We’ve got to be careful about the temptation of practical relativism that can happen in assuming the Church’s teachings are static. That is definitely not something the universal Church has ever proclaimed. Our doctrine is always in continuity, but never static. The static view is a different form of relativism than that just throws out teachings like in some liberal circles in Europe. But it presents itself here as a defense of remarkably specific moment within Catholicism (usually a defense of renaissance Europe) while ignoring just how different universal Catholicism was even at that time. The Gospel always experiences inculturation. The culture that you live in (vote in, work in) is the context that you will usually first end up discovering the meaning of Jesus Christ in the sacraments. Don’t get me wrong, defending our traditions is extremely important. But to avoid relativism we have to have a sense of humble flexibility, seek unity, and also pump the breaks to avoid changing fast.
The sacrament of marriage is largely a theological reflection on God not making all of us exactly the same (he made us male and female). Why didn’t he make everyone male? Perhaps because reflecting on being made in the image and likeness of God, there is a sort of inherent incompleteness by oneself. God made us male and female. Differences that matter. Anyone can avoid sin by themselves, but it’s actually difficult to achieve a life virtue without fostering permanent and stable encounters with someone who is different than you. The virtue involved in marriage happens when we take responsibility for another person, without seeking to possess them. The Catholic Church is much the same way. We’re not just a confederation, but each of us in the dignity of our differences, can come to help the other understand their reflection of Jesus Christ in a more meaningful way.
O_O I enjoy the conversation except for the part that makes it seem like I have ever shared the views of the current debates in Germany. I anticipated you would actually like my reply.
I don’t want to accidentally pick on your comment here. I know what you meant and share concerns. I’m a conservative voter and grew up with Mass in Latin. But as far as talking theology goes, it’s absolutely impossible to get an English language source describing how doctrine develops. The “Balancing out” method was actually Saint JPII’s favorite method. History of the process for how Church doctrine goes deeper can be found here. I sincerely apologize, but it is worth punching it into Google translate. https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/it/2016/04/28/news/l-evoluzione-della-dottrina-spiegata-da-civilta-cattolica-1.35020142/?ref=62
A king once had two advisors close to his throne and his rule of the kingdom. One day, the king came to his advisors with a plan regarding the annual crop tax, since a drought had produced a low yield among the farmers. The first advisor responded, “Sir, you have the right concerns for the people, but I think that reducing the tax even further this year, and levying a higher tax on traded goods instead, is the proper decision. Your lineage has served the people well, and adjusting the taxes would increase the people’s devotion to serve you and the kingdom.” The other advisor responded, “jeez, why do we even levy taxes, pal? And we really need to rethink the idea of a monarchy in the first place - let’s let the commoners to rotate o. the throne. In fact, you’re just outdated and stupid.”
Tell me: which of the two advisors was “critically loyal”?
“I think a problem that the Church today is facing is that it has a tendency to try to find universal truths… that is a problem because we have so many different countries with so many different cultures,” Lemmelijn added.
“And so as long as we try to have one universal, untouchable truth for all and everyone, that is difficult,” she concluded.
How do I access the Michael Scott GIFs on Substack because that’s the only response I can muster
If cultures make people so different that there is no universal truth for everyone, than how on earth can we claim to be brothers? How can we claim any kind of equality that would require us to treat people of other cultures well? For example, what reference point is there to call a culture that murders people of different cultures bad? If there's no universal truth, and that's their truth, then we are either not justified in opposing such a culture, or we are justified in opposing anyone from simple preference.
People who do not believe in the truth have no grounds for talking; they have restricted themselves to only speaking nonsense.
It’s like you’re saying that there’s a sort dictatorship here, telling us what we can and cannot say is the truth? It’s like, a dictatorship of relativism!
If we were to get the church these Belgian theologians are advocating, my question is who will need that church? We can get everything they advocate from The NY Times. No moral demands from that church other than to be, or pretend to be, woke at all times.
Praying to remain faithful at all times to the Church of Jesus Christ and its True Magisterium.
There are a lot of bishops that vehemently disagree with Pope Francis. In a lot of countries, from many backgrounds. If you look at the Vatican’s record in appointing bishops, they are appointing 1 unaligned person for every 2 bishops aligned with Francis. That means if you critique Pope Francis and were on the terna to become a bishop you still have a 33% chance. For Bishop Strickland, it’s the tone that separates him from his colleagues in the same camp. You can’t praise a video calling the Holy Father a diabolically disoriented clown. You just can’t. Typically that could merit a much greater punishment than he received.
Where? Most of those bishops no longer have a job and rarely talk about their criticism. Is there a survey I missed. I could cherry pick any three bishops to support your hypothesis or any hypothesis. I think the reality is more nuanced than Francis-aligned or Francis opposed (though I would love for you to note three bishops that have been raised to the episcopate in the last 5 years within the U.S. that openly oppose Francis. Should be easy if 1 in 3 of them fit this category.
I think the statement would make more sense (though Dan can please correct me if he thinks this is wrong) as 'one unaligned person for every 2 bishops aligned with +Cupich', in which case three in the last five years is pretty easy- let's say Cozzens, Fernandes, and Ruggieri. Ruggieri is an example of the nuance you're identifying - I'd describe him as clearly aligned with Pope Francis but not with Cupich
That would make more sense but I still would argue that those are two vastly different things as I have seen both Cozzens and Fernandes speak positively about Pope Francis and Synodality. It would seem that one must at least never speak anything but praise on the Holy Father and pay lip service to be considered for the episcopate which stands in contradiction of what Dan originally said.
Mostly because she is not an incompetent bishop but a functionary with the task of maintaining "internationally recognized quality standards." Just as a secular Jew might be highly qualified to hold a Church post for the translation of writings from Hebrew.
A secular jew would not be highly qualified to hold a Church post because he is jewish, his intellect and will are severely disabled by sin. Church intellectuals need the light of Grace to do their job effectively and a jew has refused that Grace.
//A secular jew would not be highly qualified to hold a Church post because he is jewish, his intellect and will are severely disabled by sin. Church intellectuals need the light of Grace to do their job effectively and a jew has refused that Grace.//
I’m very much hoping for a strengthening of the theological training for priests. I realize in a Protestant country that there is some value in teaching apologetics, but that it’s dramatically weakened the ability of some to understand and grasp theological concepts. The defensive and legal nature of some of the concepts being preached is being noticed. The other week, someone asked me, “I have a complex family situation. Almost every priest I ask for advice immediately shuts down the conversation. How can we claim to be the one true Church if a local pastor feels threatened by me?”
And as long as someone is faithful and not extreme—on the left or right—historically we’ve only really developed stronger Catholic teachings after disgruntled theologians pointed out who/what was not being served by the existing promulgated doctrine. Our faith is alive. We can’t keep going deeper if we surround ourselves with theologians who always think like us.
Well there have been an enormous number of changes in doctrine going deeper. For example, early on JPII was instrumental in moving the Church away from harping on teaching that suicide is a sin against the virtue of hope. (The pastoral advice not that long ago was actually, feeling suicidal? Don’t choose that, it’s a sin.). Pope JPII never rejected that, it’s still equally true. However, his elevation of human dignity as a more important factor led the Church to shift toward more relevant truth. Doctrine is always at the service of the pastoral, and always has been. Oddly, by sidelining the unhelpful argument it’s also been a greater service to preparing the overall Christian community to build up the virtue of hope. These kinds of things happen A LOT in Catholic doctrine and development.
I’d recommend checking out the 4 levels of Catholic doctrine. You’ll feel more at ease about whether someone could authentically challenge the true presence (answer is no). On reformable doctrine, one of the more controversial shifts in doctrine was to teach the “naturalness” of being born into slavery. Human dignity too was applied there as the truth that had been ignored or not elevated to its proper level with regard to slavery.
But these types shifts and growing deeper in Christ happen all the time.
HEAVENS NO please do not rely on that. The more I work with people in complex situations, the more I realize our credibility as far as temporal justice, and willingness to trust the Church to make the healthiest choice for us has been weakened. Confession is one of the pro forma things people do to put their affairs in order before suicide. They are already at ease knowing they can finally escape the temporal pains of this world. It usually takes about 2-5 years before someone tells a priest that their confession saved them from what they were planning. But the moral theology approach (orienting, slowly walking through problems, holding the tension, and affirming someone’s dignity that felt lacking is a much safer approach.). I am so exhausted of hearing about stories going the other way, and unfortunately, there are a lot of people that in their loyalty to the Church and seeming inability to resolve their own issues, have eliminated themselves.
It could help them, and it could also break them. A lot depends on their current state of mind. A lot depends on exactly why they are suicidal, and also on how voluntarily they are suicidal. A person can be plagued with suicidal thoughts and feelings while very much wanting not to kill themselves, and it can also get rather difficult for all of us to figure out what we really want, while being bombarded with thoughts and feelings for something. Telling them they're committing the sin of despair with such thinking and will wind up in hell if they have a moment of weakness and give in (as they're feeling very weak and precarious), might well not be true, and if untrue, it could stack scruples, futile attempts to control first movements, and actual despair, on top of whatever they're already barely managing to deal with.
Simply put, knowledge that we are not morally responsible for non-volitional thoughts and feelings takes a lot of pressure off. Knowledge that reduced culpability is a thing, takes a lot of pressure off. When a person is overwhelmed with pressure, that can be very helpful. Having someone know the struggle and not pull away, or drop a catechism lesson and run, that can also be very helpful.
The very obvious thing that suicidal thoughts, feelings, and impulses indicate, is that *something* is very wrong. Dealing with that something is a little bit more important than giving the person a moral theology lesson.
I'll willingly grant that there are people who would be helped by being informed that freely and knowingly choosing suicide will land you in hell. People like samurai committing suicide to restore their honor, for example. I don't think we can tell which ones will be helped and which harmed, without taking the time to learn a lot about the person - which leads into dealing with the underlying very wrong something.
Telling someone that something is a mortal sin when you know it isn't, or know that there's a good chance decreased culpability will reduce it to a venial sin, is lying. Moral guilt is not a tool to exaggerate in order to scare someone straight. Not even ourselves. Like all emotions, it is properly ordered only when it is based on truth.
I agree. The apologetics mindset is obviously useful in a number of circumstances, but I think unfortunately it has a tendency to lower the ceiling on people's inquiry. (I would grant that it plausibly raises the floor)
One way it hurts is just what you identified - it doesn't encourage the capacity to deal with situations that are both not ideal AND for complex reasons unable to transition toward the ideal by ordinary means
I agree that my phrasing was inept- probably there is no situation that cannot transition toward the ideal, but what I really meant to say was situations that cannot be brought to achieve the ideal.
I think both your original phrasing and the latter are correct. No worries there. For centuries the Church taught of the naturalness of slavery, but recognizing a need to transition toward something more ideal, we had a long transition that tolerated “just title servitude.” JPII was a major force in elevating Catholic teaching on human dignity in a way that helped close debate on people who were angry the Church’s teachings had changed. The Catholic Church has never taught that it’s doctrine is static. That’s just simply not part of being Catholic. Teachings must always be in continuity and calling slavery natural one day —> suddenly it’s unnatural. That was a massive issue in theology. There continues to be an immense resistance to Catholic theological discussions in countries where there is a large Protestant population, and moral theology formation is often abbreviated in favor of a focus on identifying sin. The priority becomes keeping the family together. But what has been unfortunately omitted is an equal training of how to help people orient their lives toward God. First and foremost, sin is at it’s most basic core, nothing more than a failure to bother to love. God himself is love, and so to understand how to avoid temptations we have to learn how to catch ourselves in the earliest tendencies to move away from inauthentic love of neighbor & the self as God created us.
I think I'd go with, there is always a morally correct way to handle every situation, and typically there are many. Sometimes they all involve a lot of suffering.
Particularly with marriages, the ideal solution with the least amount of suffering requires both parties to behave like fairly decent people, and it is always possible that only one is interested in even trying.
That is a fair Catholic approach. I think it is better though if we stick to Aquinas method who thought natural law could not be summed up in neat laws that takes into account all situations. Nor did he think it was wise to attempt. He stressed applying general principles with particular cases with serious prudence and wisdom. Something that rejects the relativism of throwing out the law, and the practical relativism of saying one interpretation is capable of handling the complex situations in moral life. Aquinas was not a just do whatever your conscience says guy either. But the application of those precepts could vary depending on circumstance. We don’t do a good job of teaching theology in the USA and it can lead to these polarized political situations in the Church. Like our politics here.
Oh, by "morally correct way", I did not mean "way necessarily clearly definable with a system of rules". One of my gripes about certain bishops is precisely that they take things that are not objectively evil, but rather are highly dependent on individual circumstances, and make a ringing statement about what everyone ought to do. (e.g., everyone should get the Covid vaccine) Precisely because there are too many variables, and variation in good data, to make such a statement. For it to be wise to render principles + variables into a system of rules, one would have to know all possible variables, and then have it be possible to account for them in a clear and simple manner, and then have the mental capacity to do it. Somewhat amusing to try to imagine such an individual.
There are things that you should never do and those are clearly definable, and also things that might be wrong or right depending on how the application of moral principles to specific circumstances comes out, and if you have bad intentions, it's wrong even if it passes the first two tests.
I did learn that from a middle/high school religious ed curriculum written by an American priest.
I don’t know where you have encountered this with priests. My encounters with the priests in my part of the country who have been ordained in the past 15-20 years is that they are able to articulate the different ways of approaching difficult moral situations from the Catholic perspective.
The only priests I don’t see as being able to do this were trained in the 80’s and 90’s who fall within the conservative range but probably didn’t receive the best education because most professors openly defied Church teaching and those priest rebelled.
There are exceptions in the recent ordinations but they do not represent the norm in my experience.
With regrets, we do not appear to be improving. It is anecdotal in the sense that I've met with more than 200 individuals to discuss their reasons for leaving (or contemplating leaving) over the past 5 years. Many of them circulate among their own followers not to go to priests who are newly ordained. I will never actually truly know what was said, but I can assure you, the people I'm working with were not receiving theological advice...just the identification of sin. For those willing to try out confession again (and it often takes a few years to convince them to go back), I can tell you: Go find a priest who has suffered something awful. Go find a priest who had the worst addiction with substance abuse and somehow over years of hard work has found sobriety. They will teach you more about God in confession than anyone. If you're not living any habitual mortal sin or suffering addiction, then basically any priest will do.
That makes a lot of sense. I suppose the fact that it seems that both the diocese and seminary that serves the do try to stretch men in formation. It also, seems that the priest I know well seem to understand their own woundedness and are able to see it others. Thought they certainly are not perfect and some are more willing than others to engage in the “nitty gritty” with people.
“I think a problem that the Church today is facing is that it has a tendency to try to find universal truths… that is a problem because we have so many different countries with so many different cultures,” Lemmelijn added.
If there is no one truth there can be no one, holy, Catholic church.,
yet to this very day, the Church suffers scandalous and painful divisions both with the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East because of misunderstandings between Greek and Syriac texts. Expressing concepts across cultural and linguistic barriers is often difficult.
If there is no one universal, untouchable truth for all and everyone, as Christianity (esp. Roman Catholic Christianity) has long suggested, then why should I believe the "uncomfortable truths" that Prof. Lemmelijn wants to share?
The Catholic Church has four levels of doctrine. Archive from EWTN linked below. No teaching is static, but in continuity. That’s also answering a different than saying core truths of God are immutable. Yes, God does not change. But do we even have the vocabulary to explain God in the clearest way possible yet? Without a humble understanding that doctrine is about growth and continuity at the service of saving people, Aquinas never would have had the opportunity to weave philosophy and theology on natural law, transsubstantiation etc. And in fact, he did not believe that what he wrote, with the vocabulary available at the time, was sufficient enough to communicate what we believe as clear as it could be. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/four-levels-of-the-churchs-teaching-12242
Given shifts in language, I don't think there will ever be a clearest way possible. But Joseph wasn't talking about expression of truths, but of the truth itself. The Truth always saves and does not change. The expression of truth has to keep up with changing language, culture, and modes of reception, to express the same thing, as clearly as possible for that time. St. Thomas might have done better for his time, than theologians now do for ours. Or vice versa. But if some modern theologians want to say that it is perfectly moral to be sexually promiscuous, then it doesn't matter how well they express things, because they aren't expressing the truth.
I agree 100% with your summary. I do not know this specific theologian’s views on anything related to sexual morality, and I could be ready to disagree readily if I thought it throws out existing doctrine without explaining authentic and full continuity with what has always been taught. However, I am so frustrated with the very poor quality of theology on sexuality morality I’ve encountered. One that is essentially over-structuralized and poorly lacking in an understanding of how men and women come to encounter the world in a trinitarian way through their relationship. Not to say seminaries don’t teach that, but it never makes it to the pulpit. Instead the emphasis on identifying sin cheats the faithful of a way to truly discover their sacramental vocation. I will give many props to the pastoral ministry available to suffering couples though!
Honestly, I think priests are generally disinclined to discuss sexual morality from the pulpit period. Not just because it is somewhat unpopular, but also because there are children of all ages present. There are also time constraints that make more complex theology a non-starter, and a modern emphasis on connecting things to the readings that interferes with trying to do a sermon series.
Positive morality is much harder than negative morality. Personally, I think pastors would be much better off preaching about mental prayer than trying to preach on trinitarian analogies in relationships - and the mental prayer would allow God to teach people.
That said, I would show up for priests giving adult lectures beyond RCIA, schedule allowing.
Have you read any St. Alphonsus Liguouri? He wrote a multi-volume set that is supposed to be for moral theology what the summa is for systematic theology. I'm planning on reading it, but I have rather a lot of plans.
I hear a lot of homilies on pornography. And agreeing with the end goal, the logical arguments are losing credibility in the modern world. For example, suggesting that it harms women and many are trafficked (This is true, it’s a serious problem). But kids are pointing out that many OnlyFans “models” have not only pulled themselves from poor to rich, creating financial stability, that some models are also engaged in the community. So kids are wondering where is the harm?
On the other hand, chastity is essentially about willing the good for the other but in relation to our bodies. How does watching a video prompt us to not only see but encounter the full dignity of the other person? Or does it speak to desires of the self? Chastity is born of the commandment to love one another as Jesus did. And so it is also rooted in principles of fostering healthy relationships that avoid possessiveness. Chastity is taking responsibility for another, seeking mutual encounters.
Huh. I've heard precisely one, and that one employed double bacon cheeseburgers as a placeholder.
Chastity is the virtue of rightly ordered intimacy. The intimacy of the mind and affections as well as of the body, because intimacy with another person is necessarily intimacy with the whole person (different emphases and extents depending on the type of relationship). I believe women tend to have more trouble with the affections aspect than the physical aspect. Completely dropping off one aspect of that, even unintentionally or by necessity (e.g. you and I, typing away with no physical presence) is going to be at least a little detrimental. You train yourself to be bad at relating to an entire person. Deliberately excluding everything that does not provide pleasure disorders that relationship on an epic level, and the capacity for relationships with others to boot. That destabilizes the person, and therefore the community. "If I give all I possess to the poor... but have not love..." I agree that a lack of possessiveness is essential, but I think the key principle is that the relationship be directed toward God. Otherwise the lack of possessiveness tends to conflict with the taking responsibility.
I am reminded of the British OF model who was run through by 1,000 guys in a day or some nonsense. A clip was circulated showing her breaking down and crying while discussing with the interviewer what had taken place.
I doubt that I have devoted as much reflection on these points as you appear to have, Dan. But I can say from firsthand experience (and the testimonies of many, many others) that the pastoral application of doctrines emerging from the Theology of the Body has been a powerful corrective to generations of unhelpful and unhealthy teachings by Catholic clergy and religious. In fact, JPII's magisteria on sexuality has been nothing short of liberating for me and for so many others, especially in its reinforcement of the dignity of women. When you refer to the "very poor quality of theology on sexual morality" that you've encountered, are you referring to the (still-unfolding) teachings that surround ToB?
The Gospel inculturates, not the other way around. Do we need to preach the mercy of God in a way that shows love? Yes, it's the Kerygma. It is the only "sword" to penetrate the grip of Satan that keeps people enslaved in sin, choked into their gender confusion, etc. That Truth is the ultimate form of Love (in the dimension of the Cross) and enlightens the soul when words, culture-warrior tomes and laws (the law kills) do damage. The Holy Spirit is best corrective measure to bring people out of sin. What's troubling is... this article isn't about potential but someone in a position of authority with heretical positions
// Pope Francis appointed on Friday a Belgian theologian who describes herself as "critically loyal" to the Church to serve on a Vatican body responsible for overseeing ecclesiastical universities.
The appointment is likely to prove controversial, as theologian Bénedicte Lemmelijn is dean of the theology department at a university which called last year for women’s ordination and a “rethink” on the Church’s moral theology regarding sexuality. //
Looks like a wonderful selection of academics including all of the current perspectives in the Church. Keeping it to one point of view would be neither truthful nor serious. The Church is bigger than that and doesn’t need to be afraid of intellectual honesty. Unlike certain seminaries and dioceses, who treat Catholics they disagree with as pariahs (and this happens on all “sides”).
While Pope Francis is in this fragile physical state, I don't think any major appointments or proclamations should be made by the Vatican. We really don't know who is making decisions in Rome.
She has her opinion, and that is her prerogative. It doesn't need to be reflective of the objective truths of our Faith. Perhaps by being assigned to the Vatican committee with other theologians of a more truthful bent she might be converted. The fact that she believes that there are no objective truths means that she is more Protestant than Catholic; anything she says is her opinion and not reflective of any of the "development of doctrine" principles of the Church.
Is it really a Protestant tenet that there are no objective truths? is this what Luther and Calvin taught? If so, why did the Protestant martyrs of Queen Mary's time go to their deaths in England? why did Bonhoeffer oppose the Nazis? I'm no theologian, but the suggestion surprises me.
The original Protestants believed in objective truth, and were willing to burn people at the stake (or be burnt) over it. Most of them also thought Our Lady was great. Modern Protestants do not exactly hold the same theology. Something about lacking valid Sacraments, bishops, and a Pope causes things to dissipate over time. There are relativists among them (which is how some denominations have voted not to remove a pastor who was an open atheist). In spite of America being majority Protestant, the idea that one should not tell other people not procure the murder of their children, or impose penalties on those who do the murdering, is pretty widespread, including through mainline Protestantism.
We’ve got to be careful about the temptation of practical relativism that can happen in assuming the Church’s teachings are static. That is definitely not something the universal Church has ever proclaimed. Our doctrine is always in continuity, but never static. The static view is a different form of relativism than that just throws out teachings like in some liberal circles in Europe. But it presents itself here as a defense of remarkably specific moment within Catholicism (usually a defense of renaissance Europe) while ignoring just how different universal Catholicism was even at that time. The Gospel always experiences inculturation. The culture that you live in (vote in, work in) is the context that you will usually first end up discovering the meaning of Jesus Christ in the sacraments. Don’t get me wrong, defending our traditions is extremely important. But to avoid relativism we have to have a sense of humble flexibility, seek unity, and also pump the breaks to avoid changing fast.
The sacrament of marriage is largely a theological reflection on God not making all of us exactly the same (he made us male and female). Why didn’t he make everyone male? Perhaps because reflecting on being made in the image and likeness of God, there is a sort of inherent incompleteness by oneself. God made us male and female. Differences that matter. Anyone can avoid sin by themselves, but it’s actually difficult to achieve a life virtue without fostering permanent and stable encounters with someone who is different than you. The virtue involved in marriage happens when we take responsibility for another person, without seeking to possess them. The Catholic Church is much the same way. We’re not just a confederation, but each of us in the dignity of our differences, can come to help the other understand their reflection of Jesus Christ in a more meaningful way.
O_O I enjoy the conversation except for the part that makes it seem like I have ever shared the views of the current debates in Germany. I anticipated you would actually like my reply.
I don’t want to accidentally pick on your comment here. I know what you meant and share concerns. I’m a conservative voter and grew up with Mass in Latin. But as far as talking theology goes, it’s absolutely impossible to get an English language source describing how doctrine develops. The “Balancing out” method was actually Saint JPII’s favorite method. History of the process for how Church doctrine goes deeper can be found here. I sincerely apologize, but it is worth punching it into Google translate. https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/it/2016/04/28/news/l-evoluzione-della-dottrina-spiegata-da-civilta-cattolica-1.35020142/?ref=62
Here’s a book in English you can purchase about St. Vincent of Lérins and the development of doctrine (which I haven’t read, but it’s there):
https://www.amazon.com/Development-Christian-Foundations-Theological-Spirituality/dp/0801049091
Here’s the full text (I think) of John Henry Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, which is well worth reading:
https://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html
You can also find Vincent’s text in translation, but I’ll leave finding that to others.
YOU ARE WONDERFUL. Thank you.
A king once had two advisors close to his throne and his rule of the kingdom. One day, the king came to his advisors with a plan regarding the annual crop tax, since a drought had produced a low yield among the farmers. The first advisor responded, “Sir, you have the right concerns for the people, but I think that reducing the tax even further this year, and levying a higher tax on traded goods instead, is the proper decision. Your lineage has served the people well, and adjusting the taxes would increase the people’s devotion to serve you and the kingdom.” The other advisor responded, “jeez, why do we even levy taxes, pal? And we really need to rethink the idea of a monarchy in the first place - let’s let the commoners to rotate o. the throne. In fact, you’re just outdated and stupid.”
Tell me: which of the two advisors was “critically loyal”?
“I think a problem that the Church today is facing is that it has a tendency to try to find universal truths… that is a problem because we have so many different countries with so many different cultures,” Lemmelijn added.
“And so as long as we try to have one universal, untouchable truth for all and everyone, that is difficult,” she concluded.
How do I access the Michael Scott GIFs on Substack because that’s the only response I can muster
Good grief.
If cultures make people so different that there is no universal truth for everyone, than how on earth can we claim to be brothers? How can we claim any kind of equality that would require us to treat people of other cultures well? For example, what reference point is there to call a culture that murders people of different cultures bad? If there's no universal truth, and that's their truth, then we are either not justified in opposing such a culture, or we are justified in opposing anyone from simple preference.
People who do not believe in the truth have no grounds for talking; they have restricted themselves to only speaking nonsense.
Relativism rules. Truth is out and truths are in. Who are we to judge?
Wait, wait, wait!
It’s like you’re saying that there’s a sort dictatorship here, telling us what we can and cannot say is the truth? It’s like, a dictatorship of relativism!
If there is no “one universal, untouchable truth for all and everyone” then there is no God, at least not the Biblical God.
I half expected her to say Quid est vertías?
Silly Father. Don't you know that we got rid of Latin after Vatican II?
Mea culpa, mea culp…oops
Well played.
She rather did say that
“Untouchable truth for all… that is difficult”
You know what is difficult? The Cross.
If we were to get the church these Belgian theologians are advocating, my question is who will need that church? We can get everything they advocate from The NY Times. No moral demands from that church other than to be, or pretend to be, woke at all times.
Praying to remain faithful at all times to the Church of Jesus Christ and its True Magisterium.
Three things it seems we can never expect from our spiritual fathers:
1- To correct doctrinal error coming from the left.
2- To rebuke the moral failings of prelates ranking above a certain threshold.
2- To admit there might be a problem with the post conciliar liturgy.
Speak for yourself and your own spiritual fathers. :)
I know there are a lot of bad clergy, and also a lot of good but cautiously quiet clergy. But there are also some very good ones.
Very true! There are many good priests. They don't get much press sometimes.
Wait a minute, if Bishop Strickland is critically loyal he gets the bum’s rush, why does this critically loyal person get the golden ticket?
There are a lot of bishops that vehemently disagree with Pope Francis. In a lot of countries, from many backgrounds. If you look at the Vatican’s record in appointing bishops, they are appointing 1 unaligned person for every 2 bishops aligned with Francis. That means if you critique Pope Francis and were on the terna to become a bishop you still have a 33% chance. For Bishop Strickland, it’s the tone that separates him from his colleagues in the same camp. You can’t praise a video calling the Holy Father a diabolically disoriented clown. You just can’t. Typically that could merit a much greater punishment than he received.
Where? Most of those bishops no longer have a job and rarely talk about their criticism. Is there a survey I missed. I could cherry pick any three bishops to support your hypothesis or any hypothesis. I think the reality is more nuanced than Francis-aligned or Francis opposed (though I would love for you to note three bishops that have been raised to the episcopate in the last 5 years within the U.S. that openly oppose Francis. Should be easy if 1 in 3 of them fit this category.
I think the statement would make more sense (though Dan can please correct me if he thinks this is wrong) as 'one unaligned person for every 2 bishops aligned with +Cupich', in which case three in the last five years is pretty easy- let's say Cozzens, Fernandes, and Ruggieri. Ruggieri is an example of the nuance you're identifying - I'd describe him as clearly aligned with Pope Francis but not with Cupich
That would make more sense but I still would argue that those are two vastly different things as I have seen both Cozzens and Fernandes speak positively about Pope Francis and Synodality. It would seem that one must at least never speak anything but praise on the Holy Father and pay lip service to be considered for the episcopate which stands in contradiction of what Dan originally said.
Mostly because she is not an incompetent bishop but a functionary with the task of maintaining "internationally recognized quality standards." Just as a secular Jew might be highly qualified to hold a Church post for the translation of writings from Hebrew.
A secular jew would not be highly qualified to hold a Church post because he is jewish, his intellect and will are severely disabled by sin. Church intellectuals need the light of Grace to do their job effectively and a jew has refused that Grace.
//A secular jew would not be highly qualified to hold a Church post because he is jewish, his intellect and will are severely disabled by sin. Church intellectuals need the light of Grace to do their job effectively and a jew has refused that Grace.//
uh huh.
Yes, that is the straightforward teaching of the Church on the impact of sin and the need for Grace
I'm sure that is in the 'Protocols', but could you cite which chapter?
I’m very much hoping for a strengthening of the theological training for priests. I realize in a Protestant country that there is some value in teaching apologetics, but that it’s dramatically weakened the ability of some to understand and grasp theological concepts. The defensive and legal nature of some of the concepts being preached is being noticed. The other week, someone asked me, “I have a complex family situation. Almost every priest I ask for advice immediately shuts down the conversation. How can we claim to be the one true Church if a local pastor feels threatened by me?”
And as long as someone is faithful and not extreme—on the left or right—historically we’ve only really developed stronger Catholic teachings after disgruntled theologians pointed out who/what was not being served by the existing promulgated doctrine. Our faith is alive. We can’t keep going deeper if we surround ourselves with theologians who always think like us.
Well there have been an enormous number of changes in doctrine going deeper. For example, early on JPII was instrumental in moving the Church away from harping on teaching that suicide is a sin against the virtue of hope. (The pastoral advice not that long ago was actually, feeling suicidal? Don’t choose that, it’s a sin.). Pope JPII never rejected that, it’s still equally true. However, his elevation of human dignity as a more important factor led the Church to shift toward more relevant truth. Doctrine is always at the service of the pastoral, and always has been. Oddly, by sidelining the unhelpful argument it’s also been a greater service to preparing the overall Christian community to build up the virtue of hope. These kinds of things happen A LOT in Catholic doctrine and development.
I’d recommend checking out the 4 levels of Catholic doctrine. You’ll feel more at ease about whether someone could authentically challenge the true presence (answer is no). On reformable doctrine, one of the more controversial shifts in doctrine was to teach the “naturalness” of being born into slavery. Human dignity too was applied there as the truth that had been ignored or not elevated to its proper level with regard to slavery.
But these types shifts and growing deeper in Christ happen all the time.
Except that thinking something is a mortal sin sometimes persuades a person not to do it, which can be extremely helpful to someone feeling suicidal.
HEAVENS NO please do not rely on that. The more I work with people in complex situations, the more I realize our credibility as far as temporal justice, and willingness to trust the Church to make the healthiest choice for us has been weakened. Confession is one of the pro forma things people do to put their affairs in order before suicide. They are already at ease knowing they can finally escape the temporal pains of this world. It usually takes about 2-5 years before someone tells a priest that their confession saved them from what they were planning. But the moral theology approach (orienting, slowly walking through problems, holding the tension, and affirming someone’s dignity that felt lacking is a much safer approach.). I am so exhausted of hearing about stories going the other way, and unfortunately, there are a lot of people that in their loyalty to the Church and seeming inability to resolve their own issues, have eliminated themselves.
It could help them, and it could also break them. A lot depends on their current state of mind. A lot depends on exactly why they are suicidal, and also on how voluntarily they are suicidal. A person can be plagued with suicidal thoughts and feelings while very much wanting not to kill themselves, and it can also get rather difficult for all of us to figure out what we really want, while being bombarded with thoughts and feelings for something. Telling them they're committing the sin of despair with such thinking and will wind up in hell if they have a moment of weakness and give in (as they're feeling very weak and precarious), might well not be true, and if untrue, it could stack scruples, futile attempts to control first movements, and actual despair, on top of whatever they're already barely managing to deal with.
Simply put, knowledge that we are not morally responsible for non-volitional thoughts and feelings takes a lot of pressure off. Knowledge that reduced culpability is a thing, takes a lot of pressure off. When a person is overwhelmed with pressure, that can be very helpful. Having someone know the struggle and not pull away, or drop a catechism lesson and run, that can also be very helpful.
The very obvious thing that suicidal thoughts, feelings, and impulses indicate, is that *something* is very wrong. Dealing with that something is a little bit more important than giving the person a moral theology lesson.
I'll willingly grant that there are people who would be helped by being informed that freely and knowingly choosing suicide will land you in hell. People like samurai committing suicide to restore their honor, for example. I don't think we can tell which ones will be helped and which harmed, without taking the time to learn a lot about the person - which leads into dealing with the underlying very wrong something.
Telling someone that something is a mortal sin when you know it isn't, or know that there's a good chance decreased culpability will reduce it to a venial sin, is lying. Moral guilt is not a tool to exaggerate in order to scare someone straight. Not even ourselves. Like all emotions, it is properly ordered only when it is based on truth.
I agree. The apologetics mindset is obviously useful in a number of circumstances, but I think unfortunately it has a tendency to lower the ceiling on people's inquiry. (I would grant that it plausibly raises the floor)
One way it hurts is just what you identified - it doesn't encourage the capacity to deal with situations that are both not ideal AND for complex reasons unable to transition toward the ideal by ordinary means
I agree that my phrasing was inept- probably there is no situation that cannot transition toward the ideal, but what I really meant to say was situations that cannot be brought to achieve the ideal.
I think both your original phrasing and the latter are correct. No worries there. For centuries the Church taught of the naturalness of slavery, but recognizing a need to transition toward something more ideal, we had a long transition that tolerated “just title servitude.” JPII was a major force in elevating Catholic teaching on human dignity in a way that helped close debate on people who were angry the Church’s teachings had changed. The Catholic Church has never taught that it’s doctrine is static. That’s just simply not part of being Catholic. Teachings must always be in continuity and calling slavery natural one day —> suddenly it’s unnatural. That was a massive issue in theology. There continues to be an immense resistance to Catholic theological discussions in countries where there is a large Protestant population, and moral theology formation is often abbreviated in favor of a focus on identifying sin. The priority becomes keeping the family together. But what has been unfortunately omitted is an equal training of how to help people orient their lives toward God. First and foremost, sin is at it’s most basic core, nothing more than a failure to bother to love. God himself is love, and so to understand how to avoid temptations we have to learn how to catch ourselves in the earliest tendencies to move away from inauthentic love of neighbor & the self as God created us.
I think I'd go with, there is always a morally correct way to handle every situation, and typically there are many. Sometimes they all involve a lot of suffering.
Particularly with marriages, the ideal solution with the least amount of suffering requires both parties to behave like fairly decent people, and it is always possible that only one is interested in even trying.
That is a fair Catholic approach. I think it is better though if we stick to Aquinas method who thought natural law could not be summed up in neat laws that takes into account all situations. Nor did he think it was wise to attempt. He stressed applying general principles with particular cases with serious prudence and wisdom. Something that rejects the relativism of throwing out the law, and the practical relativism of saying one interpretation is capable of handling the complex situations in moral life. Aquinas was not a just do whatever your conscience says guy either. But the application of those precepts could vary depending on circumstance. We don’t do a good job of teaching theology in the USA and it can lead to these polarized political situations in the Church. Like our politics here.
Oh, by "morally correct way", I did not mean "way necessarily clearly definable with a system of rules". One of my gripes about certain bishops is precisely that they take things that are not objectively evil, but rather are highly dependent on individual circumstances, and make a ringing statement about what everyone ought to do. (e.g., everyone should get the Covid vaccine) Precisely because there are too many variables, and variation in good data, to make such a statement. For it to be wise to render principles + variables into a system of rules, one would have to know all possible variables, and then have it be possible to account for them in a clear and simple manner, and then have the mental capacity to do it. Somewhat amusing to try to imagine such an individual.
There are things that you should never do and those are clearly definable, and also things that might be wrong or right depending on how the application of moral principles to specific circumstances comes out, and if you have bad intentions, it's wrong even if it passes the first two tests.
I did learn that from a middle/high school religious ed curriculum written by an American priest.
I don’t know where you have encountered this with priests. My encounters with the priests in my part of the country who have been ordained in the past 15-20 years is that they are able to articulate the different ways of approaching difficult moral situations from the Catholic perspective.
The only priests I don’t see as being able to do this were trained in the 80’s and 90’s who fall within the conservative range but probably didn’t receive the best education because most professors openly defied Church teaching and those priest rebelled.
There are exceptions in the recent ordinations but they do not represent the norm in my experience.
With regrets, we do not appear to be improving. It is anecdotal in the sense that I've met with more than 200 individuals to discuss their reasons for leaving (or contemplating leaving) over the past 5 years. Many of them circulate among their own followers not to go to priests who are newly ordained. I will never actually truly know what was said, but I can assure you, the people I'm working with were not receiving theological advice...just the identification of sin. For those willing to try out confession again (and it often takes a few years to convince them to go back), I can tell you: Go find a priest who has suffered something awful. Go find a priest who had the worst addiction with substance abuse and somehow over years of hard work has found sobriety. They will teach you more about God in confession than anyone. If you're not living any habitual mortal sin or suffering addiction, then basically any priest will do.
That makes a lot of sense. I suppose the fact that it seems that both the diocese and seminary that serves the do try to stretch men in formation. It also, seems that the priest I know well seem to understand their own woundedness and are able to see it others. Thought they certainly are not perfect and some are more willing than others to engage in the “nitty gritty” with people.
“I think a problem that the Church today is facing is that it has a tendency to try to find universal truths… that is a problem because we have so many different countries with so many different cultures,” Lemmelijn added.
If there is no one truth there can be no one, holy, Catholic church.,
yet to this very day, the Church suffers scandalous and painful divisions both with the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East because of misunderstandings between Greek and Syriac texts. Expressing concepts across cultural and linguistic barriers is often difficult.
If there is no one universal, untouchable truth for all and everyone, as Christianity (esp. Roman Catholic Christianity) has long suggested, then why should I believe the "uncomfortable truths" that Prof. Lemmelijn wants to share?
Asking for myself.
The Catholic Church has four levels of doctrine. Archive from EWTN linked below. No teaching is static, but in continuity. That’s also answering a different than saying core truths of God are immutable. Yes, God does not change. But do we even have the vocabulary to explain God in the clearest way possible yet? Without a humble understanding that doctrine is about growth and continuity at the service of saving people, Aquinas never would have had the opportunity to weave philosophy and theology on natural law, transsubstantiation etc. And in fact, he did not believe that what he wrote, with the vocabulary available at the time, was sufficient enough to communicate what we believe as clear as it could be. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/four-levels-of-the-churchs-teaching-12242
Given shifts in language, I don't think there will ever be a clearest way possible. But Joseph wasn't talking about expression of truths, but of the truth itself. The Truth always saves and does not change. The expression of truth has to keep up with changing language, culture, and modes of reception, to express the same thing, as clearly as possible for that time. St. Thomas might have done better for his time, than theologians now do for ours. Or vice versa. But if some modern theologians want to say that it is perfectly moral to be sexually promiscuous, then it doesn't matter how well they express things, because they aren't expressing the truth.
I agree 100% with your summary. I do not know this specific theologian’s views on anything related to sexual morality, and I could be ready to disagree readily if I thought it throws out existing doctrine without explaining authentic and full continuity with what has always been taught. However, I am so frustrated with the very poor quality of theology on sexuality morality I’ve encountered. One that is essentially over-structuralized and poorly lacking in an understanding of how men and women come to encounter the world in a trinitarian way through their relationship. Not to say seminaries don’t teach that, but it never makes it to the pulpit. Instead the emphasis on identifying sin cheats the faithful of a way to truly discover their sacramental vocation. I will give many props to the pastoral ministry available to suffering couples though!
Honestly, I think priests are generally disinclined to discuss sexual morality from the pulpit period. Not just because it is somewhat unpopular, but also because there are children of all ages present. There are also time constraints that make more complex theology a non-starter, and a modern emphasis on connecting things to the readings that interferes with trying to do a sermon series.
Positive morality is much harder than negative morality. Personally, I think pastors would be much better off preaching about mental prayer than trying to preach on trinitarian analogies in relationships - and the mental prayer would allow God to teach people.
That said, I would show up for priests giving adult lectures beyond RCIA, schedule allowing.
Have you read any St. Alphonsus Liguouri? He wrote a multi-volume set that is supposed to be for moral theology what the summa is for systematic theology. I'm planning on reading it, but I have rather a lot of plans.
I hear a lot of homilies on pornography. And agreeing with the end goal, the logical arguments are losing credibility in the modern world. For example, suggesting that it harms women and many are trafficked (This is true, it’s a serious problem). But kids are pointing out that many OnlyFans “models” have not only pulled themselves from poor to rich, creating financial stability, that some models are also engaged in the community. So kids are wondering where is the harm?
On the other hand, chastity is essentially about willing the good for the other but in relation to our bodies. How does watching a video prompt us to not only see but encounter the full dignity of the other person? Or does it speak to desires of the self? Chastity is born of the commandment to love one another as Jesus did. And so it is also rooted in principles of fostering healthy relationships that avoid possessiveness. Chastity is taking responsibility for another, seeking mutual encounters.
Huh. I've heard precisely one, and that one employed double bacon cheeseburgers as a placeholder.
Chastity is the virtue of rightly ordered intimacy. The intimacy of the mind and affections as well as of the body, because intimacy with another person is necessarily intimacy with the whole person (different emphases and extents depending on the type of relationship). I believe women tend to have more trouble with the affections aspect than the physical aspect. Completely dropping off one aspect of that, even unintentionally or by necessity (e.g. you and I, typing away with no physical presence) is going to be at least a little detrimental. You train yourself to be bad at relating to an entire person. Deliberately excluding everything that does not provide pleasure disorders that relationship on an epic level, and the capacity for relationships with others to boot. That destabilizes the person, and therefore the community. "If I give all I possess to the poor... but have not love..." I agree that a lack of possessiveness is essential, but I think the key principle is that the relationship be directed toward God. Otherwise the lack of possessiveness tends to conflict with the taking responsibility.
“Where is the harm?”
I am reminded of the British OF model who was run through by 1,000 guys in a day or some nonsense. A clip was circulated showing her breaking down and crying while discussing with the interviewer what had taken place.
Where is the harm indeed?
I doubt that I have devoted as much reflection on these points as you appear to have, Dan. But I can say from firsthand experience (and the testimonies of many, many others) that the pastoral application of doctrines emerging from the Theology of the Body has been a powerful corrective to generations of unhelpful and unhealthy teachings by Catholic clergy and religious. In fact, JPII's magisteria on sexuality has been nothing short of liberating for me and for so many others, especially in its reinforcement of the dignity of women. When you refer to the "very poor quality of theology on sexual morality" that you've encountered, are you referring to the (still-unfolding) teachings that surround ToB?
The Gospel inculturates, not the other way around. Do we need to preach the mercy of God in a way that shows love? Yes, it's the Kerygma. It is the only "sword" to penetrate the grip of Satan that keeps people enslaved in sin, choked into their gender confusion, etc. That Truth is the ultimate form of Love (in the dimension of the Cross) and enlightens the soul when words, culture-warrior tomes and laws (the law kills) do damage. The Holy Spirit is best corrective measure to bring people out of sin. What's troubling is... this article isn't about potential but someone in a position of authority with heretical positions
// Pope Francis appointed on Friday a Belgian theologian who describes herself as "critically loyal" to the Church to serve on a Vatican body responsible for overseeing ecclesiastical universities.
The appointment is likely to prove controversial, as theologian Bénedicte Lemmelijn is dean of the theology department at a university which called last year for women’s ordination and a “rethink” on the Church’s moral theology regarding sexuality. //
"Pope Francis appointed on Friday". Right.
Looks like a wonderful selection of academics including all of the current perspectives in the Church. Keeping it to one point of view would be neither truthful nor serious. The Church is bigger than that and doesn’t need to be afraid of intellectual honesty. Unlike certain seminaries and dioceses, who treat Catholics they disagree with as pariahs (and this happens on all “sides”).
While Pope Francis is in this fragile physical state, I don't think any major appointments or proclamations should be made by the Vatican. We really don't know who is making decisions in Rome.
She has her opinion, and that is her prerogative. It doesn't need to be reflective of the objective truths of our Faith. Perhaps by being assigned to the Vatican committee with other theologians of a more truthful bent she might be converted. The fact that she believes that there are no objective truths means that she is more Protestant than Catholic; anything she says is her opinion and not reflective of any of the "development of doctrine" principles of the Church.
Is it really a Protestant tenet that there are no objective truths? is this what Luther and Calvin taught? If so, why did the Protestant martyrs of Queen Mary's time go to their deaths in England? why did Bonhoeffer oppose the Nazis? I'm no theologian, but the suggestion surprises me.
The original Protestants believed in objective truth, and were willing to burn people at the stake (or be burnt) over it. Most of them also thought Our Lady was great. Modern Protestants do not exactly hold the same theology. Something about lacking valid Sacraments, bishops, and a Pope causes things to dissipate over time. There are relativists among them (which is how some denominations have voted not to remove a pastor who was an open atheist). In spite of America being majority Protestant, the idea that one should not tell other people not procure the murder of their children, or impose penalties on those who do the murdering, is pretty widespread, including through mainline Protestantism.
Even on his deathbed the man on Peter’s throne is hell bent on corrupting the faith. Prayers for his conversion as yet unfulfilled.
Contrast her ridiculous quotes with Quotes from St Paul:
“Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.”
“But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”