Whether it occurs within the religious or secular domains, the identification of goodness with subscription to favored political positions amounts to peddling virtue on the cheap.
Recently, while sitting in the pew at the Roman Catholic Church that I attend and listening to the priest's homily, I had a revelation — well, of a sort. To my great disappointment, I was compelled to finally come to terms with a reality of which I've had a lurking awareness for quite some time: the reality that the utopian-oriented vision that has long characterized left-wing politics and is currently embodied by the conventional wisdom of what, for lack of a better term, we can safely describe as our "politically correct" culture, has succeeded in infiltrating, in permeating, such an ancient and venerable institution as the Church that I love.
The priest who presided over the mass is an elderly man who is a professor of religion at a local, but well-known Catholic institution of higher learning. While these considerations suggest that he may very well be a man of a traditionalist bent, the truth of the matter is that his ideological vision is that shared by the overwhelming majority of his colleagues in the liberal arts and humanities departments of colleges and universities throughout the nation. As if his homilies weren't alone sufficient to establish in a heartbeat the truth of this proposition, that he is also a professor of "Peace and Social Justice Studies" banished any possible room for doubt.
This priest, a Monsignor, has endorsed Al Gore's propagandistic Earth in the Balance; derided those of his more conservative religionists, both Protestants and Catholics, who find Darwinian evolution difficult to reconcile with their faith; mercilessly criticized "Big Business" generally and "Wall Street" in particular; and most recently, blamed "Talk Radio" for its alleged fomentation of "hatred" in its attempt to obstruct passage of President Obama's contentious "health care" plan.
Although, as a Catholic, I find the Monsignor's political sympathies disheartening, the mere fact that he has them, by itself, isn't necessarily of any concern. Nor would there be cause for alarm if the Monsignor chose to express his views to his colleagues, whether in the priesthood or the university. There would, however, be cause for alarm if he chose to make it a habit of espousing his ideology from the altar.
And this, in fact, is what he does.
That as stewards of God's creation Christians should aspire to fulfill their obligation to care for the Earth; that they should pay careful and considered attention to the claims of science; that Christians should be concerned with, and unreservedly reject, the kind of invidious greed characteristic of the stereotypical Wall Street titan (as well as the Washington politician to whom this Monsignor wishes to entrust the power to "regulate" those titans); and that they should consider the possibility that, on occasion at least, talk radio hosts may be motivated more by the prospect of financial gain than the desire to tell the truth, are propositions with which I enthusiastically agree.
It is with the fact that from the altar my priest implicitly (and sometimes not so implicitly) identifies his leftist political vision with true Godliness that I take unequivocal exception.
Opposition to President Obama's "health care" plan, the Monsignor would have his parishioners believe, is driven by nothing more than a reckless cabal of "hate-filled," "trouble-making" talk radio hosts who have an interest invested in preserving "the status quo." That he would have his flock think that their willingness to conserve the present placed these talk radio personalities at odds with their Creator is readily established by the fact that during this same homily he claimed that the Bible reveals that God is a God of Change, a "God of the Future."
The Monsignor's dismissal of President Obama's critics on the airwaves as nothing more or less than crass opportunists offends both intellectual and moral sensibilities. At least equally egregious is his insinuation that the millions of Americans — no small percentage of whom, doubtless, are the Monsignor's fellow Christians — who resist with every fiber of their being the President's attempts to further "socialize" medical (not "health") care are nothing but automatons whose every thought and deed are manipulated by those evil talk radio hosts.
Most troubling, though — indeed, intellectually dishonest and morally impoverished — is his implication that Obama's opponents — the talk radio hosts and the legions of American citizens over whom they allegedly exert control — are, by virtue of their shared rejection of left-wing politics generally and the Left's idea of "health care reform" in particular, ungodly.
Although I single this Monsignor out for attention, it is sad but true that he is but a single instance of a phenomenon that pervades our culture generally, and our churches specifically. There is no short supply of clerics, either Catholic or Protestant, who exploit their office in order to promote their leftist politics. There are a variety of reasons in the offing to account for why this practice warrants the strongest condemnation, but there is just one — and not necessarily the most damning — on which I would like to focus.
When the homily or sermon is politicized, holiness is equated, not with the individual's character dispositions, those cardinal virtues that have been prized by Christianity from the time of its inception and which the Christian is required to flesh out in his daily interactions with friends, foes, and strangers, but the policy positions to which he subscribes. This phenomenon has its secular counterpart in the broader culture where it is ubiquitous: the "good" person is determined by the political views that he holds.
But whether it occurs within the religious or secular domains, the identification of goodness with subscription to favored political positions amounts to peddling virtue on the cheap. This is no trade to be encouraged, for if it succeeds in prevailing over its competitors, the sort of character-based moral education at which the Church has traditionally been so spectacular in supplying to its members, an education that inspires individuals to be forever mindful of not just their everyday conduct, but their very thoughts, will give way to a pseudo-education the function of which promises to be strikingly similar to the medieval Catholic practice of selling indulgences. Just as salvation was once guaranteed to all who would but purchase indulgences, so now salvation is guaranteed to all who would but purchase "the correct" political vision.
The problem, however, is that this purchase comes at the cost of neglecting the call for self-realization that morality, and religiously inspired morality especially, issues, for the need to fulfill those responsibilities and obligations that we owe to our friends, families, and neighbors, duties that are decidedly non-political but which comprise "the stuff" of which the moral life consists, will no longer be felt.
My old martial arts instructor once told me that you must learn to walk before you can run. It would serve all moral educators, clerics and non-clerics alike, to remember this. Rather than implore their students to combat the "evils" of "global warming," "racism," "Big Business," etc., remind them of their Christian duty to ask forgiveness of those who they offend, or of their duty to be considerate of the person sitting next to them in the pew who probably doesn't appreciate being bumped in the arm every other thirty seconds by their children.
In other words, before you attempt to send your pupils out to radically alter the world, have them focus on a smaller target — like themselves.
Re: “Just as salvation was once guaranteed to all who would but purchase indulgences, so now salvation is guaranteed to all who would but purchase ‘the correct’ political vision.”
Something similar happened at my church last year during election season. The priest had put up a banner that encouraged people to “Vote Pro Life.” A few got so “offended” at the notion of “being told who to vote for” [even though no names or parties were given] that he was forced to take it down. Never mind that many of us were offended that he did. So, the “morality” that prevailed was the politically correct one.
This new “morality” was originally a secular idea:
“…liberal values such as equality and non-discrimination were no longer judged according to a comprehensive standard of the good … rather, the liberal values were now seen as simply identical with the good, and anyone advocating them as a good person. At the same time, any vestige of perceived inequality or discrimination (that is, anything that still remained of the inherited institutions and habits of our civilization, ranging from the rule of law to national identity to the marriage-based nuclear family to much of the ordinary give and take of daily life) came to be regarded as vicious obstructions to true progress that had to be eliminated, reconstructed, or suppressed. Thus politically correct America wages hysterical crusades against ethnic slurs or sexual comments by private individuals, while shrugging its shoulders at gross criminality and possible treason by the president – if he is seen as a sufficiently ‘tolerant’ and ‘inclusive’ person.
“… Thus the modern liberal regime bans the merest breath of the Christian religion in public schools, while subsidizing student clubs devoted to witchcraft. Thus the mainstream media routinely attack the ‘oppressive’ and ‘racist’ police, while ignoring the criminality of the criminals whom the police are ‘oppressing.’ These inversions of decency and sanity are not the work of anarchists. They are the logical consequence of the central credo of modern Liberalism: that all intolerance and discrimination must be eliminated. In a society dedicated to that proposition, the good itself must ultimately be seen as evil, because the good discriminates against evil, while evil must be blessed with victim status, because it is excluded by the good.
“… Unlike today’s cultural Leninism that defines men’s moral worth as the inverse of their perceived degree of power or of their attachment to established ways of life, traditional morality judges the intrinsic moral qualities of men’s actions, and so is capable of seeing and stopping real evil when it appears. By contrast, as I said at the beginning, a people that defines the good as tolerance must inevitably end up tolerating evil, even the evil of terrorist killers. Indeed, such a people must ultimately lose the authority to enforce any standards at all, since standards can be enforced only by a society’s dominant culture, and a dominant culture, as a dominant culture, is by definition ‘unequal’ and ‘exclusive’ and thus illegitimate.” – Lawrence Auster, “Liberalism: the Real Cause of Today’s Anti-Semitism” [Emphasis added]
What I suspect is that your priest [and mine] are practicing what I call the Gospel in reverse – bringing secular ideas into the church instead of preaching Biblical truths as Jesus commanded his apostles just before his ascension. I am not surprised by your experience because of my own observations at my parish. These days, nothing is said from the pulpit about the basic Christian idea of “truth” and how the “Big Lie” presents itself in today’s political correctness.
Most ironic of all is the furor with which social liberals have assailed the church as ignorant, backward, bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic and intolerant for the last 25 years when it has been associated with the “Religious Right”, juxtaposed with the newfound respect and reverence for religion that overcomes them when the political winds blow the Lord’s blessing onto their pet causes and policy initiatives. States used to be the tool of the Catholic Church. I guess the extra-constitutional phrase “separation of church and state” to which liberals have clung so adoringly only applies when the state becomes a tool of the church – not the other way around.
What today’s historically uninformed conservatives conveniently overlook is that the Roman Catholic church was historically closed linked to the political Right. In the US one is more likely to find evangelical Christians linked with the Right. the larger issue has to do with the political role of religion. There can be no truly apolitical church, because Christian doctrine (like Jewish or Islamic doctrine) permits some things and prohibits others. Religions generate not only a doctrine of salvation but offer an answer to the question o how we are supposed to live, and this answer is, for religious believers, divinely authorized. These answers are closely linked to our lives as citizens.
The belief that Christianity (or any other religion) is somehow purely personal or totally private is not in fact a view belonging to any of the major religious traditions. It was instead one of the achievements of early modern liberalism as a way of defusing the religious disputes that had brought about such massive, bloody conflict in Europe in the aftermath of the Reformation. What Locke and other early liberals did was to privatize religion, eventually leading to the idea that religion is something that is, so to speak, just between you and God. Historical Christianity was never that.
We should expect to find liberal clerics and conservative clerics. We should take for granted that some Christian groups will be on the Left, others on the Right. This is because there are differences among believers as to the proper political inference that follows from a specific religious tradition. Protestations that the Bible or Christianity is somehow ‘beyond’ politics won’t help, because believers will go right on making their opposing claims.
This whole topic belongs under the heading of what is called ‘political theology.’ It is a venerable part of Christian tradition, going back at least to St. Augustine.
Gestell,
Religion, indeed, is “privatized” in the American tradition, at least in so far as religious dictates are not alone sufficient to create or change law. That is as it should be in a society where diversity in religious practices is tolerated. As a matter of internal importance to the church itself, in as much as it is important to the church leadership to inform the political decisions of its congregates regarding matters of public policy relevant to the teachings of the church, “political theology” may, I suppose, have a legitimate function. Of course, as you mentioned, and as this article demonstrates, there is quite obviously disagreement within the church as to which public policy initiatives are or are not consistent with the teachings of the church. And then there is the question of the appropriate extent of the church’s involvement in political and governmental affairs. You argue that church involvement in politics and government is a necessary and proper historical reality. Given the deranged rantings of a Jeremiah Wright or Michael Pfleger, it is patently obvious that the implications of entangling the church with government policy and extra-Biblical social affairs can be, and often are, anything but constructive or reflective of Christian teaching. Was it not Jesus himself who repeatedly insisted that his kingdom was not of earth and who advised the oppressed Jews anticipating his physical overthrow of the Roman oppressors and Millennial reign to remain subservient to the Roman government? It seems to me that Christianity is intended to be exactly what you believe it should not be – an apolitical belief system serving as a means of spiritual redemption.
Actually, Gestell, Christianity is both a private faith and a public expression. In fact, every belief system, whether theistic or atheistic, has private faith and a public manifestation.
We “historically uninformed conservatives” recognize that there is no political or doctrinal reason to be forced to the back of the ideological bus.
No one here is claiming the separation you have identified. Just the opposite, conservatives resent the intrusion of government into matters of faith. “Congress shall make NO LAW…”
Why do I call today’s conservatives ‘historically uninformed?” I do so because many of them don’t recognize that government should–on sound conservative principles–be deeply committed to sustaining the social and political teachings of Christianity. For the believing Christian, these teachings are, by definition, absolutely true. Early modern liberalism invented the ‘privatized’ version of Christianity I’ve already mentioned, but most of the great Catholic conservatives, both in Europe and in the US, have understood the failings–from their standpoint–of that version of Christianity. The American Founders took for granted that a society largely shaped by these beliefs was the social presupposition of the kind of government they created–as many of them made very clear. Now it will not do for conservatives to start talking about religious diversity in the US. Such diversity is a fact, of course, but such a fact should count for little against the claims of absolute truth.
If today’s conservatives want to understand these issues, they need to acquaint themselves with a literature that intellectual conservatives used to know front to back: Richard Weaver, Eric Voegelin, the whole tradition of 20th century conservative Catholic writers, and much more. In that literature the connections between religious heresy (i.e., Protestant Christianity) and liberalism are spelled out clearly, and the need for government to support the theology of order of Catholicism is evident.
Unfortunately, many of today’s conservatives regard talk radio ranters as conservative thinkers, and know little about the traditions they imagine themselves to be defending. Roman Catholicism’s many condemnations of liberalism from the 1860s right down into the 20th century should be read again, as should the philosophical criticisms of liberalism to be found in Voegelin and Leo Strauss, intet. alia.
Last sentence ends with inter. alia (typo)
The Catholic Church has its origins as an institution of the state, and if you regard that as a reflection of the intended function of the church (we’ll leave aside what contorted Biblical justification you draw this “absolute truth” from) then your point is entirely valid.
However, in terms of secular American government, your argument falls apart as soon as you realize that every religion lays claim to absolute truth, they can’t all be correct, and so consequently they can’t all be reflected in the functions of law and government. That is why the American tradition is rooted in what you see as a fallacious assumption of religion as a private practice as a means to salvation rather than, and separate from, an institution of government. What you are suggesting is a beneficent Catholic theocracy. Escaping the church as an organ of totalitarian government is precisely why the first settlers fled Europe for America. It’s hard to make the case that American conservatives are “historically misinformed” when you are advocating something so completely antithetical to the American constitutional form of government that it begs the question of whether you are even acquainted with the text of the document.
I’m well aware that the Constitution sets up a government that does not decide among, nor choose to promote, one religion over others. I’m mildly amused at conservatives invoking this argument, given the dependence conservatism has upon the voting strength of the religious Right. My more fundamental claim is that traditional conservatives have always had available to them a profound criticism of the very principles of the American regime. The conservative thinkers I’ve mentioned make clear that there are ways in which the American founding took a very wrong turn in trying to avoid the harsh necessity to embody a substantive moral and religious teaching in its government.
There is a strong revival of interest among Roman Catholic scholars of the traditional Church skepticism, if not full-blown rejection, of liberalism and all its works. A Catholic case against modern liberal democracy is made by Robert Kraynak in his well-received book “Christian Faith and Modern Democracy” (Notre Dame University Press, 2001).
Just so readers are clear, I am neither a Catholic nor a conservative, but I have studied the history of conservatism for a number of years. Truly principled conservatism rejects many, arguably most, of the distinctive features of the modern world; certainly modernity’s political, moral, and cultural tendencies can have no true admirers among conservatives. When did the decline start? Go back and read Weaver’s “Ideas Have Consequences.” He claimed that the West has been going wrong since the 13th century. Renaissance, scientific revolution, Reformation, Enlightenment, and the politics associated with all of these movements, stand condemned by the standards of the Western philosophical and religious tradition. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings.
Heresy is in the eyes of the beholder. Catholic doctrine in itself is worthy of examination for its departure from biblical teaching in favor of tradition.
“My more fundamental claim is that traditional conservatives have always had available to them a profound criticism of the very principles of the American regime.” You are forcing a definition of conservatism that most conservatives would reject, for fundamentally, conservatism is based on the founding principles of America as articulated by our forefathers.
Conservatism at its root seeks to conserve America’s founding principles. Any discussion of prior conservatism is nonsensical.
What the Constitution articulates is a form of government, not a basis of religious understanding. The Constitution is only a part of the framework which establishes this nation and its attendant cultural manifestation.
Gestell,
What you are describing is the philosophy of “Paleoconservatives”. You have to understand that “conservative” and “liberal” are relative terms – they have to be defined by some standard. So-called “Paleoconservatives” identify with a conservatism relative to post-Enlightenment Classical Liberalism. However, it is precisely that conservatism which our founders rejected. Their framework for the country is based entirely on the fundamental concepts of Classical Liberalism. Modern American conservatives, as Mountain Man explained, are conservative relative to modern social liberalism. They wish to preserve the classically liberal principles and government of America’s founding, not to destroy them or remake them in the image of a pre-Enlightenment quasi-theocratic nation-state.
Jack,
I agree with your premise that as steward’s of God’s creation we should aspire to fulfill an obligation to care for the earth. Just as we are also obligated to harbor respect for all life; from conception to natural death.
I also firmly agree with the First amendment which says; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
My interpretation of this is that religion and government are unique parts of human philosophy: One augments the other. This is a reason I cannot condone one such as Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi professing to be a practicing Catholic and holding the opinions they do regarding abortion.
We also have several clergy in our diocese who ascribe to progressive ideals such as the legalization of all ‘undocumented’ workers, global warming, universal health care, and redistributive social justice.
I am not shy about confronting deacons, priests, or even bishops that use the pulpit or the diocesan newspaper to push portions the progressive agenda as ‘in step’ with Catholic Dogma, or as an idea that Jesus would advocate. I also routinely challenge secular progressives that attempt to advance their programs, or cut short policy debate by declaring that “Jesus was a community organizer!”
My feelings are that such comparisons not only demean Christ’s Ministry here on earth, but in addition disingenuously elevate the purpose behind the secular progressive agenda.
While quoting Bible verse to a committed secularist doesn’t ever help much; I will usually tell them that in regards to Obama’s agenda matching that of Christ’s; that Mat 22: 21 says; “Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”
I then point out to them that Jesus himself never advocated government taking over the role of providing food, shelter, medical care, or living wages to the people. He chided his followers as to the difference between faith and works. Galatians 2: 16 says “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”
Enforced charity is not charity at all. We provide for the sick, the lonely, the marginalized, and the hungry through our charitable organizations such as the Sacred Heart Society, the Knights of Columbus, and many other parish level charitable organizations. Not through government policy. It is not our place to tell others how they must contribute to society. Using government force to remove the fruits of one person’s labor to give to another is not God’s way. We are, after all, beings of free will.
To the clergy I quote Mat 16: 23 which says; “But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”
A member of the Catholic clergy that maintains that any government philosophy must be adhered to as part and parcel of your Catholic Faith is demonstrating his own human frailty; and his unspoken immediate need for the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
Mountain Man,
Heresy is not, as you suggest, “in the eyes of the beholder.” Any theological doctrine put forth is either a) true; or b) heretical. You don’t get to make it up as you go along.
Your latest shot at the Catholic Church is likewise flawed: the Church existed for nearly four centuries before the Bible existed. The Biblical Canon we know today was compiled by the authority of the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Were first through third century Christians heretics?
If anyone is guilty of heresy with respect to the Bible, how about Luther who took it upon himself to remove 7 books from the Canon because they didn’t conform to his innovative theology of salvation through faith alone. Unlike the straw-man crap that many Protestant critics (from Luther onward) of Catholicism assert, Catholic doctrine states that salvation is possible not through works alone or through faith alone, but through grace. Faith and works are but inward and outward manifestations of grace. Instead of accepting this doctrine as Truth, Luther caused a schism in the Church, violated the Bible, and led millions astray.
He also in exasperation, once threatened to “throw Jimmy in the fire” when discussing verses from the Epistle of James which shed doubt on his personal theology. Sounds pretty heretical to me.
Mr. Osonitsch,
Arguing things I did not assert, I see.
Heresy indeed does depend on which side of the fence one resides. The Catholic church, from my perspective, teaches errant doctrines. From your perspective, Protestants do. This is clear enough for even the casual thinker.
All the elements of what became the Bible were in general usage almost immediately. And of course, the Torah was already there. So when the council convened to establish the canon, most of the books of the Bible were beyond dispute.
Martin Luther’s failings are unimportant to me. I do not appeal to his authority or activities to justify my perpective.
I am not going to argue specific doctrines with you, nor am I going to recite the many failings of Catholicism or Protestantism. I will, however, appeal to the sole authority for Christians everywhere: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Mr. Kerwick,
The sale of indulgences never “gauranteed salvation.” That never was their purpose. This is another myth spread by critics of the Catholic Church. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church attests: “Indulgences are the remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven.”
It is an article of Catholic faith that God disciplines us during this life to edge us toward holiness (Hebrews 12). This is the temporal punishment which indulgences were meant to remove, not eternal damnation.
Mountain Man,
Of course you are not going to argue doctrine with me because you’re afraid to lose that argument. Instead you’ll take little pot-shots at the Catholic church, then hide behind your (theological) relativism when challenged by a Catholic.
Mr. Osonitsch,
Your snotty little comment notwithstanding, it seems to me that you are taking similar potshots at protestants.
I have no theological relativism, only disdain for those who defend a flawed institution.
MM,
I don’t take snotty pot-shots. I put forth fact-based arguments in what is supposed to be a forum for intellectual exchange and debate. You, on the other hand have made no arguments for or against anything except to display your animosity towards the Catholic Church. And you have twice defended what amounts to theological relativism.
If you have a specific argument or point to make, then make it and be prepared to defend it.
If you think that “Catholic doctrine is worthy of examination …” then let’s examine it. Tell me which doctrines you disagree with and we can examine them. Otherwise you are simply taking pot-shots.
For my part, I am willing to debate Catholic/Protestant doctrine with you anytime. We can (and must) do so in a spirit of charity as fellow Christians, but to refuse to have the discussion solves nothing, especially after you brought it up in the first place.
I originally responded to comment #6: “In that literature the connections between religious heresy (i.e., Protestant Christianity)” by writing in #10: “Heresy is in the eyes of the beholder. Catholic doctrine in itself is worthy of examination for its departure from biblical teaching in favor of tradition.”
If you have something of substance to bring to the conversation, you are welcome to. Haven’t seen it yet, other than your snotty comment.
“Fellow Christians?” How can we be fellow Christians if I practice heresy?
Gutless.
“I have no theological relativism, only disdain for those who defend a flawed institution.”
I for one am sick and tired of criticism of something that is “flawed” … as though there was something in this imperfect universe that isn’t. I would say that if something is “flawed” it has only relatively minor imperfections. The Constitution is flawed, but political office holders, civil servants, and members of the military all take oaths to “protect and defend” it. Do they have your disdain too?
sedonaman,
I have always respected and enjoyed your thoughtful posts, but I am not so sure about this last one.
The fact that every institution is flawed is irrelevant to the discussion. It is the very fact that institutions ARE flawed that they need to be criticized.
My disdain is related to HOW certain institutions are defended, i.e., that those who criticize the institution are heretics.
It remains to be seen that I am a heretic, because my doctrine has not been revealed. Instead, I am branded a heretic simply because I criticize the Catholic church.
I am not here to discuss doctrine or the many flaws of Catholicism or Protestantism. I simply challenged Gestell’s assertion that Protestantism is heretical.
You are sick and tired of criticism of the Catholic Church, and I am tired of the criticism of the Protestant church in particular and people of faith in general.
Especially from those who have no faith at all, which I think accurately describes Gestell. He is self admitted non-catholic, non-conservative.
Mr. Osonitsch,
Coward.
MM:
But you made it relevant by your comment. To say that, “My disdain is related to HOW certain institutions are defended…” is not the same as saying, “I have only disdain for those who defend a flawed institution.”
My point about something being “flawed” might be a nit, but apparently it wasn’t now that you have clarified your position, which I think is valid.
I do not consider you a heretic at all. “Sick and tired” alone does not describe my feelings for criticism of the Catholic Church if those criticisms are made in the spirit of being constructive. There is also a wide bandwidth of criticism to consider. Someone might condemn the whole Church because he doesn’t like the hours of Sunday masses; some might not agree with infant baptism or whatever; others are like Bill Maher. Then there are the contradictors. “The pope didn’t say ‘enough’ about the Nazi persecution of the Jews” and “The pope shouldn’t say anything about politics.” The last two [Bill Maher, etc.] are the ones I’m sick and tired of, and I’m sure you would be too.
Peace.
Sedonaman,
Well put.
I’ve tried to make clear that it is Gestell with whom I have the original problem. It is his vapid assertions that bother me the most.
I admit that I do not always clearly transmit my thinking clearly. My apologies.
In real life I am probably a lot more magnanimus regarding doctrinal differences. I do aspire to excellent doctrine, but I do not believe that doctrinal purity is our highest calling as believers.
So I have a fairly sizable tolerance for varieties of doctrine.
I think we all might be surprised on the last day as we find out who is in heaven and who is not.