The Religious Right Retreats into Exile
Religious fundamentalism, in whatever tradition or denomination, represents a "stuckedness" in early stages of intellectual, affective, moral, sociopolitical and religious development (or Lonergan's conversions). It lacks, then, in a word, authenticity.
The voice of prophetic protest must come from a very deeply rooted spirituality:
quote: "What is this (contemplative prayer) in relation to action? Simply this. He (and she) who attempts to act and do things for others or for the world without this deepening of his own self-understanding, freedom, integrity, and capacity to love, will not have anything to give others. He will communicate to them nothing but the contagion of his own obsessions, his aggressiveness, his egocentered ambitions, his delusions about ends and means, his doctrinaire prejudices and ideas." Thomas Merton," The Climate of Monastic Prayer"
Driven by life's fears, unable to tolerate ambiguity, countenance paradox, engage creative tensions and abide with mystery, some give themselves over to easy answers, false dichotomies, facile analyses of complex global affairs, black and white answers to vexing moral problems, with a faith that remains clear but tentative, never dispossessed of their first naivete, never acquiring that second naivete where faith is obscure but certain.
In recent years, rather than translate their moral imperatives into the lingua franca of that pluralistic political discourse that traffics in terms and categories transparent to human reason, they eschewed dialogue, spewed monologue and attempted a deliberative end-around through a raw and naked political power ploy, demonizing all who would challenge their arrogation of moral superiority, scapegoating their defects onto others with the most virulent alterity, since, as Kristoferson says, everybody's got to have somebody to look down on, someone doing something dirty, decent folks can frown on. So, they proceeded with Bonhoeffer's cheap grace and their unnuanced bumper-sticker sloganeering, never earnestly trying to understand how or why others of large intelligence and profound goodwill might see reality differently.
This element and its representatives are not who we'd want applying just war calculus in an unholy alliance with others (e.g. neoconservatives), who may have their own bias toward militaristic action, in a political coalition. They are not who we want representing authentic religion to a world already scandalized by the frail human nature of many high profile religious leaders and institutions, making our children suspicious of their own formative upbringing, giving the secularistic forces fodder to even further marginalize religion in the marketplace of ideas --- social, cultural, political and religious.
The dangers are indeed political (incivil discourse, theocratic hegemony - albeit unsuccessful, war & peace), educational (creationism) and social (squandered transformative opportunities). I find little solace in the notion that: at least they aren't as bad as suicidal terrorists. Spiritual tragedy is not measured in temporal mammon but in souls unconverted, spirits not transformed, journeys to authenticity aborted.
The Religious Right in America is in retreat because it was not rooted in the spirituality of the revivals that led to slavery's abolition, the solidarity movement that overthrew communism, the inspiration that triumphed over apartheid, the Gospel that informed the civil rights marches.
I use the term Religious Right to describe that cohort of religious influence that was radically fundamentalistic, understanding and appreciating that other, more authentic, voices were allied with their efforts out of political necessity.
Along with the neoconservative element, whose vision violates subsidiarity in foreign affairs, I'm all for driving the fundamentalistic Christian element from the temple, too, inasmuch as they, too, violate subsidiarity with their moral statism, however impotently. These folks deserve political exile because they are a danger, broadly conceived.
I agree EXCEPT in the
I agree EXCEPT in the interpretation of one,holy, catholic and apostolic. We should try to be ONE with HIM but not EXCLUDING. We are HOLY in HIM but again not necessarily in Rome. The Christian church is catholic too. Apostolic -- We hold no franchise on the word or WORD. We are all pilgrims on the pilgrimage.
AUTHENTICITY per
AUTHENTICITY per Lonergan
There is no need to disambiguate AUTHENTICITY here, in the painstaking way we had to deal with the definition of fundamentalism. As I made clear, I am talking about Lonergan's conversions.
Please see, then: http://lonergan.concordia.ca/glossary/glossary_a-b.htm#authenticity
To the extent that any would lay claim to a type of authenticity vis a vis their orthodox relationship to their tradition, itself, I have no quibble with that. But that is not what I am addressing and that is what Lonergan calls a "minor" authenticity.
What I am speaking to is, instead, a reality Lonergan calls MAJOR AUTHENTICITY. And such rather devastatingly and precisely critiques fundamentalism, for "major authenticity ... justifies or condemns the tradition itself... transcending and advancing a tradition by developing the positive and eliminating the negative elements within it."
Go in Peace to love and serve,
johnboy
quote:
Lonergan distinguishes a twofold authenticity: the minor authenticity of the human subject with respect to the tradition that nourishes him or her, and the major authenticity that justifies or condemns the tradition itself (M 80). The former leads to a judgment on subjects in their operations. The latter is not formulated theoretically but depends on a specific example of transcending and advancing a tradition by developing the positive and eliminating the negative elements within it (3C 120-121, 130). END QUOTE
YOUNG FOGEYS??? While my
YOUNG FOGEYS???
While my opening post addressed a mostly white, anglo-saxon, protestant evanagelical political phenomenon of fundamentalism, there is an element of fundamentalism in Catholicism, in seminarians, in particular. And it is not so much conservative or
traditionalist per se as it is evangelical.
This particular element might be caricaturized in this anecdote of John Allen: "A Roman professor friend of mine loves to tell the story of an embassy party he attended with some of the best-known professors from the city’s pontifical universities, along with a smattering of bishops. A group of seminarians from the NAC had been invited. The profs and bishops, feeling no need to prove themselves, showed up in casual dress. The NACsters, however, arrived in freshly pressed
clerical suits, Roman collars and French cuffs, and stood out like sore thumbs. Wry smiles filled the room.
Yet this sort of thing is really not representative, despite what some media coverage of the new breed of conservative seminarians may suggest." http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word1214.htm
But we don't want to engage any caricatures or dismiss any cohort, or individual.
William L. Portier describes this pheneomenon in Commonweal ( http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-59948871.html ) but wisely counsels that "Egan's seminarians must be engaged rather than dismissed. We need to learn what they have to teach us about American Catholicism."
What do they have to say?
Let me quote:
"Why all the 'young fogeys?'". Catholic New Times. Feb 8, 2004. FindArticles.com. 10 Mar. 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_3_28/ai_n6244913
It is commonly accepted by seminary deans that priestly applicants of the last few decades have not been up to the intellectual standards of previous generations. Rigidity often accompanies lower intellectual standards and premature fogeyism.
Our editorial discussion at CNT centered on the reasons for the "young fogeys." Some thought that many of these men cannot abide ambiguity of any kind, desiring absolute certainty. In a period of flux, people need clear and simplistic answers.
These men are simply the Catholic analogue to the rising tide of fundamentalism around the world. After 9/11, even North Americans are fearful and when fear reigns, people do not seek truth but security. This may account for the rigidity and
inability to relate of the new breed.
What does this augur for the broader church? Certainly there will be more conflict in store as the young fogeys move, as the National Federation of Priests says in its study, "from a servant leadership model to a cultic model", one which seems more
intent on shoring up clerical privilege than moving Catholicism into a more democratized era which honours "the adult equality of all the baptized"
END of QUOTE
Now, mind you, I did not consult this article prior to writing my opening post, but the overall thrust resonates with my own observations. As has been noted, such as by Sister Schuth: "When this generation talks about straightening out the world, it
means bringing Catholics who are "off base" into line." http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39bd0fee7242.htm
This term, Young Fogeys, was coined by Andy Greeley. See: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/greeley
And some wear the label unapologetically. See: http://youngfogeys.blogspot.com/2006/10/confessions-of-young-fogey.html
And also: http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2000/decjan2000p10_111.html
And some, like George Weigle, dismiss it as stereotyping: http://www.the-tidings.com/2004/0220/difference.htm
Carter Griffin complains and makes some good points: "It is worth noting the features of these seminarians, according to the prevailing opinion. We are commonly identified as rigid, narrow-minded, and legalistic. We are ridiculed as "sacristy
priests" because of an "obsession" with liturgical rubrics. We are reproached for lemming-like obedience to our superiors and especially to the Pope, exchanging mind and conscience for prefabricated beliefs and stock answers. We allegedly pine for an
age when priests were idolised and dream about legions of laymen eager to supply our every need. And we are suspected of fearing a world that might expose our simmering sexuality, repressed passions that are controlled only by rechanneling them into fanatical religious activity. So goes the judgment.
Some descriptions, naturally, are more reflective than this and usually contain fragments of truth, an important point that I shall explore below. On the whole, though, I have been astonished at the apparent malice in so many of these caricatures - judgments often made, regrettably, by the same people who once stood for tolerance and compassion in the early, heady days of the cultural revolution.
Coupled with this verdict, it is customary to dismiss us, usually with indulgent condescension, as pathetically naive."
END of QUOTE
It is important, in the spirit of authentic dialogue, not to dismiss and not to be intolerant. So, what else is Carter saying?
Carter Griffin writes: "While it is difficult to pinpoint causes of great cultural shifts, many date this decline to the "Movement" of the 1960s. The prevalent rejection of authority in those years frequently led to a repudiation of universal
moral norms and, it is easy to argue, to inevitable moral and religious relativism. Relativism, in turn, has engendered a society that is fundamentally individualistic and in which truth extends as far as one's opinion, ethical boundaries are merely restraints against violating another's "rights," and sentiment overrides reason."
He continues: "First, we have a deep distrust of anything that smacks of relativism. We have become suspicious of those who appear to arrogate to themselves the authority not to find truth, but to create truth."
And with: "Second, we have lost our faith in an unreflective trust of one's own emotions and their unchecked authority over our activity. As sons of the Church, we look to the Magisterium and to the Church's historical and spiritual treasures to
fill the void of authority left by those who tout self-affirmation at all costs."
Carter goes on: "Men and women of my generation are desperately searching for meaning in their lives. The explosion of interest in religious fundamentalism is significant; it reflects a demand for answers in an age that provides very few. More
ominously, there has been an enormous surge of interest in New Age spirituality and even Wicca and the occult. The tired slogans of the 1960s and the 1970s simply do not rivet our attention, and indeed are blamed for many of our social woes today."
And, near the end, writes: "We are not trying to turn back the clock, to stifle change, or to reverse the Second Vatican Council. Indeed, we invoke that very Vatican Council in our efforts to bring the Christian message back into the world, and we energetically support the great "new evangelisation" that will transform the twenty-first century."
END of SERIES of QUOTES
So, this new phenomenon is not to be confused with the ultratraditionalists or classical conservatism. It very much aligns itself with more of a fundamentalist and evangelical thrust. It is a reaction against the "relativism" that was born of a
radically deconstructive postmodernism and the practical nihilism that results from the secularistic urges of Enlightenment fundamentalism. Its instincts regarding the insidious influences of such relativism and nihilism are correct. Its reactionary, authoritarian appeal, marked by obsequious devotion to the Magisterium, is a simplistic and misguided remedy.
Truth, when threatened by antifoundationalism, should not be articulated, instead, with dogmatism and infallibilism.
Beauty, when threatened by nihilism, should not be celebrated, instead, with ritualism.
Goodness, when threatened by moral relativism, should not be preserved, instead, with legalism.
Community, when threatened by stark individualism, should not be held together, instead, with clericalism.
Rather, in response to the postmodern critique, our a prioristic and apodictic approach to truth has given way, due to weakened foundations, to a contrite fallibilism, even while we remain metaphysical realists. The beauty of our liturgies
remains untouched by the rampant ugliness of nihilism, as our aspirations, still grounded in aesthetic realism, know no threat from that propositionless wasteland. Our infallibilistic approach to goodness has not caved into to moral relativism but remains realist, even if more modest and tentative. Our laicization of so much of the clergy has been surpassed by a clericalization of so much of the laity and our communities have become even more vibrant, as a result.
There IS an enemy out there --- to truth, beauty, goodness and unity --- but it AIN'T US, your coreligionists, those of us who continue to articulate truth in creed, celebrate beauty in cult, preserve goodness in code and enjoy fellowship in community. And we refuse to join the otherside whereby dogma decays into dogmatism, ritual into ritualism, code into legalism and community into clericalism.
I intend no malice. And am not being cursorily dismissive. This is not a caricature. I've spent a decade in cyberdialogue with believers and nonbelievers and with philosophical positions of all stripes. This is what I have seen.
respectfully, pax
jb
J.B. Your "Young Fogeys"
J.B. Your "Young Fogeys" post is awesome. Before enjoining the conversation on the subject I just wanted to say that. One of the earlier post I made in this cafe was
a sort of poetic reflection on my personal journey. I see so much of myself on both sides of the spectrum you describe:
As I grow old
I think
Of the things
That I believed
And shudder
At my faith
And how I held it.
As I grow old
I learn
That faith
Is strongest
That can bend
And hear
What once it shunned.
As I grow old
I feel
What once
I just believed
And now
That faith
Has changed
As I grow old
I think less
Wonder more
Becoming
A part
Of what
I now believe.
"Spiritual tragedy" - Dr
"Spiritual tragedy" - Dr McCoy your post compassionately describes what I think William and Sylvester described objectively in the thread "Gender and Intrinsic Order": "We're so inside the static centrist-dominion thinking that we don't even know we're there....The static-centrist dominion world-view positively demands over-wrought fideism as its religious expression". That "trap" which you describe from a perspective of charity impels others of us to anger when we see it is expressed with the agressive arrogance which is another of its characteristics. Thank you for the caution.Dennis
And still ... "the hungry
And still ... "the hungry sheep look up and are not fed ..."
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"If you remove the yoke from among you, the pointing of the finger, the speaking of evil, if you offer your food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, then your light shall rise in the darkness ..." (Isaiah 58)
Yes, Dennis. I know exactly
Yes, Dennis. I know exactly that feeling myself - last week I got caught in an anger that was the mirror of another's aggression right here up close & personal - EVEN now, in Lent, when I try to be vigilant. We need to remind each other all the time. Compassion is the nobler and much more difficult road. I'm sure if we can just keep at it ...
God's peace to you.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"If you remove the yoke from among you, the pointing of the finger, the speaking of evil, if you offer your food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, then your light shall rise in the darkness ..." (Isaiah 58)
Here today, religious
Here today, religious fundamentalism is based on a heresy in that it is heresy to believe that all knowledge rests in one person,book,organisation or tradition. It may be heresy too to believe that creation, thought processes and sources are not ever growing. It is the evolution of knowledge and the understanding of sources that cause people to be 'stuck' or 'unstuck' and being 'stuck' in erroneous or false fundamentals reminds me of the bear stuck on the last ice floe. There comes a time for Bush to admit to global warming. There comes a time for the US to admit that we have the most innefficient health care system. There comes a time to admit that it is better for people to pray and communicate in the language that they understand. If the world should not change go outside and tell the daffodils not to bloom.Tell the birds not to lay eggs.
Plain talk.
"Here today, religious
"Here today, religious fundamentalism is based on a heresy in that it is heresy to believe that all knowledge rests in one person,book,organisation or tradition."
But that is not a heresy in the Catholic Faith. Come to think of it, it is not heresy in any of the Abrahamic religions: Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. All knowledge rests in God, God has revealed Himself through Scripture. That much all three agree upon. Christians, and Catholics in particular, believe that we have the fullness of Divine Revelation in Christ, transmitted to us by the Apostles and their successors in what they have written and preached.
The fundamentals of the Catholic faith have not changed. God created the world (how is a mystery and we will never prove our theories). Man fell. God chose one man to found a nation. That nation went in and out of slavery, as punishment for falling away from worshiping the one God. In the fullness of time God sent His only begotten Son to earth. Born of a virgin, true man and true God. (do I really need to continue...?)
These things do not change, however our society, politics, and technology might change.
JB assumes that since our understanding has changed, therefore it must be better, but I argue that this is not the case.
++++++
What I'm Pondering...
HT I'd be happy to vouch for
HT I'd be happy to vouch for you on your consistency with regards to what constitutes wrong relationships. That, I have appreciated about you.
I suppose the one thing I appreciate more in people than anything else, is consistency of application in regards to personal belief structures and lived integrity with regards to those beliefs. In short, I respect and appreciate people who walk their talk. In the Catholic or christian parlance it would be that they treat others exactly as they treat themselves. I also fully understand people can be very patholigical in that application, but I always know where I stand and what to expect. You certainly fulfill those requirements--not the pathological part. :)
Where we differ is in the spiritual and philosophical underpinnings of the talk we walk. I've written before that the person I was in my mid twenties is not the person I am now. My mid twenties self did not envision the mid fifties self, and probably wouldn't think very highly of my current views on things.
In my mid twenties I was a sheltered, pampered, fawned on, big time IQ with virtually zero real life experience. I had been accepted for a doctorate program in a major theological seminary, a degree program I had not applied for, but was recommended for by the head of the theology department at the college I had just graduated from.
I remember staring at the acceptance letter, pride fighting with practical considerations when out of the blue I told Fr. X that I wouldn't be accepting the offer. He was stunned and very disappointed. I told him I couldn't accept it because I had nothing to really offer any program in theology, that the Church was full of theologians with very little life experience and I didn't want to be another one. He didn't really know what to say, he just took the letter from me and said he'd keep it until I felt I had enough experience.
Gaining the requisite life experience brought many changes, overturned a lot of my thinking, challenged my faith, and in those challenges made it much deeper, more personal, more mystical, and far more forgiving. Now that I think I might have something to offer, the Church appears to have reached the point where I no longer think it needs what I might have to offer,nor does it appear that it would value what I have to offer. That's the way life works. Nothing really stays static, everything changes to one degree or another.
All the dogmatic and doctinal differences aside, here's what I think really counts: personal integrity, personal responsibility, Love of God, and love for one's fellow humans. I've found that that's a plate full. Getting those four with any depth and authenticity takes a life time--if not eternity.
I really doubt God cares a whole lot about much of the rest, because caring strongly about the rest of it separates us from our fellow man and makes it hard to love them. It's hard to love unconditionally, as Jesus mandates, when you set conditions. For this reason alone I gave up fundamentalism, and a lot of other 'isms'. Now I spend more time listening than talking, reading than writing. I don't have all the answers anymore, and that's not a bad place. It's a freeing place.
colkoch.blogtoolkit.com
colkoch, at the risk of
colkoch, at the risk of sounding like a 12 step meeting - "thanks for sharing." I totally respect your decision as a young student to not go for the doctorate and to get life experience. I also am in 100% agreement with your conclusions - or shall I say, understanding - of the human and theological experience of age and position.
I remember as a young religious enjoying table conversation and debate so much - even when I didn't have a clue as to what I was debating. And, although I am still very much near the same on many issues, I remain much more open to discussion and understanding the experience and rationale of the other(s) in the conversation. I suspend and reserve judgement for God. (not that it stops me from having an opinion!)
I have witnessed so many priests, seminarians and laity alike, so rigid and judgemental in the "rubrics" but so different in personal actions. I agree with you, integrity is the key for me. I don't care if you are the most right-winged conservative on the face of the Earth, if you live life authentically and lovingly - you are doing something right. Same thing for a "liberal." The "Truth" we are called to live is the truth of love, the truth of God revealed through His Son.
I don't remember much about the theology I learned. Looking at my notes from 20 years ago is like looking at a foreign language. I laugh and say, "I knew that once!" They were the threads that weaved a garment - I would like to think that garment is seamless, even though I know there are holes and pulls in it. What I wouldn't do just for the joy to sit in a classroom again and learn all that in a different way. I remember the difference between my 2nd and 3rd year of theological studies, which I took a 4 year break in between. Theology was so much different after being in the "real world" for 4 years. After 15 years, I can't image how differently the picture would be.
Your words were truly gifted and resonated with me. Thanks.
You are most welcome JB. I
You are most welcome JB. I think theology changes because theology in my mind, isn't just a product of intellectual regurgitation. At it's best it's nuanced through experience and emotion. It should be a 'science' of the heart as well as the head.
colkoch.blogtoolkit.com
All differences aside RE:
All differences aside
RE: All the dogmatic and doctinal differences aside, here's what I think really counts: personal integrity, personal responsibility, Love of God, and love for one's fellow humans. I've found that that's a plate full. Getting those four with any depth and authenticity takes a life time--if not eternity.
As usual, Colkoch, so very well said. It's a journey. And all of our journeys are tainted with varying degrees of idolatry, that are ever so slowly being purged. It ain't black and white, all or nothing, lost and saved.
On my father's side, my rather large consanguinal family is mostly fundamentalistic Southern Baptist. (And I always expected to meet them in heaven and was an inclusivist 40 years ago, before it was more in Catolic vogue.) And I love them dearly and they, me, and they are very, very good people who love God and their fellow wo/man. And I say what I believe and they offer what they believe.
The differences we deliberate over here are not on the order of any questions like who is or is not saved (at least not from my inclusivistic take). We speak moreso to how to give God the greatest possible glory, ad majorem Dei gloriam, and how to be optimal and not, rather, suboptimal --- in creed, cult, code and community --- in truth, beauty, goodness and unity.
Still, much of what is at stake when people are taking suboptimal paths exacts a great toll on the enormity of human suffering and the immensity of human pain vis a vis stupid wars, broken relationships and a host of other problems that ensue from our failure to cooperate with grace, a failure often due to personal sin but even more often due to our finitude and ignorance.
In some ways, none of this makes much difference re: anyone's salvation, as I see it. In other ways, getting this right is incredibly important from the standpoint of compassion for humankind and lessening the toll of suffering from manifold and multiform sources.
Deep peace,
jb
p.s. I'm going back into break mode. I cannot participate routinely but only with an occasional flourish.
"We speak moreso to how to
"We speak moreso to how to give God the greatest possible glory, ad majorem Dei gloriam, and how to be optimal and not, rather, suboptimal --- in creed, cult, code and community --- in truth, beauty, goodness and unity." Well stated.
But then JB, I don't think some of on this sight feel we need to protect and defend God from his Creation. I have zero fear about God's ability to make His own judgements--even when it comes to poor little ole me. Jesus taught that I have no objective reason to fear the Father. That's what Easter is about. I may however, have a lot of objective reason to fear my own inner judgement about poor little ole me.
I had a dream once in which I might have glimpsed the judgement process. I had to live the results on other people of some of my less enlightened choices. That was an attitude changing experience. Thank God I had never condemned anyone to hell. That would have turned a disturbing dream into a nightmare.
colkoch.blogtoolkit.com
Your Enemy? Pardon? RE: I
Your Enemy? Pardon?
RE: I have spent over two years on this site, trying to add one more thing I can say I understand, my "enemy". (see: Sun Tzu, Art of War)
RE: Few have really attempted to understand me, none have succeeded.
I come here for the joys of fellowship and the consolations that flow from being with those who share my outlook.
I do also visit places that are mostly frequented by those who see reality radically differently from the way that I do. I do NOT participate in such forums with an aim toward either engaging an "ENEMY" or being UNDERSTOOD by others. And I do not visit such places with the aim of changing others but, instead, via DIALOGUE, perhaps changing myself. I visit such places where I can engage other views as a FOIL that can serve to help me deepen my own self-understanding, while also coming away with a little better understanding of others.
So, to some extent, my opening post, in my view, was quite alright insofar as it was appropriate to the general audience that fellowships here. That some have chosen to come here as interlopers (self-described enemies seeking to be understood contra St. Francis) with an aim toward proselytizing, well, my post might not have been developmentally-appropriate for that particular crowd. I do take some credit in not having posted it in a forum dominated by those who do not share my hermeneutic, for that would be the greater offense against charity? And it is not my habit to play the role of gadfly in the midst of those who are seeking the consolations of fellowship and a shared outlook.
Go in peace,
jb
As someone who holds a
As someone who holds a fundamentalist view point (ie the fundamentals really matter, like in anything else), your initial post is the spirit that I run up against in my moderately liberal diocese. So yes, in a limited sense the liberal attitudes, theology, and even philosophy are my "enemy", and last I checked this site was about gaining an understanding of a variety of viewpoints. Your post above cuts off dialogue, not furthers it, which was the point of the first part of my post. Your post was not developmentally-appropriate, period. It, and your reactions to my post, have all been centered around the norms of this community, a developmentally limited mindset, and denigrating the views of others with assumptions, essentially that they (we) are ignorant, immature, barbarian.
++++++
What I'm Pondering...
BTW, stop abusing St Francis, who attempted to convert the Sultan or die in the process.
I don't think I've told you
I don't think I've told you recently JB. But I really appreciate your posts. I was telling my daughter (17 years old) how much I enjoy your use of words in your compositions. She asked me to read my favorite sentence in this selection.
I read her one paragraph, then another and another then back to How you began your essay, until I had read her the whole thing.
She enjoyed it.
She introduced me to Slacker radio on the Internet. I enjoyed that to.
We went to the post office earlier today to send letters she translated written by students at Lincoln Elementary School, the most challenged school in having the lowest standardized test results here in Santa Rosa, to a sister class of Students in El Salvador. This is part of her Senior Service Project at Ursuline High School. The fact that the postal employee was Salvadoranian wasn't lost on her in it's serendipitness. He was colorful and delighted to converse in Spanish with my daughter, asking about her visit there 9 months ago, as he helped with the paperwork for the package.
As we walked our she looked at me and said "who would've thought".
The Love you share JB, the truth you spread JB, is the Life my daughter lives JB. It's truly a pleasure for me to have both your influences in my life. Your words live in her life and actions and her life lives in your words.
I offer you my sincere Thank You JB. God Bless you and all our enemies! May the Spirit of God guide us all. :-)
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
Solum Magisterium RE:
Solum Magisterium
RE: appreciate your posts
I am deeply grateful to you for this affirmation. This ministry can be rather difficult, at times. If there is anything in life that is close to my heart, it has to be my four children, and everyone else's, too. If there is anything I could gift them with, now, or leave as a legacy, later, when I perhaps get better at this stuff, it is the rich experience of knowing God.
All too many reject what are but caricatures of God, idols erected by fearful and misguided children of God. It is one thing to be fearful and misguided and quite another to, at the same time, be militant, arrogant and aggressive with one's idolatry. And that's what fundamentalism is, idolatry. With the Protestants it is Sola Scriptura; with some Catholics it is Solum Magisterium.
Holy Greetings to your daughter, Joer.
And deep peace to you.
Thank You JB. God Bless Your
Thank You JB.
God Bless Your children and all your family. I ran across this today. It reminded me of aspects of fundamentalism.
" Nathaniel, you have rightly judged; I do not regard the Scriptures as do the rabbis. I will talk with you about this matter on condition that you do not relate these things to your brethren, who are not all prepared to receive this teaching. The words of the law of Moses and the teachings of the Scriptures were not in existence before Abraham. Only in recent times have the Scriptures been gathered together as we now have them. While they contain the best of the higher thoughts and longings of the Jewish people, they also contain much that is far from being representative of the character and teachings of the Father in heaven; wherefore must I choose from among the better teachings those truths which are to be gleaned for the gospel of the kingdom.
" These writings are the work of men, some of them holy men, others not so holy. The teachings of these books represent the views and extent of enlightenment of the times in which they had their origin. As a revelation of truth, the last are more dependable than the first. The Scriptures are faulty and altogether human in origin, but mistake not, they do constitute the best collection of religious wisdom and spiritual truth to be found in all the world at this time.
" Many of these books were not written by the persons whose names they bear, but that in no way detracts from the value of the truths which they contain. If the story of Jonah should not be a fact, even if Jonah had never lived, still would the profound truth of this narrative, the love of God for Nineveh and the so-called heathen, be none the less precious in the eyes of all those who love their fellow men. The Scriptures are sacred because they present the thoughts and acts of men who were searching for God, and who in these writings left on record their highest concepts of righteousness, truth, and holiness. The Scriptures contain much that is true, very much, but in the light of your present teaching, you know that these writings also contain much that is misrepresentative of the Father in heaven, the loving God I have come to reveal to all the worlds.
" Nathaniel, never permit yourself for one moment to believe the Scripture records which tell you that the God of love directed your forefathers to go forth in battle to slay all their enemies—men, women, and children. Such records are the words of men, not very holy men, and they are not the word of God. The Scriptures always have, and always will, reflect the intellectual, moral, and spiritual status of those who create them. Have you not noted that the concepts of Yahweh grow in beauty and glory as the prophets make their records from Samuel to Isaiah? And you should remember that the Scriptures are intended for religious instruction and spiritual guidance. They are not the works of either historians or philosophers.
" The thing most deplorable is not merely this erroneous idea of the absolute perfection of the Scripture record and the infallibility of its teachings, but rather the confusing misinterpretation of these sacred writings by the tradition-enslaved scribes and Pharisees at Jerusalem. And now will they employ both the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures and their misinterpretations thereof in their determined effort to withstand these newer teachings of the gospel of the kingdom. Nathaniel, never forget, the Father does not limit the revelation of truth to any one generation or to any one people. Many earnest seekers after the truth have been, and will continue to be, confused and disheartened by these doctrines of the perfection of the Scriptures.
" The authority of truth is the very spirit that indwells its living manifestations, and not the dead words of the less illuminated and supposedly inspired men of another generation. And even if these holy men of old lived inspired and spirit-filled lives, that does not mean that their words were similarly spiritually inspired. Today we make no record of the teachings of this gospel of the kingdom lest, when I have gone, you speedily become divided up into sundry groups of truth contenders as a result of the diversity of your interpretation of my teachings. For this generation it is best that we live these truths while we shun the making of records.
" Mark you well my words, Nathaniel, nothing which human nature has touched can be regarded as infallible. Through the mind of man divine truth may indeed shine forth, but always of relative purity and partial divinity. The creature may crave infallibility, but only the Creators possess it.
" But the greatest error of the teaching about the Scriptures is the doctrine of their being sealed books of mystery and wisdom which only the wise minds of the nation dare to interpret. The revelations of divine truth are not sealed except by human ignorance, bigotry, and narrow-minded intolerance. The light of the Scriptures is only dimmed by prejudice and darkened by superstition. A false fear of sacredness has prevented religion from being safeguarded by common sense. The fear of the authority of the sacred writings of the past effectively prevents the honest souls of today from accepting the new light of the gospel, the light which these very God-knowing men of another generation so intensely longed to see.
" But the saddest feature of all is the fact that some of the teachers of the sanctity of this traditionalism know this very truth. They more or less fully understand these limitations of Scripture, but they are moral cowards, intellectually dishonest. They know the truth regarding the sacred writings, but they prefer to withhold such disturbing facts from the people. And thus do they pervert and distort the Scriptures, making them the guide to slavish details of the daily life and an authority in things nonspiritual instead of appealing to the sacred writings as the repository of the moral wisdom, religious inspiration, and the spiritual teaching of the God-knowing men of other generations. "
Nathaniel was enlightened, and shocked, by the Master's pronouncement. He long pondered this talk in the depths of his soul, but he told no man concerning this conference until after Jesus' ascension; and even then he feared to impart the full story of the Master's instruction.
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
Joer, read this again. This
Joer, read this again. This has Jesus doing the same thing with Nathaniel for which Jesus castigates the pharisees. "I will talk with you about this matter on condition that you do not relate these things to your brethren, who are not all prepared to receive this teaching." and:
"They more or less fully understand these limitations of Scripture, but they are moral cowards, intellectually dishonest. They know the truth regarding the sacred writings, but they prefer to withhold such disturbing facts from the people."
Jesus apparently taught the Apostles a lot of things they were unprepared to recieve or accept. Peter walking on water comes to mind. I think the fact humanity is not defined by the percieved limits of material reality would be a whole lot harder to accept than the fact the scriptures of the time might contain some historical inaccuracies and incorrect spiritual interpretations.
We still seem to have a great deal of difficulty believing we are not the sum total of our percieved limitations.
colkoch.blogtoolkit.com
Joer, with all due respect,
Joer, with all due respect, I am wondering why you are often refering to the Urantia Book. Do you belong to a New Age religion?
Against Fundamentalism What
Against Fundamentalism
What is at stake here, in my view, is the cultivation and nurturance of an environment that fosters authentic dialogue. Such dialogue is indispensable to enriching our life in Christian community and in helping us to permeate and improve the temporal order.
Thankfully, Len Swidler provides us with such criteria in his Dialogue Decalogue:
http://astro.temple.edu/~dialogue/Antho/decalog.htm
What is at play here, in my view, is his 9th Commandment:
Persons entering into interreligious, interideological dialogue must be at least minimally self-critical of both themselves and their own religious or ideological traditions. A lack of such self-criticism implies that one's own tradition already has all the correct answers. Such an attitude makes dialogue not only unnecessary, but even impossible, since we enter into dialogue primarily so we can learn--which obviously is impossible if our tradition has never made a misstep, if it has all the right answers. To be sure, in interreligious, interideological dialogue one must stand within a religious or ideological tradition with integrity and conviction, but such integrity and conviction must include, not exclude, a healthy self-criticism. Without it there can be no dialogue--and, indeed, no integrity.
END of EXCERPT
This helps the discernment process, I believe. Using this criterion, it becomes more clear why an endless tautological cycle of proof-texting appeals to authority (the Pope, the Bible & the Catechism or even the Koran & the Prophet) followed by ad hominem critiques of other dialogue participants is not dialogue. It only enjoys a superficial legitimacy. It is not useful, from a logical perspective, because it is immersed in fallacy. It is not useful from a dialogical perspective because, per Len's criteria, it lacks self-criticism, hence, integrity.
The easiest way to uncover the absurdity of such a fundamentalistic approach is to attempt a parody of the fundamentalist's argument by substituting "the Prophet" for the Pope or Magisterium and by substituting "the Koran" for the Bible or Catechism. Such uncritical appeals to authority are not only naive but can become dangerous. At best, they destroy dialogue; at worst, they destroy buildings and people. What one believes, uncritically imbibed at mother's knee, becomes but an accident of birth.
"What is at stake here, in
"What is at stake here, in my view, is the cultivation and nurturance of an environment that fosters authentic dialogue."
You can't foster authentic dialogue by poisoning the well, as you admit ad hominems are not dialogue. You seem to believe that one cannot come to a funadamentalist view except through ignorance. It is also possible that some has examined the world around them and the fundamental claims of religions and found that one actually seems to describe the world better than the others. That these fundamentals hold true from age to age.
Faux issue Here Today RE:
Faux issue Here Today
RE: You seem to believe that one cannot come to a funadamentalist view except through ignorance.
By the standard use definition: CORRECT.
There is a problem with definitions here. I am employing the word fundamentalism per Webster's definition re: the Protestant element of the so-called Religious Right and am extending it, via analog, to Catholic fundamentalism. My use of the word conforms to the dictionary and to academia.
To wit, it is referenced here:
Of course, fundamentalism is a complex phenomenon, having been the subject of serious and sustained study by Martin Marty, emeritus professor of church history at the University of Chicago, and his former student and current Notre Dame professor, R. Scott Appleby, who co-edited a highly regarded five-volume series on the topic.
Given the general focus and audience of this column, however, its attention will be directed mainly to Catholic fundamentalism, with the hope that its broader ecumenical and inter-faith implications will be evident.
One of the best articles ever written on the subject of Catholic fundamentalism appeared over 17 years ago in the Jesuit weekly, America (April 11, 1987). It was entitled, "The Rise of Catholic Fundamentalism." Its author, Jesuit Father Patrick M. Arnold, has since died.
http://www.the-tidings.com/2004/0924/essays.htm
END of REFERENCE
You, on the other hand, are employing the word in an idiosyncratic manner that has not enjoyed wide usage, not via dictionary, not in academia and not colloquially. You and, apparently, a similarly-minded cohort in Catholicism, have chosen to self-describe as fundamentalists, using your idiosyncratic definition that is supposedly bereft of pejorative connotations, and cloaking yourself with it as some type of honorific.
THEN, when I use it the way it is employed in general usage by the masses and not rather in the way a narrow cohort of other Catholics use it, you feign umbrage and accuse me of impolitic speech. There is only one sentence in that essay that I would delete to cool the rhetoric but I'm not going to capitulate to your abject nonsense any longer, as if everyone here doesn't already know what a duck is, what a duck says and how a duck walks!
Here are Five Characteristics discussed by By Rev. Richard P. McBrien (I know, I know ... heterodox to you):
1) First, it is marked by paranoia and self-righteousness. There is always some terrible enemy out there that has to be fought and ultimately destroyed.
Your bogeyman is relativism. Not a bad choice. You are simply tarring too many folks with this same brush and inappropriately so. You need more rigor in your otherwise facile analyses.
2) Fundamentalism is marked, secondly, by fear and rage directed not only against the enemy outside the ranks but even more intensely against the enemy within, including bishops, priests, sisters and theologians.
Father Arnold called this "the most revealing and dangerous characteristic" of fundamentalists because it leads them to engage in divisive activities. They spend an inordinate amount of time and energy trying to purge people, to get them fired, to destroy their reputations and, therefore, their influence.
YOU used the word ENEMY, none of us! :-(
YOU seem to have, by your own admission, spent way too much time here for reasons I cannot abide with and addressed elewhere.
3) Fundamentalists are captivated, thirdly, by the "myth of the Golden Age." They imagine that Catholicism in the decades just before Vatican II was in its pristine and ideal state, exactly as God intended it to be, without problems or deficiencies of any kind.
Your words: ahh good times... (but you weren't even born).
4) For the fundamentalist, fourthly, all truth is to be found in a single source. For the Muslim, it is the Koran. For the Jew, the Torah. For Protestants, the Bible. And for Catholics, the pronouncements of the pope and the Roman Curia.
You wrote: "Most here know what they believe, and know what the Church believes, and yet make no attempt to reconcile themselves with the Church, rather they insist that the Church reconcile herself to them."
There is your problem in a nutshell. Your definition of CHURCH. You overidentify "Church" with the institutional hierarchy. You are promoting a false dichotomy between "they, themselves, them" and "THE church" when, in fact, WE, OURSELVES, ARE an integral part of the Church.
Further, you speak of no role for the SENSUS FIDELIUM via a vis the teaching office and Magisterium. As I mentioned elsewhere on this thread, OVEREMPHASIS/underemphasis.
5) Fifthly, religious fundamentalists tend to link themselves with right-wing political regimes and movements in the hope of advancing their own theocratic policies. Accordingly, Catholic fundamentalists are unenthusiastic about Catholic social teaching. They tend instead to emphasize a limited range of other issues as if they were primary.
Well, that's how this thread began. And, obviously, it rankled you. As they say: Oftenm he who excuses himself, accuses himself?
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
I am sad and disappointed.
You've given me no reason to look forward to a substantive engagement. [ALT][HERE TODAY][IGNORE]
As far as usages of
As far as usages of Fundamentalism/fundamentalist I refer you to Google the term. Results from wiki to Dictionary.com contain my definition, as well as yours. (in brief: It originated in the Protestant fundamentalist movement, promoting strict adherence to the Fundamentals of Christian belief, against modernist and secular challenges.) You are not, apparently, aware that parts of the evangelical movement still use the term in its original sense, sort of the Protestant equivalent of a Catholic Traditionalist or (in politics) a (paleo-)conservative. There is as much, if not more, depth in the fundamentalist/traditionalst/paleo-conservative understanding of the world as there is in the secular/modernist/liberal understanding (yes, comparing the "far"-right to the "moderate" left).
Yes, I have used the rhetorical trick of examining your logic and wording rather than your actual argument, but that is all you can do to counter a circular argument. As you say, the readers here ought to be smart enough to "know what a duck is, what a duck says and how a duck walks".
I won't address your points from Fr McBrien in order (and its objectively heterodox, not heterodox to me, that would be relativism), but your second one is most interesting. I don't know how broad your experience with online debating goes, but if someone puts quotation marks around a word that is not a direct quote, it usually indicates a non-literal meaning. Of course I may have been the first to use the word ("enemy"), but your entire OP was written in an adversarial tone (after all, how often does one wish for anyone other than an enemy to be put in exile?). I have tried to point out the blindness you have to how others of ANY intelligence could NOT share your views, strangely enough one of your charges against fundamentalists.
The fourth is a matter of one of those fundamentals you wish to avoid discussing, what is the nature of the Church? For two thousand years it has never been exclusively "the people", there always has been a hierarchy, and the teaching authority of the Church lies therein. We disagree, but an 'authentic' discussion (not this mess of cross analysis) would easily run for pages over the evidence for each side. That really would be more constructive than this, but unless we can agree to be civil we cannot even start such a conversation.
The first is a matter of a philosophical fundamental, does right belief matter? That is, should our beliefs conform to reality? If so, then false belief, and more particularly the spread of false belief, is a moral evil (regardless of what belief we are talking about, any belief ought to be abandoned for one more in conformity to reality.) You certainly seem to believe this, as you wrote an entire post attacking the bogeyman of fundamentalism.
The third and fifth are rather ridiculous on the surface, the "ahh good times comment" was not made in reference to any period of Church history (nor could you make that claim if you included the context of the remark), but to a previous conversation where I realized that for all practical purposes, particularly on this site, the moniker of "Catholic fundamentalist" did indeed fit. The fifth is borderline idiotic on the good Padre's part. fundamentalism, as you have noted, exists on both sides of the aisle, and therefore cannot be tied strictly to "right-wing political regimes".
++++++
What I'm Pondering...
BTW, ignoring the only person from whom you could expect substantive disagreement, rather childish.
The Practical Upshot of
The Practical Upshot of Metaphysics in Politics
I have broken my response up into digestable bits to keep it from being, as you said, unwieldy. Folks can respond to the parts that most engage them.
You write: take a good look at Platonic-Aristotilian-Thomisitic philosophy, and actually talk to us.
So as not to be, at all, coy in my response, let me be clear in suggesting the precise juncture where I am certain we part ways.
This is a thread re: politics. Except for the most general notions re: foundations of our epistemology and re: the most general of moral precepts, metaphysics that employ non-negotiated universals (concepts that employ definitions and categories not in use by the wider community of moral discourse in a pluralistic society) have no currency in political discourse. Metaphysical arguments may demonstrate the reasonableness of our beliefs, but they are not coercive, which is to say that they do not even compel belief in God much less in one's deontology.
In the plainest of terms, there is a tendency for folks, armed with metaphysical propositions, to try to PROVE too much.
At this point on humankind's journey, what we have in the world of metaphysics are competing tautologies, some, arguably, more taut than others. The best way we have of adjudicating their claims are via Lonergan's conversions (which your treatment rather trivialized, btw), which is to suggest that orthopraxis authenticates orthodoxy, which is to ask: How well does this people institutionalize conversion?
The aristotelian-thomistic approach has much to recommend it, but there is a great danger in using it to prove too much (and it can do better in those reformulations that are less substantialistic, essentialistic and a prioristic). Many approach thorny bioethical issues and
vexing moral problems with facile formalistic arguments. And we need those, to be sure, but we absolutely must go beyond them in our analyses of moral objects because, get this:
faith is not a philosophical syllogism
hope is not a philosophical syllogism
love is not a philosophical syllogism
The things I value most in life are not wholly propositional!
Our current metaphysics do not deliver us explanatory adequacy or empirical demonstrability regarding the most important values in our lives.
To quote my own paraphrases from folks like Fathers McBrien and McCormick:
Our approach presently is one-sidedly philosophical. How can we make it more Christocentric, more "anchored in charity"?
It is a narrow, parochial approach. Could it be more universal [catholic] in its appeal?
It is biologistic and physicalistic. How can we make it more personalistic, emphasizing the centrality of the human person?
It is presented as infallible. How could it be more "modest and tentative" in its appeal?
Could it be more ecumenical, drawing on other sources outside Catholicism for ideas?
It is so exclusively deductive. How could it be more inductive, using the insight of laypersons?
It seeks universal conformism. How can it be more pluralistic, allowing for differences according to individual cases?
It has been so manualistic and minimalistic. How can it be more aspirational, "appealing to the spiritual hungers of people" vs. setting forth merely basic obligations?
My challenge to some conservatives is to answer why things must be so one-sidedly philosophical, essentialistic, minmalistic, physicalistic, biologistic, parochial, deductive, infallibilistic?
The case to made by some progressives is how we can better aspire and give witness to the complementary values that I juxtaposed above.
Even if the Magisterium has been basically right on matters of doctrine and discipline vis a vis such as sex and gender, for example, (and I don't belive it has been), there would remain a huge failure to distinguish between life issues and generative/procreative issues in order to establish some parvity of matter, which is to say it has WAY overinvested importance in the latter to the real detriment of the former.
Conservatism does not confuse ways & means with ends. It does not make tradition an absolute and does not ground arguments in authoritarian appeals. And it does not over-reach, claiming apodictic certainty for matters that are truly in doubt.
vaya con Dios,
JB
Let's Talk Conservatism if
Let's Talk Conservatism
if the air has been cleared enough?
RE: take a good look at Platonic-Aristotilian-Thomisitic philosophy, and actually talk to us
As a conservative, in the classical "liberal" tradition, the first thing that might catch one's attention vis a vis any given platonic, aristotelian or thomistic approach is whether or not this or that proponent portrays a naive realism or a critical realism, an "a prioristic" foundationalism or a weakened foundationalism, an uncritical infallibilism or a chastized fallibilism.
On one hand, we cannot coherently surrender our metaphysical realism. On the other hand, we must recognize that our ontological hypotheses, as root metaphors for modeling reality, remain very highly speculative and that, therefore, any moral impetus urged from the deontological hypotheses we derive therefrom should, necessarily, be proportionately attenuated, which is to say, urged in a more modest and tentative way, especially in a pluralistic political arena. (And we are talking politics, here.)
In fact, we may end up urging our perspectives by otherwise employing mostly prudential arguments, not because we're anti-metaphysical, but, because, often, we see the weaknesses in our own arguments (vis a vis their lack of full transparency to human reason) and must, sometimes, wait patiently for the moral clarity that we hope will eventually dawn with the advent of new discoveries.
That's, in my view, the most authentically conservative approach, over against any aggressive moral statism, for example. N'est pas?
respectfully, pax
jb
the conservative mind RE: If
the conservative mind
RE: If you wish to understand the conservative mind, you need to shed the blinkers of modern bias, take a good look at Platonic-Aristotilian-Thomisitic philosophy, and actually talk to us.
There are a couple of reasons, principled and prudential, that I believe that conservatism is the preferred default position in human affairs. Foremost, the principle of subsidiarity focuses us on the values of human dignity and human freedom, thus "jobs" must be done at the most competent level nearest the individual as practicable. Also, from a prudential perspective, Charles Sanders Peirce urges us to speculate boldly on theoretical matters but to approach matters of practical and vital interests much more modestly, paying heed to both common sense and the wisdom accumulated and articulated by tradition. These approaches are exemplified in our Catholic stance and in some politically conservative outlooks. So, we share much common ground. If you felt strawmanned, perhaps that's because you missed my distinction: "I use the term Religious Right to describe that cohort of religious influence that was radically fundamentalistic, understanding and appreciating that other, more authentic, voices were allied with their efforts out of political necessity." That distinction was drawn with white, evangelical, fundamentalistic Protestantism in mind insofar as Catholicism is not, by its nature, radically fundamentalistic. Not to say it cannot be practiced that way. Not to say that we will not diverge in our views at another juncture.
"If you felt strawmanned,
"If you felt strawmanned, perhaps that's because you missed my distinction: "I use the term Religious Right to describe that cohort of religious influence that was radically fundamentalistic, understanding and appreciating that other, more authentic, voices were allied with their efforts out of political necessity.""
The assumption that fundamentalist views are not authentic is where I begin to take issue. You have right there abandoned any logic, presuming your conclusion. You assume that fundamentalism=unthinking, you are incorrect (and even if you were not that violates any norms of civil discourse). You equate fundamentalism with immature morals, political theories, and economic theories, ignoring the immaturity of relativistic theories in all of the above.
It is funny how we except the importance of fundamentals everywhere except religion. If your going to invest, you look for a company with strong fundamentals. If your coaching an athlete, you make them practice the fundamentals. Obviously there is something about getting back to the root (radix), the founding principles, that makes fundamentalism worth examining, not summarily dismissing.
++++++
What I'm Pondering...
"The assumption that
"The assumption that fundamentalist views are not authentic is where I begin to take issue."
I suspect the word "authentic" is often used imprecisely. It roots in the Latin word "augere", to increase. Positions that by nature are static in their understanding are not open to increase, to growth. The transformational worldview in distinction to the static-centrist worldview remains open to growth, increase, authenticity. My sense is that much of "foundationalism, fundamentalism" is radically opposed to the notion of evolutionary openness, authenticity.
I think that JB was
I think that JB was referring to the religious fundamentalist such as Reverend John Hagee? Fundamentals are a whole other different matter.
Heretoday~ Your're a smart
Heretoday~ Your're a smart boy; you've told us so yourself (couldn't resist that). This post is really a great opportunity for dialogue. I can appreciate your sensitivity and maybe JB wrote the thread as if he were writing to the converted but if you read his posts along the way and particularly his long (!) one today you can't but acknowledge that his intentions are as good as his views are strong.
I guess where I have a problem with "extremism" he calls it "fundamentalism". I guess we are all fundamentalists in some respects (e.g., "we hold these truths to be self-evident" "inalienable" etc.). The difference might just be what fundamentals we decide to sit on, and that affects everything else. Where you might pick up a negative reference to "intelligence" another might identify it as "judgement" (too strong, too tight, too soon).
A Matter of EMPHASIS While I
A Matter of EMPHASIS
While I am not unaware that some self-describe as fundamentalists and eschew any pejorative connotations, for purposes of advancing dialogue, please be aware that I am using Webster's first definition and not your idiosyncratic one. You are not wrong in stressing the importance of fundamentals in business, athletics and religion. You are confused, however, in your failure to draw the distinction between the use of fundamentals and the ABUSE of fundamentals, which is marked by an overemphasis on some values, with an underemphasis on other important values, for example, an overemphasis on the role of the Magisterium, an underemphasis on the role of the Sensus Fidelium. Also, uncritical and authoritarian appeals, even to what might otherwise be correct positions, are inauthentic and lack integrity.
Perhaps an example would be useful. In Catholicism, we affirm both kataphatic (via positiva) and apophatic (via negativa) theology. We also affirm both speculative (thinking) and affective (feeling) roles in religion. We also affirm the use of dogma, rituals and laws.
At the same time, we reject any over- and under-emphases, such as dogmatism, ritualism and legalism. We reject, too, 1)rationalism (over-emphasis of speculative and
kataphatic), 2) pietism (over-emphasis of affective and kataphatic), 3) quietism (over-emphasis of affective and apophatic), 4) encratism (over-emphasis of
apophatic and speculative) and a host of other ISMS: syncretism, indifferentism, empiricism, relativism, absolutism, fideism and irenicism.
I don't need to critique relativism at the same time as I offer this consideration, btw. I've done that elsewhere. But, you keep throwing out the bogeyman RELATIVISM and you also wrote: "take a good look at Platonic-Aristotilian-Thomisitic philosophy, and actually talk to us." I have yet to see you make a cogent case for how your philosophy overcomes relativism. (It can be made.)Nor have I seen you make a case for how anything I have written can be construed as relativism. You seem confused on these points in that you see facile appeals to authority as the answer to relativism, while you have offered no apologetic in favor of the authority, only, instead, a sentimental longing for a time in church history that predates you, anyway? Finally, if you want to be taken seriously, you could start by spelling your philosophies correctly.
I'll be on the lookout for a more substantive engagement by you. And will delightedly engage it when I see it.
In the meanwhile, I recommend that you forsake your disingenuous self-description of fundamentalist for something more conventionally understood, like orthodox. And, once taking that step, I recommend you resist the temptation to conceive it too narrowly ;-)
I think we could become fast friends but this medium, without the very critical nonverbal cues, is difficult.
Vaya con Dios,
jb
I am not the one who keeps
I am not the one who keeps bringing up relativism; IIRC I stated that it was not possible you were one, and asked what objective standard you use (in morality). If I though you really were a relativist I wouldn't of bothered baiting you (wait, am I the troll or the troll-baiter here, I get confused being a regular poster on a site that I tend to disagree with). Hence, no need for me to defend objectivism over relativism. I do not believe I have appealed to inappropriate authority, if I have appealed to authority at all on this thread (unless of course the rule of logic and civil discourse are authorities). Nor have I presented any longing for a past time in Church history, sentimental or otherwise.
I of course accept the moniker of "orthodox", as well as fundamentalist, traditionalist (with qualifications), progressive (understood in light of the others), young fogey, and anything else that fits.
++++++
What I'm Pondering...
Again: medievalist fits
Again: medievalist fits best. You said it yourself.
I'd have given you a four,
I'd have given you a four, but that's reserved for progressive liberals.:) Come to think of it, I might have violated this fundamental law a time or two.
I think what you have written here might be an interesting new topic. What are the core Catholic fundamentals, and which ones can we agree on? Agreeing on something might be a refreshing change. We could find out that we don't agree on what's fundamental, but this starting place may help us understand each other much better.
colkoch.blogtoolkit.com
"...might be an interesting
"...might be an interesting new topic"~ When I first tuned in on the cafe there was one such thread. It had some posters, doctrinaire fundamentalists signing of with such phrases like "it is finished" "rome has spoken" and such like. While there was some good stuff its usefulness was severely curtainled by the very same attitudes that JB refers to in his most recent post.
There is no liberal or
There is no liberal or conservative view of Truth. There is ONLY Truth. Either you get ALL of it RIGHT or it is WRONG. Jesus Christ Has Founded His Church to Conform to HIS Laws, not to conform to the secular World. His desire is that we live our lives in Relationship and Communion with Him, The Blessed Trinity. We are to live our lives as God intended and for everything that we do we must ask, is it of God? As Catholics, we believe in the Truth as revealed to us in the Trinitarian Relationship of Sacred Tradition,( oral as well as written ), Sacred Scripture, and the teaching of the Magisterium. We believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. It really is that simple if you stop fighting about it and just accept it.