Why Some Conservative Catholics Want To Stop

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='18 August 2009 - 09:17 PM' timestamp='1250641069' post='1952276']
But the American in me wants it now. *sigh*
[/quote]
yeah we do want everything now. but i'd like to think that i'm a catholic first before i'm a filipino before i'm an american.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Thomist-in-Training' date='18 August 2009 - 08:03 PM' timestamp='1250640203' post='1952258']
To USAirwaysIHS:



I disagree with you VASTLY on this topic. Better a million sex scandals than one act of irreverence to Our Lord REALLY present on the earth. Don't tell me that some people really don't know that it is irreverent to receive communion in the hand. I know, because I used to be one of them. However, every bishop and priest who pressured to allow it or allowed it in his parish had been raised being taught what reverence to Our Lord's body means, and no one but protestants had thought about communion in the hand for a THOUSAND AND A HALF YEARS. Communion in the hand promotes disbelief in the Real Presence.
[/quote]
I am neither for nor against communion on the hand - I'll leave that decision entirely to the men that have been appointed as successors to St.Peter to decide. I don't think that communion on the hand necessarily promotes disbelief in the real presence, though.

Personally, every time I go to receive, I always think of the atrocities that have been committed with my hands, and that they are entirely unfit to hold their King in them. However, I'm sure other people have their own rationales, and until the Bishops decide otherwise, I'll stand by the call to allow it at the communicant's discretion.

[ReinnieR]

honestly i didn't even see communion on the hand until i got to the united states. i thought it was an American thing

[Lil Red]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' date='18 August 2009 - 05:37 PM' timestamp='1250638650' post='1952240']
I'm in favor of waiting on consideration of being canonized as I think it's prudent to wait a bit of time to get a better look at the impact the person had.
[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
agreed.

[thessalonian]

John Paul II will be a canonized saint. He has done more for marriage and the family and respect for the human person than any theologian in history with his writings, which as Christopher West says will take years to unpack (now let's not go off on a wild tangent about the evil Christopher West). We can complain all we want about the Assisi meeting or kissing the Koran or communion in the hand (which he was not that in favor of but allowed) but the fact is that man ran the Church in difficult times. None of these show theological error. None of them can be deemed sinful. The kissing of the Koran needs to be understood in the Islamic culture. Not our own. Kissing is a sign of acceptance of the gift and there is no reason he had to reject the gift. He was a man for the time. When marriage was attacked he wrote 30,000 pages on marriage. This man is John Paul the Great! I have no doudt there will be dissenters as there have been with many saints. St. Francis Xavier comes to mind as well as St. Joan of Arc. The Church does not make mistakes on canonizations. They are considered infallible and so trads will just have to smell of elderberries it up when it happens (not if). John Paul II pray for us.

Edited August 19, 2009 by thessalonian

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Lil Red' date='19 August 2009 - 02:02 AM' timestamp='1250643755' post='1952299']
+J.M.J.+
agreed.
[/quote]

[Dave]

I'm including the complete essay from which Damien Thompson got some of his info. In addition to RenewAmerica, the article can also be found on it's author's (Eric Giunta) blog here: http://lexetlibertas.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/why-pope-john-paul-ii-should-not-be-canonized/. But I'm including the entry here anyway. I disagree with Giunta, of course, but if you're like me and sometimes have to deal with such folks, it won't suffice to just dismiss them as idiots or anything like that. We need to actually know what they're claiming and how to respond. For starters, as you'll see when you read the article, Giunta doesn't seem to recognize that the Church in America had been going far downhill for a long time, and John Paul II really had a mess to help clean up, and it wasn't going to be cleaned up overnight either. It seems to me that he's angry that things weren't fixed as quickly as he would've liked. And as for not being authoritarian enough, didn't His Holiness admit that he felt he could've been more authoritarian? For that matter, is there anything else that one might say in response to this article?


[quote]Why Pope John Paul II Should Not Be Canonized
13 08 2009

My latest piece for RenewAmerica:

Once again, the Catholic world has been rocked by yet more allegations of sexual impropriety by Legionnaires of Christ founder, the late Fr. Marcial Maciel. It seems the now-disgraced founder-cum-pervert fathered more children than previously suspected; the latest claimants to his paternity purport to have evidence that the late Pope John Paul II knew of Maciel’s sexual dalliances, and turned a blind eye to them. (If true, it would confirm the prior journalistic scholarship of author Jason Berry.)

The allegations highlight what for all too many Catholics is the elephant-in-the-room when discussing the ills which beset the modern Church: the extent to which the late Pope John Paul II was an enabler of these perversions, from sexual and liturgical abuse to theological dissent and the scandal of Catholic politicians who support the most immoral of social policies with the tacit or express blessings of their Church.

One does not need to deny or disparage the personal sanctity, thoughtful conservatism, or religious orthodoxy of the late Pontiff in order to acknowledge that his Pontificate, by all accounts, was a glorious failure. Yes, he aided in the fall of Eastern European Communism, but the Pope of Rome is not primarily a mover and shaker of state politics, but a Christian pastor whose mission it is to save souls, convert the lost, and govern his church in such a way that it resembles, as best as possible, the city on a hill, the light of the world whose radiance cannot be hid under a bushel-basket.

In terms of raw statistics, the Catholic Church shrank under the late Pope. Catholics comprised 18 percent of the world’s population in 1978, the year Karol Wojtyla assumed the Chair of St Peter. At his death Catholics comprised 17 percent.

It’d be foolish, of course, to let such numbers stand alone as leading Catholic indicators, but in terms of the quality of world Catholicism the evidence, while not as quantifiable, is no less apparent or tangible. If one is looking for the fruits of the Wojtylian pontificate, several studies of the modern church paint a representative picture: Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church, Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church, Amchurch Comes Out: The U.S. Bishops, Pedophile Scandals and the Homosexual Agenda, The Rite of Sodomy: Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church, Our Fathers: The Secret Life of the Catholic Church in an Age of Scandal, Vows of Silence: The Abuse of Power in the Papacy of John Paul II, and the pioneering work of Dr. Richard Sipe and Roman Catholic Faithful. These sources approach their subject matter from very varied ideological backgrounds, but they all paint a very bleak, but well-documented, picture of the prior pontificate.

Though Catholics and others are loathe to admit it of an otherwise beloved Pope, John Paul II oversaw a church which deteriorated in both its inner and outer life. His callous indifference toward the victims of priestly sexual abuse in refusing to meet personally with a single one of them, and his stubborn refusal to compel the resignation from office of any of the bishops who aided, abetted, and covered-up the abuse, are testamentary to his utter failure: not as a Catholic or a theologian, but as a Pope.

And this is precisely why he should not be canonized. For in the Catholic (and popular) understanding, canonization is not simply a technical decree indicating one’s everlasting abode in Paradise; it is, in addition, the Church’s solemn endorsement of a Christian’s heroic virtue. The question the Catholic Church must ask herself is: Was John Paul II a model of “heroic” papal virtue?

Contrary to leftist media reportage, the late Pope was not an authoritarian despot, bent on enforcing Catholic orthodoxy on an unwilling church. Quite the contrary: theological liberals and dissenters flourished in all of the Church’s structures, from lay politics and Catholic universities, to the ranks of priests and bishops. Not a single pro-abortion Catholic politician has been excommunicated from the church; only a handful of openly heretical priests were asked to stop teaching theology, but were otherwise permitted to exercise their priestly ministry unhindered. The Church in Austria openly dissents from orthodox Catholicism with papal impunity. Fr. Richard McBrien, Sr. Joan Chittiser, Roger Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles, Hans Kung, Charles Curran, Notre Dame University, dissenters galore: the overwhelming majority of prominent far-leftist, theologically modernist Catholic organizations, speakers, and theologians are Catholics in good standing with their church, and are frequently given an official platform at church-sponsored institutions and events. To give just two more examples, several Catholic parishes and universities flaunt themselves as “gay-friendly” in a directory published by the Conference of Catholic Lesbians. These speakers and institutions are in just as good standing with the Church as so-called “orthodox” Catholic pundits and writers.

After John Paul II, the Catholic Church is virtually indistinguishable from the Anglican Communion. Everyone has their seat at the table, liberal and conservative, high church and low. The “official” teaching of the Church may lean toward religious conservatism, but this is just one option out of many which a loyal Catholic may avail himself of and remain in good standing with his Church.

The late Pope’s governance of his church was laissez-faire, he personally adhering to conservative Catholic orthodoxy but not wishing to impose such on Catholic clergy or institutions. Ironically, the Papacy has been rather critical of governments who take such approaches to their economies; should it be the model for a church which regards itself as the one true religion?

The canonization of Pope John Paul II is an issue which concerns not only Catholics, but all traditionalist conservatives. For better or for worse (depending on one’s religious outlook), the Catholic Church is the largest religious institution on the planet, and historically regarded as a fairly conservative one. The Washington Times recently named Pope Benedict the de facto leader of world conservatism. Just as conservatives do not wish to see their foundational principles redefined by the nomination and election of conservatives-in-name-only, so the canonization of the late Pope would represent (among other things) his church’s influential imprimatur on a model of Christian pastorship that has eroded the foundational conservative principles of one of the world’s oldest and most venerable conservative institutions.

As noted earlier, the Papacy is the third-rail of orthodox Catholic discourse. The respect Catholics have for the Papal institution renders the living or recent claimants of that seat virtually impervious to criticism, as if such critique automatically rendered one implacably uncharitable or schismatic. When civil society regains its conservative bearings, history will not be kind to what any unbiased observer must regard as the gross pastoral negligence of the 21st century’s first Pope; if Catholics want to come out of the present cultural quagmire with their intellectual integrity intact, they must fearlessly shed the light of truth on that Pontiff’s pastorship, and be sure to end up on the right side of history’s verdict.[/quote]

Edited August 19, 2009 by Dave

[thessalonian]

I guess if communion in the hand is a disqualifyer the St. Cyril of Jerusalem should not have been canonized.

From lecture 23.
21. In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof ; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members. For tell me, if any one gave you grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, being on your guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Will you not then much more carefully keep watch, that not acrumb fall from you of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?

Actually I think that is quite beautiful and to be emulated. I don't receive in the hand myself but I think that some of the radical opposition to it needs to get a grip. I do think people today in general don't have the reverence that Cyril speaks of and whether in the hand or on the tongue the Church really needs to get back the sense of awe for the Eucharist.

Edited August 19, 2009 by thessalonian

[Apotheoun]

As Pope Pius XII said: "The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity."

Through the influence of the Holy Spirit the Western Church determined that communion in the hand was to be shunned out of reverence for the Lord's presence, and that judgment seems to me quite appropriate. It is a fact of history that -- until the 1970s -- both the Western and the Eastern liturgies developed in a manner that restricted the direct handling of the sacred elements to the clergy.

[CatherineM]

[quote]Contrary to leftist media reportage, the late Pope was not an authoritarian despot, bent on enforcing Catholic orthodoxy on an unwilling church. Quite the contrary: theological liberals and dissenters flourished in all of the Church’s structures, from lay politics and Catholic universities, to the ranks of priests and bishops. Not a single pro-abortion Catholic politician has been excommunicated from the church; only a handful of openly heretical priests were asked to stop teaching theology, but were otherwise permitted to exercise their priestly ministry unhindered. The Church in Austria openly dissents from orthodox Catholicism with papal impunity. Fr. Richard McBrien, Sr. Joan Chittiser, Roger Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles, Hans Kung, Charles Curran, Notre Dame University, dissenters galore: the overwhelming majority of prominent far-leftist, theologically modernist Catholic organizations, speakers, and theologians are Catholics in good standing with their church, and are frequently given an official platform at church-sponsored institutions and events. To give just two more examples, several Catholic parishes and universities flaunt themselves as “gay-friendly” in a directory published by the Conference of Catholic Lesbians. These speakers and institutions are in just as good standing with the Church as so-called “orthodox” Catholic pundits and writers.[/quote]

How many pro-choice politicians has Benedict excommunicated? What has he done to Notre Dame? Has he done anything to fix the mess in Austria?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='19 August 2009 - 02:21 PM' timestamp='1250713268' post='1952783']
How many pro-choice politicians has Benedict excommunicated? What has he done to Notre Dame? Has he done anything to fix the mess in Austria?
[/quote]
He hasn't done anything yet, but he is still alive and so he might in the future.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='19 August 2009 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1250712131' post='1952760']
I guess if communion in the hand is a disqualifyer the St. Cyril of Jerusalem should not have been canonized.

From lecture 23.
21. In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof ; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members. For tell me, if any one gave you grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, being on your guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Will you not then much more carefully keep watch, that not acrumb fall from you of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?

Actually I think that is quite beautiful and to be emulated. I don't receive in the hand myself but I think that some of the radical opposition to it needs to get a grip. I do think people today in general don't have the reverence that Cyril speaks of and whether in the hand or on the tongue the Church really needs to get back the sense of awe for the Eucharist.
[/quote]

"Partake of it, giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof, for whatever you lose is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members."

How many people do you know who check their hands for particles of the most holy Sacrament when they receive Communion?

I know a few, but not very many.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='19 August 2009 - 03:17 PM' timestamp='1250713054' post='1952777']
As Pope Pius XII said: "The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity."

Through the influence of the Holy Spirit the Western Church determined that communion in the hand was to be shunned out of reverence for the Lord's presence, and that judgment seems to me quite appropriate. It is a fact of history that -- until the 1970s -- both the Western and the Eastern liturgies developed in a manner that restricted the direct handling of the sacred elements to the clergy.
[/quote]

[scardella]

Santo Subito!

[Selah]

How can a person "stop" another from becoming a saint? Isn't that God's job?