Just as we Catholics love to accuse protestants of “church shopping”, there has never been a time in the Church’s history that Catholics haven’t “priest shopped.” Want to use birth control? Need an annulment? Keep looking and you will find a priest who will lend, perhaps tacitly, a way for you to circumvent doctrine.
After you have finished her first rate post don’t miss the excellent post by Robert Kumpel that she quoted:
We have had individual bishops and/or the USCCB take positions that suggest:
1) Compassion means looking the other way at illegal immigration
2) Compassion means legitimizing homosexuality
3) A politician’s position on abortion is unimportant
4) Environmental concerns trump concern for the unborn
5) It is perfectly permissible (or even laudable) to vote for the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history
6) Ordaining women is inevitable
7) The Holy Father’s liturgical roadmap is flawed
EVERY ONE OF THESE POSITIONS IS A LIE.
Love means to desire what is good for others. We can disagree about what is good, but goodness is built on the truth.
The biggest problem of the church is not its doctrine, it is those who particularly in positions of authority who ignore, misrepresent or teach it falsely for their own pride and/or popularity. When you have authority you are expected to use it, if you aren’t going to use it then you shouldn’t have it. The great church scandals of the last decade would have been avoid if Bishops and Cardinals did their jobs.
And I remind everyone that Catholicism is a totally voluntary choice. If you want another church there are thousands of other out there. Liberal churches in particular can use the bodies these days. If you don’t like Catholicism don’t be one.
I got an e-mail from Smitty today that linked to this post at Samizdata. The meat of the story:
Bishop Spong is the “Save the bible from fundamentalism” person (a favourite of certain liberal people I know in York) – and by “fundamentalist” he really means this word in its original sense, i.e. the “fundamentals” of Christianity such as the empty tomb (although, of course, he would be happy if innocent minded people just thought he meant stupid-southern-redneck-preacher by “fundamentalist”, which is the impression the media love to give). In any case Bishop Spong assumes that, being a social gospel person like himself, Rowen Williams also does not believe in the basic doctrines of Christianity (i.e. that, like Bishop Spong himself, he is using religion as a cover for the service of the collectivist cause).
So Bishop Spong was rather taken aback by Rowen Williams teaching the doctrine of the empty tomb, so shocked that he stated that of course Williams can not really believe in such doctrines (he must just be pretending in order to get along with the ignorant scum who make up most church goers) – but it is Rowen Williams’ reply that interests me.
Archbishop Williams replies that he is not pretending to believe in things in order to get along with ordinary people – he actually does believe in these doctrines, “I do not know how to convince him [Spong] that I do, but I do”.
Paul Marks then apologized for always assuming the Archbishop of Canterbury believed as Sprong did:
What I have done is make the same mistake (in reverse) as Bishop Spong.
I assumed that because Rowen Williams takes a certain political line (the “beardy lefty” line, as he said himself) he must be a fraud – he must be a fake Christian. Cong hiding behind a dog collar, trying to deceive people into taking the left hand path (in more ways that one).
I now believe that I was wrong – and because my judgement was based on prejudice (see above), not research, I was guilty of an injustice.
Mr. Marks is being very honorable here and gets high marks but think about that for a moment: how far has the Church of England fallen that it not only has Bishops who deny the basic tenants of the Church but that the default assumption is that the Archbishop of Canterbury does too.
Ironically, at Mass this was today’s Gospel reading:
Once when Jesus was praying in solitude, and the disciples were with him, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say that I am?” They said in reply, “John the Baptist; others, Elijah; still others, ‘One of the ancient prophets has arisen.'” Then he said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter said in reply, “The Messiah of God.”Luke 9:18-21
Note the actual reading when on through verse 24
I’ve written before about the basics of Christianity, just to remind everyone Basic Truth #1:
If Christianity is not true then no amount of belief will make so. All ones actions in support of Christianity will not matter.
If Christianity is true then no amount of disbelief will make it not so. All ones actions and denials will have a price that will come due.
It is diametrically opposed to the world, it’s belief system is an absolute:
Jesus Christ is the son of God, he died and rose from the dead for the forgiveness of sins!
It is either true or false. If you believe this to be false you are not a Christian, period. If you claim to believe it is true but act as if it is false then you have to resolve some issues.
Basic Truth #3 The world will give you a lot of love if you reject the church:
Someone once asked a famous dissenting theologian why she remained in the Church if she found so much of its doctrine and practice so detestable.
She answered, “It’s where the Xerox machine is.” In other words, she remains b/c the Church butters her bread and pays her rent. The Church provides her with the resources she needs to undermine the Church.
But don’t expect me or Michael Ruse Athiest to have patience with you on this issue:
I have little time for someone who denies the central dogmas of Christianity and still claims to be a Christian, except in a social sense. No God, no Jesus as His son, no resurrection, no eternal life – no Christianity.
Either this man was, and is, the Son of God or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon’ or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
Bishop Spong has made his choice and he will live with it. I’ve made mine. It’s up to us to make yours; remember you have your entire life to make up your mind one way or the other…
The head of the Coptic Church in Egypt has rejected a court ruling that orders the church to allow divorced Copts to remarry in the church emphasis mine. In a press conference held on Tuesday June 8, Pope Shenouda [III], reading from the statement issued by the Holy Synod’s 91 Bishops, including himself, said: “The Coptic Church respects the law, but does not accept rulings which are against the Bible and against its religious freedom which is guaranteed by the Constitution.”
Mind you divorce has always been legal, this rules order the church to accept divorce in its doctrine. As PJ Media points out concerning the Coptic Pope :
he is not enforcing a totalitarian law that Copts must accept; he is simply saying that, in accordance to the Bible (e.g., Matt 5:32), and except in certain justifiable circumstances (e.g., adultery), Copts cannot remarry in the church: “Let whoever wants to remarry to do it away from us. There are many ways and churches to marry in. Whoever wants to remain within the church has to abide by its laws.”
If this still sounds a tad “non-pluralistic,” know that at least Copts have a way out: quit the church. No such way out for Muslims: Sharia law — Egypt’s “primal source of legislation” — mandates death for Muslims who wish to quit Islam.
The Coptic pope is not taking this laying down:
Pope Shenouda further threatened to defrock any priest who allows a divorced Christian to remarry, except in cases where the divorce was on the grounds of adultery. Those that have remarried after divorce will not be allowed in Church.
On the heels of regular persecution of Coptics in Egypt this ruling seems a thinly veiled attempt to divide the strongest Christian church in the area.
Meanwhile in the US we see divide and conquer in another context
The first point to understand is that Obama knows about the debate Catholics are having over him.
That’s why he usually talks only to Catholics who share his agenda. He has been careful to ensure that the terms of his debate with Catholics have always been on his terms. He sends CHA a video and gives Sr. Keehan a pen because he knows that these individuals chose to follow him instead of the bishops. So he makes a place at his table for them and rewards what he sees as their loyalty.
In April, three bishops of the USCCB ad hoc Health Care Concerns Committee, Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Kevin Vann of Fort Worth and Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, also met with Sr. Keehan to try to make her understand the bishop’s concerns and thus bring CHA back in line with Church teachings, however the meeting concluded with “the same frustrating results.”
The president of the USCCB reiterated the bishop’s fundamental opposition to the health care reform. “The bill which was passed is fundamentally flawed. The Executive Order is meaningless. Sr. Carol is mistaken in thinking that this is pro-life legislation,” Cardinal George emphatically said.
The cardinal also expressed disappointment with CHA “and other co-called Catholic groups” because, “in the end, they have weakened the moral voice of the bishops in the U.S.”
In that regard, Cardinal George highlighted that the USCCB and CHA’s positions on Obama’s health care are not just “two equally valid conclusions inspired in the same Catholic teaching,” and reiterated that what the bishops said on May 21 in their statement “Setting the record Straight” is and will remain the official position of the USCCB on the contentious issue.
The president knows and understands this. It is not possible for a faithful Catholic to support abortion in this manor, thus the attempt to divide the church is what this president and the pseudo catholic organizations. The American Papist again:
I have yet to hear a Catholic who supports the Obama agenda say, “I like Obama’s agenda, but of course I don’t believe what he thinks about or how he acts towards the Church.” It seems that the Catholics who support Obama’s agenda, or the individuals who criticize Catholics for not supporting his agenda, very often couch their support for him in political, not religious terms. But Obama has made religious claims, and overstepped religious boundaries, in pursuit of his political goals. In the ensuing mix-up, there can be no complaint that Catholics who oppose Obama are confusing politics with religion, for when Obama places himself against the authority of the bishops, he has stepped into the Catholic scene.
To provide a couple brief parallel (and purely hypothetical) examples, what if Obama sent a message to a group of orthodox jews who violate kosher laws and praised them for supporting his domestic initiative of promoting American pork consumption?
To put it simply the president understands that a strong and faithful American Catholic Church is going to be a problem for him (as does the media) and his agenda and any attempt to divide or weaken it is in his political interest.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says she believes she must pursue public policies “in keeping with the values” of Jesus Christ, “The Word made Flesh.”
The audacity of extremely pro-abortion Pelosi saying this with a straight face is only exceeded by the stupidity of anyone who believes it. And yes I said stupidity.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 