Anne Rice and the church
There's an audio (and text) interview with writer Anne Rice at NPR - Writer Anne Rice: 'Today I Quit Being A Christian' - which I'm listening to as I write this. I've seen comments on her choice of quitting the church (which she posted about on Facebook) at various places - dotCommonweal, The Anchoress, Episcopal Cafe, etc. - but still I thought I'd add my two cents since I have read some of her books - the vampire novels (and a mummy novel, if I remember correctly) and one of her Christian books, Angel Time, which I didn't finish as I didn't like it much.
If I understand her stance, she still has and wants to keep a relationship with Jesus but can't resolve what she sees as the discontinuity between Jesus' teachings and some of the policies of the church. Why make her feelings public? Maybe the fact that she's still going to be writing Christian-themed books makes he want to be clear with readers on her point of view. I didn't realize until I listened to the interview, that her son is gay - perhaps that has something to do with her decision to leave a church that seems hostile to gays.
The Anchoress in her post on this tries to make the point that Rice is wrong in her beliefs about the church being hostile to gays, feminists, humanists, science, etc. I do think the church is ok on science - look at Br. Guy Cpnsolmagno SJ :) - but when the Anchoress writes, for instance .....
I do not know how anyone can read Pope John Paul II’s exhaustive teachings on the Theology of the Body and credibly declare the church to be reactionary on issues of sexuality or womanhood.
.... then I realize how far apart our ideas are - we can use the same document to make opposing points! :) I guess what you already believe to be true will influence what you think of the church's policies and of Rice's decision.
If I understand her stance, she still has and wants to keep a relationship with Jesus but can't resolve what she sees as the discontinuity between Jesus' teachings and some of the policies of the church. Why make her feelings public? Maybe the fact that she's still going to be writing Christian-themed books makes he want to be clear with readers on her point of view. I didn't realize until I listened to the interview, that her son is gay - perhaps that has something to do with her decision to leave a church that seems hostile to gays.
The Anchoress in her post on this tries to make the point that Rice is wrong in her beliefs about the church being hostile to gays, feminists, humanists, science, etc. I do think the church is ok on science - look at Br. Guy Cpnsolmagno SJ :) - but when the Anchoress writes, for instance .....
I do not know how anyone can read Pope John Paul II’s exhaustive teachings on the Theology of the Body and credibly declare the church to be reactionary on issues of sexuality or womanhood.
.... then I realize how far apart our ideas are - we can use the same document to make opposing points! :) I guess what you already believe to be true will influence what you think of the church's policies and of Rice's decision.
posted by crystal | 10:07 PM
31 Comments:
Crystal,
I admire the fact that Ms. Rice was honest enough to admit that she'd rather be Protestant (e.g., Yes to Jesus, NO to His divinely appointed vehicle for bringing us the Truth, the Catholic Church) and then actually left! I respect that! Now I wish that all the wolves in sheep's clothing who stay in the Church would follow her example and do the same thing.
Pax Christi,
Henry
P.S. Just to be clear, I am not referring to those who through no fault of their own were taught a watered down version of the true Faith and/or taught that the Church is a cafeteria.
I personally think that Ms. Rice has made a mistake in leaving the Church. While I agree with almost everything she says, I will lay these problems squarely at the feet of the clergy, not at the feet of the Church, of which I am part.
To many, including myself, fail to remember that Vatican II pointed out that the Church does not consist of clergy only, but of laymen as well. Watching the actions of our bishops and Vatican leaders, I have to believe that Jesus gave them the grace and mission to lead the Church, and they rejected it in favor of living the good live and rather than leading, then made rules. Jesus condemned another group fro doing that. They seem to have become more of an ethics board than leaders to God's love.
As for the Church being a cafeteria, I have never found a person that does not do some picking and choosing. I have to remember that much of what we think of as Church teaching is simply disciplinary rules and has nothing to do with faith or coming closer to God and certainly were not instituted by Jesus, but now must supposedly be obeyed under pain of mortal sin.
I think that if all those that did not believe exactly as you do packed up and left your would find yourself in a very lonely position, about the same as if you packed up and left because the rest of us didn't accept all your teaching.
Glad to see your are feeling better, Henry. I am also feeling a lot more energetic. The third heart procedure burned out a lot of bad heart tissue and got rid of the flutter and fibrilation, which seems to be helping a lot. Pulse beat still shifts all over the place, but that doesn't seem to be a problem, although a pacemaker may be in my future. We will wait for 6-8 weeks then monitor the heart continuously for two weeks to make sure that I am not shifting back and forth.
Meanwhile, it is out to the wood shop to do some work that I haven't felt like doing for some time.
Hugs,
Mike L
Hey Mike, I am glad you are feeling better too!!!!
I certainly agree that the clergy need massive reform (although I know that the three of us - you, me and Crystal – would require many discussions about the level of reform, etc.) but I am not sure it’s accurate to say that it’s all “their” fault. Yes, many priests are narcissists and many deserve the criticism thrown at them but we – the laity – also contributed to the problems we are now confronting.
It’s true that Vatican II emphasized and recovered aspects of Ecclesiology that were neglected but I have noticed that some Catholics seem to believe that reform means elimination and/or rebuilding in my own image, which is what the Protestants in the 1500s did. I am, and will always be, against this.
Picking and choosing… hmm, if you mean that I choose to emphasize mental prayer and you choose to emphasize vocal prayer, no problem. But I think you mean something else my friend so I’d like an example before I comment.
I am not interested in having people believe exactly what I do, that would be a big mistake, but I am interested in people being honest. For example, I find it dishonest when someone says: “I am Catholic even though I disagree with X (insert doctrinal or dogmatic statement of your choice here).” Note, I said doctrinal or dogmatic statement NOT discipline. For example, “married clergy” falls under discipline, and I can be for it and you against it and we are still both “good” Catholics. However, if I start teaching that the incarnation is a lie, then I should be honest enough to admit that I am no longer Catholic and leave. Period. I know many Episcopalians that believe that Jesus was a good man but NOT God incarnate and since that’s acceptable in the Episcopal Church they call themselves good and faithful Episcopalians.
Anyway, I’ll stop because I am now rambling.
Let’s remember each other in prayer.
Pax Christi,
Henry
Crystal / Mike,
BTW, Fr. Paul Shanley, Fr. John Geoghan, and Fr. Marcial Maciel are examples of “wolves in sheep’s clothing” for me.
Pax Christi,
Henry
Henry,
I've been thinking about just what you mentioned in your comment - Jesus, the Catholic church, the Protestants, trying to figure out what place Jesus really has in the Catholic church.
Aside from Jesus seeming to pick Peter as the leader of the group of future Christians, I see no indication in scripture that Jesus had any intention of creating something like the present day (or medieval either) Catholic church.
I don't understand why the Catholic church puts so much emphasis on guys like Thomas Aquinas, who at times diverge from what Jesus taught.
In that retreat I took, all attention was on Jesus, his life, what he said and did, and on fostering a relationship with him, and on helng him in his mission. That was a Catholic Jesuit retreat, not a Protestant one.
if I start teaching that the incarnation is a lie, then I should be honest enough to admit that I am no longer Catholic and leave. Period. I know many Episcopalians that believe that Jesus was a good man but NOT God incarnate and since that’s acceptable in the Episcopal Church they call themselves good and faithful Episcopalians.
I think you are defaming Episcopalians. The ones I read about at the Episcopal Cafe believe very much that Jesus is God. The difference between Protestants and Catholics is not about whether Jesus is God or not, it's about all the added on stuff after Jesus that the Catholic church wants us to believe in with the same ferver.
Hi Mike,
How are you? Did you have another heart procedure? Can you send me the emails that you send to Henry about how you are doing?
I agree with you about staying in the church and about Vatican II. We're all eating at the cafeteria, despite what the traditionalists think.
Well, if the laity has been poorly taught, who failed to teach them? I do remember a time when we were told that if we wanted our children to grow up good Catholics we should send them to Catholic schools and they would take care of any and all problems.
Yes the laity are adding to some of the problems. But I fail to see where a lay person trying to restructure the Church is any more of a problem then a bishop or even the pope doing the same thing.
As for picking and choosing: first, I think today that you might get some pretty hot arguments over silent or public prayer from our leaders. "We got a sermon the other week that going to mass and saying the rosary is not enough but have to develop an "internal" life if we want to be saved.
From what BXVI has said, he does not believe married clergy is only a discipline. As see a more difficult problem with the Church's teaching that homosexuality is a choice when all scientific evidence points to it being intrinsic. And even beyond that the Church cannot really tell who is male and who is female, either by physical characteristics or genetically. Is it wrong from someone with XXY genetics to marry someone with XYY genetics? Are they different sexes? Take a hard look at the intersexed problems that are showing up in the sports world and other places. It would appear that the Church has traditionally support transgender operations until just recently, and I am willing to bet that Catholic hospitals continue to carve infants into one sex or the other if they can't determine what sex it was born with.
As for your wolves, how about the estimates that better than 30% of our priests are in a sexual relationship at any given time? And do you really believe that JPII and others were unaware of what Maciel was doing? I certainly think that the acceptance of what appears to have been bribery should have alerted anyone with any sense. But heaven help any lay person that made such an accusation.
Hmm, I really do have more energy, and stronger opinions :).
Hugs,
Mike
Crystal,
If I wanted to defame the Episcopalians I would have written ALL instead of I know many… and in fact, out of the Episcopalians I personally know, more than half believe what I wrote. Thanks though for pointing out that I could have been more precise and/or sensitive with my phrasing.
You wrote: I see no indication in scripture that … Do you realize that when you use this phrasing it gives me the impression that you believe in Sola Scriptura? Is this what you believe? If yes, would you be kind enough to tell me why you believe this.
Based on my study of Church history, I believe that the issue of “authority” played an enormous role in the shattering of Christendom in the 1500s and perhaps, some day, we could explore this via e-mail. (The only thing I’ll say now is that it is within this milieu that the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius are born and I have found that reading about what was going on then helps me understand them better. Since you like novels, the book “By What Authority?” by Robert Hugh Benson is a good introduction to the period and issues.)
I always enjoy a round or two of theological ping-pong but I am going to forgo that pleasure and simply affirm, based on my own experience as a convert, that an uncommitted inquirer, seeking the full and true presentation of the Deposit of Faith as an object of faith rather than just of opinion, faces a choice between three mutually incommensurable "hermeneutical circles": the Protestant, the Orthodox, and the Catholic. I found that studying these differences was of immense value to me and I propose it to you as well.
Finally, I am not sure if you are aware of it but St. Ignatius Loyola wrote a document titled “Rules for Thinking with the Church” and his first rule is: Always to be ready to obey with mind and heart, setting aside all judgement of one's own, the true spouse of Jesus Christ, our holy mother, our infallible and orthodox mistress, the Catholic Church, whose authority is exercised over us by the hierarchy.
Pax Christi,
Henry
Mike,
I became a Catholic long after Vatican II and so I can only talk about my own experience. I was instructed by an old Franciscan priest for three years who took the time to work through and explain what the Church believes and why. He had me read a wide range of books – one of my favorites was and still is Merton (because of my Buddhist background). Of course, because I expressed an interest in what the Catholic Church actually teaches I read the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Pius X Catechism, the Baltimore Catechism, Summa Contra Gentiles, the Documents of Vat II, various historians, etc., etc. Since I was supporting myself as an artist I have a lot of time to read and discuss what I was reading with him. So, getting back to your point, after speaking with so many other Catholics, I have discovered how fortunate I was because 90% of them learned feel good mumble jumble and they learned this from priests and nuns. I can’t tell you how many people told me that all they did in religion class was create God loves you banners or rainbow butterflies, etc. Nonsense!
Restructuring, same sex attraction, the belief that scientists are “objective”, and on and on and on… all of that, in my opinion, is a smoke screen to avoid addressing, what in my opinion is the first problem, the erroneous belief that the Catholic Christian Faith is primarily about ethics or that it should be. Look, a fish is the last one to recognize water and we are the last one to recognize that we blindly accept the premises our culture feeds us.
30%, I think that’s low! Maciel, like all professional con-men can fool many people. And yes, I think some idiot clerics willing accepted bribes.
Strong opinions are good and necessary; and yes, a little passion certainly gets the blood moving!
Anyway, let’s never forget that we – you, me, and Crystal - are united by a bond that transcends death!
Peace and love to both of you!
Henry
Henry,
Yes, I know about Ignatius's thinking with the church thing. Not so surprising for a guy who was thrown into prison twice as a possible heretic :) There's a talk by the past Superior General of the Jesuits about that - THE RULES FOR THINKING, JUDGING,
FEELING IN THE POST-CONCILIAR
CHURCH. John O'Malley SJ in his book The First Jesuits says ...
{...} The Rules for Thinking with the Church ... should not be invested with the exaggerated orthodoxy they were often later made to represent. Moreover, important though they are in many ways, they were not seen to be integral to the Exercises ...
I had too look up Sola scriptura. It isn't that I think the bible is the only source for info about God. I do think religious experience is a source too. Ignatius wrote (I think) that he'd believe what he'd been shown in religious experience whether it was in scripture or not. But he knew people are fallible, that their excperience can be mediated, so he advised discernment of religious experience.
I would be happy to consider the religious experience of guys from Thomas Aquinas to the pope, but I would take what they experienced with a grain of salt, comparing it to what I've read in the NT and to my own prayer experience.
But when you say stuff like "the full and true presentation of the Deposit of Faith" it makes me think you accept these people's opinions as if such had sprung from the mouth of God himself, without any comparison to what Jesus said or did.
Crystal,
Thanks for the O'Malley article - I plan on reading it and give you thoughts about it later. Although St. Ignatius is great, I haven't studied him in depth and that's probably because I personally favor the two great Carmelite doctors of the same period - St. Teresa of Ávila and St. John of the Cross (who also had problems with the hierarchy!) But, from what I do know about St. Ignatius he certainly did not embrace the Protestant premises, especially the belief that Christ and the Church are not “One.” One in the sense that my ex-wife and I were one when we married. (With that example I am trying to say that being "one" didn't mean that we were identical!) But getting back to the article, I want to know what Ignatius (the author!) thought of the document he wrote first before looking at someone else’s interpretation of it. So, if I can find anything he said about the rules for thinking with the Church, or what those he personally taught said about them I would give those documents more weight. So, while O'Malley's comments might be interesting and factual, they might also be a distortion or watering down of what Ignatius meant but I won’t know that unless I check the primary sources. (Perhaps your Jesuit spiritual director can tell you where I can find those primary sources, if not, I know some Jesuits than can help.)
Well, unless you've acquired the knowledge of Divine Revelation through infused knowledge, you learned it the same way I did, through the mediation of a person, who in many (not all) cases was an unofficial or official catechist.
Hmm… ok, let's say that my reading of the NT and my own prayer experience leads me to conclude something diametrically opposed to what you conclude, are we both right? What about the question of Truth - is it relevant or not?
Regarding your last paragraph, their "opinions" have no more weight than yours or mine. I am not interested in “opinions” I am interested in Truth, and Christ established a method for the transmission of the Truth and I don’t think we should discard it so that we can dance to today’s tune.
Anyway, I am tired and cranky now (it's 7pm in NY) and so I am going to leave work now.
Peace and love to you and avoid the Blue Jays!
Henry
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sorry Crystal but there was a glitch and my comment posted numerous times - please delete the duplicates.
Crystal,
I was thinking about our conversation on the way home and I have an idea that I want to float by you.
I propose that we talk about "method" in regards to St. Ignatius' "Rules for thinking with the Church." I am proposing this because I think it will help us avoid theological time bombs, what do you think?
I am going to eat now and I will write again later.
Pax Christi,
Henry
Wow, missed a good discussion today. heard about Rice's exit stage left through twitter yesterday. I can't say I'm surprised but I did feel disappointed. In parish ministry I'm often confronted by people who hold their faith up to me as though we're in an odd sort of one-sided hostage negotiation, "If you don't change what you're saying so it's in line with what I think...I'm out of here!"
I'm not at all saying this is what Ms. Rice has done...it just made me think of all those situations. Funny the kinds of memories and images things can trigger. ;o)
Still, it's disappointing to me whenever someone feels like leaving a family because we don't always agree or even when someone else in the family does something I might (or a great many people might) believe is wrong. My own family has a great and dark history of violent alcoholics, drug users, child abusers, thieves and other assorted scoundrels. I might not ever agree with how they live or lived their lives...but we still share that familial bond and their sorted stories will forever be a part of my own tale of light and darkness.
Perhaps that's the message though. For as much as we might want to say "I'm outta here!" or as the psalmist wonders;
"Where can I go from your spirit?
Or where can I flee from your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, you are there;
if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there.
If I take the wings of the morning
and settle at the farthest limits of the sea,
even there your hand shall lead me,
and your right hand shall hold me fast.
If I say, ‘Surely the darkness shall cover me,
and the light around me become night’,
even the darkness is not dark to you;
the night is as bright as the day,
for darkness is as light to you."
Or I might even echo Peter; "Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life."
I'm aware that a question could be raised (and has been by Ms. Rice herself) isn't there a difference between Christ and the Church?
To which I would reply "If I didn't honestly believe in the indelible connection between the two...I would be outta here!"
Sometimes it's the only thing that keeps me hanging on.
Peace and God Bless,
CA
Henry,
That article I mentioned is by the former head of the Jesuits, Peter-Hans Kolvenbach. But the quote I gave was from John O'Malley's book,. You can look at it in Google books here.
It's my understanding that Ignatius didn't write anything other thnan vatious versions of the Spiritual Exercises and his autobiography (both of which can be found online) and a lot of letters to people, some of which can also be read online at the Woodstock Theological Center Library.
But I'd agree with you - Ignatius was pretty orthodox.
I'm interested in the Truth too. You say ... Christ established a method for the transmission of the Truth ... but I guess I would consider that an optomistic assumption. Peter wasn't perfect before the resurrection and I don't think he was after either, nor were the other first Christians. To assume everything the church has decided since then is the Truth (the idea for instance that slavery is ok) seems unrealistic.
Anyway, take care and talk more later.
Hi Cura,
My family is like that too :) I do still want to be Catholic though I disagree with so much, but sometimes it seems like it's the church that wants people to leave if they don't agree with everything. What especially bothers me is blonging to an organization that seems to sometimes actually cause harm to people - then I feel responsible if only by association.
"Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life."
To the Episcopal Chirch, the Orthodox Chirch, the Anglican Church, etc. :)
isn't there a difference between Christ and the Church? To which I would reply "If I didn't honestly believe in the indelible connection between the two...I would be outta here!"
I think there is a difference, but that still they may be irrevocably connected, as you say.
"Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life."
To the Episcopal Chirch, the Orthodox Chirch, the Anglican Church, etc. :)
See, those 'outs' just seem too easy for me. If I honestly believe this Church is my family, my dearest most beloved and most intolerably frustrating flesh and blood, how could I just walk away?
And where does the walking away stop? If I join the Episcopalian, or Lutheran, or Orthodox or Anglican families at some point (as in all good families) they're going to do or say something to p!$$ me off too. If the stats on divorce remain consistent in other reference frames then it will just get easier and easier to pack up and leave until I find myself quite homeless because there are no sinners in the world I can deign to eat with.
It just doesn't work for me. For better or worse, in sickness and in health...I'm all in.
And if the rumors are true, even death won't get me out of this one! ;o)
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cura,
A question - people say the church is Jesus' bride, that it's the body of Christ, that there is no being with Jesus apart from church. Where does this idea come from? In the NT people seemed to meet Jesus everywhere but seldom at church. They had their community, of course, but people who weren't part of it and who weren't going to become part of it still were engaged by Jesus. Am I wrong in thinking that the gospels say nothing of the bride of Christ/body of Christ stuff?
I did hope when I joined the church that it would be like a family for me but it didn't. We never belonged, not my parents or grandparents either, and I'd had this unrealistic idea that everyone at church would be super good and kind and accepting. But they were not, and strangely, they never really talked about God either, just church. I became a christian in that solitary Jesuit retreat though I hadn't done so in three years of church.
I think I understand what you mean though about it being your family and that being unchangeable.
"people say the church is Jesus' bride, that it's the body of Christ, that there is no being with Jesus apart from church. Where does this idea come from? In the NT people seemed to meet Jesus everywhere but seldom at church."
There are tons of images of Christ as bridegroom, the community as bride, the community as the Body of Christ.
Nowhere will you find a passage that says; "Look this is the way it is..." but that's only because the authors choose to show rather than tell through episodes that contain the imagery.
Jesus at Cana, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman, at the Last Supper (This is my Body), the huge catch of fish in John, the crowds, the dinners the disciples, the boat tossed in the storm. John the baptist introducing Andrew and his friend to Jesus, Andrew introducing his brother and so on and so on.
The NT gives us image after image of Christ experienced within a group of persons who have been drawn to him as well as those persons themselves drawing others (mediating Christ to the world)
And still, the NT shows at every turn that they did this even as they were being not so very perfect themselves.
Even your wonderful retreat experience was not really an individual experience of Christ. In Prayer there's no such thing and one of the first images Ignatius is of the involvement of the whole heavenly host in our time of prayer. Not to mention the eternal aspect of prayer that binds everyone, everywhere intimately together as the Body of Christ (giving us our own version of the Matrix or SL...but definitely not merely a 'virtual' reality)
Did you know that when we pray you and I are always praying together, even if you pray in the morning and I pray after lunch? Prayer takes us into the eternal, timeless, spaceless realm of God.
There is no experience of Christ that is purely and solely individual.
"I'd had this unrealistic idea that everyone at church would be super good and kind and accepting. But they were not..."
I'll bet Matthew and Zaccheaus felt the same way and that too is part of family. Sure it's a dark part that we don't ever want to talk about but its all a part of the familial experience none-the-less. Shame on that community for not making you feel welcome. But My crazy uncle who lives as a recluse in the woods and never wants visitors isn't my whole family, or the current situation I'm in where most of my closest family thinks I'm a big jerk. Still, Christ leads me to other tables and even with those I don't get belong with, who don't particularly like me, or want me around we're forever family.
"...and strangely, they never really talked about God either, just church."
THAT is a ubiquitous problem I was just talking about with our new pastor. Of course they weren't talking about God...they barely know God! And that too is the Church's fault, but doesn't mean we're not still together. They don't know the story of who they are...but that's another conversation entirely.
In the end, I think Martha and the Vandellas said it well;
"Nowhere to run to, baby
Nowhere to hide
Got nowhere to run to, baby
Nowhere to hide
It's not love
I'm running from
It's the heartaches
That I know will come
'Cause I know
You're no good for me
But you`ve become
A part of me
Everywhere I go
Your face I see
Every step I take
You take with me, yeah
Nowhere to run to, baby
Nowhere to hide
Got nowhere to run to, baby
Nowhere to hide"
Crystal,
Thanks for the information! I never doubted that you are just as interested in the Truth as I am. In fact, I think many of our apparent differences come from the fact that we use different methods. So I have a proposal whose goal is to explore the similarities and differences in our approach without recourse to hot-button issues.
1. A document written by St. Ignatius (one of your favorites!) called “Rules for Thinking with the Church” exists.
2. You were kind enough to send Fr. Kolvenbach’s article on it and I am going to send you Fr. Hardon’s article on it via e-mail. (It’s also available here: http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Christian_Spirituality/Christian_Spirituality_031.htm). (I know, I know, Fr. Hardon is not your favorite Jesuit!)
3. I sent you Fr. Hardon’s article because I agree with its viewpoint and you sent me Fr. Kolvenbach’s article because you agree with its viewpoint.
4. Well, they seem to disagree about St. Ignatius’ intention when he wrote the document.
5. So, I would like us to explore this question together: what method is each of us going to use to resolve this situation?
So, my proposal is that we discuss the method we would use to try to understand what the author’s intention actually was.
Since I don’t want to hijack your blog, I’d be willing to do it via e-mail with you and anyone else that wants to participate. Of course, if you want to do it here, that’s OK too.
Are you interested in doing this?
Pax Christi,
Henry
Beautiful reply CA!
Pax Christi,
Henry
Cura,
It's strange. I was thinking so much about what you wrote last nght that I dreamed about it. I can just remember an image of three chalices, one was Catholic, one Episcopalian, and one Orthodox.
I am so mad at the church and I disagree with so many of its views that I've been wondering why I don't leave, why I don't become an Episcopalian, especially when I think Jesus is as much there as in the Catholic church. I haven't wanted to, though, and I haven't been sure why. Then this morning I realized that I do understand what you mean about the church being your family after all. But for me it's Ignatius and the Spiritual Exercises and Jesuits like William Barry and James Martin, and also my spiritual director, who seem like my family and the church my home. Even though I don't agree with all they've written or said, I feel loyalty and love for them and don't want to leave them :)
Henry,
Thanks for the article by Fr. Hardon. Haven't looked at it yet.
If we try to figure out what Ignatius really meant by his rules for thinking with the church, and we come to the conclusion that Fr. Hardon is correct and that he meant the most orthodox possible thing :) I'm afraid that that would not change my own mind about how I do/don't think with the church. Not even Ignatius could convince me that the church is always right and incapable of making serious errors in judgement on occassion. I just can't believe any institution run by fallible human beings can be anything but fallible. So maybe we shouldn't go ahead with this?
Crystal,
Apparently I was unclear because my goal was not to convince you that my author was right and your author was wrong, I wanted to discuss something else, something deeper, but this is not the right time to do that.
So yes, let’s not go ahead with this.
Have a good night my friend.
Pax Christi,
P.S. BTW, since the Church is full of flawed humans, I do not believe that “the church is always right and incapable of making serious errors in judgement on occassion.”
Henry,
I want to discuss deeper stuff :) I'll read the article you sent me later tonight.
That dream sounds so cool! I LOVE that God speaks to our souls in dreams. And I'm glad you and God were able to make some sense of my ramblings! Dare I hope for a similar and much need does of divine intervention? ;o)
Post a Comment
<< Home