What "they" think of us…

As if you didn’t know, here are two very common (almost paradigmatic) takes on the Catholic Church of Benedict XVI:

1) The Popular
2) The Intellectual

Of course, both views are utter nonsense, but those who hold them feel secure in their delusions…

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to What "they" think of us…

  1. Athanasius says:

    Deveney I can forgive, because it’s her job to talk stupid.

    But Charlesworth? Oh. My. God. The lack of intellectual seriousness is truly breathtaking. He is a textbook example of what Tracey Rowland calls the ‘naivety’ of some Catholic writers about modern culture. I wonder if he even knows what concepts like ‘ecclesiology’ or ‘valid sacrament’ mean. He probably doesn’t care. If it can’t be reduced to politics, it doesn’t matter.

  2. Past Elder says:

    The Popular: amazing how those who are all for “What Would Jesus Do” have no ears for What Did Jesus Do. Read: those for whom Jesus is a metaphor for socialist and socialist-light (redistribution through government regulation rather that seizure of the means of production) models have no time for Jesus who was God become Man to die for our sins and save us from what we cannot save ourselves.

    The Intellectual: John Courtney Murray, oh barf, haven’t heard than name in years, is he STILL the big deal, how long will it be 1968 in the Roman Church? These guys would do well to remember some things — the church is no more a democracy than it is a monarchy, and will suffer as much harm from adopting the polity of the former as it did from adopting the polity of the latter, and, Scripture likens the church to none of Man’s orginisations but to one of God’s, the body, and Mill did not invent democracy, the Greeks did, and the idea depended on work being done by a slave class with democracy extended to the free class who, not burdened by the demands of work, had the leisure to become educated enough to participate in democracy.

    Probably the best treatment of American democracy I have ever heard happened in a BBC series called History of England or some such, by a man called Simon, I think. He contrasted the co-temporous developments in what would become the US and India, drawing out why what happened in each place was not the same but conditioned by unique factors not translatable to the other.

    Interesting that one is vaguely socialist and one vaguely Millsean. Thorough going socialists find democracy an utter sham, allowing the oppressed to chose which of the ruling class will rule them but not fundamentally altering the class structure. Our liberal democracts seem to think that replacing proletarian seizure with government regulation changes this.

    On the other hand, the two seem no more secure in their illusions that the Roman church is in its.

  3. Schütz says:

    Ignoring your last comment, PE, I can agree with all you wrote.

    One thing we can agree on is that no Christian in their right minds would concede that all will be honky dory in the Church if only it were fully “democratic”. Even LCMS is having its battles in this regard.

    We have to concede, one way or another, that the Church requires legitimate authority (wherever this is located–in Scripture, in Tradition, in Confessions, in the Ministerium/Magisterium or whatever) if it is to function. (In the LCA here in Australia, the highest authority is Synod. Is the LCA Synod democratic? Well… not really. It still gives a major voice to the pastors over the people.)

  4. eulogos says:

    I seldom say anything so dismissive, but “What stupid people!”
    Susan Peterson

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.