Rebuilding the Catholic Church today

I have to say that I was very moved by your writing b7m8. What you have described very eloquently is a conscious process of returning to God through Jesus Christ in prayer with a truly repentant heart in desperate need of forgiveness and God's mercy in a very unforgiving world. Yours is also a testimony of the help and healing you found in practicing the Divine Mercy devotion. I personally think that to some it may be very beneficial to practice the Divine Mercy devotion because it can prepare the soul to receive that mercy. It can bring one in direct contact with Jesus and His wonderful mercy, especially if one has for a long time been in darkness which is a place without mercy. It can help prepare the way and the will "to turn my own will over, consciously and deliberately" to God's will. It can prepare the heart to extend that mercy to others "by being a channel of His mercy, and trust in Jesus completely."

I don't believe that all who responded in their comments were rejecting the Divine Mercy devotions, but in the presentation which seemed unmerciful.

The promise for the Divine Mercy Sunday devotion is similar to that of Baptism. Of course you do not have to accept it (it is a matter of private revelation), but the Church has recognized it to the level of granting a plenary indulgence (the remitting of all punishment due for sin, which remains even after confession) to those who fulfill the requirements laid out in the Diary.

A good Confession restores our relationship with God, but their remains a debt of punishment, to be paid either in suffering in this life or before we enter Heaven in the next. This debt debt is a means of purification, hence we call the state of paying off the remainder of this debt after death Purgatory.

I don't think any one means to claim the Divine Mercy is the only way back to the Church, indeed it is an aid only in the spiritual sense, to restore sanctifying grace in the soul, and to immediately spur it on to growth. (Combined with the Novena (which includes the Triduum) consider it an intense, in the world, retreat.

Yes, there are many programs and parishes that do take the steps either to get someone to the point of being ready to come back to the sacraments, or to bring people into parish life as the return, and DMSunday is not one of those programs, although I have known people to come back to the sacraments and connect with parish through a celebration of Divine Mercy Sunday (an old-school Catholic feast, with great food (until an hour before Mass and again after), Confessions, music(in the Hall), Adoration, and Mass). Now, most of this could be done in every parish for major feasts, but not enough people are willing to take on the challenge.

BTW, the Vatican decree on the indulgence linked above would indicate that Matt. 16:18-19 would be the verse you are looking for.
++++++
What I'm Pondering...

You said Heretoday: "A good Confession restores our relationship with God, but their remains a debt of punishment, to be paid either in suffering in this life or before we enter Heaven in the next. This debt debt is a means of purification, hence we call the state of paying off the remainder of this debt after death Purgatory."

I remember a few years ago going to a Lenten retreat and the Priest giving a talk about confession and penance or punishment. I'll paraphrase what he said: "after hearing the confession I told the penitent to say an Our Father and three Hail Marys. The person looked at him and seemed startled and said that it didn't seem like much to do in the way of penance. The priest then looked at all of us and pointed to Jesus on the Cross. He has already done the penance for us by His death on the cross. He died for our sins. We should always remember this and never forget that He died for us and for our salvation. He is so merciful and loving and forgiving that He has even done the penance for us."

If I were to believe that Christ did not pay the debt for sins, then He died for nothing. I don't believe He died for nothing, and so that leaves me with believing that Christ truly is the Redeemer.

HT..a bit off the subject of the DMSunday perhaps, but I wanted to comment on this statement of yours:

"A good Confession restores our relationship with God, but their remains a debt of punishment, to be paid either in suffering in this life or before we enter Heaven in the next. This debt debt is a means of purification, hence we call the state of paying off the remainder of this debt after death Purgatory."

First, as I'm sure you know, a good confession is not the only way to restore our relationship with God. The issue of punishment in relation to debts beyond confession is more theological construct than your statement suggests. The Church does not actually know what "remains," if anything, because that is all God's business. The Church assumes the issue of debt to be repaid and thus offers penance as a part of confession, as well as other means of penance throughout the church year and throughout life, including now DMSunday.

Jesus put in front of us the story of the vineyard and the laborers, in which the righteous were troubled by the generosity of the owner to pay all the same for very different labor. One of many suggestions in Jesus' stories that the authority is God's love, [His] thoughts not being our thoughts. Because of the more-or-less security of knowing the depth of our own repentance as well as the expanse of God's love, the Church offers some more human-sounding, law-based ideas of God's love and acceptance to try to make a sense of fit between the two, but that isn't writ. The purification-as-debt payment is not the only perspective; another is purification-as-healing approach, which is more in line with Jesus' stories of God's love. He did come to show us [His] ways, not our own.

"a good confession is not the only way to restore our relationship with God"

Well there is always baptism, martyrdom, and that ever elusive pure contrition (detesting our sins because they are sins, not out of fear of "the loss of heaven or the pains of hell", but because they are offenses against God, who is all good and deserving of all [our] love. ;-) The Sacrament of Confession (aka S. of Penance, S. of Reconciliation) is the only outward sign that grants us this grace of being forgiven of our sins with certainty. It also give us back the life of God in our soul.

As to satisfaction remaining, it is certainly taught infallibly by the Council of Trent, with examples of God leaving temporal punishment going back to Adam and Eve. Jesus pointed out two types of suffering at different points: that of the eternal darkness and torment; and that from which one who was merciless would be released after "every penny had been payed". We call these two places of torment Hell and Purgatory, in one we would suffer forever because of our un-repented mortal sin, and the other we suffer for a time, to be purified as silver and gold, of that stain that remains from repented sin. None of this is theological conjecture, but the de fide teaching of the Church.

Yes, there is also the aspect of purification of healing (which is much better expressed in the Eastern tradition), but regardless the purification remains.

++++++

Well, you are just popping up all over with this! I can see that you are apparently wanting to discuss the more serious of sinning when you go to the extremes of such as martydom as a way to restore a relationship with God. At least that seems a bit extreme to me! And will guess that the assumption is that most people around and about are more the big sinner than not, neither of which is where I'm likely to be. But here we go into whatever the dark rabbithole this is apparently going to be. Gee, I feel scared suddenly :-)

There are other outward signs of God's forgiveness. Others may forgive us an injury or we may forgive others. This is what God asked us to do, directly and simply with each other. The toughest of stuff and one outward sign that is sometimes easy to neglect while we run to a priest. :-) There is the penitential rite at every mass, which is not just for pretty prayer, but is a real penitential rite. Sometimes priests and/or people use that as a way to forgive and be forgiven, even directly and simply with each other. And there is the joining in with Christ's death and resurrection in the Eucharist, which is another way. I could go on with other less direct, outward and obvious signs, but I fear I will lose your engagement quickly if I leave the Church grounds too much. And you did, of course, put in the condition that the the sign is one that "grants us this grace of being forgiven of our sins WITH CERTAINTY," which I noted in my post was the caveat: some need more of this assurance than others and the Church offers a sacramental approach to give that sense of certainty. Growing in God's love and nature in the spiritual maturation of a long life suggests the need for less certainty and more trust.

As to the infallibility of councils, I will presume that you are not saying that every word of a council is infallible, since the church doesn't teach that and actually provided a very narrow definition of infallibility when it went out on this limb.

The leaning of Roman teachings toward a judicial language is less satisfactory than the leaning of the Eastern toward healing. Purification does not mean punishment to me. And, although I can understand the belief of many that such a leaning toward purification-as-punishment is necessary for those on earth to believe to deter crime and sin, I would suggest that purification-as-punishment would hold little sense in an understanding of living in God's presence. Jailtime seems a bit dull next to the depth and breadth of our enjoyment of God or lack of it, in other words.

I've decided if you two want to go down the rabbit hole, I'll tag along.

I liked this post annieO. Especially where you write that with spiritual maturity the need becomes trust rather than certainty.

Purification doesn't mean punishment to me either, it's more of a cleansing, and that is not necessarily only an issue for the individual, but can involve places, times, and institutions.

I also think that one of the issues in which I get stopped is HT's notion of infallibility. I know that we have had a number of discussions previously on this topic, but I think our varying understandings of infallibility is going to be one of the dark areas in the rabbit hole with regards to the institutional church. I see infallibility as a little hole you can barely crawl through, sometimes I think HT sees it as a cavern with unlimited mining potential.

colkoch.blogtoolkit.com

"There are other outward signs of God's forgiveness. Others may forgive us an injury or we may forgive others."
But this is not a sign of God's forgiveness, but our own forgiveness of each other. Is it necessary, yes.

"There is the penitential rite at every mass,"
You do have a point there, as far as venial sin is concerned, but confession remains necessary for mortal sin.

Perhaps I should clarify my caveat: to receive the Eucharist we ought to be certain that we are not in a state of mortal sin. Moving further than this along the path of perfection is indeed a path of trusting in God, but even that will lead us back to trusting the Church as well.

As to "my" notion of infallibility, I refer you to Vatican II (Lumen Gentium,25.) "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)"

It has been too long since I really looked at the Eastern view on purification vs the Western, but in the end I think the both/and approach is most comprehensive. That there are both purification and punitive elements to this, lets call it 'purgation'. Or rather no that they are even separate elements, but two effects of this one state. That being "washed in the Blood of the Lamb" is cathartic, or like gold being heated to the point that it melts to be refined. Certainly the purification is more to be desired, but it comes at the cost of suffering.

I know I am probably getting nowhere trying to explain in theological terms, so let be dive into Narnia for a moment. After Eustace Scrubb (the boy who almost deserved his name) turned into a dragon and repented of his selfishness and greed, the transformation back to being human still remained. At Aslan's (Jesus') direction Eustace needed to undress and bathe. After Eustace had scratched through several layers of his dragon-skin, to now avail, Aslan said "You will have to let me undress you" a process that "hurt worse than anything", but at the same time was accompanied by the pleasure of "feeling the stuff peel off". Once it was off Aslan took the now tender (having no skin on and all) Eustace and threw him into the pool, which smarted at first and then became "perfectly delicious".

Eustace was turned into a dragon, not as a punishment, but because he was, at heart, "dragonish". Seeing himself for what he was led him to repent, but he was still a dragon. It wasn't until he was purified by Aslan's claws that he was fully human again.

++++++
(40*)Cfr. Conc. Vat. I, Const. dogm. Dei Filius, 3
(41*)Cfr. Cod. Iur. Can., c. 1322-1323.(1917) 1983 CIC, 749

yes, BTW, you are right on this part about trying to describe the afterlife and God's heart. Theology is of little help on this.

"Perhaps I should clarify my caveat: to receive the Eucharist we ought to be certain that we are not in a state of mortal sin."

Yes, that would be the old-timey way to try to shut the lid on a person's conscience. That the person could be out and about committing mortal sins willy-nilly without noticing. I noticed you trying to get there on another post, but that doesn't work. You do actually have to decide to go there, not just wake up in the communion line and suddenly run to the back of the church in fear yelling for a priest. The games of the old days have been reviewed by most everyone and found wanting indeed. You do like boxes and the tape and ribbons to tie them up! Which is actually, I'm guessing, the real rabbithole. You want to call out the sinners of the communion line to an appreciation of their future in hell, me thinketh. Priests don't get to do that either. While there may be issues related to the depth of relationship to God or laziness regarding that, that remains God's to teach and lead and give mercy or judge.

I don't have time now, but infallibility is a bit more complicated than all that, but perhaps Col or someone else will be responding anyhow. If I had time, I'd start pulling some interesting passages from councils for us all to consider, but really...Addai and Mari should at least give some reason to pause.

I'm glad you have a fuller understanding of purification than it originally sounded to be, in any case.

People do commit mortal sins, not "willy-nilly" and certainly not without noticing. (If I am using the term mortal sin I assume that it implies that all standards for a mortal sin have been met, not only grave sin). And there definitely can be sins that you forget about that you recall in the Communion line: in that case you should not receive, make a spiritual Communion, and ask the priest for confession after Mass (and perhaps ask the priest if he will give you Communion afterwards.)

These are not "games", but a response to conviction that we in Western society are not used to seeing: once upon a time it would have been called 'acting on belief'. And exhorting others to act on the faith they claim, anyone can do that. The reasons for my action is not the laws, but because I believe the faith I lay claim to. I believe it in a large part because it describes humanity, our state, our actions, far better than any other explanation. It is, essentially, rational. If that is too boxy for you, I submit that that is not my problem.

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

PS two quick notes: 1) Priests, even lay people, can call others on not acting in accord with their professed beliefs (wasn't there a word for that...) 2) I presume with the infallibility someone will be turning our attention to the Vatican I definition of extraordinary-papal infallibility and at the same time reject the V-II definition because the V-I is easier to argue with

I like the VII definition of infallibility much better than the VI because the VII definition is almost impossible to meet. It makes for a very small infallibility hole. Universal concensus amongst the teaching authority is tough to come by. For that matter consistency between what one teaches and how they practice the teaching in a pastoral sense, is hard to come by. Even Beneedict will proclaim one thing and then fudge on it in his pastoral practice, and so did JPII, especially with this concept of who does and does not deserve to recieve communion.

I wish I could remember the name of the priest author of an article I read this week, but he maintains the Church is functioning on two levels, and wants to do so purposefully. He pointed out that on the level of the highest teaching authority the hard line is drawn in the sand, in pronouncements coming from various congregations and papal discourses and writiings. However, in the trenches between priest and people, this same line is softened from being the norm, to being the ideal.

His take was that this was occuring as a purposeful strategy to lull the progessives while purposely using the need on the right for black and white definitions to prop up the historical clerical system. I think he's dead on about the two different approaches. I don't know that I agree with his reasoning as to why this is happening. It may just be that on the personal and pastoral level people are admitting they don't really KNOW much at all, and it's far better to be open, and trust the Higher Authorities will sift through all the tangled motivations.

colkoch.blogtoolkit.com

The Vatican II definition is broader, because it includes the Vatican I definition of extraordinary Papal infallibility, along with the ordinary (all the bishops throughout the world) and extraordinary (an Ecumenical Council) infallibility of the Magisterium. Of course a statement defined infallibly by the testimony of consent through the ages (say, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) would remain infallible despite "dissent" in the present or at any future time.

I have said before that justice is found in the documents and mercy in their application. While it is absolutely correct that a pro-'choice' politician should not receive the Eucharist without repenting (probably publicly), it is also the case that it should be assumed (to some degree) that the person who presents themselves to receive has 1)properly prepared themselves or 2) is taking their eternal soul into their own hands. I certainly agree with those that do apply the law literally in this case as mercy has been taken as a sign of weakness, but I cannot criticize the Pope for not preventing it (not that he necessarily could have).

I think that this system of public justice and private mercy is well suited for encouraging everyone to strive for the higher standard, but at the same time recognizing that it is difficult to meet. You do run into problems where the private mercies granted in one situation are inappropriately extended to other, unrelated situations, which I think has been a large part of the snowball effect of 'revolutionary' changes after Vatican II.
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

I agree with you, col. I had a long think on this set of posts on a commute home late last night. It does reinforce an earlier conversation I had with b7m8 on the ongoing need for newer levels and standards of infallibility since the V1 proclamation, politically-interesting as it was with its questionable legitimacy. To throw whole documents into an infallibility stance basically leaves them open to ongoing discussion and interpretation, which, as you point out, is what is happening anyhow. The Vatican sometimes steps into it and makes a different decision tnan a council anyhow, and a long look at councils would expose contradictions over the millennia.

I think the other phenomenon that you mention is also part of what organizational theory tells us about organizations: that they operate on different levels under different responsibilities, authorities, and interpretations. And some differences based on culture. Roman authority is based on the idea that privilege can (almost) always buy out of the judicial framework; that's not the way Americans see things, so we will look for fairness in the framework and 'soften' it, as you say, since the buy-out comes to be based on the pastoral more than the privilege.

Colkoch~ Well put. I suspect that the rationale for the pastoral approach is not just from an acknowledgement that they don't really know much at all, but also that they do know that the reality of human life, divine love and their interchange is more blurred at the edges than what black and white can contain.

And more on this important point which has affected the process of moral analysis: one of the reasons for the change in the emphasis in moral theology since V2 is that the pastoral approach itself is increasingly confirmed through our understandings in human development, psychology, etc. An assumption taken these days by confessors is that an educated catholic is more able to maturely provide some of their own 'pastoral care and guidance' by doing the work priests used to do more of--such as asking questions or making assessments of maturity, gender issues, impact on others etc. A confessor who can tell that a person can do those things herself or himself is likely to trust their judgment more as well; offer a more impactful penance; and provide spiritual direction more than helping them just prepare for the sacrament. There actually aren't that many priests anymore that actually want as much to do the work that they think a mature person can and should be doing with the Holy Spirit, and they love the opportunity to work with our spirituality in a fuller way.

I like that phrase Dennis, that the interchange of human reality and Divine Love is blurred at the edges, because it's true. Black and white only works when everyone is molded from the same cookie cutter. Since none of us come from the same cookie cutter, better to have the blurring.

colkoch.blogtoolkit.com

oh, and I can assure you, I would hardly forget some serious sin that then just popped into my silly little head later!

Perhaps it is different for men then women (though I suspect not), but certain grave sins* (such as entertaining lustful or vengeful thoughts)** can easily be forgotten even from one day to the next, but can be remembered upon examination or the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

*grave sins: ie sins of an objectively serious nature, can be mortal with knowledge and consent

**"But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.", Mt5:28

**"But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. " Mt 5:22

There is a problem with trying to offer your interpretations of Scripture over the moral doctrine of the Church. At least a balance is in order in the analysis. A thought is not what the gravity is about; it's the holding and stroking of thoughts, of turning subject into object, of ignoring the relationship between thought and action, of ignoring the consequences to one's self over time and to the other person(s) now and in the future. Not an easy process.

[But, you see, I am very prompted by the holy spirit so your scenario of my forgetfulness is unlikely. And it IS different for women and men--both the quality and quantity of instances of this process is distinctly different as is the tendency toward objectification, consequences etc. but another subject indeed].

Perhaps chance gossip has the same hold for many women? Certainly have to hear plenty of jealous bickering and vindictive comments at work... (Of course if I tried to give these examples first I would be told I couldn't know what I'm talking about because I'm a guy... yes men and women are prone to different sins *gasp* does that there might be a real difference?)

The 'entertaining' of lustful thoughts, for a warm-blooded male in our society is second nature. We have been conditioned to it by a society that tell us "yes you can" and "just do it". It is a rare thing to find men, particularly young men, that don't "undress" a woman with their eyes. That is grave matter. Jesus didn't say, "if you ignore the consequences to your self over time and to others now and in the future (paraphrased)". He said if you look with lust.

Same with anger. He does not mention calling your brother something obscene, but rather something like 'fool' or 'idiot'. I certainly know that I fail if that is the test, and yet I know of others who go much further.

I am glad that you do not forget anything you do(j/k), but there are many people who are rather absent-minded when it comes to confessing their sins.

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

"Certainly have to hear plenty of jealous bickering and vindictive comments at work..." Oh, how I can relate to what you are saying in some offices in which there is little or no spirituality or maturity. My husband insists that men are worse than women when it comes to gossip. I think he may be right, but it is still women who get the worst label.

As for the conditioning in society that tells us "yes you can" and "just do it" they are phrases that can be used for good purpose as well as for wrong. "Yes you can" go to Church every Sunday and honor the Lord's day. "Just do it."

If people are "absent-minded when it comes to confessing their sins" it is usually because they are absent-minded period. I happen to have faith that God will instill in them at some point in their life a sense of spirituality that brings God's presence in all things to their mind. They may be the workers who showed up in the last hour in the vineyard to work, but they will get the same reward as those who came first and worked a full day. Doubtless, however, there will still be grumblers and gossipers among those who were first complaining about the reward of the last.

Oh, and on your other point about what Jesus said about lust, for instance. Most commentators will put Jesus' statement about lust into the context of the time, and will say that Jesus was trying to make the point that people need to look more at the internal issues and not just the more obvious external acts of adultery or divorce--that it does matter whether people are subjects or objects to us, in this case sexually. There aren't many people that will presume that every lustful thought is sinful, and I would stay away from priests who pushed people toward that perspective. Why? Because people then develop other odd behaviors in response--they don't learn to manage their emotions, but only to shut them down; they are not able to look directly at other people, but begin to shuffle their eyes and gestures; they tend to be objectifying people anyhow, just in other ways; they tend to make the thought or behavior the issue and actually may increase its presence; they spend energies trying to stop everything human rather than on developing social and empathic thoughts and behaviors; they turn inward toward a model of perfection which may end in scruples; and many others. And, although delicacy prevents me from saying much more, most spouses (particularly in later years) prefer the more normal lusty thoughts of their spouse to keep relationships happy and healthy; perhaps our "station" in life (as the Church used to call it) is better approached with a different understanding of lustful thoughts at different points in our lives. I'm fearing to run close on the issue of public delicacy, so I hope my language is not too obscure. :-)

It is the approach of the church these days that we learn to assess our failings using more than a definition of a sin, in other words. Confessors prefer to move beyond helping people PREPARE for confession and actually providing counsel and direction as needed along with absolution--they trust us more when we know how to do our own contextualizing instead of presenting a number count for them to then ask questions about, particularly these days. Sometimes it takes more courage to reveal our understanding of ourselves and our failings than a statement of how we've failed a definition, in other words, and then they can ask any questions they need to in a deeper context. Does that make sense at all?

I don't really gossip much (please understand that some of my non-gossip is not just management but an acknowledgement of being the daughter of a mother who did not gossip, then honed through emotional and spiritual maturing, so I'm not claiming this all my doin'), but I will bow to the assumed view that women gossip more than men. I haven't really found that to be the case, however, in this longer life of mine, working with both. Men gossip differently, and usually with more power attached, so that it does a different kind of damage. However, the point is well enough taken, and does suggest difference in some areas. Women do much more emotional processing with each other, and that needs management to stay healthy, in the same way as men's greater lustiness and anger needs management. In other words, at least some of women's 'gossip' is an attempt to understand motivations and deal with emotions, and in that area there is a great deal of 'gray' since it actually can help do that well--and women are clearly generally better at such assessment--but I also think that a fair amount of lustiness is healthy and normal, so there I go again. I don't think it's just conditioning in either case, however, but something much more connected to hormones and brains that is then socialized. Men's objectification of women is greater than women's of men, in general, but it is also more the normal healthy at certain ages. Sometimes a spiritual fix on the issue can actually make the tendency stronger, so a bit of the traditional view may well benefit from a more scientific view. Management is certainly the key to any issues--the first responsibility one has is to not harm others.

I certainly do think there are differences between men and women in general, although the specifics are tougher to claim, and the implications you would soon wish to claim are often based on something other than differences, like the benefits encased in power and privilege.

I think gossip is generally a much bigger issue for both women and men on both the giving and receiving end than most lustful thoughts. I actually generally do know if I'm gossiped about and I do know the ways in which it has damaged or even changed the direction of my life or decreased its quality, and it is obvious the damage it does to groups such as in a parish.

I guess I don't know too much about how other people confess and their level of "absent-mindedness", but I can't see how you would know that either!

The standard for serious sin is knowing and choosing, as well as it being such. If one doesn't know it, standard not met.

St. Faustina and the Divine Mercy mission reminds me of John the Baptist. He did not preach against a patriarchal temple. He did not say correction was needed for too much sexism or homophobia in the synagogue. He did not preach an environmental or anti-war message. He said that the way to Christ is through repentance--a universal and timeless message. (Matthew 3:2-3, 7-12, Mark 1:2-4, Luke 3:3-9.

When he sees Christ, what does he say? "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." (John 1:29) An emphasis again on our sinfulness. John says he is unworthy to untie the sandals of Christ. An act of humility. Stooping and bending as low as he can is not enough humility.

John the Baptist lost his head for his humility and obedience. Christ died on the cross because of his humility and obedience. The Blessed Virgin's heart was pierced with the sword of sorrow for her humility and obedience.

Faustina tries to live her life in humility and obedience as evidenced in her writings. No surprise Faustina's message gets jabbed, twisted, and ignored.

when the bough...,
I think that it is great that you are taken by the divine mercy novena and feel moved by Sr. Faustina's life and ways. It is too bad that you think that this means that others should not do their work or express the sense of what they believe. There are also many saints who protested the actions of the church at different times in our history, and I will presume from what you write that they are not the saints that guide you. And so be it. The communion of saints does not mean that we are drawn to the same holy men and women as our guides. It may be that your spiritual director would feel that you benefit from Sr. Faustina's reflections and it may be that mine would not for me (which is true). That's okay in this here church of ours. It's okay with the pope as well as with God and all the saints. Obviously, a simple review of the history of the novena will suggest that many of the magisterium have trouble iwth Sr. Faustina' message, but they are also allowed to proceed with their work. You find it helpful. Be at peace.

Your reading of these scriptures completely removes them from any socio-political context, when the bough. Which is to say, it removes them from any historical context at all.

We can't understand these or any scriptures without trying to understand them in the context in which they were written. When we do grapple with the context in which the gospels were written, it becomes very apparent that Jesus and John were definitely thorns in the side of the powers that be, in the world in which they lived.

People are not put to death for "humility," unless that humility is a form of protest that threatens the rulers of their world. Jesus and John were put to death for announcing the arrival of God's reign, of a vision of social life that turns everything upside down. They proclaimed the breaking into history of a vision of social life in which public sinners, the impure, prostitutes, women considered unclean, the lowest of the low, could sit at the table of peace and justice with the righteous and clean.

Jesus not merely spoke of that reign in his words. He acted the message out by inviting himself to sit at the table with such folks, partaking food with them, becoming one with them.

This was an act of radical mercy unheard of in his religious community at the time. This crossing of social insider-outsider lines, this violation of religious and social taboos about purity and sanctity, earned him capital punishment, because this radical vision of other possibilities for social organization threatened those who found the vision intolerable. If acted on, it would end their power and control.

The good news that Jesus and John announced and enacted in their social world had socio-political implications.

Though we live in a very different culture and a very different socio-political context, the good news of the reign of God continues to have socio-political implications for the world in which we live.

Our task is to read the gospels in the context in which they were written, understand what they meant in that context, and then ask what they might mean today, in our context, if we are faithful to the vision of Jesus. If we undertake that task, it is entirely possible that the gospels might call patriarchy and homophobia and sexism into question in our world today.

William D. Lindsey

According to St Mark (chapter 6), John the Baptist was beheaded because he rebuked Herod for marrying his brother's wife.

Jesus was condemned for blasphemy (Mat 26:65).

Both of these are quite plausible in the socio-political context of the time

Jude 12,13

JP, it's clear that Jesus was crucified, isn't it?

From all we know about crucifixion, it's also clear that it was a form of capital punishment practiced by the Romans--not the Jews, who executed by stoning. The Romans borrowed crucifixion from the Persians. Like the Persians, they used this form of capital punishment as a warning to those who were considered in any way dangerous to the stability of the state.

Blasphemy would have been of concern to the Jewish people--who would have stoned Jesus, if they considered him guilty of that charge. It was not of concern to the Romans, who clearly considered Jesus as a threat of some kind to the stability of their rule of the Jewish people, as they did John.

I am belaboring this point in part because the charge that the Jewish people killed Jesus has run as an ugly thread through Christian history, and has been used as a justification for persecution of the Jewish people.

The scant historical evidence we have outside the gospels themselves (which are documents testifying to the faith of the early communities that Jesus was the Christ, the anointed of God) confirms that Jesus was crucified. This points to the inescapable conclusion that Jesus was executed by the Romans, and on a charge of capital punishment based on the fear that what he taught, preached, and did to announce the reign of God threatened the stability of the state.

The teaching of a religious leader can have profound political implications, even when that person is not a political figure and is not preaching an overtly political message.

Matthew 13: 28-30

William D. Lindsey

We can't 'understand' the scriptures if texts intended to be historical or biographical as 'understood' to be un-historical.

That the gospels are historical records is a position that a Catholic can tenably maintain and happily defend. That is the position I assume, and I would find it intellectually dishonest to disbelieve the gospels and remain in the faith.

And an explanation as to why Jesus was executed by Romans for a Jewish crime is given in John 18:31, so the gospels and the extra-biblical historical evidence are in accord. Attributing some Roman motivation to Christ's execution is rather tenuous speculation. So Christ was condemned for blasphemy, or we really have no idea why He was killed.

Given we cannot change historical facts (such as those recorded in the gospel) just because we find some other historical fact unpleasant (such as anti-Semitism), we'd be better of not trying. There is little reason to assume the early saints were liars simply because some latter people weren’t saints at all.

Beyond that, you can't understand scripture by discarding the texts themselves for some a priori socio-political theory, no matter how noble the theory seems to be. Not only is that dodgy exegesis, it’s not particularly honest history either.

Jude 12,13

JP Borberg, you say,

Beyond that, you can't understand scripture by discarding the texts themselves for some a priori socio-political theory, no matter how noble the theory seems to be. Not only is that dodgy exegesis, it’s not particularly honest history either."

This seems to imply that I have "discarded" texts for "some a priori socio-political theory."

Could you please draw my attention to any statements I have made that confirm this charge?

Your approach to scripture seems to be at odds with the way the Catholic Church has chosen to read the scriptures since Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943). As that document recognizes, we have to use tools of exegetical and historical analysis in order to "understand" the scriptures.

It seems strange to me that you choose to place the word "understand" in quotation marks. Do you mean to say that we ought to read the bible as if we are Protestant fundamentalists, taking every word as literally inspired by God and as verbally inerrant? If not, what choice do we have, except to try to understand? If the scriptures are not to be "understood," why do we have theologians and scripture scholars spending their lives poring over them, the church constantly seeking to teach us their meaning, and liturgical breaking of the Word so that we can come to understand it?

The gospels are, as their title implies, faith proclamations. They remember the historical Jesus and his life through the prism of faith proclamation. To read them as literal historical biographical accounts would be absurd. They disagree on all kinds of historical details--the number of times he goes to Jerusalem in his adult ministry, his genealogy, and so on.

Taking the texts literally prevents us from understanding the very important theological proclamations about Christ that they seek to make. Taking them literally prevents us from understanding, internalizing, and living these texts in our own faith journey.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that you are mistaken when you say, "Attributing some Roman motivation to Christ's execution is rather tenuous speculation." My previous posting provides sound reasons--ones accepted by all credible scripture scholars of any denominational stripe today, including Catholics--for concluding that Jesus was crucified by the Romans. My posting also points out the importance of being clear about this historical fact, given the sad history of persecution of the Jewish people by Christians, on the charge that the Jewish people are deicides.

Your statement--"That the gospels are historical records is a position that a Catholic can tenably maintain and happily defend"--seems quite unclear to me, and at variance with the officially sanctioned, non-fundamentalist Catholic way of reading the scriptures. I know of no credible scripture scholar, Catholic or otherwise, who doubts that the gospels have a solid historical basis. But I also know of no credible scripture scholar, Catholic or otherwise, who believes that, in reading these faith interpretations of the life of the historical Jesus, we are reading accounts that sketch the biography and history of Jesus's life.

Interpretation, which involves study, careful analysis, humility about what we know and don't know, is a sine qua non to reading scripture, it seems to me. The method of picking some select verses out of the bewildering variety and complexity that is the Judaeo-Christian bible, to prove our preconceived notions and political penchants, is not Catholic at its best.

Matthew 13: 28-30

William D. Lindsey

We seem to be suffering here from a false dichotomy. There are other positions available somewhere between believing-every-word-in-the-Bible-literally fundamentalism, and regarding the gospel accounts as un-historical because they happen to be about God and written by people who believe in God.

There is another false dichotomy in assuming that believing Christ's life actually unfolded as described in the gospels prevents one from appreciating the deeper lessons that God exposes in the Gospel narrative.

And where I said "Attributing some Roman motivation to Christ's execution is rather tenuous speculation", your reply didn't even address the issue. You are confusing the FACT that Christ was crucified by Romans (which everyone accepts) with the MOTIVATION the Romans had for doing so (which is shown explicitly in the gospels, but which you reject and replace with speculation).

These false dichotomies and confusions seem to be making trouble for yourself. Hence the inverted commas around the word 'understand'. If the gospel accounts were written to tell us what Christ actually did (as both Luke and John claim they are), if you start by believing they aren't your 'understanding' will be false, and hence not an understanding at all.

Lastly, there is a tradition in Catholic exegesis that takes the books in the bible intended to be historical as historical. It was not changed by Divino Afflante Spiritu, as it already made happy use of the tools of modern historical scholarship, and it doesn't have a problem with treating Mark 6:17,18 and Mat 26:65 as being a description of actual events, even though the are a part of a ‘faith proclamation’, in as much our faith consists in believing what the life of Christ proclaims.

Our position is that the parts of the bible intended to be literal are literal, and those that are not are not, and the gospels are some of the historical bits and can be treated as any other historical text. Hence your charges of fundamentalism are baseless. Maybe you are unaware of such a position in Catholicism. I hope you are, because pretending it doesn't exist would be dishonest. But now you know of it, perhaps you should look into it; it has a lot going for it.

I say you disregard the texts themselves because all four gospels quite clearly lay the reasonability for Christ's arrest and condemnation on 'the chief priests and scribes' (or 'magistrates'), while showing Pilate to be quite unwilling to condemn Him. But you reject this quite plausible thesis, explicate in the texts themselves, for some reason cite historical anti-Semitism, which however tragic cannot alter the historical facts, should they have occurred as the evangelists claim they did.

Jude 10

I'm afraid it's you who are creating the false dichotomy that you decry, JP Borberg.

You represent the terms of the discussion as follows: "There are other positions available somewhere between believing-every-word-in-the-Bible-literally fundamentalism, and regarding the gospel accounts as un-historical because they happen to be about God and written by people who believe in God."

I've never proposed that "the gospel accounts [are] un-historical."

What I've said is that they were not written with the intent to provide us with historical accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus. If they were, then we'd be in trouble, since so many of the details of the four canonical gospels disagree with each other, as plain history.

As the books profess to be, they are gospels--god spells--evangellion, good news. They are theological faith statements and proclamations that Jesus is the Christ, the anointed of God.

Saying this does not in any way deny that there was a historical Jesus who lived, ministered, and died. But saying this does recognize the obvious: we can't read theological proclamation accounts as historical testimony. If we do, we do violence to the texts and the reason they were written.

We have to employ tools of historical critical analysis (as Divino Afflante Spiritu recognizes and as all credible Catholic scripture scholars have long ago granted) if we are to discover the historical basis that underlies the theological proclamation.

A case in point is your account of Jesus's crucifixion. It's clear from historico-critical (and literary-textual) analysis that Jesus announced that the reign of God was breaking into history through his life and ministry. John preceded him in making that announcement and in pointing to Jesus as the Anointed One of God.

This was the center, the focus, the substance of Jesus's life and ministry.

It was for making that proclamation that he was crucified. If we follow your method and grant that the details of the gospel are historically accurate, what do you make of the board nailed to the cross on which Jesus was crucified, which announced the crime for which he was being executed?

The board does not say he had blasphemed. It says he had claimed to be the King of the Jews--by announcing that the reign of God had broken into history through his life and ministry. This charge is replicated in church after church where crucifixes hang: INRI, Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum.

The language of that text is Latin, not Hebrew or Aramaic.

This analysis points to the difficulties inherent in reading the gospels as literal historical accounts. If we do that, we immediately end up in a world of contradictions and puzzles. There are very important theological reasons--central to the Catholic approach to reading scripture--to try to understand the sociohistorical context in which these theological statements were written.

Not the least of these, when it comes to the stories of the crucifixion, is the shoddy history of Christian treatment of the Jews, on the false charge that the Jews crucified Jesus.

You say that I am unaware of the Catholic position that "the parts of the bible intended to be literal are literal, and those that are not are not, and the gospels are some of the historical bits and can be treated as any other historical text."

I'm afraid your statement in nonsense. Catholic teaching absolutely does NOT require us to believe that "the gospels are some of the historical bits and can be treated as any other historical text." If it did, Raymond Brown would be in very serious trouble! As we all would, because we'd be required to pretend that texts which contradict each other when it comes to their "historical" details don't contradict each other, which would involve us in dishonesty and deception....

Jude 19

William D. Lindsey

I never said you were unaware that there is a legitimate Catholic position accepting the gospels as historical. I only said you acted as if you were.

I also never said Catholic teaching required us to believe the gospels are historical.

I actually asserted that, contrary to your supposition that accepting the gospels as historical texts is protestant fundamentalism, there is a long standing, contemporary and strongly argued position among Catholics that the gospels are indeed a reliable historical account.

The gospels are no more contradictory than any other set of accounts of an historical even. That is why quite plausible explanations can be suggested to explain the few minor contradictions that are evident.

As for the gospels not being written to with the intent to provide an historical account of Christ’s life, Luke and John assert that what the gospels contain are things that actually happened, which would tend to cause them to be historical.

St Luke wrote “And Pilate again spoke to them, desiring to release Jesus.” (23:20), but you say it was the Romans who wanted Jesus dead. This means what St Luke wrote was false. The identity of those who wanted to get rid of Jesus is not a mere detail, and is consistent across all four gospels. So you deny the evangelists account, while claiming you don’t consider the gospels to be un-historical. To me THAT seems like a contradiction.

So the original dichotomies still stand (the second of which you didn’t address), and two more confusions and a contradiction have been added to the first.

Now, just how does the fact Jesus was crucified and what Pilate wrote on the board above His head (or any extra-biblical evidence) contradict the gospels’ account of Jesus’ trail and Herod’s motives for executing John the Baptist?

Jude 10-13

JP Borberg, you say, "I never said you were unaware that there is a legitimate Catholic position accepting the gospels as historical. I only said you acted as if you were.

I also never said Catholic teaching required us to believe the gospels are historical."

What you said, in fact, is the following:

"Our position is that the parts of the bible intended to be literal are literal, and those that are not are not, and the gospels are some of the historical bits and can be treated as any other historical text. Hence your charges of fundamentalism are baseless. Maybe you are unaware of such a position in Catholicism. I hope you are, because pretending it doesn't exist would be dishonest. But now you know of it, perhaps you should look into it; it has a lot going for it."

To whom does "our" refer in the first sentence of your statement above? On behalf of whom are you speaking?

And, if you're interested in talking about the issues, may I ask why you have repeatedly used the term "dishonest" to refer to what I have stated? Why is it of such importance to you to move the discussion to an attack on my motives and character--rather than to keep the discussion at the level of the important theological