Pope Benedict to Resign

[Whiskeyjack]

For any of the board's Southern Catholics:

 

[Rack Em]

HAHAHAHA

 

[RDU Irish]

I love the logic based in sound science. Let it be known that Catholics are Reptile deniers!

 

[Mr. Larson]

I would be interested to see the Diocese of New Orleans' stance on eating frog during lent.

 

[RDU Irish]

These are my feelings. I switched to a 3rd shift schedule after I married my wife who does nursing 3rd shift too. Missed mass for the last two years until just recently...I would understand if changing the wording was important or drastically changed the meaning, but it's the exact same thing at it's core. All the responses are nearly identical to the previous responses, but it has a more old fashioned feel to it and a few words were switched to some synonyms. I'm harping a bit. I really don't see the point in the change, and while it's mildly annoying, I find it completely unnecessary.

I'll take this point further. It makes people uncomfortable, which makes them less likely to come back to church. It also sounds older and moldier than the previous version. I don't care if it is literally more correct, you need to keep things like this at a 5th grade reading level at best because the average person can barely read, let alone understand what consubstantiabalablelielsknst means (or say it correctly twice in fifty tries). Yeah, you need to pander a little closer to the lowest common denominator. Use words like that in your homily every week and you will be talking to half as many people in no time. Pepper your bread and butter prayers with them and folks will mumble through the whole thing and not take the time to understand any of it.

Because EVERYONE loves that guy who uses the biggest words possible for everything, right?

 

[RDU Irish]

I would be interested to see the Diocese of New Orleans' stance on eating frog during lent.

Obviously Reptiles are Fish and Amphibians are Mammals. Thus no frogs. Besides, they are often times really cursed princes which means you have a high probability of engaging in canabalism by eating frogs which is distinctly forbidden during Lent, unless you are stranded on a mountain.

 

[GowerND11]

I'll take this point further. It makes people uncomfortable, which makes them less likely to come back to church. It also sounds older and moldier than the previous version. I don't care if it is literally more correct, you need to keep things like this at a 5th grade reading level at best because the average person can barely read, let alone understand what consubstantiabalablelielsknst means (or say it correctly twice in fifty tries). Yeah, you need to pander a little closer to the lowest common denominator. Use words like that in your homily every week and you will be talking to half as many people in no time. Pepper your bread and butter prayers with them and folks will mumble through the whole thing and not take the time to understand any of it.

Because EVERYONE loves that guy who uses the biggest words possible for everything, right?

I also find it awkward when the priest says "Peace be with you" and the response is "And with your spirit." It would make sense to either, A. Go back to the previous version of " And also with you." or B. have the priest say "Peace be with your spirit." It just irks me for some reason. I also agree that too many people now mumble the words, and I would even go so far as to say participation in Mass, while number may be the same, is down as people are just standing there unsure of what to say.

 

[TheSunIsRising]

For any of the board's Southern Catholics:

I knew that 'he' was banned, but didn't know that someone would request to eat "Allgator"

And, here is an example of the Church being way off on scientific matters: Allgator is ALL-TROLL and no part fish. He should definitely be banned during Lenten Season as well.

 

[aubeirish]

I knew that 'he' was banned, but didn't know that someone would request to eat "Allgator"

And, here is an example of the Church being way off on scientific matters: Allgator is ALL-TROLL and no part fish. He should definitely be banned during Lenten Season as well.

Allgator is a gay fish troll, because he likes eating fish sticks.

On a serious note. Personally, I love latin mass. It is absolutely divine.

 

[Old Man Mike]

I am going to suggest the good reverend archbishop of New Orleans was making a joke for the benefit of the LSU fans. A few of the guys in the Magisterium still have some sense of humor.

But joke or not, the Church in America has been anxious to ease up on the laypeople on the Lenten requirements for a couple of decades at least. Once again, this has been the American Church's slow movement away from Mediaevalism, and this trend continuously rattles The Vatican. This is part of their linguistic bean-counter style of messing with liturgical language.

Also note, that in all these things The Magisterium is disagreeing within itself. Some might say that it is only language, but it is the Mass so it can hardly be considered trivial. And the "old" strict fasting and abstinence?: violations of that used to be considered serious sin. Did GOD change His Mind, or is it just OUR problem?

The Creator gave us brains for a reason. We should really try to use them once in a while [AND seek honest consultation from spiritual advisors while doing so].


p.s. Latin mass IS a great spiritual experience. It embeds the feeling of The Sacred better than the "modern" mass. BUT it's really not much more than shallow feeling unless one also understands what's going on step by step. Most Americans don't get Latin, so the Church had to make a compromise for most of them.

 

[notredomer23]

Does Timothy Dolan have a realistic chance at pope?

 

[Old Man Mike]

Just for the fun of it, because it's off-season and who cares?, here's the "dope" on eating "meat" on days of abstinence.

1). The custom originated as merely an act of self-sacrifice honoring Christ's greater sacrifice on Good Friday, thus Fridays became "fish days". Fish was the chosen symbol due to it being the early symbol for Christians [ Iesus CHristos Theou Yios, Soter--- being both Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior, and ICHTHUS = Fish]. As Jesus was The Fisher of Men, this all worked together amicably as a fine symbol and custom.

2). As the centuries "progressed", The Magisterium decided to make this a strict Church Law, at some times the violation of which achieved mortal sin status. As more centuries passed, The Magisterium decided that this was a bit over-the-top and reduced it to a venial sin. More centuries? Well, the older and the sick didn't need to do it. Today? Depends on where you are. It could be completely an optional sacrificial act --- which in any depth Moral Theological analysis is the only situation of free moral choice and thereby spiritually-worthwhile action anyway. The fact that not all Church "customs" are not viewed this way is merely the administration's opinion that the laypeople cannot be trusted with their salvation and must be herded into forced "good" acts. While it is to be admitted that we all need a lot of help, the balance between forced behavior [which is essentially morally-void] and free behavior [wherein positive true choice can be made] is a difficult one for The Magisterium to get right.

3). Since God's creatures come in so many varieties, questions continually arose as to what was OK on fridays and what wasn't. Weirdly, the Church migrated very strongly to a "principle" that if the thing was big and lived solely on the land, you shouldn't eat it, but if it was big and lived at least some significant part of its lifestyle in the water, you could. Thus: chomp all the alligators and frogs that you want. Clams? Super-OK. In Michigan there arose a real Theological Dilemma [I say this hardly being able to not guffaw, but it's real]. Michigan Catholics were, from the French colonial days, big eaters of Muskrat --- clearly a rodent/mammal. Could "we" eat Muskrat on fridays? The local representatives of The Magisterium went into deep [waters?] thought on this one. Their decision: yep, go ahead, enjoy your muskrat. Why? Well, it DID spend a lot of time in the water, but the main thing was : IT WAS A LONG-STANDING LOCAL TRADITION. This is of "theological" interest. These Church rules are wildly variable culturally and even ignorable. Did you know that on Easter Island you can make Communion hosts out of Yams? The meditative takeaway from this is that these things are not absolutes, may not really apply to anything truly moral at all, AND REQUIRE THOUGHT.

Once a Catholic understands the different level of seriousness of the elements of The Creed and EVERYTHING Else, two things happen: 1). you realize that you ARE going to have to think about most things, and 2). you have more responsibility now to actually live your own moral life.


..... muskratting away in Michigan ---- though since I'm 72, I no longer have to bother much.

 

[Mr. Larson]

Also note, that in all these things The Magisterium is disagreeing within itself. Some might say that it is only language, but it is the Mass so it can hardly be considered trivial. And the "old" strict fasting and abstinence?: violations of that used to be considered serious sin. Did GOD change His Mind, or is it just OUR problem?

The Creator gave us brains for a reason. We should really try to use them once in a while [AND seek honest consultation from spiritual advisors while doing so].

Can an infallible being change his mind and still be infallible? What cause is there for an infallible being to change his mind?

Sounds like an "our problem" to me.

 

[Old Man Mike]

To Larson: as you suspect, I was putting up a strawman dichotomy, and as you rightly said: yes, it's OUR problem not GOD's.

All of the moments of our lives are of course OUR responsibility. GOD is sitting in Heaven watching our hearts to judge whether we are making honest attempts at doing the right [read: selfless] thing regardless of what anyone else is telling or commanding us.

THIS is our dilemma. How can we best assure honestly selfless choices while encased in a body of powerful self-oriented urges? This is why The Church exists and is extremely valuable. Just like the Constitution and the huge system/history of public law, the Church exists to continuously keep in our consciousness the baseline concerns of right living. But also like constitutions and law, the wise society and person see these fundamental statements as guidelines and often in need of interpretation --- even when of consummate importance. Example: even in law there are circumstances where killing is allowed without legal consequence. Even in the Church there is the concept of a "Just War".

Both public and Church law exist to keep the society in some degree of orderliness and concern about others than ourselves. Neither set of doctrines deals with the complexity of real life however and that is why, in the judicial system, there must be "judgement" applied. The Church has never figured out how to establish a similar institution [except, by the way, the "secrets" of the Confessional, and the quiet "winking away" by one understanding priest to some Catholic layperson of certain irregularities which we tolerate without admitting so --- think, divorce].

I insist however on greatly respecting the Church and remaining actively within it. It is the greatest organizational facilitating force for Beatitudes-like charity on the planet, it provides the Sacrament of Holy Communion, and it serves to keep my animal nature in line by constantly reminding me what an imperfect jerk I am. And it provides spiritual humans to counsel us when times are tough.

I'll always be Catholic. But I will not automatically respect any individual Catholic [even those wearing fancy tall hats] unless by their actions they show me where their hearts/souls are. I don't even believe in the sobriquet "Father". I told my priest buddy that I thought one of Catholicism's bigger social blunders was calling priests "father" rather than "brother". He laughed, nodded, and said: yes, it's embarrassing sometimes, and not particularly good for the ego. It's in the same class as Mormons labeling 20 year olds "elders".


Well, that should offend about everyone, so my work here is apparently done.

 

[woolybug25]

Well, that should offend about everyone, so my work here is apparently done.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

THIS is our dilemma. How can we best assure honestly selfless choices while encased in a body of powerful self-oriented urges?

We need a "Best of IE" thread to which posts such as this one can be copied and saved for posterity.

 

[peoriairish]

Funny joke from from the priest at Mass yesterday:

"So... the Pope really set the bar high on things to give up for Lent, huh?"

 

[Emcee77]

To Larson: as you suspect, I was putting up a strawman dichotomy, and as you rightly said: yes, it's OUR problem not GOD's.

All of the moments of our lives are of course OUR responsibility. GOD is sitting in Heaven watching our hearts to judge whether we are making honest attempts at doing the right [read: selfless] thing regardless of what anyone else is telling or commanding us.

THIS is our dilemma. How can we best assure honestly selfless choices while encased in a body of powerful self-oriented urges? This is why The Church exists and is extremely valuable. Just like the Constitution and the huge system/history of public law, the Church exists to continuously keep in our consciousness the baseline concerns of right living. But also like constitutions and law, the wise society and person see these fundamental statements as guidelines and often in need of interpretation --- even when of consummate importance. Example: even in law there are circumstances where killing is allowed without legal consequence. Even in the Church there is the concept of a "Just War".

Both public and Church law exist to keep the society in some degree of orderliness and concern about others than ourselves. Neither set of doctrines deals with the complexity of real life however and that is why, in the judicial system, there must be "judgement" applied. The Church has never figured out how to establish a similar institution [except, by the way, the "secrets" of the Confessional, and the quiet "winking away" by one understanding priest to some Catholic layperson of certain irregularities which we tolerate without admitting so --- think, divorce].

I insist however on greatly respecting the Church and remaining actively within it. It is the greatest organizational facilitating force for Beatitudes-like charity on the planet, it provides the Sacrament of Holy Communion, and it serves to keep my animal nature in line by constantly reminding me what an imperfect jerk I am. And it provides spiritual humans to counsel us when times are tough.

I'll always be Catholic. But I will not automatically respect any individual Catholic [even those wearing fancy tall hats] unless by their actions they show me where their hearts/souls are. I don't even believe in the sobriquet "Father". I told my priest buddy that I thought one of Catholicism's bigger social blunders was calling priests "father" rather than "brother". He laughed, nodded, and said: yes, it's embarrassing sometimes, and not particularly good for the ego. It's in the same class as Mormons labeling 20 year olds "elders".


Well, that should offend about everyone, so my work here is apparently done.

No offense taken here; on the contrary, I agree wholeheartedly and completely. Excellent point in particular with the bolded. Applying rules inflexibly, even some of the best rules, may do more harm than good. Our legal systems, both ecclesiastical and civil, do the best they can, but they can't help but condemn harmless or even good actions sometimes because their rules are designed by humans and are therefore imperfectly designed. Occasional such failures are simply collateral damage endemic to even functional systems (the mess just has to be cleaned up on an individual, ad hoc basis). Watching the Church condemn such actions can be infuriating, but it doesn't stop me being Catholic. I think the Church does more good than harm in the world, and I have faith that it will continue to correct its mistakes.

 

[aubeirish]

p.s. Latin mass IS a great spiritual experience. It embeds the feeling of The Sacred better than the "modern" mass. BUT it's really not much more than shallow feeling unless one also understands what's going on step by step. Most Americans don't get Latin, so the Church had to make a compromise for most of them.

We learned a bit of latin when I was in high school(It was a capuchin school). It's a shame that they don't teach it anymore. Also, I agree that going from French to Latin is obviously easier than English to Latin. Nevertheless, I find it beautiful. I'm a big gregorian chant fan, which I know is not for everybody.

 

[peoriairish]

We learned a bit of latin when I was in high school(It was a capuchin school). It's a shame that they don't teach it anymore. Also, I agree that going from French to Latin is obviously easier than English to Latin. Nevertheless, I find it beautiful. I'm a big gregorian chant fan, which I know is not for everybody.

I was about to bring this up. I had the opportunity to go to a church camp when I was in high school at a seminary in Indiana (St. Meinrad for those familiar). While there, we would wake up super early every day to go listen and watch the priests chant their morning rituals. It was a surreal and awesome (literally) experience. Highly recommended if anyone has the opportunity.

 

[aubeirish]

I was about to bring this up. I had the opportunity to go to a church camp when I was in high school at a seminary in Indiana (St. Meinrad for those familiar). While there, we would wake up super early every day to go listen and watch the priests chant their morning rituals. It was a surreal and awesome (literally) experience. Highly recommended if anyone has the opportunity.

If ever you find yourself near Barcelona, I suggest you make a quick pit stop to Montserrat Monastery(Between 30mins to 1hour drive I can't remember). It's basically the greatest library of Gregorian chant in the world. Though you can't really go in it(Scholars have to apply to look at it and it can take almost 2 years to get in), you can hear the boys of the choir sing everyday. These boys are all between the age of 12-15. They stay there until there voices hit puberty. It's a great honor to be chosen to go to school there. Also, the friars are all phenomenal singers, and they do it during the normal services.
Of all the ones I have been to, this one was most particular. It is also very touristic, because this is where the Virgin Mary appeared Saint-Ignatius of Loyola.

On a footnote, you can go to many monastery throughout the world and do the services with them(They usually don't mind if your respectful). My choice would be (Trappistes)Belgium, because they make fantastic beer. Hehe. I am just a man.

 

[Old Man Mike]

After graduating from ND four of us went on a shoestring tour of Europe, crammed in an old VW bug. My job was to produce an itinerary which would make the great circle and get us back to the boat in 50 days. Coming from the Austrian Alps down towards Rome, I marked in a stop at Assisi. REALLY GLAD. Attending the mass there with the Franciscan Friars chanting Gregorian Chant was literally the definition of Awesome.

 

[aubeirish]

After graduating from ND four of us went on a shoestring tour of Europe, crammed in an old VW bug. My job was to produce an itinerary which would make the great circle and get us back to the boat in 50 days. Coming from the Austrian Alps down towards Rome, I marked in a stop at Assisi. REALLY GLAD. Attending the mass there with the Franciscan Friars chanting Gregorian Chant was literally the definition of Awesome.

It is a beautiful one indeed. I must say though, the 7o'clock mass in the Basilica inferiore is the fastest service I have ever seen. 15-20 mins tops. I lived in Assisi for about a month 6 years ago.

 

[STLDomer]

Does Timothy Dolan have a realistic chance at pope?

I hope so he went to the same gradeschool as I did, our principal is so old we had the same one haha (she's been to all of his events). I met him when he said mass at our school when I was in 6th grade for our schools 50th anniversary.

As many here know, I go to a Catholic (Jesuit) prep HS and FWIW (probably worth nothing) the 5 priests plus two deaconoins all think Cardinal Tagle from the Phillipines is the favorite right now (which would be awesome cause I'm 1/2 Filipino).

 

[palinurus]

In spite of early warnings, I think this has been an interesting thread. I likely disagree to some extent with the idea that Church teachings can be interpreted as allowing people to reject what, in self-honesty, we know the Church intends to teach, esp. to the extent, in self-honesty, doing so would have the effect of letting ourselves off the hook to do whatever we can, or would like to, rationalize that we, or those we love, should be allowed to do or have done.

On the other hand, I recognize the foibles of those who have run the Church and accept, really, their human inability to administer the Church wisely in its many human undertakings. The writer Hilaire Belloc once said (about a hundred years ago) that the Church was “an institute run with such knavish imbecility that if it were not the work of God, it would not last a fortnight.”

I will say this: I am a Catholic because I believe the sacraments are true and that, properly received, I get a grace from them that I cannot get anywhere else, and that that makes me better and stronger and more able to do what I should do and have to do. I also believe, as I've said, that Christ would not found a Church and leave it to fail. To believe otherwise is incomprehensible to me.

Btw, I think the frog legs are okay for Lent.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

In spite of early warnings, I think this has been an interesting thread.

Absolutely. Would like to see it continue.

I likely disagree to some extent with the idea that Church teachings can be interpreted as allowing people to reject what, in self-honesty, we know the Church intends to teach, esp. to the extent, in self-honesty, doing so would have the effect of letting ourselves off the hook to do whatever we can, or would like to, rationalize that we, or those we love, should be allowed to do or have done.

As I mentioned earlier, while morality may be objective, sin is subjective. Every man is judged against his own conscience. If one has made a good faith effort to properly form his conscience on an issue (in other words, no willful blindness), and he still believes the Church is wrong on that issue, then he does not sin in acting upon his beliefs.

But the key phrase there is "good faith effort"; you seem primarily concerned that Catholics will rationalize away inconvenient teachings out of self-interest. If that's the real motivation behind the rejection of a Church teaching, then it's still a sin.

 

[palinurus]

Absolutely. Would like to see it continue.



As I mentioned earlier, while morality may be objective, sin is subjective. Every man is judged against his own conscience. If one has made a good faith effort to properly form his conscience on an issue (in other words, no willful blindness), and he still believes the Church is wrong on that issue, then he does not sin in acting upon his beliefs.

But the key phrase there is "good faith effort"; you seem primarily concerned that Catholics will rationalize away inconvenient teachings out of self-interest. If that's the real motivation behind the rejection of a Church teaching, then it's still a sin.

I can't really say whether any given individual rationalizes or not; I believe it is human nature to do so, and know that, without reminding myself against doing it, it can come easily to me, and I don't see myself as too much different from what I suspect is true of most people in that respect. Besides, developing the "properly formed conscience" takes effort. And I suspect human nature also flatters ourselves to think we've done it when we maybe haven't. Rather than get too bound up in who has done what, in the end, honestly, I believe that God's mercy, like his justice, is perfect. Not being falsely humble, but I trust in that mercy and I hope that I will get somewhat better than what I deserve.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Rod Dreher at American Conservative just posted a good (though rather heavy) article on why natural law arguments aren't persuasive in America:

Put plainly, as long as the will remains unconverted, and unwilling to consider conversion, reason is mostly powerless to change things, except insofar as the claims of reason are consonant with their metaphysical dream — that intuitive feeling about the immanent nature of reality. In our time and place, this metaphysical dream is no longer truly Christian, though it is obviously informed by Christian ideals and sentiments. This will fade, and is fading. This is the problem religious and social conservatives face, or, as it were, fail to face.

Scrolling through the comments, I came upon the following from John Zmirak:

Much as we might regret such inevitable effects of individualism as Rod cogently points to, there are several points worth raising, and some political consequences:

1. Individualism seems to be the price we pay for “liberalism,” in the positive sense of a movement for human freedom from coercion, grounded in human dignity.
2. The alternatives to liberalism proposed in the past 300 years have all proved far worse (nationalism, reactionary traditionalism, socialism, communism, racialism, theocracy)
3. Given this, we as Christians must recognize that liberalism is today what Aristotelianism was in the 1200s–the water in which we swim. We cannot repeal it, especially when our own institutions have proved so corrupt (sex abuse) and coercive (Magdalene laundries) when given power, especially coercive power or police collusion.
4. The only alternative on offer today to absolute individualism (libertarian politics) is a massive “national community” which imposes on all of us its crushing financial demands and coercive mandates, grounded in Utilitarian Hedonism (Fr. Dwight Longenecker’s phrase).
5. Therefore, we ought to support libertarianism–especially on the national level, while fighting hard for freedom of association and contract. Christians should stop bothering with marriage licenses, and craft “covenant marriage” agreements according to their denominations, which should enforce them on those who wish to be associated with the group, on pain of exclusion. Hence, Catholic bishops should insist that priests only marry people willing to sign such a covenant. It would not be legally enforceable, but then neither is marriage.

For a more extended argument, see my old piece here.

The bottom line is: We have to give up trying to baptize Leviathan, and concentrate on trying to stay out of its jaws.

It's a slow news day, and I found this to be really compelling, so here's hoping it stimulates some discussion.

 

[Old Man Mike]

I have very little to add here. At bottom, the reality of existence already is individualism --- the only reason for The Creation is to provide a stage for the relationship between each Soul and God. That is a one-to-one affair. God understands that the stage changes. Some of the "actors" have more opposing their good choices than others. God does care about this, but not in the way we think. God simply wants to see what each individual does with the circumstances that they have.

Whereas it would be "nice" if big obstacles were not placed in the way of our weak animal natures, that circumstance is still only one circumstance within which we at that moment must choose the good and "prove" something about ourselves. In a way, the easier path merits less than the harder. This does not mean that we humans should stop trying to make life's conditions better for all, but it DOES mean that whether we actually SUCCEED in doing so is not the point in God's evaluation. WHATEVER we face is the stage against which God justly considers our effort.

For these reasons, I do not spend much time wringing my hands about the seeming trajectory of things. Each moment is the moment of truth, not the speculative future. If I do a good job at this moment that I have right now, I have pleased God and done well. If the stage of the next moment happens to be more difficult, well, that is now my new moment to choose the good. There is in the end nothing else.

In theory, if we were all succeeding in our moments, God's Kingdom WOULD emerge on the planet. Obviously we have never been anywhere near that state in the past. Will we ever? I know nothing about that either. All I know that if I do well in this moment now, I push things a little closer to the state of a generally just world.

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

I have very little to add here. At bottom, the reality of existence already is individualism --- the only reason for The Creation is to provide a stage for the relationship between each Soul and God. That is a one-to-one affair. God understands that the stage changes. Some of the "actors" have more opposing their good choices than others. God does care about this, but not in the way we think. God simply wants to see what each individual does with the circumstances that they have.

Whereas it would be "nice" if big obstacles were not placed in the way of our weak animal natures, that circumstance is still only one circumstance within which we at that moment must choose the good and "prove" something about ourselves. In a way, the easier path merits less than the harder. This does not mean that we humans should stop trying to make life's conditions better for all, but it DOES mean that whether we actually SUCCEED in doing so is not the point in God's evaluation. WHATEVER we face is the stage against which God justly considers our effort.

For these reasons, I do not spend much time wringing my hands about the seeming trajectory of things. Each moment is the moment of truth, not the speculative future. If I do a good job at this moment that I have right now, I have pleased God and done well. If the stage of the next moment happens to be more difficult, well, that is now my new moment to choose the good. There is in the end nothing else.

In theory, if we were all succeeding in our moments, God's Kingdom WOULD emerge on the planet. Obviously we have never been anywhere near that state in the past. Will we ever? I know nothing about that either. All I know that if I do well in this moment now, I push things a little closer to the state of a generally just world.

Unbelievably put... Well done, Michael.