Posted on 09/18/2010 8:26:32 PM PDT by markomalley
One of the key myths of the American Catholic imagination is this: After 200 years of fighting against public prejudice, Catholics finally broke through into America’s mainstream with the 1960 election of John F. Kennedy as president. It’s a happy thought, and not without grounding. Next to America’s broad collection of evangelical churches, baptized Catholics now make up the biggest religious community in the United States. They serve in large numbers in Congress. They have a majority on the Supreme Court. They play commanding roles in the professions and in business leadership. They’ve climbed, at long last, the Mt. Zion of social acceptance.
So goes the tale. What this has actually meant for the direction of American life, however, is another matter. Catholic statistics once seemed impressive. They filled many of us with tribal pride. But they didn’t stop a new and quite alien national landscape, a “next America,” from emerging right under our noses.
While both Barna Group and Pew Research Center data show that Americans remain a broadly Christian people, old religious loyalties are steadily softening. Overall, the number of Americans claiming no religious affiliation, about 16 percent, has doubled since 1990. One quarter of Americans aged 18-29 have no affiliation with any particular religion, and as the Barna Group noted in 2007, they “exhibit a greater degree of criticism toward Christianity than did previous generations when they were at the same stage of life. In fact, in just a decade . . . the Christian image [has] shifted substantially downward, fueled in part by a growing sense of disengagement and disillusionment among young people.”
Catholic losses have been masked by Latino immigration. But while 31 percent of Americans say they were raised in the Catholic faith, fewer than 24 percent of Americans now describe themselves as Catholic.
These facts have weight because, traditionally, religious faith has provided the basis for Americans’ moral consensus. And that moral consensus has informed American social policy and law. What people believe—or don’t believe—about God, helps to shape what they believe about men and women. And what they believe about men and women creates the framework for a nation’s public life.
Or to put it more plainly: In the coming decades Catholics will likely find it harder, not easier, to influence the course of American culture, or even to live their faith authentically. And the big difference between the “next America” and the old one will be that plenty of other committed religious believers may find themselves in the same unpleasant jam as their Catholic cousins.
At first hearing, this scenario might sound implausible; and for good reason. The roots of the American experience are deeply Protestant. They go back a very long way, to well before the nation’s founding. Whatever one thinks of the early Puritan colonists—and Catholics have few reasons to remember them fondly—no reader can study Gov. John Winthrop’s great 1630 homily before embarking for New England without being moved by the zeal and candor of the faith that produced it. In “A model of Christian charity,” he told his fellow colonists:
We are a company professing ourselves fellow members of Christ . . . That which the most in their churches maintain as truth in profession only, we must bring into familiar and constant practice; as in this duty of love, we must love brotherly without dissimulation, we must love one another with pure heart fervently. We must bear one another’s burdens. We must look not only on our own things, but also on the things of our brethren . . . We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others’ necessities. We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality. We must delight in each; make others’ conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, as members of the same body. So we will keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.
Not a bad summary of Christian discipleship, made urgent for Winthrop by the prospect of leading 700 souls on a hard, two-month voyage across the North Atlantic to an equally hard New World. What happened when they got there is a matter of historical record. And different agendas interpret the record differently.
The Puritan habits of hard work, industry and faith branded themselves on the American personality. While Puritan influence later diluted in waves of immigrants from other Protestant traditions, it clearly helped shape the political beliefs of John Adams and many of the other American Founders. Adams and his colleagues were men who, as Daniel Boorstin once suggested, had minds that were a “miscellany and a museum;” men who could blend the old and the new, an earnest Christian faith and Enlightenment ideas, without destroying either.
But beginning in the nineteenth century, riding a crest of scientific and industrial change, a different view of the Puritans began to emerge. In the language of their critics, the Puritans were seen as intolerant, sexually repressed, narrow-minded witch-hunters who masked material greed with a veneer of Calvinist virtue. Cast as religious fanatics, the Puritans stood accused of planting the seed of nationalist messianism by portraying America as a New Jerusalem, a “city upon a hill” (from Winthrop’s homily), with a globally redemptive mission. H.L. Mencken—equally skilled as a writer, humorist and anti-religious bigot—famously described the Puritan as a man “with the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”
In recent years, scholars like Christian Smith have shown how the intellectual weakness and fierce internal divisions of America’s Protestant establishment allowed “the secularization of modern public life as a kind of political revolution.” Carried out mainly between 1870 and 1930, this “rebel insurgency consisted of waves of networks of activists who were largely skeptical, freethinking, agnostic, atheist or theologically liberal; who were well educated and socially located mainly in the knowledge-production occupations, and who generally espoused materialism, naturalism, positivism and the privatization or extinction of religion.”
This insurgency could be ignored, or at least contained, for a long time. Why? Because America’s social consensus supported the country’s unofficial Christian assumptions, traditions and religion-friendly habits of thought and behavior. But law—even a constitutional guarantee—is only as strong as the popular belief that sustains it. That traditional consensus is now much weakened. Seventy years of soft atheism trickling down in a steady catechesis from our universities, social-science “helping professions,” and entertainment and news media, have eroded it.
Obviously many faith-friendly exceptions exist in each of these professional fields. And other culprits, not listed above, may also be responsible for our predicament. The late Christopher Lasch argued that modern consumer capitalism breeds and needs a “culture of narcissism”—i.e., a citizenry of weak, self-absorbed, needy personalities—in order to sustain itself. Christian Smith put it somewhat differently when he wrote that, in modern capitalism, labor “is mobile as needed, consumers purchase what is promoted, workers perform as demanded, managers execute as expected—and profits flow. And what the Torah, or the Pope, or Jesus may say in opposition is not relevant, because those are private matters” [emphasis in original].
My point here is neither to defend nor criticize our economic system. Others are much better equipped to do that than I am. My point is that “I shop, therefore I am” is not a good premise for life in a democratic society like the United States. Our country depends for its survival on an engaged, literate electorate gathered around commonly held ideals. But the practical, pastoral reality facing the Gospel in America today is a human landscape shaped by advertising, an industry Pascal Bruckner described so well as a “smiling form of sorcery”:
The buyer’s fantastic freedom of choice supposedly encourages each of us to take ourselves in hand, to be responsible, to diversify our conduct and our tastes; and most important, supposedly protects us forever from fanaticism and from being taken in. In other words, four centuries of emancipation from dogmas, gods and tyrants has led to nothing more nor less than to the marvelous possibility of choosing between several brands of dish detergent, TV channels or styles of jeans. Pushing our cart down the aisle in a supermarket or frantically wielding our remote control, these are supposed to be ways of consciously working for harmony and democracy. One could hardly come up with a more masterful misinterpretation: for we consume in order to stop being individuals and citizens; rather, to escape for a moment from the heavy burden of having to make fundamental choices.
Now, where do Catholics fit into this story?
The same Puritan worldview that informed John Winthrop’s homily so movingly, also reviled “Popery,” Catholic ritual and lingering “Romish” influences in England’s established Anglican Church. The Catholic Church was widely seen as Revelation’s Whore of Babylon. Time passed, and the American religious landscape became more diverse. But the nation’s many different Protestant sects shared a common, foreign ogre in their perceptions of the Holy See—perceptions made worse by Rome’s distrust of democracy and religious liberty. As a result, Catholics in America faced harsh Protestant discrimination throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. This included occasional riots and even physical attacks on convents, churches and seminaries. Such is the history that made John F. Kennedy’s success seem so liberating.
The irony is that mainline American Protestantism had used up much of its moral and intellectual power by 1960. Secularizers had already crushed it in the war for the cultural high ground. In effect, after so many decades of struggle, Catholics arrived on America’s center stage just as management of the theater had changed hands -- with the new owners even less friendly, but far shrewder and much more ambitious in their social and political goals, than the old ones. Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox, despite their many differences, share far more than divides them, beginning with Jesus Christ himself. They also share with Jews a belief in the God of Israel and a reverence for God’s Word in the Old Testament. But the gulf between belief and unbelief, or belief and disinterest, is vastly wider.
In the years since Kennedy’s election, Vatican II and the cultural upheavals of the 1960s, two generations of citizens have grown to maturity. The world is a different place. America is a different place—and in some ways, a far more troubling one. We can’t change history, though we need to remember and understand it. But we can only blame outside factors for our present realities up to a point. As Catholics, like so many other American Christians, we have too often made our country what it is through our appetite for success, our self-delusion, our eagerness to fit in, our vanity, our compromises, our self-absorption and our tepid faith.
If government now pressures religious entities out of the public square, or promotes same-sex “marriage,” or acts in ways that undermine the integrity of the family, or compromises the sanctity of human life, or overrides the will of voters, or discourages certain forms of religious teaching as “hate speech,” or interferes with individual and communal rights of conscience—well, why not? In the name of tolerance and pluralism, we have forgotten why and how we began as nation; and we have undermined our ability to ground our arguments in anything higher than our own sectarian opinions.
The “next America” has been in its chrysalis a long time. Whether people will be happy when it fully emerges remains to be seen. But the future is not predestined. We create it with our choices. And the most important choice we can make is both terribly simple and terribly hard: to actually live what the Church teaches, to win the hearts of others by our witness, and to renew the soul of our country with the courage of our own Christian faith and integrity. There is no more revolutionary act.
Charles J. Chaput is the archbishop of Denver.
Come on, Dr. E.
So it’s a collection of quotes from 2 other Catholics, and a couple of those posters quoted are not making the claims that are attributed to one poster.
I suppose I could start putting up on my homepage a lot of the outrageous things that have been posted about Catholic beliefs on these threads by the FReformed group.
But it would take too much time and I don’t have much time left to fritter away.
The claim you have made that “Rome doesn’t have faith in the word of God” does not have credibility.
Put up whatever you want. Protestants might be criticizing Rome, but they're not criticizing the word of God, which is what those posters were doing.
Get the difference?
Yes, I get the difference, Dr. E.
The whole Catholic Church is not responsible for all that individual Catholics post on this forum.
Do you get that difference?
Yes. That is a Catholic teaching: a good Catholic will be seen through to salvation by the Mother Church. He also said, "with fear and trembling work out your salvation. For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will" (Phil. 2:12f), something no Calvinist can comprehend.
The Church also teaches that we all, if we make it at all, will be taekn to heeven and live in our bodies, as we "put on incorruption", just like St. Paul teaches in 1 Cor 15. I explained it once, I believe, in my previous post.
Paul's use of the word “many” contrasts with the one
He uses "all" in the sense of "many" because in v 18 he says "all" and in the next verse he repeats the same though and says "many":
[18] Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. [19] For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just. (Rm 5)
Mary did not need to be specially exempted; St. Paul never condemned absolutely all as sinners. That is one of his talmusdisms, teachign by exagerration.
What did she mediate?
As she prays for us, Mary participates in the work of the Church mediating grace (compare 1 Timothy 2:1, where Timothy is asked to do the same thing). All grace, nevertheless comes through Christ to Whom both Mary and I, and you, pray. There is no contradiction here (see the rest of 1 Timothy 2:1-5).
Eve was created perfect, Mary wasn't,
Says you.
Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all
One type does not negate another. In Rav. 12 Mary is the mother of all who "obey the commandments of Christ". She is certainly mother of St. John.
Gack... *Mother Church*?????
There is no such thing as the *Mother Church*.
WE are the church. All believers become part of the church when they believe. It's not something you get salvation THROUGH.
Salvation comes through Jesus Christ and Him alone. Anyone who appeals to anything besides Jesus Himself alone, is in a world of hurt. If you think the *Mother Church* is going to save you, you're in for a very unpleasant surprise.
And that is still contrary to what Paul wrote. He said those resurrected ones would be resurrected with spirit bodies as in vs. 42 bearing the image of the Christ who also was raised or resurrected with a spirit body. Paul then explains why they are raised with spirit bodies,
‘Flesh and blood cannot inherit God's Kingdom’.
“He uses “all” in the sense of “many” because in v 18 he says “all” and in the next verse he repeats the same though and says “many”:
Uhhh...No. In vs. 19 Paul speaks of two groups, one that was constituted sinners by Adams disobedience and 2, those, who by the obedience of Christ, were constituted just.
One group to the exclusion of the other, the rest of mankind as Thayer’s lexicon comments on “the many” in these vss.
In vss. 18, 19 Paul is not just repeating himself but expresses a slightly different aspect of his argument.
In vs. 18 Paul says a decision, a judgment is made for acquittal from condemnation,
While in vs. 19 Paul uses the word kathistemi (made or constituted) instead of eis (result or intent) as in vs. 18.
Thus in vs. 19 those many are considered righteous.
Thus Paul doesn't equate “all” with “many” nor was he a Talmudist. He had a grasp of the Greek language that is missed in your quotes and comments.
I said Eve was created perfect, Mary wasn't, and yes says me. No where is Mary called sinless, perfect, etc. If such a Scripture exists, show me. I'll wait.
Nor is she called a mediator of any kind. I Tim.2:5 says who is the mediator, Christ, not Mary.
“One type does not negate another. In Rav. 12 Mary is the mother of all who “obey the commandments of Christ”.
The events of Rev. 12 do not fit Mary. It is a vision. Mary was not taken into the wilderness for 1260 days, no river was sent to drown either Mary or her child, Mary is no where called the heavenly representative of the whole church, etc.
Mary was is not the mother of all Christians and is nowhere so termed.
The key phrase in your comments is “The Church also teaches...”, which explains your comments and misunderstanding of the Scriptures.
As God wills.
lol. Gack. Very good. 8~)
There is no such thing as the *Mother Church*.
WE are the church. All believers become part of the church when they believe. It's not something you get salvation THROUGH.
Salvation comes through Jesus Christ and Him alone. Anyone who appeals to anything besides Jesus Himself alone, is in a world of hurt. If you think the *Mother Church* is going to save you, you're in for a very unpleasant surprise.
Many will say "Lord, Lord," but He will not know them. Probably because they've spent all their time hunting up dead saints and facing the ground in veneration of Mary.
Jesus Christ and Him alone
But He is not alone. He is with His Church.
No it is not. Mary received, and all of us who are to be saved shall receive the glorofied body, exctly as St. Paul writes.
Thus Paul doesn't equate “all” with “many”
Let's see. In Adam all sinned:
[12] Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
In Adam many sinned
[19] For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners
What is the difference again?
No where is Mary called sinless, perfect, etc.
She is called "full of grace" in Luke 1:28. But the point is that St. Paul did not condemn Mary or anyone in particular in Romans 5.
I Tim.2:5 says who is the mediator, Christ, not Mary.
But 1 Tim 1:1-5 puts St. Timothy in the same position Mary is, intercessing for Jesus.
The events of Rev. 12 do not fit Mary
Sure they do: she is identified as the mother of Christ.
The key phrase in your comments is “The Church also teaches...”
Yes. You claimed that what the Church teaches contradicts what St. Paul wrote. I showed you that it doesn't by making reference to what the Church teaches and what St. Paul writes. Did I misunderstand your assertion?
If you have a question I will explain.
Mary was NEVER involved with the church after Christ's death. The expression merely underscores the idolatry inherent in Roman superstitions.
It follows from the fact that Mary adopted the "disciple Jesus loved" at the foot of the Cross.
Do Roman Catholics read their Bibles or just believe what they're told without thinking?
Mary did not adopt John. Jesus told them to look out for each other. But did Mary take John into her house, or did John take Mary into his house?
The latter. John was told to look after Mary and bring her into "his own home."
Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home." -- John 19:26-27"When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
Mary is not your mother, my mother nor the church's mother.
Neither is there anything in that passage that indicates that it should be read as anything other than Jesus providing for her after His death, as the responsibility of the oldest son.
It was not meant as a parable, nor is there any indication of a secondary spiritual meaning.
Of course, any one can read anything they want into any passage to support their own church doctrine, but that’s what happens when one doesn’t take the Word of God to be authoritative.
Scripture was not given to us just to provide support for any extra-Biblical teachings any religion dreams up.
It was not meant as a parable, nor is there any indication of a secondary spiritual meaning.
Of course, any one can read anything they want into any passage to support their own church doctrine, but that’s what happens when one doesn’t take the Word of God to be authoritative.
AMEN!
Mary sinless?
“She is called “full of grace” in Luke 1:28.”
But the Greek word translated “grace’ or “favor” has nothing to do with sinlessness.
“But the point is that St. Paul did not condemn Mary or anyone in particular in Romans 5.”
No, he simply explains how man came to be in sin.
“But 1 Tim 1:1-5 puts St. Timothy in the same position Mary is, intercessing for Jesus.”
Offering prayers, supplications, petitions, intercessions, etc. does not make either Timothy or Mary a mediator, a go-between. Christ is that and is fully up to the task.
The events of Rev. 12 do not fit Mary
“Sure they do: she is identified as the mother of Christ.”
The woman of Rev. 12 is un-named and she gives birth in heaven, Mary gave birth on earth, the two women are not the same at all for all the reasons I previously gave.
“Let's see. In Adam all sinned:
[12] Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
In Adam many sinned
[19] For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners
What is the difference again?”
Was my previous explanation too difficult for you?
The key phrase in your comments is “The Church also teaches...
“Yes. You claimed that what the Church teaches contradicts what St. Paul wrote. I showed you that it doesn't by making reference to what the Church teaches and what St. Paul writes. Did I misunderstand your assertion?”
I don't think you misunderstood, I don't think you understood what i said in any way.
As the Catholic Encyclopedia writes of the Catholic Churce’s teaching on Mary:
“The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite.”
Based on falsehoods and spurious documents, not Scripture.
Shall I ask whether Peter and Paul were able to take their corporeal bodies into heaven since you said you and I might be able to do so?
"20Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind." 22And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons."
Also we see in Mark 6:1-6, Jesus gets no respect from his own family, hometown and relatives.
Mark 6:1-6
1Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples.
2When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed. "Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles!
3Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.
4Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor."
5He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6And he was amazed at their lack of faith.
SO it doesn't sound like Mary and Joseph knew quite yet what to think or do about him. It seems remarkable, yet even with his divine, miraculous beginnings, his own family had to learn to trust in him, too. So Mary, with all she eventually does with him in his ministry, sure doesn't sound to me like she was all holy and gung-ho when he was first staring out. Where was her faith then? It had to grow just like we all do.
However, your both contentions are scripturally incorrect.
Mary was NEVER involved with the church after Christ's death
All these [the Holy Apostles] were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren (Acts 1:14)the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ (Rev. 12:17)
The latter. John was told to look after Mary and bring her into "his own home."
First, what home they lived in does not negate the words of Christ "Woman, behold thy son. [...] Behold thy mother" (John 19:26-27). When two people become son and mother is is ordinarily said that the mother adopts the son, who, of course, takes care after her. Second, there is no "home" in the original text; St. John took her "to his own" which indicates the wider character of the adoption thna just an economic arrangement.
[26] When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. [27] After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own. (John 19)
However, you can believe whatever you want, "doctor". I am here to discuss what the Catholics believe and explain the scripture to you. You don't have to listen.
John 19:26-27 is indeed not a parable. It is a historical fact. Were it a mere economic arrangement Jesus would probably have done it ahead of the time of His death, and would have chosen someone more economically stable than a teenager. Nor is it a one-way arrangement as the text makes clear: it is mutual. However, if you wish to ignore the last words of Christ because the Catholics hear and understand them spiritually, you are free to do so. You are Protestant; your ilk fought hard to interpret the Bible however they want to interpret it. The question was, what do the Catholics believe. We believe, John 19:26-27 indicates spiritual unity that exists beween Mary the Mother of God and the Catholic Church of the same God.
So what remains in question?
the Greek word translated “grace’ or “favor” has nothing to do with sinlessness
The Church teaches that grace displaces sin.
he [St. Paul] simply explains [in Rom. 5]how man came to be in sin
Exactly. Has nothing to do with anyone in particular, certainly not with a woman whose life was one miracle after another.
The woman of Rev. 12 is un-named and she gives birth in heaven
But she gives birth to Christ, and toward the end of the chapter is described as the mother of all who keep His testimony and obey God. So, however poeticized the account in Rev 12 is, it is sufficient ground by itself to call Mary the Mother of the Holy Church
Was my previous explanation too difficult for you?
It did not explain anything and you referred to a different verse. Please explain why do you think verses 12 and 19 refer to different things. I understand that the language is different. Please explain what the difference signifies.
Shall I ask whether Peter and Paul were able to take their corporeal bodies into heaven since you said you and I might be able to do so?
You, I, St. Peter ans St. Paul will receive our bodies at the second coming of Christ. Mary however received her glorified body following her death. There is a difference; but the difference does not amount to a contradiction with what St. Paul wrote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.