Dozing in Gethemane: does anyone need a pillow?

Hello col55,

"The truth" is something beyond those men who are such a problem and obstacle for you. Yes, there are lairs among men - but such an observation is merely a fact, it is not "the truth." There is a difference between a mere fact, and the truth. The truth is living; the truth is eternal; the truth is Jesus. Some men are lairs - this is a fact. Some men today do as the Pharisees did in Jesus's time:

Mt 23:13 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in.

But there is a difference: such men cannot really, finally prevent anyone from entering today, because Jesus is the way. Such men can and do set contrary examples, they can and do confuse the searchers and fail to be living witnesses of the living truth. By way of hypocrisy, many of us do the same thing: we profess with our lips, but our lives are far from His.

Do not allow those who are liars keep you from Jesus! Remember what Jesus taught:

Mt 23:2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat;
Mt 23:3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
Mt 23:4 They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.

Jesus is near to us all - we have but to ask, and to seek, and to find Him. He is the light! The Magisterium exists to enable Him! The Church serves Him, and is to be His presence in the world. Do not let those who abuse His Name, confuse you in any way. His Church remains holy because she is His Body, His Bride, His Sacrament in the world.

Little Bear!
Well said, "Old Friend!"
I confess the sin of ENVY of your insight! However I profess the deepest respect of your eloquence!
Thank you for sharing such a gift!
James Edward

Thank-you, Little Bear. I would venture to say that perhaps you and I may have traveled through some of the same hells, and found some of the same paths out...this does have a tendency to teach one a whole lot about what Faith is, and what it is not. I love the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, and I constantly have to remind myself which role I hope to live and be. I love the Parables in the Gospels--Are there any better Teaching Tales? I agree with you that a Spirit of Open-Mindedness is where it's at--and that "God Gave us Brains for a Reason"! The Holy Spirit Lives--in this Day and Age---there are Miracles every day--All around us, if we would just open our eyes to see them!

Little Bear, I didn't see this post until today and I hope this comment is posted before the Christmas shutdown. One sentence especially struck home to me:

"It has been said that a religious person believes in hell and a spiritual person has been there."

For a lot of us, we found the hell which led to spirituality, in specific dogmas and doctrines of religions which purposefully equate the notion of Faith and Truth with their specific religious tradition. They make the case there is no difference between the terms, each are synonomous.

Thomas, in his post below, lays out this case in cogent detail. He lays this case out well, because it works for him. What he can't seem to get, is that this doesn't work for everyone. It didn't work for Jesus who went to great pains to emphasise the difference between Faith in His Father, Truths, (some of which He could not reveal to His discipes because they couldn't yet hear them), and the enormous burden of Traditional Law enforced without justice or compassion.

Once someone has accepted that Faith=Truth=Tradition it's impossible to dialogue on any level. All paths of dialogue become a single one way street. Jesus said there were many rooms in His Father's mansion. I don't think He meant only one of them would ever be used.

http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com

Dear LittleBear~ Your post merits to be lodged in every topic on this cafe. I think that you have it right and you are all the more blessed because your articulated it for us from your heart. Thank you.

This is better than my already prepared Christmas eve sermon! Back to the drawing board ... again...

We have, like all churches, a bulge of twice-a-Yearers for the candlelight service - your message is JUST the right one for them to hear and to confirm that, on this wonderful FEAT OF THE INCARNATION, we can see the truth through the dogmatism and feel the Spirit through the shrug of cynicism (the bookends of misdirected 'faith'.)

Thanks again Little Bear for your collegial wisdom.

May all the blessings of this holy season be upon you.

e+

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you... (Jn13:34)

Little Bear, the word faith is rightly used in several ways - one that you use to slight an important truth, and another that you lift up, although I think with errors.

"The Faith", with capital on Faith, expresses not mere "loyalty" as you assert. Used in this way, the word conveys a commonality of faith, indeed the oneness of coherence in the one Truth. Thus, the Church is entrusted with and is to proclaim the one Faith. This "Faith" is expressible in a set of doctrines and dogmas, and is expressed in the greatest precision possible to her gifted and faithful theologians. Part of the true vocation of the theologian in the Church is to seek precision and clarity in the expression of revealed divine Truth, as well as to seek to expand our sense of divine revelation, ever more deeply into Truth itself.

Such is far from mere "loyalty". It was not "loyalty" that led our martyrs to death for the sake of Truth - for the sake of the Faith. The Faith is inseparable from God Himself, for the Faith is all about God, and His Truth entrusted to men.

It is not mere "loyalty" to the one Faith that perceives what Scripture attests:

1Cor 10:17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
..................
Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

There is one Faith precisely because there is one Truth, and there is one Truth precisely because there is one God. Yes, many paths can be used, but God gave us one, in Jesus Christ, to the One vocation and destiny of us all.

Thomas

Thomas~ LittleBear's post is wasted upon you. But do you realize in even the minutest way that his planting it here amid the dross of your negativity could have been a tiny seed of redemption light? You are closed.

"This people will listen and listen, but not understand; they will look and look, but not see, because their minds are dull, and they have stopped their ears and have closed their eyes.(Matthew 13,v.14-15).

In this Christmas season, may the Holy Spirit do what the good faith of your brethern is spurned by you.

Sylvester!
Ain't that the way of it! You always say so well, what I would like to, but have neither the intellect nor the eloquence to do so! I feel like Miss America standing in front of thousands of peoplewatching the interview saying. "she stole my answer!" I hop you think that, that's as funny as it feels!
The good Lord knows you're beautiful! As do we all!
James Edward

I am uncertain about the rating system. There are times when I think its omission is a good thing; it takes the facile simple judgmentalism away. There are other times, like this Sylvester when I would like just to say "4" when I really mean that this is a beautiful and tremendously meaningflul statement and that I thank you for it. It will stay with me even if I forget the words.

"This cafe is primarily a positive conversation place."

It used to be. Sevenup, have you read the introductory piece to this thread? SantaC may be off the wall, but to my knowledge she hasn't condemned any of us to hell. If she's proven anything to me, it's that the need to exclude resides in all of us.

Me thinks she's proven her point. Conditioning is conditioning and it will exclude.

http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com

What a sad commentary....to seek help from the church requires witnesses be present. However, I could not agree more. I worked for a church in the diocese of Chicago and can tell you that sometimes even having witnesses present will not protect you. Do you know what will? Being a male and being a priest....then you are protected even if you are a thief, liar and/or molester. I am not saying this with animosity....just resigned sadness.

Actually, jstab, I am curious. What does Clinical Pastoral Education entail? I would like to know what the parameters of the education are. I gather that it involves basic counseling skills, but is that the outside boundary? Or, another way to look at this, can you tell me what texts are used, either when you were in it, or these days? Thanks.

Actually, AnnieO, there were no textbooks (there was background reading) but primarily it consisted of sharing "verbatims" (actual word-for-word visits with patients in the hospital) with a class of peers and professor. Then you got "feedback" from everyone, but not on what you said as much as on what issues are subconsciously being played out and that may "get in the way" of a patient exploring what is happening with them.

Sometimes it turned into heavy duty group therapy or, at its worst, character assasinations. I have had some really positive experiences from it, but it was intense. Some could not handle it because they were incapable of looking at themselves or handling criticism.

I can see where there could be problems with this approach, it being so dependent on the knowledge and skills of the professor, and so likely to turn into 'group therapy' without those skills, and sometimes even with some. And character assassinations often result. Not the best approach for sure. In professional education, generally not even allowed because it is not what should be happening. And, obviously, creates more of an obstacle to priests' understanding what therapy and other interventions are about. Not helpful to them or those they work with, overall.

Was this just one class (like 1 3-credit course kind of thing, or part of a sequence of clinical education courses? Do you remember any of the readings? Is what you had similar to other seminaries? Is it a required course? Sorry for all the questions, but since I have worked with priests as spiritual directors for a long time, I have lots of questions looking for responses. Thanks. Have another cup of coffee on me!

I didn't see this class as a problem at all. Although I have taken CPE formally at the U of P, I had "Clinical Pastoral Supervision" while at CUA. It was, without a shadow of a doubt, the best use of my time in what would become a career in counseling, therapuetic group work, social interactions. It enables one to go inside and see what makes one tick, therefore, lessening the amount of projection onto the client or patient. This allows the "counselor" or "minister" to get out of the way of the client (patient) working on their own issues and aid them in exploring them. No text book could teach you that. It literally resides with the teacher, not to be impart knowledge, but to help the student to gain it. (Mr. Miagi in The Karate Kid kind of teacher)

At CUA it was required for the M.Div. Many other seminaries have similiar requirements. I don't remember all of the readings off hand, I will share them with you as they come to mind (I had the class 20 years ago!) I do remember one book by Eugene Kennedy, "On Becoming a Counselor." But again, we didn't go over the book and there were no tests in the course. They merely served as background readings and reference.

Both professors that I had were Luthern, Dr. Mike Stein & Dr. Charlie Gravenstein. Two of the best that I have known.

Oh, I understand the usefulness and importance of clinical pastoral education in the seminary. I certainly understand the benefit of priests being able to separate themselves from projection to the people they work with. And I am very glad that you got some of the 'best of the business' as far as professors to facilitate learning in pastoral education, with Eugene Kennedy a good name and book.

I would guess that educational strategies have changed some in the past twenty years in clinical pastoral education as they have in professional clinical education as well. Professional clinical education has put in more safeguards against "character assassination" which is obviously not the goal. But I'm also going to guess that while that might be true for pastoral clinical education as well, that the trend in seminaries has also been to downgrade clinical education. Or it just may be the difference in seminaries, which I understand are sometimes substantial, even vast. Perhaps you have some thoughts on generational differences in seminary education? I've certainly been struck by the intent/action of removing women from seminary education, for instance. Or, perhaps with more traditionally-oriented seminary education, it has changed in other ways or been reduced in importance. What I see with younger priests is that they have less pastoral ability, but are offended by the suggestion and so pump up their self-assessments in this area well beyond their education and skills.

So my main concern is in the area of clergy assuming that pastoral education makes them "therapists", since it is certainly more limited in scope than professional clinical education. As long as they know the difference (in other words, the boundaries of their knowledge), there is no problem. It is with those who think they have the education and training to assess others, especially women, when they don't, that is my concern, but it is not one with any easy answers. The problem is with clergy that use their power and privilege from these situations in ways that are wrong. And that is something of a different issue anyhow. I'm guessing that in many ways the clinical pastoral education of today may be less intense and also less clear on knowledge boundaries, and that what I'm sseing is a younger group of priests who just don't know enough about what they are doing. I certainly have learned how to discern the differences in them and their work over the years (and, myself, don't expect them to be helpful to me in this way), so have been able to assist some younger women in sorting out their choices. If you talk with some seminarians or touch base with seminary education now, I'd be very interested in knowing what they are doing. Or is there a way to find out? Perhaps I should just google some on the subject and perhaps all of it is more available than I think, hmmmm...anyhow, I appreciate any thoughts on the issue as they might come to you. Again, I appreciate your time.

You raise many good points.

There is a difference in seminary training these days. I noticed it back in 1993 when I went back to study theology after a 4 year layoff (which seems to be a common thread in my resume!) When I started at The Catholic University of America (CUA) in 1987, Charlie Curran was still on faculty - but not teaching. The faculty was very balanced and open. Many big, top names in theology.

When I returned in 93, it was different. Many more moderate or conservative faculty members. Much smaller student population. Students seemed less academically astute. The Pastoral Department was cut in half and fighting for survival.

Recently, studies have been done about the changes in the seminaries in the past 10 to 20 years (The JPII-Ratzinger Effect). There are many indicators that the IQ of the seminarian is well below what it used to be. They are much more conservative, younger, less sensitive to women's issues as well as less pastorally prepared with lower social skills.

We will have to deal with the effects of this in the next round of lawsuits!

I also would like to touch on the priests/therapist thing too, but in another post

Thanks for your post, jstab, in what is surely a busy time for you. Your comments supprt my sense of the change in seminary education, where I don't have much expectation of direct experience(!). You have a Merry Christmas and I'll look forward to more of your thoughts on this later. I particularly don't understand the strategy of removing women from seminary education when their presence seems so essential for the present and the future. That threatening?

jstab,
I have, in the course of a lifetime, developed the habit of sticking my nose where it doesn't belong! (I consider it "part of my charm") Should you ever chance to catch a glimpse of me you'd understand. "I was forrteen or fifteen years old, before I realized it wasn't going to be a third arm!" (David Brenner) And prehensil, at that! (mine)
I love "good" lines! Thoughtfully crafted sentences that make a point, illustrate the thoughtfullness involved, and largely entertain! Considering such, I offer;
" When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school. It's a wonder I can think at all! But you know that my lack of education didn't hurt me none! I can read the writing on the wall!" AND, "If I took all the girls I knew when I was single,.. and brought them all together for one night! You know that they'd never match my sweet imagination....Everything looks worse in black and white!"
Kodachrome! It gives you such nice bright colors, captures the green of summer!..Yes it makes all the world a sunny day! Oh Yeah!..I got a Nikon camera, takes lovely photographs! Momma! don't take my Kodachrome away!"
"Kodachrome", Paul Simon.
I must readily admit that my motives for my attempted "contributions" (thankyou sevenup) here are selfish and self serving! I come here looking for "something", and I take what I "feel" (that's a mistake) I need! However in doing so, I feel (still a mistake) that I should attempt to leave something of equal or better value.
Whether I am intelligent or articulate enough to do so. Whether my view of "things" finds any reaonance or even validity here, remains to be seen. Again! As ole' "Rhymin Simon" says, "One mans ceiling is another mans floor."
I come here to unobtrusively (I hope) sift thru the treasures I find and very selfishly, "take what I need!" Packrat, that I am, I attempt to leave something of at least some value to replace what I have taken.
I realize now, that when I put a hole in my ceiling to do so, I also put a hole in someones floor! AND! That there is the possibility and distinct probability that I owe someone an apology!
SO! Should that be the case, I hereby offer a blanket, generic,heartfelt, apology for any and all who come here needing an apology to take for their very own! I'M SORRY! FOR WHATEVER!
You just cain't find Catholic like that any more! NOWHERE ELSE!
I've grown to love this place! May even be addicted to it! If so, it's THEM CATHOLICS THAT DONE IT!
God loves us all and asks only that we love each other! Actively!
I pray, Dear Lord, Please guide me to never do anything for, with, or to, any of these, save out of love for You and them! In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit! Amen!
James Edward
PS As to your question about Thomas' conduct. I can only look at my "ceiling" and decuct that he considers it" to be "part of his charm!" Go figure!

I will answer what you likely meant as a rhetorical question. Thomas stirs the pot, because he is absolutely certain he is right and everyone else, even when they agree with him, is wrong. Thomas disappears, because he cannot concede a point to anyone whom he has identified as morally deficient compared to himself.

Cafe Therapy 101 diagnosis:

It is possible that Thomas was once the kind of Catholic he is describing in the quote he posted to start off this thread. This kind of Catholic focuses on the letter of the "law" and misses the spirit of it. For example, they fulfill their Mass attendance obligation so long as someone is monitoring them, but they also know exactly how late one can come in and still go up for communion. They never attend on holy days that are not obligatory, giving as a reason the fact that it is not obligatory. They don't show up for picnics, retreats, or Bible study. Then one day, they figure it out, but instead of forgiving themselves for their foolishness, they overcompensate by completely supporting EVERYTHING that the Church puts forth. This kind of thing is likely the result of parenting that strongly emphasized social conformity.

:)

Thank you, Marie, for giving an example which illustrates why I do post sometimes, but do not respond to every other member here.

I post here sometimes because I love the Church, and believe that the truth deserves to be spoken, written and proclaimed, and the Church deserves to be defended. Half-truths, lies, hatred and prejudice directed against the holy truth entrusted to His Church are too ugly to let lie alone.

I do not respond to every member because of the many postings that are so much like your comment. Condescending, personally disrespectful, presumptuous to the extreme in mischaracterizing me and my background having no basis in fact whatsoever - but are merely selected stereotypes out of a box of hateful prejudices.

But thanks for sharing.

Thomas

Then tell us who you are and why you believe what you believe?

It sounds to me as though your response to Marie gave credence to her statement and observations.

CafeTherapy 101 in session!

Jstab - "Who" I am? My expectation concerning this cafe was that it was not to be about personalities, not "all about 'Me'" vs. "all about 'you'" - but about beliefs if not grounded in, at least centering around the Catholic Faith. After all, it does call itself the N. "Catholic" R. Cafe. But silly me. The traditional and universal "Catholic" Faith has very little to do with the presumptions of many here. Rather, that Faith is more likely seen as the enemy that obstructs us, and not the truth in which we have found Christ.

So I guess I should be consoled that I personally am judged to be as worthy of ridicule as the holy Faith I love and try to live. And I am consoled by that, yet I am deeply grieved that it must be so. How has it come to this! There are so many real, actual enemies of peace, and of life, and of truth out there! Yet here, Catholics gleefully delight in smugly insulting and mocking anyone faithful to the one Holy Church that Christ left to be the center and refuge of our peace and life and truth. There is a warmer welcome for a faithful Catholic at a rabidly anti-Catholic evangelical forum, than I have found here.

So analyze away, if that amuses any of you. But jstab, if you are a priest I can't understand how you have the time for such a waste of time. I have no interest in that. It is not about me, or you. It is about Christ and His truth.

The Church is in famine and does not know it. The vast majority of Catholics in the pews are suffering from spiritual malnutrition, and their lives are growing weaker and weaker, and they do not know it. Bishops, priests and deacons preach not substantive divine truth, but empty and syrupy platitudes - kept of course to 10 minutes, lest anyone be kept from their more important Sunday plans. Sacred liturgies begin with "How is everyone today?" since "The Lord be with you", ritually repeated, is unintelligible and meaningless - and end with "Have a nice day," since "Go in peace" is similarly mouthed but not meant. Christ Himself has just been most intimately given and received! But has anyone touched Him? The crowds have pressed, but who has touched Him? Who has touched life?

This culture is losing it! And we, His Church, are dozing. We have no time to play silly, snobbish and self-obsessed parlor games with each other. We need to repent.

"The Church is in famine and does not know it." This sentence rang in my ears a few times as I looked around my packed church on the Last Sunday of Advent. I'm very curious why you say that, thomas? If the Church does not know it is in famine, how do you? What does that mean to you? I just don't see what you are saying, although I suppose I will soon be told that you speak the Truth. Why don't you go real slowly for me and explain just that one sentence until I see what you see. How is the Church in famine and not know it, and you do?

Hello Annie,

Yes, I repeat, "The Church is in famine and does not know it." I cannot tell you what you seek, because you give no weight to my words. But if you value the words of Scripture, and the blood and faith of its authors, then read their testimony concerning the life of the early Church. If you value the testimony of any saints of our tradition, then read them. Try to hear and hold a sense of what life in Christ really, really is.

What makes you think that I haven't already read and/or that I don't already have a sense of what life in Christ really, really is?

Our readings this past Sunday asked of John the Baptist the same questions, "If you are not the Christ or the Prophet, or Elijiah, who are you then?"

He shared who he was and he admitted, "I am not the Christ." However, you seem to indicate, as Marie also notes, that you possess the fullness of Truth, hence he have made yourself the Messiah.

I believe that is what I, and others may, struggle with concerning the so called, "Right Wing" of the Church.

We are not the ones playing dress up like the new Cardinal Prefect for the Discipline of the Sacraments (see Whispers in the Loggia for a gander of the Cardinal wearing what Bette Midler wore on the Grammy's 20 years ago! - and then just imagine someone sitting on that throne with that train and a tiara stating that gays shouldn't be ordained to the priesthood! Sorry to get a little off the topic - but check out the picture and then you'll know why I find this so funny.) ANYWAY . . . Thomas, who really are the ones being silly, self-obsessed, and snobbish?

Also, you asked the question, "But has anyone touched [Christ] him? Let me just answer that - YES!!! Mary Magdalene, John the Beloved Disciple, and yes, even THOMAS touched him!!! Isn't that how he came to believe, by touching him? Not through anything else did Thomas proclaim - "My Lord and My God"

Interesting how different people read the same Scripture differently. John the Baptist, as I read that passage, precisely did NOT "share who he was." Rather, he pointed in complete humility to Christ, for whom he, John, was sent as a mere "voice", a sound in the wilderness to awaken and prepare His way. John did not launch into a homily about himself, his opinions, his profound insights, his marvelous sense of humor, his up-to-dateness with the latest cultural slang and TV shows and etc. John was all about Jesus, and the Truth that was salvation. May God send us more like him.

As for the picture you referenced - I could not find it. Maybe you could provide a link. Hence, I don't follow what you meant about the picture.

In speaking of "touching" Christ, I ask about transformed lives. Someone once said that each Holy Communion should be more fervently received than the one before. Is it, for you? Is it, for me? Is it, for most of us Catholics? If so, why is the whole world not transformed by the light of our sanctity? Answer: we are more like Laodicea, than Philadelphia. We need repentance, we need renewal, we need Christ.

jstab, I have not made myself the Messiah. I do want to honor Him with my life, which He gave me and which I owe to Him. I cannot speak for the "Right Wing" of the Church - to even use such political labels to describe the Church is to miss her entire meaning. Church is not a political system; it is not a business; it is not a social club. Christ died for something very different.

Mercedes
Hello. Am I correct in thinking that Laodicea is that community in Revelation that was lukewarm? The one the Lord wanted to spew out of His mouth? Thank you.
Mercy

Yes, Mercedes, you are correct about Laodicea. I am sorry if my reference was unclear.

Lukewarmness comes from compromised faith - a "half-way" kind of faith that finds a middle ground between the call of God to true sanctity and the attractions of the secular world - the lust of the flesh, and of the eyes, and the boastful pride of life. The lukewarm Christian wants to find a life-style that is not too radically different from his friends and neighbors, but also is one that does not offend God too much.

Thus he is neither "hot" with zeal for God (a zeal that can be imprudent, but which can be corrected and matured), nor "cold" to God with a completely worldly heart (a coldness that can be melted and broken by God's grace). Lukewarmness of heart is particularly deadly, because it believes itself to be "OK" with God and with the world. It has no hunger for truth - it believes itself to be "in" the truth. It is self-satisfied, and therefore closed.

May God awaken hearts to His call!

The Church has truly become what Christ died for it NOT to become.

Thomas, I truly admire your love for Christ and for the Church. And, I truly believe that you have a genuine love for both. I wonder if your love does not blur your vision? (Love is Blind) And, I say that in the most positive way, not looking upon that as something negative, but rather suggesting some idealistic or naive view of seeing the Church for what it IS not what Christ meant it to be.

I almost choked when I read your statement, "The Church is not a political system . . ." Oh my God! That couldn't be further from the truth! Let me help you understand what I mean by this:

1. A political system is not intrinsically evil. Calling the Church political is not saying anything negative about the church. It is merely acknowledging that it is a system of clearly defined roles and levels of governance. It has both elected and appointed leaders and is composed of fallible human beings.

2. Where ever there is power, there is politics. Where there is money, there is politics. He who has the power controls the money. Additionally, where ever there is (political)(human) power, there is corruption. It is a rule and there are exceptions. However, the church is not one of those exceptions.

3. Take away a man's ability to marry and reproduce, as well as his ability to gain personal wealth - and you are left with having a celibate male who promised obedience with one acceptable vice - the will to power. Face it, the clergy are a group of men who do not have a balance between love of their family and love of work. They are one and the same. The clergy is crawling with power hungry men. Some use that power for the good, others do not. We are human.

Given this points, and pardon the length of this post, I propose to you that although Christ died for the Church to be something very different than what it is, it does not change the desire of ALL of us to change the Church to be more like what Christ intended it to be. The only problem comes then, what is our vision for the Church vis-a-vis the discernable vision of Christ?

We cannot deny what the church is just because we WANT it to be perfect. I can understand that you love the Church and want it to be all that you believe it is, but you cannot deny what it in fact is.

Many of us, I know I do, love the church deeply. I am committed to it becoming a more "perfect" place. But I cannot spiritualize it to be something it is not. I hope you realize this is not putting down the church or critizing it, merely accepting it for what it is and trying to make it better.

Mercedes

The clergy is crawling with power hungry men. Some use that power for the good, others do not. We are human.

Marriages are crawling with power hungry men. Some use that power for the good, others do not. !)

jstab,

You are defining the Church by what you perceive, and I by what I perceive. You are seeing the externals, her exterior, her structures and institution and organization.

You must look within, to see her as she is - as God sees her and loves her. Her interiority is a spiritual reality, beautiful: the Bride of Christ. Not a political system, nor a business, nor merely a collection of men. Yes, God works with all those externals, and so must we. But do you love her as Christ loves her?

I agree Thomas, the internal church is a font of spiritual beauty, but the external church is surrounding that beauty with walls upon walls upon walls. It seems as if the Church has become afraid of exposing that beauty to the entirety of Jesus's people. This implies that there are some of Jesus's people who represent a threat to the beauty. How can perfect beauty be threatened by any mere mortal?

Jesus walked free and did not keep his beauty behind walls of any sort. Why does His church think it's necessary to keep that legacy behind walls? To deny where He did not? To present Him backwards.

The Church has gotten a lot of things backwards over time. I recently read a quote from a priest where I just broke up laughing. It illustrates this notion. He said, "Jesus blessed children and taught adults, and now the Church does it backwards." Adults ask questions and children usually don't. Walls are built in defense of an inability to justify the answers to the questions. Some of us have a lot of questions about certain teachings for which the church does not have adult answers. There are some questions in which the Church even goes so far as to say the discussion is closed. That's not an adult reponse. That's an abusive parental response.

Where you see the Church as the Bride of Christ, others see the Church as a dictatorial parent. The internal spiritual sacramental beauty is the treasure, the externals are not. To use another analogy, they say you can't judge a book by it's cover, but it's impossible to get to the internals of a book when the cover has a lock. If the Church can't change it's external cover, the least it could do is take off the lock.

http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com

I see your point, but I hope you realize that there are many models of Church and both of those that you mention are part of it.

I do love the Church, but I wouldn't claim to love her as Christ loves her. Obviously, his love is much more pure and perfect.

"Christ died for something different". Yes, I really think that He did and I welcome Thomas' admission. The only problem is that Thomas identifies his views as that "something different". He writes that neither he nor the Church is "right wing" and that "to even use such political labels to describe the Church is to miss her entire meaning". That latter statement is so blatently disengenuous that I am surprised that his fingers didn't shrivel up in the typing.

Is the "Vatican" not a soverign state? Just because it is not a democracy does that except if from being "political" or does it add more of an onerous implication. Is it not accurate to identify the Vatican as the headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church? Does not the Vatican State have diplomatic relations with many nations and, together with its bishops attempt, to directly influence the affairs of state of those nations (having followed your recent presidential campaign even Judas would quaver in denial. "Up here", the intervention of the hierarchy in the same-sex marriage issue is no different). Is not this influence of the Vatican exerted without accountability to the people it purports to represent? To go into the "right-wing" (or even "left wing")dimension would be beating the obvious too far, except to say that being in politics and holding fundamentalist views commonly described as "right wing" is part of being in the kitchen and maybe he should reread his own postings.

Do you deny the obvious because you of are ashamed of admitting the obvious? Or maybe you too are being "political"?

I don't think that the call is to repentance so much as it is towards conversion. I'm speaking of the kind of conversion that leads one to see the connections we all have with each other rather than the differences.

I fully understand why you would feel more welcome on an Evangelical site than you would in the Cafe. You actually seem to share a very similar theological outlook. One that is not as strongly shared by many of us who post here regularly.

It seems to me that Jesus was actually teaching on two levels. On one level He spoke about the importance of obedience to the law as one way of establishing a relationship with God. But He also spoke of another way, which is probably where we run into difficulties with each other. He spoke of the Divine with in us and for that relationship, He gave very few guidelines. Those few He did, all involved love and it's unconditional expression.

The thing I take from His life is that had He stuck to the first type of teaching He would never have wound up on a cross because there would have been nothing to crucify Him for. He would have been supporting the Church authority of His time. It's the fact He went further and taught the second approach that got Him crucified. In the second approach the relationship with God is not external, dependent on external authority, but internal, based on personal discernment, and expressed in love, not obedience.

A religion based in love and personal discernment is a terrible threat to a clerical elite which exists on the backs of it's obedient members. That's why so many of our Catholic mystics were coralled and kept cloistered or executed by the inquisition. As poor Joan of Arc found out, the Church Militant is terrified of the Church Triumphant and it's messengers.

I'm going to play prophet here for a minute. I suspsect Thomas that if you stay committed to the spiritual path you seem to be on, there will come a time when you look back at some of your writing and have a tough time resisting using the delete button. You will experience the kind of conversion I write about at the beginning of this comment, a conversion of soul which entirely changes your view of God. Unless you totally resist it, you will be assimilated into the Godhead and know we are all one.

For what it's worth, HT never felt he wasn't welcomed at the Cafe, but then he could be more personally forthcoming. I pray for HT all the time because I saw both a mystic and a young man desparately searching for the meaning of his experiences. If he's in the Cistercian monastery I think he's in, God has placed HT in the perfect place for him, under a truly gifted spiritual man.

No one here is your enemy Thomas. We're just on different spiritual paths in the same Church.

http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com

"For what it's worth, HT never felt he wasn't welcomed at the Cafe, but then he could be more personally forthcoming. I pray for HT all the time because I saw both a mystic and a young man desparately searching for the meaning of his experiences. If he's in the Cistercian monastery I think he's in, God has placed HT in the perfect place for him, under a truly gifted spiritual man."

Colkoch-(I do wonder where you think I am... I believe I have the contact form open ;-)

I have been amused to see my name appear hear in contrast to thomas, when we so often argued the same side of issues.

Well, I wouldn't say that I never felt unwelcome; I did prefer the telcontar handle, and I have received more complaints (cold logician, fundamentalist, etc)[side note, I did take those both as they were meant and as the compliments that were not intended). Generally small nuisances, but enough to remind me that we were very much on different paths.

From my POV (point of view), their are only a few differences between thomas and myself in our posting:
1) I picked my battles (any discussion on homosexuality with people who feel 'burned' by Church teaching on the topic = generally bad idea)

2) I had an ulterior motive that required an unusual amount of real interaction. (I thought I had laid it out explicitly elsewhere, but it is certainly difficult to find old threads around here. Anywho, for those who don't remember or never read it: I was here to figure out how the "other side" thinks, reasons, etc. recall my willingness to refer to this as being among "enemies"? that was a reference to the fact that there was/is a wide gulf.)

3) I had a little more tact, and probably had honed my arguments a little better than thomas.

Well, there are a few more reasons than you imagine then, if you think these are the only differences. For one, HT, is the difference of age, in which those of us older than you were perhaps a bit more nurturing toward you given your youth and seriousness toward a spiritual journey, even if different. There were also occasional moments of sharing and humanness, although you also preferred to be rather minimalist in those areas. And your future plans suggested that you would be challenged in ways that you were not yet able to appreciate. You also continued to interact whether you liked it or not, perhaps because your ulterior motive was not so different from many of us, you just had more belief that it was a singularly different motive. And, occasionally, you actually agreed or rated highly someone you did not otherwise want to. Those are some pretty big differences. Other people leave the site or walk away or refuse to acknowledge other people, (and interestingly) sometimes the very FIRST time they post something challenging. Can't remember you doing those kinds of things, to name a few. I do hope you accept some day that it is about relationship and actually not about ARGUING or THE ARGUMENT at all, of course.

Like thomas, however, you do show that interesting traditionalist/fundamentalist/neo-trad (whatever) tendency to particularly struggle with those who are "active" Catholics (I'm not sure what language would most suit here, but you know what I mean) but who have different philosophical and spiritual foci than what you believe to define an active Catholic. That you do share.

Prayers and best wishes. Take care.

Well hello, here-today - I have heard you referred to, in some of the many psychoanalyses of me that I've gratuitously received here on the forum. I guess I made you look good by comparison in the eyes of the "other side" - but no need to thank me.

No doubt (I haven't read your posts) you had more tact! I've never been accused of being tactful. Seriously, I regret my inability to be more tactful - and I have tried - but it does not seem to be within me.

But anyway, I hope you can revive your activity here. This site needs some balance. The anti-Catholic sentiments and angers here are intense, and I think those sentiments feed on and reinforce one another, to the detriment of real discussion and of religious growth. Stagnation in negativity is not a good thing.

Blessings and grace to you.

Thomas

Ok, so where are you for those who are to lazy to seek out that info? How are you doing? Obviously, you have not changed your fundamental disposition (YET)! But it is good to see you posting. I hope you are able to do so more often. Hope all is well.

3) I had a little more tact, and probably had honed my arguments a little better than Thomas

Hahahaha. LOL. Are you laughing as much as I am HT. That was a great tongue in cheek statement. God Bless You Brother. :-)

The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will

Hello colkoch,

I know that no one on this forum is my enemy. I know who my enemy is; he is your enemy also. And the One who defeated him has established one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church - His Holy Bride - in whom we can find Him most fully and perfectly.

Here on this forum, it seems to me, the "in" group of most active posters seem to have found a union around a sense that the enemy is (not exactly "the Church", but) a suppressive coalition of the hierarchy and their enabling stooges who just can't get it right. "We" read and understand Scripture and Jesus correctly - "they" do not. But is this not just the Protestant mind-set and error? Certainly Protestants don't call themselves "Catholic," so it is easier to tell who is who. Here, I can't tell who is Catholic and who is not.

I know very well there are clergy who have fallen into the error of "clericalism". Christ allows this for now, while offering us grace to grow in holiness and humility through their failures. He even offers us the grace to love them - to truly love them in Christ, and pray for them as our brothers.

Jesus never, never taught disobedience to the Truth. It is tempting, and the evil one delights in this temptation here and now as he did in the Garden - it is tempting to look into one's own private interpretations to discern Truth, and to discard those of an authority set over us. Like the evil one, we do not like authority over us, we do not like submission. We mask our love for autonomy with a respectable name: conscience, and thereby feel justified in our rebelliousness. But God knows our hearts, better than we.

Conscience is extremely important - a beautiful gift from God. Conscience must be rightly formed, and for that formation we must look to true authority. We must look to, and find submission under, His Holy Church.

Yes, there are saints, and there are holy clergy! Yes, there are ecclesial CEO's, and there are clericalists and enablers. Rightly understood, we can hear and learn much in this:

Mt 23:2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat;
Mt 23:3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.

Thomas

Mercedes

Certainly Protestants don't call themselves "Catholic," so it is easier to tell who is who. Here, I can't tell who is Catholic and who is not.

Mission acccomplished, almost, and the reunion of "the broken bones" of the Body of Christ, as Thomas Merton mentioned, is alas, painful. But we can take it, surely? Also the Protestants don't call themselves Catholic because we excommunicated them. My Dad was Lutheran and my Mom was Catholic, and I am like the love child of Romeo and Juliet. Another mission accomplished! (Almost...)