Don’t Limit Yourself To The Catechism Alone
When the Catechism of the Catholic Church was published, I remember Mother Angelica telling her audience to pick up copies of it and to use it to inform themselves of the truths of the Catholic faith. While it was right to suggest people should read it, there was coming from her the implication that we were not being told the truth by our bishops and we need this book to tell us all that we have yet to learn. She gave to many a mistrust of the teaching ability of the bishops (and this was not based upon their failings as pastors to deal with scandals like clergy sex abuse, which, though a grave scandal, has nothing to do with their doctrinal authority). Probably the most famous example of her treatment of bishops was with her criticism of Archbishop Roger Mahony. The problem was she entirely misrepresented what he had wrote and claimed, contrary to what was said in it, that he denied the real presence.[1]
What Mother Angelica was suggesting is that if we got the catechism, we would know enough about our faith that we would be able to judge the theological opinions of fellow Catholics, to judge the work of theologians, and even to know when bishops are in error. But her own example of her debate with Archbishop Mahony shows how easy it is for one following such an attitude to be wrong. It is one thing to know the basics of the faith, it is another to engage sophisticated theological arguments. The problem is, people are being told to criticize such arguments without the needed theological acumen to do so, and so, as happens with such situations, people often naively use a heretical misunderstanding of the faith to judge authentic descriptions of the faith — they are not formal heretics, they are just mistaken. But, as history shows (the Protestant Reformation), it is easy for one to go from this level of argumentation into formal heresy, and it is for this reason such work is to be taken very seriously, with humility, and with a willingness to properly understand the position of the other instead of assuming one’s understanding of it.
What I have seen in many circles is a fundamentalistic understanding of the catechism. It is for this reason many people now go looking in the catechism for their faith, and if something is not written in the catechism in any explicit sense, they think there is a freedom to make up what one wants to believe. Perhaps one of the ways this is shown is in the debates about torture: if the catechism doesn’t call waterboarding torture, then we are free to make our own decisions.
This way of using and understanding the catechism, however, is contrary to what the catechism itself says about its purpose and intent. It was never meant to be an exhaustive declaration of everything one can find in the faith. It was not meant to limit theological conversation and to stop theological development based upon the truths we do possess. Take the following text from the catechism, which has is now being quoted again and again by torture supporters as proof waterboarding is fine:
Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law (CCC 2297)
We are expected to be able to read that text, not by looking only at the words used, but to use our reason to develop what is said in it and to see its applicability in real world situations. Those who say they don’t see waterboarding mentioned here remind me of others who say the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible. While waterboarding of prisoners to get information out of them is not mentioned as a specific, what is done is mentioned in this general description — the use of physical violence to extract a confession. If one is unable to use reason to guide their interpretation of this text to see how waterboarding follows the general type being offered in the catechism, then it is difficult to debate and argue with them. And if one had any doubt that their argument is irrational, remember, an argument from silence is a fallacy.
But there is something else also going on. The American individualistic spirit which thinks we can do all things ourselves seems to underlie this argument. But the catechism was not meant to be taken in this fashion. It was always meant to be taken and interpreted in the light of the fullness of Christian doctrine, a fullness which transcends the catechism itself (as can be seen from the fact that the catechism consistently references documents outside of itself to show the sources of its teaching). More importantly, this interpretation is most properly to be done by the bishops, as the catechism was primarily written for them in order to help them guide and teach their flock with a sure outline of the faith. They were expected to flesh out its contents and to create particular catechisms to meet the needs the laity. Thus, we read, “This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms.”[2] This point is reiterated: “This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See. It is meant to encourage and assist in the writing of new local catechisms, which take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to catholic doctrine.”[3]
The quotes above should point out that as a good representation of the faith, the catechism is not meant to be an exhaustive. It was not meant to silence the truth if it is not presented in the catechism. Those who try to take the catechism as their sole reference for the faith, and to limit their faith to what is said in it, have failed to have any real faith. And when they take such silence to allow them to engage immorality, they have become legalists looking for loopholes, not people of faith who understand the faith transcends the words which we use to declare it. And if they keep up in such behavior, they put their very soul at risk.
Footnotes
[1] There are legitimate criticisms one could have had with the Archbishop, but there is no need to make false accusations — there are reasons why she had to give an apology. I myself felt more should have been done, because of her accusation of heresy was false, and she told people to give zero obedience to a Prince of the Church (which suggest she had a poor understanding of ecclesiology and authority).
[2] Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum
[3] ibid.
Comments are closed.
Karl
I don’t think she was the reason for mistrust of SOME Bishops. I think that was already there by some of the laity.
I think she was basically responding to the “That has Changed Because of Vatican II Crowd” which were ramapant.
Further since she had a whole network devoted to all sort of differnt topics from Theology, to interview shows, to prayer I am sure she was not wanting people to limit themselves to the Catechism
jh [ed. sorry, I don't know if you mind being called by your name or not, so changed to jh]
I watched her promotion of it in the 90s, and his presentation of it was indeed as I characterized it. Which is what was sad. And indeed, her mentality was to mistrust bishops; a Franciscan telling people to give zeroobedience to a bishop indicates someone who has neglected basic Franciscan spirituality. One could kindly ask questions and there could be creative fidelity involved with such interactions, but when the zero obedience was told for a letter which was not even heretical, then something is wrong. And it is that mentality which we see many places: catechism this, catechism that, it’s not in the catechism, etc. That’s not what the catechism is for — but her promotion of it was just that.
Oh you can call me James lol.
Karl I think it was of course a tense time. She had several run in with some Bishops (mostly behidn the scenes) that would have like to see her station destoryed. They were playing rough she responded.
She also apologzied. She was not perfect. However her lifetime of mistakes did not equal one week what we saw in the National Catholic Reports, U.S. Catholics, and various “mainstream” Catholic publications that were were much in your face with disobedience.
THe reason the Catechism was huge on her show (it was not the only thing) was because it was just being introduced. There was also a false understanding promoted by some that this was not for the Lay people as much as it was was for Bishops and Theologians etc etc. That it was not a people’s document. So she countered that.
In the end the Mahoney incident is where she misstepped , (though I think she was right that the pastoral was not great).
As I have said I have seen a ton more dissent in U.S Catholic and America at times.
James,
Ok (btw, It’s Henry, not Karl) — Henry C. Antony Karlson III — so either Henry or Karlson is fine, though I prefer first names instead of last, but I accept either.
As for her “apology” in her “apology” she went back on the attack which shows it was not an apology per se. “I’m sorry, but you are a heretic” is not an apology. Basically, the problem is, she thinks discussions on communion should only be limited to a few givens, but she doesn’t understand that sometimes other things are necessary for discussion. I remember how one of the quotes she condemned as heresy turned out to being from the Council of Trent. One doesn’t go looking to “call out” bishops just because they don’t fit your agenda, and I think her accusing things of being heresy when they are not shows why the letter was needed. To remove such a limited understanding of the faith, and a reduction of it to apologetical concerns. As is well known in the writings of the saints, don’t go using the anathema, declaring things heretical, lightly, because it is likely you who ends up under its jurisdiction.
As the Catechism points out, it is primary for the bishops, and to be used to create local catechisms. Many people, even today, mock the idea of the US Catholic Catechism because “we don’t need it, we have the CCC.” They fail to see that the CCC itself was meant to be used for such creations, and indeed, is still primarily for the bishops to help them as they lead their flocks. But what she was doing was suggesting if one just has the catechism, all questions are answered, all truths are now discerned, in this small little book. And that is contrary to the whole purpose of the catechism — but it is exactly the kind of response we see people having with it, and it is the same people who are also so interested in EWTN. I think the connection is valid, though I would not say everyone who holds that view of the CCC got it from EWTN.
As for the pastoral- she was wrong. The text was not heretical. The issues were not apologetical issues, but pastoral concerns. Indeed, that Catholics still do not understand the fullness of communion and limit it to mere questions of real presence says why the pastoral was needed and is needed.
Are people in large numbers mocking the need for the US Catholic Catechism?
I have no problem with it though I suppose it would be produced by the Bishops conference and if we reproduced any of it on the net we would be all getting cease and desist emails every five miinutes like we do on other mattert (Oh that is another issue of how we fund things :) )
I think the story of EWTN and the Bishops and the Vatican is pretty interesting one whose full story we may never know. Well not at least until Mother and lot of these Bishops and Cardinals go to their reward. Hopefully someone will be around to give the few of us interested in it the details.
However I do think she a much more overall plus and was much needed. She was on in the dark ages before we had the Internet.
I think what made people upset at her was they could no longer control the information flow pretty much. Want to hear what the Bishops are saying? Well lets go live to theei meetings!!
James
I’ve seen it consistently raised in debates on the internet, as well as the “well, it’s not in the catechism” argument. It’s something I’ve experienced so many times, as well as the added misunderstanding of the catechism that everything in it is of the same level of teaching authority (it isn’t). The second, of course, is not to be used to dismiss the catechism, but to point out how difficult it is to interpret it.
“Indeed, that Catholics still do not understand the fullness of communion and limit it to mere questions of real presence says why the pastoral was needed and is needed.”
The Pastoral might have been needed but when the Real Presence was under attack by many it was not clear.
Mother Angleica was wrong for calling it heretical.However that is not the sum of he rlifes work.
James,
“The real presence is under attack” doesn’t mean one needs to only write apologetic works on real presence. And indeed, the text not only affirmed it, it presupposed the real presence. The text was not a theological treatise on the real presence. Again, the Church is not only about apologetics.
Henry
“I’ve seen it consistently raised in debates on the internet, as well as the “well, it’s not in the catechism” argument.”
Well on the need for a new Catechism it might be. I just don’t see that argument a lot but of course I am not one that is likely going to go buy it unless there is new and novel about it. I was not even aware there a debate over this or that one was planned
I understand your concerns on the “well it not in the Catechism argument” I also agree that can be some leeway in interpretation which is one reason I am not decalring left and right that all issues of enhanced interrogation and torture have been decided by the Internet Magisterium.
As to the torture debate as well as other issues I think people that are dealing with this are looking at sources outside the Cathechism. The Church Fathers, Tradition, scripture, the teaching office of the Church. All that is coming into play here.
So In a sense I am not sure how Fundamentalist (a term I think we should use much less) these folks are. I suppose it differs from person to person.
Here, for example, is another magisterial discussion on torture, from the Compendium of Social Doctrine — something which is rarely brought up by the people who quote the Catechism. And yet, as this is actually dealing with social concerns first and primarily, it is also the best place to begin such discussions. What I find in it is that torture is put into the line of the issue of the dignity of the human person, and that is often what is neglected by people trying to loophole a kind of torture into acceptance. That’s all they are trying to do: find a loophole, which indicates the legalism and ignoring the spirit of the law. Why is just one small quote from the catechism what they use to somehow discount the whole discussion in Catholic teaching? Again, it is the fundamentalist mindset, the same which ends up having others say “I don’t see Mary in the Bible.” Nonetheless, to the Compendium, which I think raises even more questions if one looks carefully at what it says:
——
404. The activity of offices charged with establishing criminal responsibility, which is always personal in character, must strive to be a meticulous search for truth and must be conducted in full respect for the dignity and rights of the human person; this means guaranteeing the rights of the guilty as well as those of the innocent. The juridical principle by which punishment cannot be inflicted if a crime has not first been proven must be borne in mind.
In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed: “Christ’s disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer’s victim”.[830] International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances.
Likewise ruled out is “the use of detention for the sole purpose of trying to obtain significant information for the trial”.[831] Moreover, it must be ensured that “trials are conducted swiftly: their excessive length is becoming intolerable for citizens and results in a real injustice”.[832]
Officials of the court are especially called to exercise due discretion in their investigations so as not to violate the rights of the accused to confidentiality and in order not to undermine the principle of the presumption of innocence. Since even judges can make mistakes, it is proper that the law provide for suitable compensation for victims of judicial errors.
“Christ’s disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer’s victim”.[830]
This is an important quote, and footnote 803 points to an address by Pope John Paul II in Geneva 1982 available in Italian:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1982/june/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19820615_red-cross-geneve_it.html
…and French:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1982/june/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19820615_red-cross-geneve_fr.html
Unofficial English translations are available (I don’t have the links handy).
Whatever
While I let your reply through, because I found it is a good one, we generally want people to have a consistent name (we understand nicknames) but also if have such a nickname, a real address is put in the reply. There are many reasons for this, among which, it ends up helping create a more healthy comments box. Nonetheless, your reply is good and indeed, shows a point I was making — don’t limit oneself, but explore and read the sources of quotes if a document is quoting someone!
Excellent Henry. You should send this to Arroyo.
Ronald
Hopefully he looks in on VN from time to time — I’m guessing he does, if for no reason, we mention him often. But I could be wrong.
Mother Angelica told people to read the Catechism because no one in the past 3 or 4 generations has been taught the faith, and so they know nothing about it. The Catechism is the best place to learn!
And it’s not my experience that people read the Catechism and then make things up to believe. Where do you get that idea, other than this debate about torture? People do misread things, though, and as you say they should listen to the Bishops. The problem is the Bishops are all-too-often quiet, unwilling to correct misreadings or misapplications of Catholic teaching.
But this is not a uniquely American problem, as you suggest. Europe lost the faith even before America did (religious observance is practically non-existent over there).
Zach
Actually, the catechism is not the best place to learn, because it was not meant to be that — which is why it was primarily written for bishops. It assumes a level of theological competence, which, with your “generations of no one being taught the faith” claim (entirely false!) makes it even more not the text for them. As was pointed out, LOCAL CATECHISMS are those texts. As for where I get the idea? I have constantly had people tell me “that’s not in the catechism” for all kinds of things, from things within canon law, to discussions of Christology.
So you are telling people you claim are not trained to take a book which at least expects a moderate level of knowledge of the faith and tell them just to pick it up and it will teach them all things. That’s dangerous. And if you ignore the very fact that the catechism is not offering teachings of the same authority, there are all kinds of issues which rise up from that. Of course, people can and should read it, like they can and should read the Bible. But what kind of reading is it that one is expected to have of the Bible? A communal one.
I read the article “Ethical Experts Love Torture”
yesterday and this article Sat. morning.
Basically, where are the bishops on this issue?
Anybody can say they are a Catholic, create
a webpage, write comments. You may find a
person you agree/disagree with. You may
be confused. Should not the bishops speak
and direct then? I ask this question with
shrugged shoulders, not a slap in the face.
I know when you write something people can
read it in a lot of ways. Whether torture
or the CCC, have bishops made it clear what
is wrong or don’t expect to find everything
in the CCC?
Curt,
The thing is, the bishops have said things, but often ignored when they say things — because there is a general distrust to the bishops which has been given to us by our culture.
Here is one such example: http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/TortureIsAMoralIssueCatholicStudyGuide.pdf
Or http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/landminestorture.shtml
USCCB POSITION ON TORTURE: The Church respects the dignity of every person. This respect must serve as the foundation of the pursuit of security, justice and peace. There can be no compromise on the moral imperative to protect the basic human rights of any incarcerated person even in time of war. While the Conference shares the concern of lawmakers and the Administration for the safety of U.S. soldiers and civilians abroad, it rejects a morality based on attitude that “desperate times calls for desperate measures” or the “end justifies the means.” The reported abuses and practices undermine the effort to combat terrorism. The guidelines contained in the Senate version reflect a conviction that our nation must treat our prisoners as we would expect our enemies to treat our own military personnel.
And they promoted this: http://www.nrcat.org/ (an inter-religious initiative: http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2006/06-215.shtml )
Sadly, as I said, people are not listening. But I think you are right, there is a problem with the blogosphere.
Henry (or anyone else),
Do you have any ideas where I might find out more about Mother Angelica’s criticisms of Mahoney on the Eucharist? If she actually ended up condemning a quote from Trent, this could be very useful stuff for my doctoral dissertation. Part of my work involves correcting popular misconceptions of Eucharistic presence that obstruct ecumenical dialogue, but most of the info I can gather is anecdotal. If EWTN had its eucharistic theology messed up by an overly polemical approach this would be a great example of what I am trying to highlight.
Curt that is a good question
Also it should be noted that a huge person in this debate has not weighed in. That is Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the Archdiocese of the Military. Now I can see why he has not weighed in for many reasons. His position is unique. So perhaps it is not proper for him to weigh in but it does strike me that the various Military Archdiocese around the world have been somewhat silent on this issue.
What should we make of that?
Further on the specific practices we are talking about (it is not just waterboarding) the Bishops seem not to be unified at all or have been silent. I think there are reasons for this. That is no matter how much we want too the Church takes its time before often declaring something off limits.
We see that as to bioethical issues recently where the Church at the very least raised a huge caution flag as to embryo adoption or rescue. Yet the Church does not feel (if I am read it correctly) in exactly saying this is all off limits.
Just for the record I went to the EWTN gift shop and they do sell the United States Catholic Catechsim For Adults
“Likewise ruled out is “the use of detention for the sole purpose of trying to obtain significant information for the trial”.[831] Moreover, it must be ensured that “trials are conducted swiftly: their excessive length is becoming intolerable for citizens and results in a real injustice”.[832]
Officials of the court are especially called to exercise due discretion in their investigations so as not to violate the rights of the accused to confidentiality and in order not to undermine the principle of the presumption of innocence. Since even judges can make mistakes, it is proper that the law provide for suitable compensation for victims of judicial errors.”
Here is a good example of where things get complicated. Where we are dealing with various situations , different levels of authority, and perhaps situations where the Church is not envisioning every scenario
Lets recall the Scooter Libby Trial. There was a New York Times reporter that refused to reveal her sources. The Judge said in Contempt off to jail you go into you spill the beans. She was in jail for just more than a few days.
I am not sure at all the Church is ready to declare that off limits. If it has I have rarely heard this argument used that the Judge X is violating Catholic Teaching. Now technically she was not the “accused” but she in reality she became a defendant when the Judge issued the contempt order.
The questions then in a related matter is how does this all apply to enemy combatments.
James
I think putting people into prison for the sake of information and nothing but getting information is indeed wrong — but is that really what was going on with the Libby case?
Good post, Henry. I think the American “EWTN” Catholic’s approach to the catechism is very much like a Protestant approach to scripture. It shows once again the all-encompassing nature of the Protestant culture in the United States. The literalism displayed toward the constitution in the secular sphere is yet another example.
The problems with EWTN go far beyond the attack on Mahony. EWTN represents itself as a Catholic channel, but it has no official recognition (just as Vox Nova is not an officially recognized Catholic blog!). And while most of its content is unobjectionable (if lacking much rigor), there are real problems. Most of these problems stem from a small cohort with a political agenda that is not fully aligned with the totality of Church teaching – people like Arroyo and Carapi. I hear from credible sources that these problems are on the radar screen of the US bishops.
The defense of torture is something that cannot be ignored, and will not be ignored. Something will have to be done to undo this scandal. I also heard from credible sources that the Vatican was highly disappointed in EWTN during the Iraq war for totally ignoring what the pope had to say on the matter, and defending American propaganda instead.
MM
Right, I think the problems go beyond the criticism of Mahony, but the fact that they got away with it I think is what allowed them to have more power to ignore other directives of the Bishops and to keep promoting moral rot like we have seen with their promotion of torture supporters and given the torture supporters free reign to present their view without criticism.
MM, Isn’t the Vatican giving double messages when it gives an award to the founders of ewtn? If I remember correctly Mother Angelica and a Deacon received an award several months ago.
Also, there are many shows hosted by converts and reverts who bring with them the same sort of narcissistic worldview that separated them from the faith in the first place. They seemed to receive the gift of Grace to return but then progressed no further in their individualistic interpretation of the faith. They also have much invested in their individualistic organizations formed around spreading the “truth” and solely rely on that as a source of their material needs.
I have attempted to converse with them about the lack of love I have observed in the judgemental and hostile tone of expressing the “truth” and how this mutates the Truth into something that is no longer the Truth. However, so far it has been like hitting the proverbial brick wall because their defenses aggressively protect them from anything that appears threatening to their core unconscious belief systems about self, others and the world.
There is so much hostility in this narcissistic spirituality that is rationalized as self-righteous indignation and it protects them from feeling vulnerable and afraid. If this narcissistic defense were to be removed it would result in the annihilation of the identity and create an inner state of terror similar to a waking nightmare or psychosis.
R.D. Laing wrote that people are afraid of three things: death, people and what is in their own minds.
Ronald,
The Vatican often gives all kinds of awards, and sometimes for good work in X without it implying universal assent. Indeed, they present why we cannot be dualistic and think all or nothing, and why there can still be good with EWTN even with their errors. That, at least, is how I look at it — they are rejecting the strategy which EWTN and many others wants to promote by being critical and yet capable of recognizing some good.
Well No media outlet is beyond critcism and that is the problem with a good bit of Catholic media. Everyone goes into their repsective Corners.
The problem is I have no doubt if the United States Catholic Bishops Conference got the keys to the EWTN network tomorrow the whole network (including its global SHortwave Service) would be bankrupt in a matter of years. And the Catholic world would be worse off for it.
I am sure some “Vatican” officials are upset with EWTN at times but the Vatican is a big place with all sort of different factions. I am sure that some Vatican officials are upset with America magazine and I am sure some Vatican officals are defending it.
The underlying problem here is that EWTN is such a presence because for some reason it has somehow made it work.
Catholic Media on the whole is I think pretty bad. Just go to the Vatican Web site for example. It would seem that in this day and age the Church would make an appeal (an hopefully) the Laity would respond in a major upgrade of Vatican Radio/TV with all sort of podcasts and other things making it more available for World. So far such changes have been slow.
There is of course all sort of other options. How about LOCAL Catholic Radio in the Dioceses. We have seen success with that in some areas. The underlying problem is of course getting a product out that Catholics will support with their money.
The problem is that it appears Catholics do Media bad (at least in the USA) and Protestants do media good. The fact is I don’t find many mainstream Catholic publications as good or as informative as the Evangelical publication “Christianity Today”. Our Catholic version is I guess U.S. Catholic which is a fluff piece or perhaps Our Sunday Vistor which has limitations of its own because of funding.
Some Catholic Diocese newspapers are good and some others are bad.
Again Protestants do media better Which If EWTN is Protestant in any fashion it shares that quality.
As to EWTN I have no idea what the interaction is with the Bishop down there in Alabama and EWTN is. I suspect there is a relationship and a dialouge that goes on since news reports indicated that was viewed as a pretty important appointment because of EWTN/WEWN.
Everyone and every Catholic media can be “better”.
To the issue of EWTN and Iraq there can be criticism. Just like there can be critcism of more progressive Catholic publications that pretty much acted like the second United States Bishops statement on Iraq did not exist after a time.
It does seem to be looking at various Catholic papers in Europe not every difference of views on matters is treated as some “scandal” all the time.
On the other side when EWTN does something good it should be noted. I have read they are reporting from Iraq on the plight of Iraqi Christians at the invitation of Iraqi Bishops.
There is no problem with criticism with EWTN but I do wish the critics would understand there is a way to do criticism. When you are dealing with EWTN there is an Institutional memory there. That is some folks hate its theology and want to shut it down. There is some truth to that. So the way EWTN is engaged like any media is important. I would suggest some conductive engagement with Raymond Arroyo would be in order perhaps. I suspect he is not the sinister person some imagine.
Ronald
I have no objection to the Convert shows and on the whole have found nothing to object to them about.
A word about their profit making actions. I really think some Catholics get way too upset over this. The fact is the reason why Catholics don’t buy Religious books in the same numbers as Protestants is well the overall quality is not good. I think it is ok for people to make a living. In most cases these converts are just talking basic Catholic apologetics 101. I am not sure how individualist that is.
The sad state of affairs is that the American Catholic Church knows little on the whole how to deal with former Protestant clergy and to use their gifts.
See this article
“The Convert Clergy Conundrum”
http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/the_convert_clergy_conundrum/
I just looked at EWTN’s 2008 IRS 990 form (the latest one available). It appears that not only is there conversation between the Bishop of Birmingham and EWTN he is on the Board of Directors or at least as of 2008.
Also it appears ArchBishop Chaput is on the Board of Directors.
So if people have complaints or suggestions maybe folks should be writing them.
jh, I will give an example or two. Kresta in the afternoon. Before the election last year Kresta asked callers to state what advice they would give McCain to improve his image and chances for success in the upcoming debate with Obama. Kresta would then choose the winner. I called in to state that McCain should speak directly to those who oppose him and state that he would provide leadership to obtain healthcare coverage for everybody even if it means subsidizing businesses to help with the costs. He would provide subsidies for businesses to have daycare in the place of business for mothers and fathers in order to maintain a more secure attachment with their children. He would work to provide more education funding for marketable skills to improve opportunities for the poor. He would develop a new strategy to end conflict in the Middle East through better communication and diplomacy.
In other words, he would make it safer for mothers to bring their children into this world. He would do everything in his power to end the violence that intrudes into every woman’s heart every moment of their lives.
The caller who won suggested that McCain announce Giulliani as his secretary of state.
On another show he asked callers to give opinions on why the secular world is attacking the Church so much. I called in and suggested that we Catholics do not love enough and stated that Mother Teresa and John Paul II projected that luminous light of love that can only come from God and that was the basis of their popularity. He then stated, “Oh Ron. I love you brother, but…” like most Catholics I blame myself for the world’s problems and went on a monologue explaining that the purpose of Confession is to get rid of that guilt.
I was silent and he asked if I was still there. I affirmed my presence and stated that I had a rush of throughts during his talk and that it would be impossible to address them. It was then over.
This is typical of other programs. It is shallow, misleading and rigid.
jh, Thanks for the link to the article. I will have a look later. I am going into work for a few hours. Thanks again.
Also thanks for the info about the board members. I will be contacting them as I did the Pope in 2007 to lead us on a pilgrimage to Darfur. However, it seems that everybody interested in a pilgrimage wants to go to the comforts of the Holy Land on a Cruise ship.
You are correct. Protestants do know how to make the faith fun and give holiness to that lust for power.
You’re right to inform people about the nuances of the Catechism and its proper extent, I don’t have any issue with this. My issue with your article is the overwhelmingly arrogant tone and your disturbing tendency to criticize people who may be mistaken about technical theological details (which are important), but whose hearts are clearly in the right place. This is the case with people who are reading the Catechism to learn about their faith, and it’s upsetting to me that you think there’s something wrong with this. Yes, they should be obedient to their pastors, and their pastors to their Bishops, and the Bishops to the Holy See. Obedience is an essential part of Catholic life, and we ought to cultivate it as we can. But we should not spend our time discouraging people from learning about the faith. This is counterproductive.
And my claim that Catholics weren’t taught the faith for the last 40 or 50 years is not an opinion unique to me.
My response – once again, is people are to read the catechism. I have said as much. But that the reading, as with Scripture, is communal. It is not for private interpretation. That is the point. That is not arrogant.
The Catechism says
I think the problem (or at least one of them) is poor punctuation. The pro-torture camp takes this to mean that there are four kinds of torture that are officially condemned.
The question is whether the clause
1. Torture to extract confessions
2. Torture to punish the guilty
3. Torture to frighten opponents
4. Torture satisfy hatred
The passage does not, they claim, condemn torture to extract life-saving information a terrorist has no right to withhold.
The problem with that interpretation is that it means the Catechism doesn’t prohibit torture for sexual gratification, torture for entertainment, or torture just for the hell of it.
The question is whether the part I have italicized is restrictive or nonrestrictive. It seems clear to me that the only reasonable way to interpret the passage is to interpret the italicized part as nonrestrictive — that is, to interpret the statement to mean “Torture is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity,” with the italicized part as nonessential to the meaning. It would have been better if punctuated as follows:
However, as I think is Henry’s point — to analyze passages from the Catechism as if they were passages from scripture or pieces of legislation is to misunderstand the nature of the Catechism.
which uses physical or moral violence
Also, note that the Catechism — in acknowledging torture may use moral rather than physical violence — is not in accord with the the argument put forward in the Bush administration that to be torture, there must be bodily injury.
Ronald, your analysis of the “coverts and reverts” is spot on.
As for the Vatican approach, it’s complicated. Remember, they received a visitation in the 1990s. Seeing the writing on the wall, Mother Angelica stepped down and handed control to a lay board, thus neatly putting the network beyond ecclesiastical control. Had this not happened, it might have been put under interdict.
Brett
Somehow your comment got lost in the shuffle.
It’s been awhile, and many things I cannot find anymore. However, some basic articles can be found here, if you have not found them:
The letter she criticized: http://www.archdiocese.la/archbishop/letters/liturgy/
Sadly, the online edition does not have the notes!
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n6_v34/ai_20067461/ is a brief discussion of what transpired.
Also, some more discussion on this: http://www.losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/1998/0198ms2.htm
And here: http://www.losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/1998/0198ms.htm
While not Mother Angelica, here is a criticism given of it: http://www.adoremus.org/97-11_gft.htm
An interesting conversation. I am an RCIA director and a significant number of Catholic folks (cradle Catholic or convert) are shocked, and I mean truly visibly SHOCKED, to learn that RCIA does not involve simply studying the catechism. Many who have been through RCIA themselves experienced this very thing. When I explain that RCIA is about a spiritual journey and growth in a life of Christ, and that the Rite itself does not once mention the catechism, I am met with blank stares.
What else could one want to know about the Catholic Church, they wonder? I’ve been told by some of them that EVERYTHING someone needs to know about the church is in the catechism. Which doesn’t exactly explain the dearth of papal documents and decrees and encyclicals and so on. Or documents published by the various congregations. Or the existence of the weighty Compendium of Catholic Social Teaching, which most don’t even know exists, let alone have tried to read like they do the catechism.
This is all in my personal experience and I make no attempt to lump people into this image, nor claim that there is anything wrong with turning to the catechism for guidance. But I do unfortunately regularly interact with people who only implement the literal word of what the catechism says without an eye toward the spiritual ramifications to their own lives. Forest, trees, and all that.
DAK
Thank you for your comment, and indeed, though I do not teach RCIA, this attitude is one I have come across in many places, online and offline, and it is a concern that is ever before me as one who is trained to deal with theology in an academic sense. I can always understand why people would start with the catechism, the problem is that is where it also ends.