At Zillas, one Protestant (who I will not name here) suggested that Jill Stanek's piece about abortions at Catholic hospitals was a signal that it is time to jump ship.
Wouldn't you know that it was a Lutheran who stepped up to the plate. He stated that as long as the teachings are sound, then it's not the end if the some of the flock strays (a very bad paraphrase, he said it much better). My reply follows:
You're exactly right, Alex.BTW, this is nothing new. The Church has seen evil times before.
This reminds me of a quote ;-)
Of course, I mean that Catholicism was not tried; plenty of Catholics were tried, and found guilty. My point is that the world did not tire of the church's ideal, but of its reality. Monasteries were impugned not for the chastity of monks, but for the unchastity of monks. Christianity was unpopular not because of the humility, but of the arrogance of Christians. Certainly, if the church failed it was largely through the churchmen. But at the same time hostile elements had certainly begun to end it long before it could have done its work. In the nature of things it needed a common scheme of life and thought in Europe. Yet the mediaeval system began to be broken to pieces intellectually, long before it showed the slightest hint of falling to pieces morally. The huge early heresies, like the Albigenses, had not the faintest excuse in moral superiority. And it is actually true that the Reformation began to tear Europe apart before the Catholic Church had had time to pull it together. The Prussians, for instance, were not converted to Christianity at all until quite close to the Reformation. The poor creatures hardly had time to become Catholics before they were told to become Protestants. This explains a great deal of their subsequent conduct. But I have only taken this as the first and most evident case of the general truth: that the great ideals of the past failed not by being outlived (which must mean over-lived), but by not being lived enough. Mankind has not passed through the Middle Ages. Rather mankind has retreated from the Middle Ages in reaction and rout. The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.
What's Wrong with the World, G.K. Chesterton
[N.B.: this was written well before Chesterton converted to Catholicism]
The problem at the top has existed right from the very beginning. Peter recognizes Jesus as the Son of God...
Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
(Mt 16:15-18)
And then a mere few seconds later, Peter is rebuking his Lord because He has foretold that He will suffer and die.
And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him, saying: Lord, be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee. Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.
(Mt 16:22-23)
And near the end, Jesus foretells that Peter will deny his Lord.
Then Jesus said to them: All you shall be scandalized in me this night. For it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed. But after I shall be risen again, I will go before you into Galilee. And Peter answering, said to him: Although all shall be scandalized in thee, I will never be scandalized. Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, that in this night before the cock crow, thou wilt deny me thrice. Peter saith to him: Yea, though I should die with thee, I will not deny thee. And in like manner said all the disciples.
(Mt 26:31-35)
And of course, Peter fails to keep his promise.
A similar event happens just before St. Augustine's time. Traditor's sell out the Church under the pressure of Roman oppression.
This word traditor became a technical expression to designate those who had given up the Sacred Books, and also those who had committed the worse crimes of delivering up the sacred vessels and even their own brethren.
"Donatists", Catholic Encyclopedia
The Donatists want nothing to do the traditor scum. They refuse to recognize the ordination of anyone who had been ordained by a traditor...
The Donatist schism was the last episode in the Montanist and Novatian controversies which had agitated the Church from the second century. While the East was discussing under varying aspects the Divine and Christological problem of the Word, the West, doubtless because of its more practical genius, took up the moral question of sin in all its forms. The general problem was the holiness of the Church; could the sinner be pardoned, and remain in her bosom? In Africa the question especially concerned the holiness of the hierarchy. The bishops of Numidia, who, in 312, had refused to accept as valid the consecration of Cæcilian, Bishop of Carthage, by a traditor, had inaugurated the schism and at the same time proposed these grave questions: Do the hierarchical powers depend upon the moral worthiness of the priest? How can the holiness of the Church be compatible with the unworthiness of its ministers?
"St. Augustine", Catholic Encyclopedia
St. Augustine answered those questions. The Truth claims of a religion do not depend on how well its adherents follow that Truth. Do people understand what they mean when they state, "Well, we're all sinners"? That's truth! If sinners put up a sign pointing to Heaven, does it necessarily mean they're wrong? Are there any non-sinners around?
(See "Ode to Hypocrisy" by Jonah Goldberg
The German philosopher Max Scheler (1874-1928) was renowned for his ethical deliberations. Although his real concentration was the impenetrable intellectual forest known as phenomenology, he took the moral and ethical realm intensely seriously, writing such works as On Man's Place in the Cosmos.
Alas, he could have also written a book called "On Man's Place in the Pink Pussycat's VIP Lounge."
I learned this last year from a wonderful — and more dignified — article in the Wall Street Journal written by Roger Kimball, the editor of The New Criterion (in which I made my first appearance last month). When Scheler was confronted with the apparently blatant hypocrisy of his playing Iggy-the-Bongo with women not his wife, Kimball tells us, Scheler reportedly responded, "the sign that points to Boston, doesn't have to go there." In other words, one can legitimately point out the right thing, even if one doesn't do it him or herself.)
When we look for examples of the Truth, we don't look for Cardinal Law, but Mother Teresa. It's in the latter that the truth claims are tested.
And as far as whether you can have your faith but leave your religion, that's simply impossible within the Catholic Church. You can't pick and choose which Truth is convenient for you, for then you become no better than John Kerry. The pope and the bishops are, for better or worse, part of being Catholic. When you say you're not going to have anything to do with those men, you've not just left an institution, you've changed your faith.
Posted by Bob at September 16, 2004 09:46 PMNow, a word to Catholics who would follow the dictates of their consciences instead of the dictates of the Vatican.
Congratulations, you're Protestant.
Florence King "Conscience Claws", National Review, November 27, 1995