This weekend, in the Catholic liturgical calendar, the gospel reading was of Luke 10:25-37, the Parable of the Good Samaritan, an example of the New Covenant — to love God, and love one's neighbour.
Here at CR it's effectively open season on Catholicism. In Quahom's recent leave of absence, my voice was the only constant defence of that faith, against a stream of criticism that followed the publication of a very technical document aimed at correcting certain errors creeping into Catholic exegetics.
In defending my position, it was like the Reformation never happened. In defending my position, I was offered not one challenge on the basis of the content of the document in question, but rather a stream of often angry reaction without foundation other than the weight personal sentiment. I wonder how many had actually read the document for themselves.
How dare I be so presumptious to suggest that the miraculous does not occur in a Rite which is common to my own and other denominations, when that particular denomination has expressed the doctrinal conviction that the miraculous does not occur in what is not a rite but a simple memorial?
The line I have taken consistently is one has to confront issues and understand them if one is going to resolve them.
A lesson of the Good Samaritan is that one might find one's neighbour to be actually physically repulsive. Or mentally so. Or emotionally, or morally.
It does not matter. I must love him.
Does that mean I become craven, or subject, or tell myself that underneath he's a nice person, really? That we're both the same? No. That's not truth, no matter how much it poses as charity ... that's self-deception.
Did Christ, calling on His Father's forgiveness, pretend nothing was happening when He was being nailed to the Cross? That these were lovely guys, really? That it wasn't personal? Perhaps they were just obeying orders? That it wasn't laughter he heard?
Likewise the idea that perhaps it is better to remain silent. Let's pretend we're all one church, all believe the same thing, all love one another ... if we don't make a big deal of it, then maybe, if we're lucky, God might not notice our duplicity.
Is that being outspoken?
+++
Perhaps, but then, in defending my position, I was met with the hope for the Pope's immanent death and the election of someone more suitable ... or palatable ... or whatever ...
It did cause me to wonder that if I, as a known and I hope not uncharitable Catholic, had posted a similar sentiment, hoping for the death of the spiritual leader of another tradition, the Dalai Lama say, for expressing the conviction of his own belief, would it have passed without comment?
Somehow, I think not.
And I asked myself, not for the first time of late ... what the hell am I doing here?
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you;
going forth from thence, shake off the dust from your feet for a testimony to them."
Mark 6:11
Thomas
Here at CR it's effectively open season on Catholicism. In Quahom's recent leave of absence, my voice was the only constant defence of that faith, against a stream of criticism that followed the publication of a very technical document aimed at correcting certain errors creeping into Catholic exegetics.
In defending my position, it was like the Reformation never happened. In defending my position, I was offered not one challenge on the basis of the content of the document in question, but rather a stream of often angry reaction without foundation other than the weight personal sentiment. I wonder how many had actually read the document for themselves.
How dare I be so presumptious to suggest that the miraculous does not occur in a Rite which is common to my own and other denominations, when that particular denomination has expressed the doctrinal conviction that the miraculous does not occur in what is not a rite but a simple memorial?
The line I have taken consistently is one has to confront issues and understand them if one is going to resolve them.
A lesson of the Good Samaritan is that one might find one's neighbour to be actually physically repulsive. Or mentally so. Or emotionally, or morally.
It does not matter. I must love him.
Does that mean I become craven, or subject, or tell myself that underneath he's a nice person, really? That we're both the same? No. That's not truth, no matter how much it poses as charity ... that's self-deception.
Did Christ, calling on His Father's forgiveness, pretend nothing was happening when He was being nailed to the Cross? That these were lovely guys, really? That it wasn't personal? Perhaps they were just obeying orders? That it wasn't laughter he heard?
Likewise the idea that perhaps it is better to remain silent. Let's pretend we're all one church, all believe the same thing, all love one another ... if we don't make a big deal of it, then maybe, if we're lucky, God might not notice our duplicity.
Is that being outspoken?
+++
Perhaps, but then, in defending my position, I was met with the hope for the Pope's immanent death and the election of someone more suitable ... or palatable ... or whatever ...
It did cause me to wonder that if I, as a known and I hope not uncharitable Catholic, had posted a similar sentiment, hoping for the death of the spiritual leader of another tradition, the Dalai Lama say, for expressing the conviction of his own belief, would it have passed without comment?
Somehow, I think not.
And I asked myself, not for the first time of late ... what the hell am I doing here?
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you;
going forth from thence, shake off the dust from your feet for a testimony to them."
Mark 6:11
Thomas
Sorry Thomas, I was delayed elswhere. Who's a what's it on where? Catholics under fire? By whom? No one wants to scrap with a knuckle headed Irish Catholic...do they?
