|
|
|
|
go here to buy my stock photography Alan Creech
my recent posts |::
pentecost talk stuff |::
my family faith communities |:: vineyard central blogs i read |::
aaron klinefelter
|
 I hear this from time to time, and it never fails to bother me. The terms "faithful Catholic" and conversely, "unfaithful Catholic" are thrown around a good bit, especially in the blogosphere. They are almost always used by Catholics in the very conservative arena to describe either themselves (the faithful) or to describe Catholics, well maybe they're Catholics, who have issues with some of what the Catholic Church teaches, some of it's theology or practice (the unfaithful).Very simplistically speaking, the story goes that if you put all your beebees, all your mental trust, without reservation of any kind, into the Magisterial basket - if there is no point of doctrine that you simply cannot assent to (as it is presently stated and understood) - if the Catechism is quite enough for you, no more discussion or struggle needed - then you are... a faithful Catholic. On the other hand, if you hear or read what the Magisterium has laid out there and on some points you just can't grab hold - if you (just as an example) simply cannot accept the presently stated and understood concept of mortal sin (even though you've theologically struggled through this and have over-thoughtfully and prayerfully come to your position) - if you aren't very fond of some of your Church's present disciplines (having come to the conclusion that some of them can be, in fact, harmful instead of helpful) - if, perhaps, you feel free to open your mouth and speak your conscientious thoughts and convictions and they happen to run contrary to the present letter of Catholic Magisterial teaching - then you are, pour soul, one of the unfaithful. Some of you can see why this would bother me. Part of it is because, guess where I end up on this set of scales? Go ahead, guess. Never mind, I'll tell you - I am, apparently, an unfaithful Catholic. Some might even say that makes me not a Catholic at all. They might say I'm a Protestant already in my thoughts and actions so I might as well just go ahead and be one. Maybe they're right. I wonder that sometimes myself. Interesting thought. Is there not room for what some call a faithful dissent in some areas? I mean a dissent (as I see it, an inability to assent with good conscience) that is prayerful, thoughtful, educated and conscientious - not one that is apathetic or born of a desire to engage in some inordinate behavior or because you are swept away by the worldly culture around you. Also, not a dissent that is all about carrying picket signs or causing a whole bunch of trouble. I mean being a thinker, one who needs to, and is perhaps called to, work things out and not simply accept the status quo without question. This is what seems like it could be a healthy dissent. Maybe we should stop calling it "dissent" at all, that word having such a negative connotation in this discussion. It's definitionally correct I suppose - assent vs. dissent and all that. I guess my point is that "dissent" in this arena doesn't need to mean that you hate the Church and you want to blow it all up in favor of some wild, opposite alternative. This is how it's characterized sometimes though, which is unfortunate. Perhaps I'm just taking seriously my part in the Sensus Fidelium - the sense of the faithful - realizing that the Holy Spirit of Truth lives in, acts in and speaks to me as a member of the mystical Body of Christ... too. The protection we have from God from going over the cliff as far as error is concerned is more complicated than just, "the Pope said it, that settles it." The members of the Body who don't wear collars are not simply faceless, spiritless, sheep. We are all incorporated into Jesus, and are the fullness of Him who fills all things in all places (Eph. 1:22-23). And no, I'm not talking about sitting around making it all up for ourselves. If you think that's what I'm talking about, well, you can think what you like, but it's not nearly what I'm referring to. Things in this broken, human world are not that cut and dry. They are complicated. The Church and everything that makes her tick, is complicated. The Holy Spirit and how He works in the Church and in the world is not entirely quantifiable. Yes, He may have given us certain assurances that we wouldn't ultimately go over the edge, but all manner of things can happen before that. We (Catholics) get all manner of flack from some quarters of the Protestant world about how we have contradicted ourselves over the years, about how we will never give a straight answer about how the Catholic Church has, or has not, been wrong here and there down through the centuries. Can we just give somebody a straight-up answer that yes, the Catholic Church has been wrong, has grown and changed and developed and corrected itself many, many different times. I just said it. It doesn't bother me. It doesn't make my head spin. Are there contradictory stances within her? Sure. What do you expect? Have Popes contradicted each other - even? Certainly they have. Like I said - a broken mess, all of us. Yeah, yeah, I know all the definitions... Holy Spirit... infallibility... teaching authority... et cetera. Some of it is troublesome, I'll hand you that on a platter, but that doesn't negate it all. Even if, as I see it, some of it is not that well defined, or is too defined, it still doesn't take the whole house down. It doesn't have to. I've wandered in this essay. It's already too long for a decent blog post. I'm even fairly afraid to post it, how about that? I'm really not looking for a big argument. I'm certainly not looking to be scolded by anyone. OK, there are my insecurities out on the table. Oh, and I'm not looking to institute any clown Masses any time soon either - holy crap! What I'm talking about is a little deeper and more complex than that. One more thought I had was that, practically speaking (and this is worth taking into consideration, and not just from a populist viewpoint), in the sensus fidelium arena, unless you want to take on a sort of fortress, we're the tiny remnant of true Catholic Christianity attitude, the vast majority of Catholics in the United States (and I doubt it's only the US, but that's all we hear about mostly) are unfaithful Catholics. That's most members of most parishes, and it can't all be chalked up to "bad catachesis" or "those pitiful seminaries after Vatican II." There are probably a lot of factors. I'm not trying to define them here. What I might be saying, at least in part, is that some of this is not bad - some of it is perhaps about the Holy Spirit slowly working a correction in through the People of God. Please don't hem me into some liberal corner either. I just said what I said. I didn't say what you're thinking I said. That I have to say that is pretty funny anyway. OK, that's enough of this. If I post this it'll be a tiny miracle - we can attribute it to the intercession of Thomas Merton, how about that monk-fans? Pax vobiscum. technorati tags > church, catholic church, faithful catholics, unfaithful catholics, sensus fidelium, faithful dissent :::
:::
permalink ::: e-mail me :::
|
daily prayer |::
ordinary time
lectionary readings |::
> today
three quotes |:: "Then, if we cannot as yet think alike in all things, at least we may love alike. Herein we cannot possibly do amiss." "Keep your eyes on the crucifix, for Jesus without the cross
is a man without a mission, and the cross without Jesus
is a burden without a reliever." "...I am deeply convinced that the Christian leader of the future is called to be
completely irrelevant and to stand in this world with nothing to offer but his or her own vulnerable self."
my blog post labels |::
blogging zines |::
next wave archives |::
|
|||||
0
123
