To paraphrase Ecclesiastes, there is a good time to speak out and a not-so-good time. And if we speak out in a not-so-good time, not only will our message get lost, but in that loss our credibility may be diminished. So I’m not sure this is an auspicious moment for the church to make pronouncements, especially condemnatory ones, on matters relating to sexuality—whether it’s same-sex marriage, homosexuality, and, frankly, anything related to women. To me, it doesn’t seem like the kairos. I hope that the church groks this.Link (here) to the full post by Fr. James Martin, S.J., his post is entitled, Does the Church Grok It?
14 comments:
Fr. Martin demonstrates, yet again, how unqualified he is to speak or write on matters pertaining to Catholic faith. Many centuries ago, Saint Paul provided a clear answer to Christians who would attempt to argue that the Church should "grok". This is from 2 Timothy 4:1-5 -- "I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power: proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching. For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths. But you, be self-possessed in all circumstances; put up with hardship; perform the work of an evangelist; fulfill your ministry."
The Church's duty is to proclaim the truth whether in season or out of season, whether convenient or inconvenient. The "People" of God to whom Fr. Martin refers are often those who do not tolerate sound doctrine and have been diverted to myths. I know many among the faithful People of God who appreciate the Magisterium's persistence and insistence on proclaiming the truth.
Fr. Martin, as so often you show yourself again to be a poseur and someone whose agenda is difficult to square with the Catholic mission.
While I agree that "proclaiming truth" can be important -- is it most important? Does is stand alone?
When I read scripture I don't come away with the impression that "truth" is most important. Rather, truth seems to be a component of a path -- and not even the most important component of that path.
My impression is that some people may be on a holy path even without any "truth".
Tony, you are attempting to make a distinction where there is no difference, and that cannot be done; for where there is no difference there is no distinction to be made. Jesus himself said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." (John 14:6) Because of the unity of Jesus' personhood, you cannot separate the Way from the Truth, as you are attempting to do. Using your term of "path", Jesus himself is that path (sacramentally made present to us through the Church today) because he is the Way. There is no other Way than Jesus. Since Jesus is also the Truth, the Way (or path) cannot be separated from the Truth. You are proposing the impossible, as is Fr. Martin. Or how about the end of the Gospel of Matthew: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Jesus instructs the Church to teach all nations to observe his commands. That means proclaiming the truth. Or how about the Prologue to John's Gospel? "What came to be through [the Word] was life, and this life was the light of the human race." Light is a metaphor for truth, and Jesus, the incarnate Word, is the historical expression of God's eternal truth, which is the redeeming truth that brings human beings to grace and out of sin. Scripture is full of the notion that truth is central to following Christ.
Oh, so this is the new Jesuit tactic. Fr. Martin agrees with Church teaching on homosexual acts and marriage (or so he would have everybody believe), he just thinks the Church should shut up about those particular dogmas because the "kairos" isn't right at this time to be teaching them. Let me guess when Fr. Martin believes the "kairos" for teaching those dogmas will finally arrive: when hell freezes. Do the Jesuits really think they're fooling anybody?
>...you are attempting to make a distinction where there is no difference...
Well, then perhaps you will try to hear what I'm saying.
Simple logic fails me -- I could say that "Christ is within us" and "Christ is truth", therefore, by definition, I am truth. Or, similarly, I could choose other quotes to prove equally absurd positions. Clinging to such simple notions surely will not put me in high esteem before God.
While I am quite sure that "Christ is truth" -- it does not follow that any particular truth is appropriate in any particular situation. Further, it does not follow that any particular interpretation, even from the Church, is unconditionally true. (I am not so much disagreeing with the Church. But acknowledging that the Church itself is neither God nor Christ.)
It is quite inappropriate for me to choose what I want to believe, and then choose the quotes to prove it. Or to take a position, and then hunt for appropriate authorities to substantiate it.
All truth exists in a context. Further, since miracles are quite real, that context can defy our worldly logic. My point is not so much to deny truth, but to provide a reason why it is subservient to other values.
In arguing that the hierarchy does not understand how Catholic lay people think, is Fr. Martin S.J. somehow suggesting that he does? Is he suggesting that his views represent the average lay person? Why? Because he says so?
By providing him a podium at America Magazine, the Jesuits are allowing Fr. Martin and others to make their pronouncements on the shoulders of St. Ignatius and 5 centuries of Jesuits. Let no one fall for this illusion. People listen to their pronouncements only because of their predecessors´ credibility. But that has a limit.
Enrique Alonso
Tony, your logic is not as solid as you seem to believe. Based on your own syllogism, you have made an erroneous inference. You suggested: 1) Christ is within us, 2) Christ is truth, 3) therefore, I am truth. At best, your syllogism would yield the conclusion "truth is within us" not "I am truth", as you suggested. So you have made an invalid inference. By the way, to the extent that Christ dwells within us, to that same extent truth does dwells within us. Since we are not perfect incarnations of Christ, however, we are not perfect embodiments of truth, which is why we will never be able to say honestly "I am truth".
Truth cannot be subservient to other values. If other values were superior to truth, you would have to have some reason for knowing that those values were superior to truth. Your knowledge of the superiority of those other values would be truth, which would place truth above those other values. So, you see, denying the primacy of truth results in a contradiction. Truth must be primary.
What you and Fr. Martin seem to be saying is that sometimes it is not "pastoral" to speak the truth. That cannot be, because your stance then implies that speaking falsehood or withholding the truth is the path of goodness. But truth is good. To withhold or omit the truth is to withhold or omit goodness.
Christ promised the Church that his Spirit of truth would preserve her from teaching error when she exercises the full weight of her teaching authority. The Church's teachings about the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts, the nature of marriage as between a man and a woman, and the reservation of priesthood to males only are all infallibly taught dogmas of the Church. Not speaking them is not going to make them go away or change. Furthermore, the Church has a duty to try and persuade people of the truth of her dogmas, so she is duty bound to speak the truth, especially when people who hate the truths she speaks try to silence her through sophistry and appeals to a misguided "pastoral" approach.
Enrique,
Good questions. I'm not really trying to defend Fr. Martin's positions...to be honest, I find them rather indefensible. Still, I would not say that his position is inconsistent with Catholicism. Rather, I would simply say that I disagree with some of his interpretations, and trust that the myriad views held by Jesuits will be seen as such (myriad views).
Anonymous,
> ...Truth cannot be subservient to other values...
How to respond to this? Two things being true invalidates one of them from being true? I would have to say that our ability to embrace contradiction constrains us from understanding serious concepts.
> ...But truth is good...
The "contradiction" problem again. Truth is good. But is that all that it can be? Is that always enough? Are there no other aspects to consider? Other values? If I say that "truth is bad" do you see that as a contradiction that cannot exist?
Tony, "Truth is bad" is an illogical, incoherent claim. It is proved thusly: Whatever is true is real, in the sense of having being (existing) rather than non-being (nothingness); for if something was not real (i.e., did not have being), its truth could not be known. So truth = real = being. Now, whatever has being is good, whereas non-being is bad. So truth = real = being = good. Truth is convertible with being, which is convertible with goodness. Yes, "Truth is bad" is a contradiction.
A contradiction is not something to be embraced because a contradiction cannot be, cannot have reality. "A" and "not A" cannot both be real because the reality of the former excludes the reality of the latter, and vice versa. If "A" is real, then "not A" cannot be real at the same time and in the same respect. Since truth is convertible with reality, as per above, one cannot maintain a contradiction as a truth because a contradiction cannot exist in reality.
Well, I guess I will simply say that I believe in miracles.
Tony –If being Catholic can mean being anything then it means nothing.
Hopefully you agree that sexual impurity and abortion are grave sins and should be unambiguously condemned by Catholics. .
Fr. Martin S.J., however, is now arguing that, even though he doesn´t disagree, the church hierarchy should perhaps say nothing about these grave sins, for now. So, for now, at least, the church hierarchy should say and do nothing about Catholic homosexuals raising Catholic children, nuns approving abortions, etc.
Yet isn t that precisely the problem? Isn´t that what the church hierarchy has been accused of being guilty of? Saying and doing nothing in the face of monstrous abuse? Do you think Fr.Martin´s suggested ´strategy´is in the best interests of victims or is it one that would likely please abusers?
How can it be consistent with Catholicism to be silent while others, and specifically children, are being abused?
Enrique Alonso
Enrique,
>...Hopefully you agree that sexual impurity and abortion are grave sins and should be unambiguously condemned by Catholics...
The reaction to sin requires judgment. Categorizing an action as "sin" or "grave", or requiring "condemnation", tends to impair judgment -- it often oversimplifies a complex situation. Sexual impurity exists in the context of God's world -- and it is often interwoven with God's lessons in this lifetime. So there is a spiritual overlay to this life that is usually invisible to those who judge -- invisible even to good Catholics. They don't understand how their response is used to measure them -- and their reflection of God's emotions, God's values, and God's judgment.
Thus, intellectually, I don't consider any two cases of "sexual impurity" to be equivalent. Pragmatically, I realize that most simple Catholics require simple rules. Of necessity, information is held back for mass consumption. (And I hope that few "simple" Catholics are reading this blog.)
We are, after all, trying to move closer to hearing God's voice and adopting God's values. Many have heard his voice, and you will notice the great inconsistency in their actions (unless you read only the "inspiring" versions of their stories.) It is clear that values usually determine decisions and actions. And, for true prophets, those values are not simple rules that are memorized.
> ...church hierarchy ... guilty of...Saying and doing nothing...
As to several of Fr. Martin's positions -- well, I very respectfully disagree with him. But I still hold him in high regard.
And I certainly don't equate the Church's "poor judgment" as requiring a switch to "no judgment". There are a huge number of options. Fr. Martin reflects only one position between extremes...there are many. I often find my thoughts echoing the thoughts of gospel prophets -- and wishing that more people would hear the voice of God directly.
Tony ---Really?
Enrique Alonso
Post a Comment