Catechism of the Catholic Church (675)

'Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.' ~ Catechism of the Catholic Church (675)

Monday, 30 January 2012

Am I Being Hypercritical?

I know that Catholic Voices's brief is wide because the Church's mission and message affects every aspect of human life and that the project has become...

'...a school of a new Christian humanism; and a laboratory of a new kind of apologetics'...

But I can't help wondering whether the 'Academy' is a being a little complacent in the upcoming battle with the Government.

Don't get me wrong. The Church has plenty to tell the Government and society about Catholic social teaching and how it can be employed to make society more just in the work towards what has become known as the 'common good'. My personal opinion is that markets could possibly be made moral but that rich people who are more influential in the markets than poor people do not want them to be. It's one of the outcomes of Original Sin, as is homosexuality.

And last I heard, the Government wanted to redefine marriage over the next year or two and the 'common good' will, in this area, not be served. If I were leading the Catholic Voices (obviously I'm not trying to usurp anyone's job here - such a venture would never be successful anyway and besides, everyone can tell how shy I am) I would drop the beard-stroking session on whether 'capitalism can be made moral' and stick to your guns on making the Church's position on 'gay marriage' and, indeed, homosexuality in general, 100% crystal clear.

In fact, does anyone have a timeline of when marriage is going to be redefined by the State to contradict the very essense of what the word 'marriage' means? How long do we have until this demolition ball is in full swing? If you know drop me a comment because I'd like to know how much time we have before the Government resets the date of the United Kingdom to year zero.

I know that according to the web page that 'on Monday 5 March there will be a talk on same-sex marriage and the threat to (religious) freedom and that the details of the speaker will be confirmed shortly,' but I personally consider that the 'gay marriage' issue is the hottest issue (literally) of the day, week, month and year and I know I am not the only one.

Of course, the CV project doesn't want to be a 'single issue' organisation, but when it comes to the media, what they want to know is the Catholic Church's position on what is about to unfold in the United Kingdom. The media doesn't give two fig leaves for what the Church in England and Wales says about capitalism. You can tell that because when the Holy Father released 'Caritas in Veritate' you could see tumbleweed blowing past every newspaper's office doors. His Holiness only has to breathe a word about the threat to society from gay marriage and newspapers go wild with frenzied excitement. Let's face it, sex sells, even when the Pope discusses it. Besides which, nearly everyone agrees that banker bonuses in the midst of deep recession are bad. It is on this issue, this threat to 'human ecology' in the words of His Holiness, caused by the legislative onslaught of 'gay marriage' that the Holy Father wishes to see the Church in those countries where it is being considered, spring to life and to action.

Like I say, whether markets can be made moral is an important discussion and perhaps I am being hypercritical, but it just strikes me that the publicity for this Academy talk makes it look like the Church is treating the issue of 'gay marriage' as it might 'capitalism and markets'. It makes it look like we are still discussing it, trying to work out the answer and also, at this time, makes it appear that we are ambivalent as to how things will turn out when Parliament goes into motion on the marriage of two men or two women. It makes it appear that we don't care passionately about marriage, or that the Bishops don't care passionately about marriage. Or maybe not. I just saw it and thought, 'The Government are about to do this and you're talking about that?' Keep talking about this because this is where the fight is going to be! This is not a time for navel-gazing.

Bloggers are peripheral to the media. We are not passive in as much as we blog and communicate through the internet but we are also not so active that we are on BBC or quoted in The Guardian. Among the thousands of words that have been said about the CV project, some nice, some not so nice, has been perhaps lost the sense that all Catholics should want uppermost the success of the Catholic Voices project in communicating the Church's teaching and explaining it to the United Kingdom. Further, I don't know any Catholics who do not want Catholic Voices to be a resounding success. Where I do think some bloggers and the leaders of the CV project might differ is in the interpretation of 'success'.

After all, Catholic Voices are there to represent the whole Church, Bishops, Priests and lay faithful, even His Holiness himself, I guess. What they do over the airwaves over the next year either reflects well on us, the Body of Christ, or not. Also, just a thought. Have Catholic Voices recruited anyone who is willing to talk about the fact that they are both a homosexual person and a Catholic loyal to the Magisterium to defend the Church's position in the media? If you want to give Catholicism a human face, that seems to me like a good idea. Otherwise, you'll be open to the accusation that 'the Church just hates gays'. Anyway, I'm sure Austen's got all bases covered. Finally, if you want to attend Academy sessions, get in there quick, before the Academy 'membership scheme' comes in. Obviously, its not my job to tell Austen Ivereigh how to run Catholic Voices. With all his experience he has far more knowledge of the media than I. But then, if that's true for me, then its must also be true for those bloggers who think they could do John Smeaton's job so much better than John Smeaton with all his experience in the pro-life field.


Penelope Plainchant said...

A: Yes you are!

On the side of the angels said...

Nancy Nintendo strikes again!

Just ignore her Loz = I'm bloody proud of you...

Patricius said...

While it is perhaps not a certainty, I think that- whatever protests are made- the government will redefine marriage in the interests of those who practise perversions. (There has been a media campaign aimed at softening up the public for many years now.) If that actually happens the Church will have to face a long fight requiring something more sophisticated than mere condemnation.

The Bones said...

Yes, I wonder who that person is!

pattif said...

Bravo, Laurence - you've nailed it.

gemoftheocean said...

No, you're not being hypercritical. I also think you nail it right on. the US has suffered similar problems to the UK. All the wonks putting their pointy little heads together talking about 'social justice' only works so far. They fuzz the pot. Essentially in the 2008 US election they fudged the Catholic message by watering it down with blanket supposed 'seamless' garment issues. Essentially giving cover to pro-aborts and the like. 'But Obama's for 'the people' he wants change, he wants everything 'fair.' --- Never mind the man was blatantly proabortion. Result? Exit polls showed Obama was supported by @53 percent or so of Catholic voters. Then they act 'surprised.' The BISHOPS were the ones who mucked it up, specifically liberal bishop who were soft on teaching the 'hard truths' re: abortion, contraception, gay marriage etc. Now the whole church is paying for it because the church chose to play around with trying to pick a winner/loser re: welfare / immigration issues -- something reasonable people CAN disagree on.

The fuzzhead issue 'can capitalism be moral' thing is as you so aptly put it, a beard stroke issue. One may as well as 'can socialism be made moral' - it's just as valid. Nothing wrong with capitalism at all, the only thing needs to be reined in is people who use it to cheat people - and there are laws against that, when enforced.

And great idea re: recruiting 'voices' who are homosexual, but doing their best to lead a truly Catholic life. The media pretends this can't be done.

Great post.

Paul said...

"Have Catholic Voices recruited anyone who is willing to talk about the fact that they are both a homosexual person and a Catholic loyal to the Magisterium to defend the Church's position in the media?"

I thought there was no such thing as "a homosexual person". Surely you're not implying that a sin can be continuous with one's personhood? Why focus on one type of sexuality anyway? Why not get a young man who masturbated once to come and pour his heart out over why he broke the Church's commands by giving in to lust in a non-procreative way? Seems like by inviting a class of person you do not even accept exist the church would be encouraging the popular suspicion that it is a secret society for a certain type of man

John Kearney said...

The trouble with bloggers is that they themselves get soaked into the media. They want Catholic Voices to speak out, they want bishop `what` his name`` to speak out, and they feel contented, we are moving ahead, when somebody does. Perhaps I am being hypercritical here. But how many catholics attending Mass on a Sunday really know anything about Catholic Voices, or what Bishop `What`s his name` said. It is useless being a `voice` if you are not being heard in your parish. OK, thee will be the `elite` who will resent your speaking, you will be made to feel uncomfortable, you might even suffer martyrdom, but you must be the `voice` the speaking voice in your own parish. As long as the modernists control the parishes they have nothing to fear.

Anonymous said...

CV lost a lot of credibility when they published that seeming "defence" of +Vin's remarks on CP's. It made them look weak, political and if they were the Bishops mouthpiece. It was a mistake and they should have left +Vin defend himself. They've already got a problem re independence because Austen's in charge so what they were thinking I'll never know. Ironically it was bad PR strategy from an organisation which is trying to improve our PR. Maybe the solution is that Austen's got to go and somebody more independent has to take over.

As regards what seems to be CVs developing argument to support CP's its laughable. How +Vin says it with a straight face I'll never know and how they repeat it sheep-like, again I'll never know. It will make us look foolish and manipulative simultaneously. Our Lord said "in all your speech be Yea, yea, nay, nay". He didn't say be political, chivvy around with words to find get out clauses and be cowardly.



gemoftheocean said...

BTW, conceptually, isn't it rather like trying to herd cats?

Lynda said...

Well said!


Related Posts with Thumbnails