Ross Douthat makes an amazing claim as he assesses the Pope's visit to America and the general themes emerging from his papacy:
"The second tendency, though, is one that Francis has tacitly encouraged, by empowering clerics and theologians who seem to believe that Rome’s future lies in imitating the moribund Episcopal Church’s approach to sex, marriage and divorce."
TEC and its supporters won't like Douthat's "moribund".
Francis and his supporters won't like the comparison with TEC ... There are more conservative Anglican churches with which comparison could be made :)
25 comments:
Hi Peter, Ross Douthat is always a good conservative read, but Fr Lucie-Smith in the conservative Catholic Herald (under comments) thought the papal address to the joint houses was superb. As for the aspirations to TEC, the Pope has chosen some unusual people for the family synod (Cardinal Daneels could never run a belgian church growth programme - the secular world would have fired him), but the key conservatives like Cardinal Pell and Cardinal Mueller are also be there. In the end, none of the blokes pushing 80 are the future of (what we believe) is the true Church; and, therein, is the anxiety.
Nick
See this delightful rebuttal sent to me today:
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/is-the-pope-catholic/16911
Do you think the ACNA Church community might be more in line, then, Peter, with Mr. Douthat's advice for Pope Francis? I don't like Douthat's thesis either, but probably on different grounds from yours.
Here's wishing you a Blessed Michaelmas!
Coincidently, I was sent this link myself only yesterday in response to this piece by Ross Douthat:
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/is-the-pope-catholic/16911
Hi All
Thanks for comments.
Am travelling so 'irregular' re access to emails to upload comments.
(Yes, WiFi is just about everywhere - but time to connect may not be of the essence when the next mode of transportation needs to be caught!!)
Why would Episcopalians care about the insults thrown around by a right-wing literary hack like Ross Douthat? We hear similar stuff from people like him all the time. Who cares..?
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
Golly, Kurt
I hadn't realised the august NYT had starting employing 'hacks'!
This is the NYT of 2015, Peter, not 1915...Most of them--liberals as well as conservatives--are hacks. Believe me, I know.
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
On this particular matter, Kurt, I am not going to argue with the judgment of a man whose address is "Brooklyn, NY" :)
Hi Peter, I suggest that Ross Douthat's comments, though polemic-leaning, are not really directed at TEC, other than in a quick poke. The Catholic Church does not usually see synods as having much to interpret in terms of sacred tradition. This is really the preserve of the magisterium and the supreme pontiff in that particular role. I doubt that the Pope is doing anything different, but Ross Douthat sees a devolution. Ultimately, Francis is not young and the next conclave will be the test. In the past, we have not had social media for key board warriors of all persuasions to predict, cheer or moan. Francis does not use the internet and and I suspect that people like Ross Douthat read more into his silence than is there. Clearly, he has advisors, but even Fr Lombardi has indicated that you cannot catch a moonbeam in your hand.
Nick
Hi Nick
As always I understand that change (or 'change') comes in various forms to Western Catholicism, and sometimes the media gets excited about one form of it (e.g. attitudinal statements by the Pope) because they think it betokens another form of it (e.g. canonical or catechetical revision). The point being that something hasn't really changed/'changed' until changed in all ways.
Nevertheless Francis seems to be 'up to something' with the way he is going about things!
Thanks, Bryden, for the link to a critique of Douthat's conservative Roman Catholic assessment of Pope Francis' eirenic approach to issues of concern in the world of today. Here is a lovely comment:
"Francis has a completely different strategy for changing the culture. Instead of arguments, he wants Catholics to offer the witness of a consistent Christian life. Instead of denunciations, he wants them to open up a personal dialogue with opponents. As he told Congress, to much applause, “there is another temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners”. -
(See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/is-the-pope-catholic/16911#sthash.9m0UnpCN.dpuf) "
Conversion by loving persuasion speaks louder than critical judgement
Interesting - perhaps especially for Nick in this particular argument - is the fact that, when he recently visited and applauded the latest conservative Christian who was imprisoned for refusing to go along with the US State's requirement to bear witness to Same-Sex Marriage; Pope Francis expressed the opinion that the individual conscience needs to be respected.
In light of that public statement; the Pope might be challenged on the R.C. insistence on no freedom of conscience in the matter of abortion - whether for urgent medical or social reasons. Does Nick have an answer to this particular Roman Catholic dilemma, I wonder?
I think that, perhaps inadvertently, Papa Francisco might have made his most fundamental statement about religious feedom yet!
Here is yet another view of Ross Douthat's 'Catholic' journalism:
http://religiondispatches.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=9484d4afd3e0323b1a58540bb&id=d1aa439787&e=ad9f02c21c
Douthat's is not a typical Catholic view, if the statistics on the U.S. catholic's use of the contraceptive pill are anything to go by.
Fr Ron,
Conscientious objection is a principle sometimes recognised in law as an "out" for something that a citizen cannot, in good conscience, do on behalf of the state. For example, the German state used to have compulsory military service and allowed conscientious objectors to perform civil service; in hospitals and the like. The fundamental problem with your suggestion is that the Catholic Church as throne of Peter cannot leave sin to individual conscience (that's TEC-esque). The Church is not empowered to change God; and abortion for us is a crime against Him; all the worse because it "terminates" those who are the most vulnerable. The Pope did not judge the person you mention, though I understand that she has married more than once.That is the message to understand from our Pope. Nothing more.
Nick
Thanks, Nick, for your answer to my dilemma. I can see why the Roman Catholic Church is often accused of 'casuistry'.
Fr Ron,
Interestingly, we might agree on one thing. Ms Davis should be doing her job in accordance with the law of Alabama. The fact that I (and presumably she) think ssm is an oxymoron and/or grotesque must be irrelevant. Apparently she cannot be sacked because the position is voted in. That's the US. Sometimes more ridiculous than Hollywood!
Nick
Nick, do you think the recent 'coming-out- of a 'mid-grade' theologian from the Vatican's theological think-tank will do anything to enable your Church to come to terms with the reality of Gays within the higher echelons of the R.C. Church?
Fr Ron, I suspect that the Vatican is well aware that some priests are homosexual. No-one cares. The key here is that priests must be celebate regardless of their preference. Priests cannot justify breaking their vow by playing the pink card. The point of the publicity stunt is not clear. So do I think one priest breaking his vow will change anything? No, though it has been far easier for priests to be relieved of their vows than for married people to receive an annulment. That might have changed.
Nick
Thanks, Nick, for your reply.
Perhaps, now that the reality of Gays in the Vatican has 'come out', the Church will be more able to understand the reality of Gays being called by God to be clergy in the Church - bishops included.
However, I do know about the embargo on sexual activity being part of the Vow of Chastity. There is, of course the view, held by some married persons in the Church, that 'chastity' technically covers those partners in a marriage who engage in sexual activity only with each other. Would you disagree with that? What is your Church's view?
Umm, Ron, wherever that view of chastity comes from, it is not the view of the great Christian tradition, is it?
That must be the strangest understanding of chastity I have ever heard of in my life.
But perhaps I move in limited Christian circles?
I'm surprised you hhaven't heard of this understanding of 'chastity' before, Peter. It has been used by the Religious Right' of their own heteroseuxal mariage relationships. It seems that sexual activity for them, is actually 'chaste". I know how ridiculous this sounds to a logician like yourself, but, think about it - in terms of what the righteous think of as being spiritually 'chaste'.
Re may last posting on the word 'chaste': from the Oxford English dioctionary:
" 'CHASTE' - abstaining from extra-marital or from all, sexual intercourse".
So, there you go, Peter. Intercourse in heterosexual marriage is considered by our best scholars to be 'chaste'. BUT, not same-sex, monogamous, sexual activity!
Hi Peter. The See of Peter conveniently publishes all catechetics and dogma on the Vatican website. Fr Ron can answer his queries there. The vow for priests is one of celibacy not chastity.
Nick
Ah! Thanks, Nick. That explaims a lot !
Post a Comment