how Greg Boyd says it in The Myth of a Christian Nation:
"When people assume the position of moral guardians of the culture, they invite---they earn!---the charge of hypocrisy. For all judgement, save the judgement of the omniscient and holy God, involves hypocrisy. Whenever we "eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"---this is, whenever we find some element of worth, significance, and purpose in contrasting ourselves as "good" with the others we deem "evil"--we do so in a self-serving and selective manner. We always bend the tree, as it were, to our own advantage and, as a result, we do the exact opposite of what Jesus taught us to do. Instead of seeing our own sins as worse than others, we invariably set up a list of sins in which our sins are deemed minor while the other people's sins are deemed major. We may have dust particles in our eyes, we reason, but at least we don't have tree trunks like "those people." Unlike the tax collector who made no moral claims for himself, we thank the Lord we are not like other people just as the Pharisee did (Luke 18:9-14)."
Nice quote Kent!
I would have to completely disagree with Kent. Religion is merely the external expression of a particular internal spiritual/mystical experience. Those supposed "laws" and "moral codes" are mere reflections of the truth one has felt from within. Look at any of the more common Creeds (Apostle's or Niceno-Constantinopolitan), they say nothing of restriction or law and are grounded on the premise of "Credo" (I believe). In other words, they are concerned with beliefs that come out of one's particular inward experiences. While that is my perception, I am not going to pick apart and argue Kent's points as I know it is not going to change either of your minds, just as what Kent or Roger says is very unlikely to change my thinking. I am just approaching the above statement as someone who has studied various religions and experiences in a great amount of depth from an academic concept, not as one who intends to "evangelize".
Bill,
I don't want to speak for Kent, he is more than capable, and I'm sure he will chime in.
You said, "Religion is merely the external expression of a particular internal spiritual/mystical experience."
We are likely to get tied up in definitions of "religion" and "church" here. But lets press forward.
IF the laws and moral codes are merely an expression of what is within, would not each person have their own? What I see in most organized religion is codes and laws imposed on those who are members. Which comes first, the laws and codes, or the experience?
There is a world of difference between academic concepts and experience. I lived a spiritual life based on academics, theories and creeds for a long time. The theories, creeds and other mental concepts I was attached to broke down. They did not adequately describe the world I was experiencing it, so I had to go through the painful process of letting go and revising my "map". I'll take a real spiritual life as opposed to a theoretical one any day!
Being flexible in my thinking is what my whole spiritual journey over the past 5 years has been about. But I have experienced organized religion, maybe not your flavor, and I found it lacking....
Peace!
religion was estabished as a way to approach God. It was about law and codes from the beginning. It just is what it is. The incarnation changed everything and made possible what religion could never make possible. I see Jesus is the ultimate religion buster, not by destroying it but by exposing it as being irrelevant in the sense of the freedom he opened up to us. It still serves a purpose though in revealing the dead end road of self effort and performance. I just don't see that Jesus was about sitting up another "new improved" religion to compete with the other religions of the world. He came to free us from them.
And don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that everyone involved in religious ceremony is necesarily caught in the trap of religion. But my personal experience certainly had left me trapped and today still leaves me hard pressed to find people caught up in it that aren't caught up in an adventure that keeps missing Jesus' point.
"Which comes first, the laws and codes, or the experience?"
I say the experience has to come first. The experience has to draw you towards the structure, if not, the structure is useless. The central aspect of any religion or spirituality must be the experience.
"I'll take a real spiritual life as opposed to a theoretical one any day!"
Well, I was not attempting to define Christianity in an academic/theoretical way, just the concepts of "religion" and "spirituality". I do not think my grounding in theology has been detrimental to living a real spiritual life. If anything, it has pulled me closer to living such a life.
"But I have experienced organized religion, maybe not your flavor, and I found it lacking...."
No problem with that. Organized religion is not for everyone. God pulls us in through different paths. Even though I am Catholic, I would not want anyone else to become one if it would inhibit their spiritual experience.
"Jesus was (not) about sitting up another "new improved" religion"
No, but he did set up a Church as his own mystical body, based on the Scriptures anyway.
"But my personal experience certainly had left me trapped and today still leaves me hard pressed to find people caught up in it that aren't caught up in an adventure that keeps missing Jesus' point."
Then it is probably good you left whatever trap you found yourself in. Many people do miss Jesus' point. I call them fundamentalists, those who approach faith and religion in a legalistic, narrow-minded sort of way. They are usually more prominent in the Protestant form of Christianity, but you will find some Catholics like that.
Post a Comment