The other day a reader wrote:
It seems crazy to me to believe that God supernaturally protects the church against errors in faith and morals in very narrowly defined cases, but allows an almost unimaginable culture of abuse and corruption. That makes for a very very weird, legalistic conception of God, IMO.
And the idea that we should defer our opinions on sexual morality to a church whose abuses and corruptions are in precisely that area .... That seems even more crazy.
The depth and extent of the sex abuse crisis is simply astounding. Not in the percentage of priests who were wicked, but in the way the institution covered it up, attacked the accusers, and enabled the abusers to abuse again. It shows that something is horribly, deeply, disastrously wrong at the core of the RCC.
And we’re supposed to believe a bunch of tortured moral analysis from those same guys?
Humanae Vitae would have us believe that there is an important moral distinction between a married couple temporarily delaying conception through NFP and the same couple doing the same thing with some barrier method. It rests on a very weird set of assumptions and arguments. And we’re supposed to accept that from these guys?
It strains credulity beyond the breaking point.
There seem to me to be several notions blended together here. Let’s tease them apart.
First, is the (to me, baffling) claim that saying that the Holy Spirit guarantees that we idiot humans do not muck up the content of the gospel is “legalistic”. I have no reply to that, because I cannot grasp what my reader means. Legalism is the notion that one can be saved by keeping the law, rather than relying on grace. What that has to do with anything here I cannot fathom. Certainly, as Catholics we do not believe that a Pope who transmits the Tradition accurately is automatically bound for heaven. They’ve all done that. They can’t help it: they have been given the charism of infallibility. But they can still be scoundrels and fail to practice what they preach. So how this amounts to legalism, I simply don’t know.
Second, there is the notion that the Church’s teaching stands or falls with the faith and morals of the Pope and bishops. That would be true—if the teaching of the Church was their personal invention and private property. But, of course, it’s not. It’s a Tradition: a thing they are handing on from others which they themselves did not invent and can neither add to nor subtract from. Bishop, including the Pope, are not prophets speaking from some personal revelation or charism of sanctity. They are merely custodians of the Tradition, regurgitating stuff that the Church has always said. They may not believe, practice or even understand it fully to do that.
Exhibit A: the first Pope, Peter. The guy promulgates the Church’s teaching that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ and not by works of the Mosaic law, one of the absolute pillars of the Catholic faith. In short, he is the guy who tells us that you can’t be saved by legalism. Next thing you know, he’s chickening out on his own inspired teaching at Antioch and Paul has to chew him out and get him back on track (Galatians 2). A Judaizer of the first century could have (and some probably did) say, “It seems crazy to me to believe that God supernaturally protects the church against errors in faith and morals in very narrowly defined cases, but allows the teachers of faith and morals to then ignore their own teaching and avoid eating with Gentiles.” Ironically, such an objection would bind us to… legalism since it would “prove” that we shouldn’t listen to an unstable two face like Peter and his weird teaching!
Paul, in contrast, believed that when the Pope and the Church in council taught something, that something remained true even when the Pope wimped out on it later on due to the fact that he was, in the words of Chesterton, a coward, a shuffler and a snob: in a word, a man. And, of course, we believe the same about bishops who fail to uphold the Church’s teaching.
Humanae Vitae is an expression of the Church’s teaching. It is not Paul VI’s personal opinion. It is basically a restatement of the same thing the Church has always said: God is the author of nature and we can cooperate with the nature he has created, but not thwart the nature he has created. It’s the same logic which says, “If you are fat, eat less and exercise more, but don’t try to lose weight by reinstituting the Roman vomitorium.” The former cooperates with how God made you. The latter tries to strip mine pleasure while defying what God created the body to do.
In short, grace perfects, not destroys or defies, nature. This is not something Paul VI invented in 1968, and though every bishop in the world were in a state of mortal sin it would not change that fact one iota. You won’t get an argument from me about there being something rotten in the Church—just as long as you don’t mean “In those people over there, not me, of course.” The something rotten in the Church is, precisely, seen whenever any one of us finds an excuse to reject what the Church teaches when it touch on something dear to us. That’s not something confined to bishops who ignored revelation and the sense God gave a goose to protect pervy priests. It’s also something we righteous laymen participate in when we use the sins of bishops as an excuse to pretend that some piece of the Tradition we dislike can be safely ignored. The old-fashioned term for that is ad hominem. Ad hominem works when the argument rest on the personal sanctity of the person making the argument. The used car salesman who says, “Trust me” can be refuted if you produce his rap sheet. But the math teacher who says that 2+2=4 is not refuted when you show him to be a drug dealer. The truth that bishops hand along does not depend on their personal holiness, any more than the truth of our salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ was disproven by Peter’s chickenhearted failure to live by his own preaching at Antioch.
A useful thing to recall on the evening our entire Church remembers Peter’s cringeworthy declaration: “Though everyone else deny you, I will never deny you!” Paul’s advice is still sound: “Let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Corinthians 10:13)
Comments
Post a Comment
Mark, When Peter failed it was before he received the Holy Spirit and before Christ breathed on him. Also, his sin was revealed openly. Another point is the truth passed down from tradition is only a fragment of the word of God. The Church and its members are in a constant journey of opening to that Truth and the understanding of the Truth. It is evolving and is not stagnant.
The sexual abuse committed by clergy has a much more spiritual harm than sex abuse by non-clergy due to the power of the sacrament of holy orders.
Very well stated, Mark. Thanks for bringing it to my level with your ‘Shea parables’. I can understand 2+2 and your weighty example. Sensible.
Ronald, exhibit A was after Pentecost. Saul was converted to Paul after Pentecost. The event in Antioch took place after Pentecost. But I agree with the rest of your statement. However, I would add to what you say, the gravity of the sin because they are of holy orders, is also compounded by the fact that they are in authority over us given them by God. But because their authority comes from God and because we understand what has been revealed in totality, we cannot use the sins of those in authority over us as a means to change the system itself which God instituted, because the system is not broken the people are. If I trust God then I must believe that He knows/knew what is/was best for all time and that He instituted a perfect system for us in which is the only way we can be helped. (To not believe this is to not trust God and to lack faith.) But broken people will still do the wrong thing (concupiscence). We will never be the Church Triumphant on earth. That’s for Heaven. But so many seek to create a Utopia (earthly heaven) here, and seem to think that morality can be imposed upon people and that if people are doing the wrong thing it is because their system of governance or religion are wrong and must be changed. (But charity is only comes from the free will.) And we are now seeing that those people will do anything to achieve their goals, even acts of immorality which they despise others for committing but commit themselves in order to gain power so they can impose morality on others. How self defeating. And circular conflict like that is the work of the devil. We haven’t figured out yet we’re the source of the problem. We must look inwards only, towards ourselves if we want a moral society and change the only thing we have a right to change, and the ability to change, ourselves.
One more thing Ronald, if I may add two more points here. Though we only know a fragment of the Truth, the Catholic Church still holds the fullest revelation of the Truth. And, truth does not evolve, it is revealed, and all new revelation, if it is truth, will not and cannot contradict the fullness of Truth as it has already been revealed. This is why certain hot topics of the day will never happen, because they contradict natural law and Truth as it has been revealed by Christ, and by the Holy Spirit and preserved by the Church.
Jennifer…Well stated though think Ronald was referring to Peter’s denial of Christ which occured before Pentecost and Saul’s conversion to Paul. This would make more sense. Also Ronald needed to include your idea that Truth is revealed, not evolved. Liked also your analysis of why the"hot topics” of the day are not going anywhere inspite of the fact certain large and loud elements in the Church would make you think it is only a matter of time…and their adolescent insistance!
I agree with the reader. In fact, I think we should apply this standard to all people/institutions. Let’s see, MLK cheated on his wife, therefore there is no truth to anything he said. What else? The federal government of the United States has done a lot of bad things (e.g. segregation, Native Americans, waterboarding…) so I can dismiss everything the constitution says. (sarcasm off)
Thanks Adele, I was aware of the one comment of Peter being made prior to Pentecost but didn’t want to do what I am doing now and publish a book. But I think it might be beneficial if I post where I am coming from and where I am going with this. Peter’s comment sighted is indeed prior to Pentecost and in fact happened as the Sanhedrin convened an illegal mid-night court to convict Christ, but the scripture readings sighted were all post Pentecost and the occasion in Antioch was post Pentecost, and the comments in those readings are insights based on what was learned post Pentecost. Peter failed Christ both before and after Pentecost, true. But the main point of the message was taken from post Pentecost readings and Peter’s failure of Christ after Pentecost. So the analysis that Peter failed because he hadn’t received the Holy Spirit doesn’t hold water. It is contrary to Truth and it’s a protestant viewpoint. The Holy Spirit gives you courage to do what is right, but does not prevent you from doing what is wrong. Which is one reason why once saved, always saved doesn’t work. In Antioch Peter was disparaging the Gentiles for not be circumcised even though he knew and had been taught by Christ that we are not saved by following the law (legalism) and doing good works, but by faith in Christ risen. If we have faith we will then be compelled out of love for Christ to choose to do good works, but you can’t flip that on its head, because that’s what makes it legalistic. Legalism is the attempt to oblige God into paying us for services rendered. God is Love/charity, He can’t be obliged. What’s more, He’s above us; we can’t force His hand as the Israelites learned when they lost the ark to the Philistines. He chooses to freely give (charity) His Love to us. Our faith is also a gift from Him. And the Holy Spirit is the transmitter of that faith by which we receive the courage to do what is good (works), but the Holy Spirit does not prevent us, as Peter showed us, from choosing to do the opposite, despite the fact that we know better and teach otherwise.
Jennifer, the system is broken. We, as human beings, evolve in understanding the truth according to how open we are to God’s Love. I had the sequence correct with Peter.
Ronald, you have very little faith in God. And I mean that in a loving way. You simply do not trust Him.
Jennifer, I am absolutely amazed by your judgement. That statement is not a loving statement. If it were a loving statement it would be a question instead.
Mark, When Peter failed it was before he received the Holy Spirit and before Christ breathed on him
Not so. Peter’s failure at Antioch (see Galatians 2) was long after Pentecost and well after the events of Acts 15, in which he articulated the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus. That’s Paul’s point: Peter was failing to live by his own teaching. It didn’t mean the teaching was false.
Ronald, Love does not lack offense. On the contrary, the hard acts of love sometimes offend the most. Saying what needs to be said for the sake of the other is more compassionate than doing nothing. And though I may be a bigger sinner than you, if I fail to tell you that you lack faith and trust in God I would have committed a real disservice to you. Think of what more you can gain if you ponder the possibility of what I have said. And if not you, maybe someone else will. That is why I said, I say this out of love. I wish for your benefit, not mine, that you know this. To say God’s system is broken is to deny His omnipotence. If you trust Him and know He is omnipotent, then you will not question the system He instituted, the authority He gave His Church, and the saving power of sacrifice. We shrink away from sacrifice and suffering because we can find no meaning in it and because it’s the hard thing to do. But we do so at our own expense, because to shrink away from sacrifice and suffering is to disparage God and to run from the cross. Every consequence of sin which comes about by the willful misconduct (concupiscence) of humans is an opportunity in which Christ allows us to join in His suffering and become co-workers in the sanctification of the world through sacrifice. Though there is nothing lacking in Christ’s sacrifice, He gifts to us the ability to share in His suffering. This does not diminish the gravity of sin, but shows how God can take evil and turn it on its head, and make something good come from it. You, by saying the system is broken, lack faith in God’s plan of salvation, and seek to change it so as to run from the cross. Ronald, I do not want to start a “hog pile on you”, nor do I wish like many others have said, for you to go away or to be quiet. I expect an open dialog without arrogant puffery from everyone. And these things that I have said, I have no claim to as my own. I am merely repeating what I have learned out of necessity as I too have lacked faith and trust in God and know what it looks like and feels like. I only wish for you and your sake to be in communion with us.
Mark, I am sorry. Thanks for the correction. I misread what you wrote.
Jennifer, since you do not know me and my faith you do not know what you are talking about with reference to me.
Maybe, maybe not, but it was still a good learning experience for everyone.
Jennifer, why can’t you just be humble and admit outright that you do not know me nor my faith and relationship with God? I think that is the lesson to learn here.
Thought I just did in my last post. But I did not say anything untrue with regards to truth and faith in relation to God, which can benefit everyone who reads it, including me, as by sharing what I have learned, I too learn it more deeply. Our system is not broken, we are.
Thanks, Mark, for the insightful post. And thank you Jennifer and Ronald for further illustrating the great disconnect between what is and what is only preceived by those of us who stuggle to journey in faith this side of the Kingdom.
Neil, When there is communication there is no disconnect. When one discontinues communication then there is disconnect and misunderstanding. When one claims to know the faith of another that is also a disconnect. When one claims to know the heart of another that is disconnect. When one claims to know the truth that is also a disconnect because the Truth has not been fully revealed. “What is” only God knows.
A few years back I read in the news about a corrupt police officer. All my life I had tried to obey the law, but now knowing how corrupt police can be I realized they had no moral authority to enforce the law. Was that ever a liberating experience.
Precisely my point, Ronald. It is for us all to seek, with charity and respect for each other. In today’s celebration of the Last Supper we will hear Jesus’s last commandment, to “love one another as I have loved you.” That is a great place for conversation and dialog to orignate from.
Neil, Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you.
Please re-think your definition of “Church”
Ronald, by your logic it sounds like you are saying Truth cannot be known and all truth is relative. I’ve watched you argue for arguments sake on several threads on this website now. You are right; I do not know your heart. But I never claimed to know your heart. My comments were based on your comments, and have nothing to do with the heart, but with the will. And I felt compelled for your sake and anyone else who might read them, to correct the error in thinking and to propose why the error occurred. Please take your own advice when looking for the intent in my comments. It was not pride, but an understanding of having been there myself. And I do know about what I have written when it comes to the connection between truth and faith and lack thereof when it comes to God and His Church. Check the CCC or the bible. I said nothing untrue or contradictory with those sources. You however, did.
EJCM, Am I to understand that you would then advocate for anarchy because you cannot find someone with enough moral authority to enforce law? Why advocate for any law then, since it could be written and imposed by those with no moral authority. Or have I misinterpreted your comments? Please explain what you meant by that.
Neil, to Love is to know Truth. There is no Love without Truth. Happy feelings and sentimentalism was not what Christ was talking about when He commanded us to love one another. He was referring to sacrifice. He was calling us to sacrifice for our neighbor, which is what I am doing for you all here. I am putting my reputation on the line, opening myself up to many criticisms, playing the part of the fool in this world, and enduring being convicted of hatred in my heart when that is farthest from truth, all for the sake of Christ by spreading the Truth of Christ. And look how it turned out for Him. They crucified Him, I expect no less. I now know too how minds can get so twisted as to get to the point where one could commit such evil.
I’m done with this for today. Need to get some work done. Will try to revisit you all tomorrow. Hope you all have a blessed Holy Thursday.
Jennifer, You have no idea what I am talking about. Everything you state about me is your projection of what you believe and not what I believe. One thing is true in what you said and that is what we know about Truth is relative to our understanding of God’s Love.
I just noticed that you lied about me. You stated I argue for argument’s sake. Jennifer, can’t you see what you write? I respond with what I have been blessed to know about God’s Love and the vocation of 30 years in the mental health field with the last 5 years being fulfilled through the revelation of God’s Love.
Truth IS NOT RELATIVE. It is what it is regardless of what we believe or what we are capable of understanding, or what we perceive, or what we think about it. This too is in the CCC. Look it up. You are teaching others in error.
Our understanding of the Truth is relative to our understanding of God’s Love. What is the Truth?
Private revelation must always be tested against what is known and been revealed through Christ to determine who it came from. I think you might have been hood winked.
You asked the same question Pilot asked. He was just as guilty of being wrong.
That is, truth, what is truth?
Once again you assume you know what I know. Every time you make a statement about what you think I believe you have been wrong.
I did not lie, that is my perception of what you have been doing on these blogs.
I see, why don’t you clarify your statements then, instead of making arguments that seem to contradict the truths the Church has preserved and been teaching for the last 2000 years.
If you did not lie about me then what should I name it if you are wrong? I feel sad for you Jennifer. I am sorry.
Jennifer you understood my point correctly, but I was being facetious. I was attempting to underscore Mark’s point in illustrating how crazy the logic of his “reader” is when taken in a different context. If you knew me, or saw me type you would have seen me finish my typing with a ;)
Sorry EJCM, Ronald’s got me on the run here. I obviously got carried away.
“If you did not lie about me then what should I name it if you are wrong? I feel sad for you Jennifer. I am sorry.”
Ronald, why don’t you take your own advice then and take me at my word when I said I did not lie. I order to lie one must have the intent to deceive. I did not. It just seems that you really like to keep people going and me like an idiot right now am still obliging you.
Jennifer, don’t let him make you chase your tail. Ronald takes satisfaction that his truth is his “truth”. You can’t debate the fact with him. He is obviously unable to accept the Truth of the Church and leave it at that.
Jennifer, I am sorry for your confusion and I no longer expect you to understand what I am saying because everything I am saying has been brought together over a lifetime of sin, pain, failure, persistence and God showing me and telling me that He loves me. I will not trouble you any longer. God Bless You this Easter.
EJCM, Why do you think the worst of me? Your statement,“Ronald takes satisfaction that his truth is his “truth”. Wrong. Once again you prejudge and think you know me.
Ronald, thank you for your blessing. And I really don’t mind being an idiot if it helps someone else. But have you ever considered the possiblity that some of what has been revealed to you, you may have misunderstood, considering some of it conflicts with what God has already revealed? Will you humor this poor confussed soul which you pity so much and at least ponder it?
Ronald, now you’re going after EJCM!!! Just stop.
Jennifer, please tell me what I should have said when he makes a statement about me that is false?
Ronald, the fish is wriggling on the line…
He’s making a judgment (right or wrong) based on your words and actions. It is not a judgment about your being or whether or not you are a good person, or what the content of your heart is. We all judge actions based on the totality of knowledge and understanding and process it through our conscience (filter), including you. (Some of us need to check our filters more often than others.) But this is not bad and it is not to be perceived as an offence every time someone calls into question what we have done and said. My advice would be to not perpetuate it and continue on by going round and round with someone else here like you and I have doing all day. At this point it would start to make you look like you have an inferiority complex, when I don’t think you do. I’m glad that I had this conversation with you today, because it has been a real opportunity for me to grow too, but let’s just call it a day now, and go into the Triduum with our focus on Christ, and not our reputations.
Mark you write that: “The truth that bishops hand along does not depend on their personal holiness.” Yet sometimes what they pass on is not true, such as slavery which was passed on by the Church as a truth for centuries.
Yet sometimes what they pass on is not true, such as slavery which was passed on by the Church as a truth for centuries.
For a non-simplistic discussion of the actual story of the Church’s engagement with the problem of slavery, go here.
Jennifer…I think you have work to do…so go do it…you will gain nothing by continuing this circuitous argument. You tried, I am sure many are grateful for your words but enough. Ronald ..go read your Catechism on Truth…even though something tells me you might have to wait until the stores re-open. And EJCM we got your facetious attempt to straighten everyone out. Now say your prayers everybody like the good children you are and enough! GO TO BED!!!!!
Adele, You make the same mistake of assuming you know something about me. I have a well used catechism that is clearly marked for loving and unloving statements.
Hello Mark,
I very much enjoy reading your blog, and am always curious when something of yours is posted on the NewAdvent.org feed. However, after reading your reply to one of the readers I found it uneasy to keep quiet about something s/he said. I tend to share many of your opinions; nevertheless I believe to have noticed you carrying out an extension of exactly what the reader [may have been trying] to express.
Perhaps in earnest you are “baffled” and truly “don’t know” what the reader is talking about when s/he says “legalistic”. However, I feel that I and perhaps many others may have grasped that “legalistic”—and especially as you have defined it—is not what the reader means, not the “spirit of the message”, if you will. What the reader means is most likely something akin to “LEGAL-SPEAK”, or, “BAD-LAWYER-LIKE”, to really make the term more understandable. It refers to a kind of language and rhetoric that takes attention away from the pressing realities and necessity for visible consequences in the form of what we can generally perceive as “justice”, and is ultimately conclusive to distraction from the issue at hand, such as what you seem to have done with your response.
You are likely a very educated person, or at least you have an excellent knowledge of Catholic teaching. Certainly, the deeply scandalized reader may have chosen certain words that less-than-accurately described what s/he was thinking in an effort to elevate his/her language; this is the recourse of many who are met with someone whose language is usually perceived as elevated (or at least more so than their own)... From “[t]hat seems even more crazy,” to “wrong at the core of the RCC,” one can understand that there are visible and reasonable causes for the perhaps-less-than-reasonable anger the reader expresses afterward.
The “truth” is that people “at the top”, people with greater knowledge and a more well-trained capacity for that knowledge, covered up, or ignored, or—in certain direct and indirect ways—were instruments to further harm and CRIME, specifically to victims of sexual abuse by clergy and/or religious. The challenge is to address not the cause (which is OBVIOUSLY rooted in human sin, &c., &c., as you have repeatedly mentioned—and this is OBVIOUSLY addressed by the mission of Christ and His Church), but to discuss the real, actual, and temporal CONSEQUENCES, which you have failed to do in a SPECIFIC way.
This is one thing that this person, and many others, perceives as “wrong”, if not at the core, at least in many a Catholic methodology when it comes to secular, temporal law. This form of “legal-speak” is in fact an extension of the harm done to victims of sexual-abuse criminals; they are given the run-around, and a more complete justice is rarely encountered.
This time the harm is done by people trying to protect something which does not need their protection: the Church, the true Church, fount of hope and salvation, who does not need to be protected from something it does not do, namely, sexually molest people, or cover-up its non-existent crimes. Instead, people who employ this tactic end up protecting criminals, or rather, keep them from encountering the consequences that are necessary for them and for their victims. That is Justice, Mark. Let’s allow Justice to be served. Let’s address the issues at hand and find a way to supply what God has allowed us to endeavor toward as a society.
cf: Mat. 25:45
-JACV
Jaime:
Thanks for your reply. You may very well be right that my reader meant something more like “lawyerly”. And, to be sure, I share his and your frustration with the atrocious way our bishops have dealt with the problem. But the fact remains that an attempt to derive some sort of conclusion about the validity of Humanae Vitae and the Church’s Tradition of moral theology is a sharp left turn from logic. I have no problem with Justice being served. I’ve said many times that the perverts and abusers (and, I suspect, more than a few bishops) need to be behind bars. But that’s up to us laypeople and we have opted not to do it. One way we laypeople (who own all the guns, police, and courts) might achieve greater clarity is to stop using these crimes as excuses for dissenting from the Church’s revelation and instead focus our energy on actually pursuing justice for victims and jail for criminals.
Jaime, Extremely well written. Logic is not the solution. Wisdom is the solution and the Holy Spirit is its source. The hierarchy has not responded with wisdom, instead they have used the logic of primitive survival instincts to defend themselves. Where is the Wisdom?
Mark,
Thank you for your reply. I very much agree with what you say about the attack on Humanae Vitae’s validity. I nevertheless also understand that this leap of/from logic emerges from frustration at the weak and illogical results of this recent and much of the previous cases.
It merely goes to show that as people who have more [knowledge] and a better-trained ability to use that knowledge (these are surely gifts), it is up to us (and by this I don’t just mean you and I—who are laypeople—but also those within the hierarchical structure of the Church) to address confusions of logic in simpler and more pastoral terms.
Because God has given us more, he also asks more of us, no? Indeed the less we say—in certain cases—and the more we choose to act to produce satisfactory consequences, the sooner we can lay the issues to rest. A great majority of laypeople (especially since the majority of Catholics are not learned inhabitants of the industrialized, developed world) are simply not in a position (economic, educational, social, or otherwise) to simply “STOP” being scandalized by actions from the hierarchy that harm the Church and the way it is perceived by so many human beings.
People will almost always be people as long as we live in this world. In the meantime, while those-who-can turn to help the vast majority to achieve great changes, we cannot reasonably expect for people to stop using illogical excuses upon which to base their prejudices at the drop of a hat.
Achieving greater clarity begins with those who have found a necessity for it, those with an ability to consciously choose to speak clearly, openly, and honestly. Not “lawyerly”.
Ronald,
Thank you for your laudatory note… However, I DO feel that “logic” is INTEGRAL to the solution, because Wisdom cannot “make sense” without Logic. The reason we feel a sense of injustice is because these horrible actions are an affront to Logic, which in many ways is an expression of God’s perfection (Logic comes from the Greek “Logos”). It is itself unwise to conclude that the hierarchy as a whole has not responded wisely; surely the Holy Spirit works throughout the Body of Christ, even when we fail to notice it.
Once we have, through Wisdom AND Logic, found a satisfactory solution, we must, through Wisdom AND Logic, apply it.
Jaime, I do not know how to use the computer to write clearer explanations without being rebooted. My point is that in my experience my logic before knowing God’s Love was different than the logic which has evolved since hearing, seeing and feeling God’s Love. The logic that I am opened to at this time is a logic that seems infused with a passionate desire to see everything through God’s Love. Sometimes I forget.
Once again I admire your ability to write clearly and lovingly with tremendous logic that seems driven by Wisdom
Ronald,
That sounds wonderful to me! :)
Thanks Jaime.
Christ said there would always be scandal but that the Church would prevail. The Press needs to investigate the EPIDEMIC of sexual abuse in public schools; that is, if they really care about children and not just about attacking the Catholic Church. And the Press needs to stop calling the scandal one of pedophilia when they know very well the majority of Priests involved were homosexual…what was done to young people in the care of the Church was and is horribly wrong; this is a crime that permeates our society - look at Maciel. He did what he did from within a religious order, as head and founder of that order…sin abides everywhere, but I have to say I am surprised that the Legion continue to fund raise aggressively while knowing that after the Papal investigation it is likely that they will be disbanded and brought under the authority of Rome. Where will the money go - the superiors of Maciel’s order don’t want to step down…if forced to abdicate, will they take the money they are collecting with them? This needs to be investigated…
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.