TFTD: The ME Magisterium

Read more »

TFTD: The ME Magisterium

Read more »

TFTD: Cafeteria Catholicism Isn't Only Liberal

Preliminary Note:

It is not my interest to defend Bishop Hubbard and claim everything in Albany is hunky-dory.  It is my interest in speaking out against what seems to be a growing distraction among Catholics seeking to be faithful to the Church – a distraction which seems to set aside Magisterial authority whenever one does not like the political implications of what is said.

Whenever Catholics judge a teaching from their political slant instead of judging a political view from Church teaching, there Catholics have lost their way.

Those of us who seek to be faithful to the teachings of the Church need to realize that dissent isn't something which only happens to others.  The Pharisees were pious men, seeking to be faithful to the teachings of the law, but their views were not in keeping with the holiness God calls us to.

I don't say any specific Catholic is guilty of this, but I do say all of us are obligated to examine our consciences daily and examine our political views to see if they are contrary to the teachings of the Church.

So any reader who thinks I am indicting any specific Catholic interprets me wrongly.

With Growing Concern

One thing the whole budget squabble brings home is that Cafeteria Catholicism isn't only a liberal thing.  Conservatives may not dissent over moral issues, but I think the issue of the social teachings of the Church are overlooked.  Moreover, I think that like liberals, conservatives also make use of the genetic fallacy, with both writing off the statement of a bishop because he is identified with a disliked political stance.

For example, Bishop Hubbard's July 26 statement to the House of Representatives is derided by some bloggers on the grounds that he is a liberal who did not act against Governor Cuomo in some of his public sins.  Maybe that accusation of liberalism is true, maybe it is not (one thing I've learned from the blogging experience is we don't always know what goes behind the scenes).  Either way, that does not mean his statement is false just because he is accused of being liberal. 

In fact, I find his three points to be in keeping with the Church teaching as a whole:

1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity.
2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first.
3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times.

In other words, budget cuts can't disproportionately affect those in need of our help.  If a cut will prevent those from receiving what is needed to survive, it is not a budget which protects human life and dignity.  I don't see anything in these points (or in the whole statement) which was not stated in Caritas in Veritate.

What we need to remember is this: There can be debate over what the best means are to be faithful to the social teaching of the Church.  There can't be debate over the Social Teaching of the Church.

We need to avoid the error of reductionism.  Just because socialistic programs in government may share certain points with the Catholic Social Teaching, it does not follow that the position spoken of by a Catholic Bishop is "nothing but" support for a socialistic program.

Now, I am not saying it is evil to be conservative (I'm sure most liberals would label me as one for example, and I think Obama's regime has been disastrous for the moral and religious state of this nation).

However, I am saying it is evil to ignore Church teaching on a subject.

Each person will have to look to the teaching of the Church and their own political views and see if there is a need for conversion .

TFTD: Cafeteria Catholicism Isn't Only Liberal

Preliminary Note:

It is not my interest to defend Bishop Hubbard and claim everything in Albany is hunky-dory.  It is my interest in speaking out against what seems to be a growing distraction among Catholics seeking to be faithful to the Church – a distraction which seems to set aside Magisterial authority whenever one does not like the political implications of what is said.

Whenever Catholics judge a teaching from their political slant instead of judging a political view from Church teaching, there Catholics have lost their way.

Those of us who seek to be faithful to the teachings of the Church need to realize that dissent isn't something which only happens to others.  The Pharisees were pious men, seeking to be faithful to the teachings of the law, but their views were not in keeping with the holiness God calls us to.

I don't say any specific Catholic is guilty of this, but I do say all of us are obligated to examine our consciences daily and examine our political views to see if they are contrary to the teachings of the Church.

So any reader who thinks I am indicting any specific Catholic interprets me wrongly.

With Growing Concern

One thing the whole budget squabble brings home is that Cafeteria Catholicism isn't only a liberal thing.  Conservatives may not dissent over moral issues, but I think the issue of the social teachings of the Church are overlooked.  Moreover, I think that like liberals, conservatives also make use of the genetic fallacy, with both writing off the statement of a bishop because he is identified with a disliked political stance.

For example, Bishop Hubbard's July 26 statement to the House of Representatives is derided by some bloggers on the grounds that he is a liberal who did not act against Governor Cuomo in some of his public sins.  Maybe that accusation of liberalism is true, maybe it is not (one thing I've learned from the blogging experience is we don't always know what goes behind the scenes).  Either way, that does not mean his statement is false just because he is accused of being liberal. 

In fact, I find his three points to be in keeping with the Church teaching as a whole:

1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity.
2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first.
3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times.

In other words, budget cuts can't disproportionately affect those in need of our help.  If a cut will prevent those from receiving what is needed to survive, it is not a budget which protects human life and dignity.  I don't see anything in these points (or in the whole statement) which was not stated in Caritas in Veritate.

What we need to remember is this: There can be debate over what the best means are to be faithful to the social teaching of the Church.  There can't be debate over the Social Teaching of the Church.

We need to avoid the error of reductionism.  Just because socialistic programs in government may share certain points with the Catholic Social Teaching, it does not follow that the position spoken of by a Catholic Bishop is "nothing but" support for a socialistic program.

Now, I am not saying it is evil to be conservative (I'm sure most liberals would label me as one for example, and I think Obama's regime has been disastrous for the moral and religious state of this nation).

However, I am saying it is evil to ignore Church teaching on a subject.

Each person will have to look to the teaching of the Church and their own political views and see if there is a need for conversion .

TFTD: What If The Antichrist Isn't What We Expect?

Antichrist 1. Person who will appear in the last days in fulfillment of apocalyptic prophecies to destroy the church and slaughter the saints of God. 2. Spirit of opposition to Christ as expressed in persecution of Christians or restrictions on the free expression of Christian faith.

Kurian, G. T. (2001). Nelson's new Christian dictionary : The authoritative resource on the Christian world. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Pubs.

Thought For the Day

I'd been reading some apocalyptic Christian fiction (the wretched Left Behind and the mediocre Father Elijah).  The general presentation of the Antichrist is a sort of charismatic liberal type who makes some modest proposals which leads the world to a Black Helicopter UN dominated world where Christians are targeted if they hold to their faith.  Many nominal Christians, in this view, are deceived and led to apostatize.

Now there's nothing necessarily wrong with this view.  It merely reflects the concern over deep moral errors the world is falling into in this time.  It also reflects the interpretation of 1 John where the antichrist is said to deny Christ.  Liberals seem to negate Christ as anything more than a good teacher for example.

Yet, would such an Antichrist really be anything more than a physical threat?  The Christian trying to be faithful would most likely immediately spurn the message.  Some might compromise out of fear and then be sorrowful.  But would such an antichrist be a threat to the salvation of Christians?

But in reading these works, I was struck with this thought.  What if the Antichrist isn't a Obama-like liberal but is instead a conservative?  What if his message isn't some sort of terrifying Fascist/Communist monolith, but is instead a conservative who merely wants us to "burn a pinch of incense" at the altar of expedience, to compromise our faith slightly.  To perhaps encourage the faithful to side with a view that appeals to our conservative beliefs but goes against Church teaching.  What if those who refused to go along with this sort of a view were the ones singled out and attacked as standing with the liberals?

Wouldn't that be a danger to many men and women trying to be faithful?  That they might be tempted to compromise slightly – especially if they were convinced the Church was filled with corruption?

Now this Thought for the Day may be completely without merit.  But I do think it is a danger to assume that the only threats to the faith come from the political Left.  Any view, whether Conservative or Liberal, which runs contrary to our faith is to be rejected.  None of us should think that "Because I am not [X], I will not be deceived."

Let us remember the warning of St. Paul:

^12 Therefore, whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall. (1 Cor. 10:12)

TFTD: What If The Antichrist Isn't What We Expect?

Antichrist 1. Person who will appear in the last days in fulfillment of apocalyptic prophecies to destroy the church and slaughter the saints of God. 2. Spirit of opposition to Christ as expressed in persecution of Christians or restrictions on the free expression of Christian faith.

Kurian, G. T. (2001). Nelson's new Christian dictionary : The authoritative resource on the Christian world. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Pubs.

Thought For the Day

I'd been reading some apocalyptic Christian fiction (the wretched Left Behind and the mediocre Father Elijah).  The general presentation of the Antichrist is a sort of charismatic liberal type who makes some modest proposals which leads the world to a Black Helicopter UN dominated world where Christians are targeted if they hold to their faith.  Many nominal Christians, in this view, are deceived and led to apostatize.

Now there's nothing necessarily wrong with this view.  It merely reflects the concern over deep moral errors the world is falling into in this time.  It also reflects the interpretation of 1 John where the antichrist is said to deny Christ.  Liberals seem to negate Christ as anything more than a good teacher for example.

Yet, would such an Antichrist really be anything more than a physical threat?  The Christian trying to be faithful would most likely immediately spurn the message.  Some might compromise out of fear and then be sorrowful.  But would such an antichrist be a threat to the salvation of Christians?

But in reading these works, I was struck with this thought.  What if the Antichrist isn't a Obama-like liberal but is instead a conservative?  What if his message isn't some sort of terrifying Fascist/Communist monolith, but is instead a conservative who merely wants us to "burn a pinch of incense" at the altar of expedience, to compromise our faith slightly.  To perhaps encourage the faithful to side with a view that appeals to our conservative beliefs but goes against Church teaching.  What if those who refused to go along with this sort of a view were the ones singled out and attacked as standing with the liberals?

Wouldn't that be a danger to many men and women trying to be faithful?  That they might be tempted to compromise slightly – especially if they were convinced the Church was filled with corruption?

Now this Thought for the Day may be completely without merit.  But I do think it is a danger to assume that the only threats to the faith come from the political Left.  Any view, whether Conservative or Liberal, which runs contrary to our faith is to be rejected.  None of us should think that "Because I am not [X], I will not be deceived."

Let us remember the warning of St. Paul:

^12 Therefore, whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall. (1 Cor. 10:12)

Thought For The Day (TFTD): Confusing Doctrine and Preference

One of the more irritating things I come across in the Catholic blogosphere is the amount of confusion there is over Doctrine vs. Preference.  We see many people throw around the accusation of heresy about things which are not in fact heretical.  There is no obstinate post-baptismal denial about some truth the Catholic faith.  There is no defiance against Church teaching.  Rather the person who throws around the accusation is elevating his or her preferences to the level of doctrine, saying in effect, "I'm right in my practice of the faith.  You do something I disagree with.  Therefore you're heretical (or blasphemous or any other invective)."

Thus people who like Marty Hagen hymns, people who receive the Eucharist in the hand, people who don't have problems with the Ordinary form of the Mass tend to be labeled as anything from heretical to being deceived about the "true" faith.

If one prefers the Gregorian Chant, reception of the Eucharist on the tongue or the Latin Mass of the 1962 missal, fine.  These are elements of Catholicism and so long as they are done from a perspective of what helps them enter a peace of mind to focus on God, that is good.

However, once it becomes an attitude of "I am superior to you!" or "anyone who disagrees is not an authentic Catholic" it is no longer good, but rather it becomes an attitude of pride.

Remember, we're not talking about people who dissent from Catholic moral teaching here.  We're not talking about the Cafeteria Catholic who claims that they are allowed to disobey the Church when she teaches about what we must and must not do.  We are talking about people who fly into a rage because the music director plays Shine Jesus Shine at Mass.

It might not be more than annoyance, but some people go so far as to accuse the magisterium of "heresy."  Such a view is dangerous indeed.  Once we make ourselves the judge of what the Church can and cannot teach, we separate ourselves from the Church when our views part ways from the Catholic teaching.

So let's remember something here…

We aren't the Pope. 

So just because we dislike a thing aesthetically does not make such a thing "wrong."  We have no authority to bind what the Church looses, nor the authority to loose what the Church binds.  If a person feels more comfortable to receive the Eucharist in the hand, and the bishop has permitted it in his diocese, you have no right to look down on that person.  Likewise, if we prefer something which the magisterial authority of the Church decides may no longer be done, the proper attitude is obedience, not defiance.

Otherwise we become guilty of true dissent… having a beam in our eye while focusing on the splinter in the eye of another.