Where there is hatred, let me bring heresy.
Where there is injury, let me bring schism.
Where there is discord, let me bring dissent.
Where there is doubt, let me bring confusion.
Where there is error, let me bring more error.
Where there is despair, let me bring moral relativism.
Where there is sadness, let me bring feminism.
Where there is darkness, let me bring shades of grey.
O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be liberal as to liberalise, to be participatory as to encourage participation, to be loved as to love promoting a female priesthood, same-sex unions, and voluntary celibacy for male priests. For it is in giving scandal that we receive attention. It is in exploring theological cul-de-sacs that we are promoted and it is in ying that we are born to eternal yang.'
I've realised there is no point pointing out the theological orthodoxy of the Saints of the different ages with professors with a liberal agenda, because what liberal professors do is, instead of looking up to the Saints as is fitting for devotion, they drag them down to their level. So, St Francis of Assisi, perhaps one the most orthodox of Catholics who ever lived, in their eyes, 'would have agreed with' same-sex unions, 'if he was around today' because he was 'compassionate, kind and caring'. Deep down, Francis was a 'feminist' and that's clear from his writings and his holy love for St Clare. Obviously, he thought she'd have made an excellent priest...'
These professors do the same with Our Lord, yes, that's right, God Himself. In the opinion of these learned scholars, the Lord is not the Lord, Almighty God, He is just the vehicle for whatever cause they decide is fitting for the modern age in a modern Church. Jesus is a feminist, a socialist, a thinker, a campaigner, an activist, a helper of the poor, an ecologist, our friend, but He is not, really, in the expert opinions of these scholars, God. That is why these 'expert' theologians and respected scholars are so infuriating and insulting. They trample all over what the poorest simpleton, the most uneducated pauper can accept with humble and obedient faith and cannot begin to understand why he even loves that faith in its fullness and doesn't desire to alter any of its doctrines, teachings, devotions or traditions.
That is why it makes me so angry to read about these theologians. What the uneducated and those not so 'wise' in the ways of the world can accept, if they can never understand, the educated tirade against and wish to tear down! If they could they would strip Churches in a manner that would make Henry's men blush! If they were in charge of the Churches, Our Lady would be scorned, Our Lord mocked and the Poor would be left to starve because nothing, nothing so as important as the next liturgical committee meeting and the next round of power-struggles with the Priest!
Enough...I'll give myself an ulcer if I don't calm down.
29 comments:
Do you ever think that 'the poorest simpleton, the most uneducated pauper' might not make the best theologians (after all, name one pope, of recent times at least, whose educational secord is not exemplary - Bentedict's surely is). Secondly, as youknow, most of the 'simpledoctrines of faith' you speak of were 'invented' in the last two - three hundred years. You know this, don't lie or pretend it's a long venerated tradition. If a pope one hundred years ago decided something must be done to protect the church at that time, why can't a pope (in theory) decide to repeal it now times have changed? If you think 'the World' shouldn't influence papal dogma then why did it influence it in the past? The anti-abortion thing was only proclaimed in the 1860s, and only formalised in the 1950s, when viable birth-control was a possibility. I know you are a simple and humble peasant, but don't turn your back entirely on reason or intelligent debate,it might sometimes come in handy when you don't understand something and feel compelled to reach for the bottle of poison.
'In that same hour, he rejoiced in the Holy Ghost, and said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to little ones. Yea, Father, for so it hath seemed good in thy sight.'
The words of Our Lord are never enough for these contemporary theologians. Modern theologians think they are 'above' simple faith in Christ and trust in His Church.
You took the words right out of my mouth, Loz.
God bless you!
Maria
I repeat my point - if the ignorant have some privileged access tot he Truth by virtue of their downtrodden hearts, why do you need an institution staffed exclusively by learned theologians, 90% of whom possess doctoral degrees in the minutiae of theological reasoning?
If we're slinging de-contextualised single passages out of the bible around, it would be quite easy to come up with any nonsense what so ever.
For you and for modern theologians, every word that Our Lord is 'decontextualized'. It never means what He says, it means something other than what He said.
In this respect, you're very like Protestants who laugh when Our Lord says His flesh is "flesh indeed", when He says He is the "living Bread come down from Heaven".
"That's impossible!" they cry.
"Uh-huh, do you mean a Miracle?"
Of course there are layers to the words of Our Blessed Lord such as in His Parables - but some of what He said constitute Articles of Faith. He said it, therefore, it is True and trustworthy.
Our Lord speaks to every age the same things. They don't mean different things for a feminist age, or a Marxist age, or an age of psychoanalysis. They mean just what He said. The same goes for St Paul.
It appears to me that the line between atheists and theists such as Dr Beattie is very, very thin. There is not too much distinction between the two.
Laurence England, I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts--I just had to get that out of the way.
Now, to the issue at hand: there isn't too much that annoys me as much as the problem that you're describing now.
In Canada (and probably throughout the West), the issue of Infallible Theologians has spread from our Universities, to our local Churches, and right into our parishes. These guys claim whatever they want to claim, and judge by their own standards what is orthodox or not--and the Catholic Catechism is for fundamentalist dummies, or so they say (if they even bring it up at all).
Our RCIA programs are, generally, disasters; our catechetical programs are, generally, shipwrecked; and our Catholic schools (secondary and primary schools) are Catholic in name only.
Anyway, I actually have nothing constructive to add to your post. I just wanted to empathise with you a little.
I'll tell you what, Laurence: I'll offer a few prayers for you at mass this week.
It appears to me that the line between atheists and theists such as Dr Beattie is very, very thin. There is not too much distinction between the two.
But then again you don't know much about theology so maybe what you think is irrelevant or deluded?
Tina Beattie is a Professor of theology. Professors are nominated and elected by their learned peers. Therefore she must be considered to be an expert in her field among theologians. You might not like or agree with her theology but by dissing her credentials you're basically saying theology and theologians are worthless. Therefore, aren't you kinda like an aethiest yourself?
"Neque enim quaero intelligere ut credam, sed credo ut intelligam. Nam et hoc credo, quia, nisi credidero, non intelligam. "
"Nor do I seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand. For this, too, I believe, that, unless I first believe, I shall not understand."
St Anselm of Canterbury, Doctor of the Church
I lay no claim to theological expertise or knowledge. The Church, however, has fine teachers that God graced with knowledge and understanding of Divine things. They subjected their faculties of reason and intellect first to faith in Christ and the Authority of His Church. Their understanding and their teaching comes from above. The musings of Dr Beattie come from below.
I have no problem with theologians. I have a problem with theologians who dismiss the theology of the Saints and claim that their theology is wiser than those proclaimed in Heaven. Those Saints accepted the Doctrines of the Church 'like children' with humility, obedience and faith.
''I have no problem with theologians. I have a problem with theologians who dismiss the theology of the Saints and claim that their theology is wiser than those proclaimed in Heaven. Those Saints accepted the Doctrines of the Church 'like children' with humility, obedience and faith.''
There you again, putting words in other people's mouths. Where has Tina Beattie dismissed the theology of the saints? I don't think she would (or has) claimed to be wiser than those proclaimed in heaven? She must accept the doctrines of the church or she would have had her faculties removed to call herself a catholic theologian. Obviously Rome does not agree with you on this last point.
Your logic is also as usual, flawed. Not all the saints agreed with each other on points of theology but that does not mean they were some kind of heretic. But by your logic they were all heretics because there were differences in theological perspectives among them all.
I think that what Tina wants of the Church is less a 'development of doctrine' as a pole shift in which north becomes south. Her theology is one of rupture, out of keeping with the tradition passed down.
Ultimately, the Church has treasured, as being divinely inspired, much of the theology of the Saints. That is how they became Doctors of the Church. Hence, when Popes write encyclicals, Dr Beattie is not quoted (nor ever shall she be, unless to warn of the dangers of heresy) while Sts Jerome, Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm, are.
Dr Beattie can't accept that the Church, having settled its mind on 'natural law' theology developed by St Thomas Aquinas, isn't going to exactly be enthusiastic and all for same sex unions, for instance. The Church knows that God does not just change His mind on matters of Faith and Morals. It is almost as if she hasn't read a word Aquinas said, or anything that St Paul said, for that matter.
Now you can say that some theologians disagreed with Aquinas, but that misses the mark too, because guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church accepted and embraced Aquinas's works as divinely inspired and rejected the works of others.
In other words, in matters theological, mere human reasoning (or musings) are not enough to gain acceptance by the Church. The Church must be able to discern that the theological works are divinely inspired.
Dr Beattie's works are not divinely inspired. How could they be, when within the Bride of Christ they wreak confusion, dissent to the Magisterium and scandal? They are to be rejected because they have no basis in the Tradition of the Church. Tradition isn't just about being 'conservative' of mind and opinion, you know. It is about having a benchmark by which you can test the veracity of a claim. Having Doctors of the Church means that the Church can say to Dr Beattie..."Sorry, love, but you are full of s**t."
TECP
Thank you!
Back up to Lozza Watch said...
I agree with every word!
Tina Beattie speaks a great deal of sense. Instead of insulting her and mocking everything she says. Would it not be better to stand back and take some of it on board.
If the Traditional Catholic Lobby carry on destroying our church from within, there is not going to be a church of the remainder of us to worship in!
England Watch...
I recognise your writing style and content. We've been over this before. You're trying to dismiss natural law theory as developed by St Thomas Aquinas as outdated/outmoded because of arguments over slavery.
I'm not allowing my blog to be your vehicle for dissent again, please start you own where you can develop your ideas.
Of course, you could wait until God willing you get to Heaven and then discuss this one with St Thomas himself.
The Church is hardly going to throw out the works of St Thomas Aquinas and incorporate the writings of Dr Beattie. The Church lays great store by his writings not as the invention of a magisterial ecclesiastical condemnation of 'unnatural relations' but as a development of the doctrine in terms of why these 'unnatural relations', why are against the Divine law, why they lead to unhappiness etc and why the innate wrongness of these acts are to be discovered through reason as well as faith.
Anonymous
Hmmm...The great lapsation that has taken place over the past 40 years has taken place under the modernisation of the liturgy and the hermenutic of rupture. I do not think that the blame lies with the trad element. Also, the Church has never, really, courted the popularity of the World. The Pope sees the future of the Church in the West in terms of a 'creative minority' in a secular age. Small, persecuted, in storm-tossed times.
The destruction of the Church from within, if that is what has taken place, is something that has come from liberals. Even the abuse crisis attests to this.
You also fail to consider that many of those now considered saints were in their own time considered suspect and their theology dubious. It was only with the passage of time that the church was able to recognise their heroic virtue and wisdom of their thought.
Maybe Prof Tina Beattie is a saint of our time, but will only be recogised as such at a later date?
Like I said earlier, it is unlikely. The Church doesn't do volte faces on such matters. Tina won't ever be declared 'anathaema', but she'll never be a doctor of the Church either. Unlikely as it remains, it is her who is required to U-turn, not the Church.
And please don't give me that Joan of Arc example. St Joan of Arc may have had visions, but she held everything that the Church taught to have been revealed by God. A bit of a difference there, no?
"The destruction of the Church from within, if that is what has taken place, is something that has come from liberals. Even the abuse crisis attests to this."
As if no traditional priest ever molested a child? Come into the real world...Ireland is a fine exaMPLE.
Maybe Prof Tina Beattie is a saint of our time, but will only be recogised as such at a later date?
I had a bad day at work but this made me laugh out loud.
Traditional Catholics are the scourge of today's church. Full of Pride and sanctimonious to boot! You old man are one of the worst!
Yes, as if Ireland was somehow immune from the liberalism strangling the Church.
Anon
I'm a poor sinner. I don't think its my sin that keeps you coming back to comment, however, nor is it my sin that makes you angry. It is because I believe all that the Church teaches has been revealed by God whereas you do not. You cannot bear to hear that someone chooses to believe what you cannot believe.
...further, you despise the fact that that belief, that the Church is right and you are wrong or in error, can and is defended by me, of my free choice.
In other words, you cannot bear that someone should defend Truth and correct error.
Gosh Laurence, you've upset a few liberal extremists with this post.
You should know better than to criticise a Professor :)
''Tina won't ever be declared 'anathaema', but she'll never be a doctor of the Church either.''
How do you know who will and won't be declared a Doctor of the church? Have you developed the ability to see into the future? I thought it was the magerterium that declared such things and not some bloke with a blog in brighton.
Do you ever think that 'the poorest simpleton, the most uneducated pauper' might not make the best theologians
But then again you don't know much about theology so maybe what you think is irrelevant or deluded?
Full of Pride and sanctimonious to boot!
Yup. Perfectly describes the above comments and every self-congratulating, independent-minded, credential-toting, 'enlightened' admirer of worldly wisdom.
Lindsay
Hasn't got me a houseboat though, has it?
thankfully i'm not an extremist liberal catholic, i'm mainstream catholic - it's you lot that are on the extremist fringe of the church right next to the sspx lot (who are in schism).
Since the arrival of Pepinster - a former Independent on Sunday journalist and convent-school girl who took up religion in earnest a decade ago - the magazine's weekly circulation has risen by five per cent to 23,500 with an estimated readership of 65,000. The only Christian weekly to be officially audited by the ABC, this places The Tablet, which is profit-making, on a par with the New Statesman.
Post a Comment