Last week, we had a combox discussion about what in the Church needs reform. David Schutz, in a thoughtful post on the reform of the Curia, reminds us that reform can’t stop in one place, and that – in Church history – those in most need of reform have usually been those most resistant.
Read the whole post for gems like this:
Don’t think that the Curia can reformed without the whole Church being reformed; and don’t think that the Church can be reformed without YOU (and me) being reformed.
…and this:
…it isn’t a “liberal vs conservative” thing, it is an “inward vs outward” thing. The Counter-Reformation was, of necessity, “inward”. But the time for “inward” is gone, and the time for “outward” – Evangelisation – is here. Yet a characterisation of both the old fashioned dyed-in-the-wool liberals and new Rad Trads is that they both share the view of an “inward looking”, aka, “self-referential” Church.
Joyful Papist 
“…it isn’t a “liberal vs conservative” thing,”
Says Mr. Schutz, when, of course “a liberal-conservative thing,” is exactly what it is.
And saying that it isn’t will not make it so.
That’s why blogs like CP&S exist in the first place, and why lots of people are keening and rocking back and forth and holding their heads as Pope Francis upsets a few cherished, long-established, and disfunctional apple carts.
And this “Lib-Con,” situation has to be resolved in order that the Church can then look “outwards” with some fragmentary vestiges of credibility.
Or so thinks Toad, although it’s really none of his business.
It isn’t a liberal vs conservative thing in the commonly used sense of those terms, though Toad.
First, the terms don’t make sense. I’m a social liberal and a moral conservative. So are most of the Catholics I know. Does that make me a liberal, a conservative, or just a Catholic?
Second, even if the terms made sense, I think I still agree with David’s point, which is that both progressives and radical traditionalists tend to be centred on the Church rather than the gospel.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/on-being-catholic/?smid=fb-share
Not too far off topic, possibly, this might be of interest. I don’t know.
Thanks Toad. His summary is pretty spot on, although I’d change “liberal drive for reform” to something like “authentic drive for reform”. and the “hierarchy” are by no means uniformly conservative – in reality the conservatives are a minority as the election of Holy Father Francis indicates :
I think we are seeing a much more centrist Pope which is reminding us of just how conservative the last one was. [[Unnecessary and inaccurate innuendo and insults about Pope Emeritus Benedict deleted by JP]]
The difference here is not liberal vs conservative but the authentic humble and open gospel of compassion and dialog and service of the poor vs the closed and narrow minded self-referential Church more interested in doctrinal crackdowns on anyone with different ideas.
God Bless
JP this is your space as it were, and you have every right to not publish comments you regard as inappropriate. But I would be fascinated to know what Chris said. It’s Chris after all, I doubt it was too terrible. And Toad is very upset, as you see from his comment below…
I was in two minds, Jerry, whether to leave Chris’s lengthy list of invidious comparisons between Pope Francis and Pope Benedict and ‘fisk’ them, or simply to delete it. Perhaps it would have been better to have left it, so that you and other readers could have seen them. It would not have reflected to Chris’s credit, and as things stand, you have only my word for that.
However, my comments policy is clear. I’ve said that personal insults will be deleted. I seldom need to invoke that policy, and I’m always sad when I need to do so. Indeed, as far as I can recall, only Chris and St Bosco have ever been edited.
I might also add that – rightly or wrongly – I expect Chris, as a Deacon, to be better informed, more accurate, and more respectful of facts than someone like – to take an example at random – our good friend Kiwi Atheist. My editing will reflect that expectation. I would be sorry to lose Chris’s input into our discussions. I enjoy his perspective, and he often causes me to take a deeper look at things (usually – though not always – without changing my mind, but that’s beside the point.) However, if he tromps off in a huff, that’s his decision.
To take the one example I remember from the list, Chris compares Pope Francis standing up to the Argentinian Junta to Pope Benedict who ‘joined the Nazi Youth and even fought for Hitler’. The innuendo in there is highly inaccurate. From what we’ve been told, it is true that Fr Jorge Bergoglio, opposed the regime. He apparently did what he could behind the scenes and in secret to help those who ran afoul of the Junta. Even as the Provincial of a highly respected and powerful religious order, he undoubtedly put himself at risk by doing so. At the time, those who critised the regime in Argentina disappeared, to be tortured and killed. His actions showed courage – the kind of courage we may expect from a highly trained Jesuit priest in his mid-30s, but we know that people don’t always behave as well as we expect. So good on him. And yes we know that Joseph Ratzinger was conscripted into the Nazi Youth as a boy, along with every other German 14-year old. We are told he refused to attend meetings. This, and his father’s known opposition to the Nazis, caused the family a good bit of harrassment. At sixteen he was drafted into the air-force corps and then the infantry, and at 17 he deserted. That account suggests that he, in a way consistent with his age, his social position and the precarious social position of his family, and his own temperament, opposed the regime in secret and behind the scenes. So a brief text that contrasts the two to Pope Benedict’s discredit is unworthy of Chris, and I’m very disappointed in him. The rest of the list was of a similar nature.
JP, maybe I’m being a bit too cynical. But it strikes me that the “reformation, like charity, begins at home” line is a very convenient one for those who think that it should stay there.
Don’t think that the Curia can reformed without the whole Church being reformed; and don’t think that the Church can be reformed without YOU (and me) being reformed.
Sure…. as far as it goes….. but if I say “I think the governance structure of the Church is unwieldy and needs changing”, and you say “well Jerry I think you should consider what changes you can make in your own life, and how you can be part of that change”, I might well feel the question was being dodged. There is of course the tired old saw of asking anybody who expresses a desire for change in the institutional Church what they personally are doing about it at the parish and personal level. But often this simply functions as an effective way to shut down criticism by making people feel sheepish.
Perhaps this fictional dialogue will clarify my point.
Ordinary Catholic with an opinion : I think the Curia is structured in such a way that an aptitude for Curial politics, rather than a desire to further the interest of the Universal Church, is most likely to lead to a successful career in the Vatican. This worries me….
Reactionary advocate of whatever the status quo they are used to happens to be : genuine love for the Church does not consist in regarding her as something exterior to oneself to be evaluated according to our personal preferences and desires. The Church is the body of Christ on Earth and every member of the Church partakes in her sins, failings, and call to redemption. The truly loving response to the failings of the Church is by no means to attempt to change her according to our own whims, rather the truly loving response to her failings is to look to our own hearts and seek to conform ourselves more fully to Christ. This is in fact the grounds for true reform.*
Translation : shut up about the Curia.
(*If you know which theologian I’m parodying then my point is half made)
I absolutely agree, Jerry. The charity begins at home line is often used in the same way, to justify not doing anything outside of the home. It isn’t either reformation or charity if it stays at home, in my view.
It isn’t a liberal vs conservative thing in the commonly used sense of those terms, though Toad.
Yeah, it kind of is. Or maybe it isn’t. Put it this way: if I was asked to guess the political leanings of 20 heads of chapters of something as (Surely?) separate from secular politics as the Latin Mass Society, would I perform better than chance? If so why?
That’s not my point, though, Jerry, or David’s. We’re not talking about the political or liturgical leanings of the main combatants, but about how they are similar in their attitudes to the Church and to the Gospel. The reformation needed is not in their leanings (I personally think both sides are wrong-headed in different ways), but in an attitude that makes living the Gospel secondary to those political and liturgical convictions.
And, of course, every one of us (except any saints who may be reading this blog) need to begin (but of course not end) the reformation of the Church by looking at the ways in which they make living the Gospel secondary to anything else in their lives.
It should go without saying that if every single Catholic, lay and cleric, took the Gospel seriously and lived as if we truly believed that Christ died and rose again for us, and will come again to judge us and call us to eternal life, and that our place for eternity will depend on the level of service we have given to others, questions of who needs to reform would not arise.
It does go without saying. Though you said it. 🙂
“First, the terms don’t make sense. I’m a social liberal and a moral conservative. So are most of the Catholics I know. Does that make me a liberal, a conservative, or just a Catholic?”
If the terms, “liberal,” and “conservative,” don’t make sense, JP, why did Schutz bother using them in the first place?
And why did you select that particular “gem,” if it didn’t make sense to you?
However, did you personally have any idea what he was talking about when he did use those terms?
You did? Well, then.
So did Toad.
Who, if he were a Catholic, would be an extremely liberal one, if you know what I mean by that.
In short, we are talking Catholicism in this case, (I hope) not politics.
[[Unnecessary and inaccurate innuendo and insults about Pope Emeritus Benedict deleted by JP]]
..and Chris’s E-books will all be burned. The Spanish Inquisition!
We will never know How Inaccurate Was His Innuendo.
Because He Went Too Far.
There are limits, after all.
I suppose we riff-raff should get all huffy about bullying and censorship, but it’s only our JP chucking a wobbler, isn’t it?
And it’s Christmas, after all.
So that’s all right.
(No doubt this will get deep-sixed as well.)
JP doesn’t censor very much at all Toad. Don’t go overboard 🙂
I enjoy disagreement. It makes for an interesting discussion. Chris is a treasure, as are you, dear Toad. But you are right. There are limits.
https://joyfulpapist.wordpress.com/comments-policy/
True, Jerry. Just good-natured teasing. (Or about as good-natured as Toad ever gets.)
Hope it didn’t sound as if I really minded. Wasn’t meant to.
Chris has concluded that there is little point dialoguing with conservatives. They continually sabotage dialogue, censor discussion and slander us with inaccurate claims of “inaccurate innuendo and insults”.
Good Bye and God Bless
Chris,
I have been in debates with rad trads, who have called me a liberal fanatic, and they would probably hold the same views about JP.
Admit, it you are more like them you are like the rest of us.
Aw, come on Chris. You are too generous a soul to let such infinitesimal triviality get you all bent out of shape.
Besides, I need you to tease.
JP, is right here, the issue is radical liberals and radical traditionalists, who are own their self-appointed magisterium, the excuses are just different.
Their idea of reform is changing someone else. The Gospel message is let Christ sanctify and change you.
Srdc The Liberal Fanatic? The mind boggles.
And not only the mind.