Friday, February 21, 2020
Thursday, February 20, 2020
Weigel's Apologia for Clerical Celibacy
Beyond Amazonia
"Celibacy, a total gift of self to God, only makes sense in a Kingdom context."
What does "total gift of self to God" really mean? Loving God above all others? All are called to do that. Giving up every good other than God, food, water, oxygen too? Loving God only? So we shouldn't love our parents or friends? Even monks still love others and the Church, even if they are free from any other concrete duties to others.
This theological language is very sloppy and doesn't help the Latin apologetic for clerical celibacy/continence. I thought it was sloppy in Karol Wojtyla's writing too, especially when compared to the scholastics.
If total gift of self requires the giving up of one good, why not the giving up of other goods as well? Hence my examples of food, water, oxygen. Now the response may be that it is giving up of all goods not necessary for life. Then why shouldn't "total gift of self" entail the giving up of all family ties and friendships, and a host of other goods not essential to survival, television, alcohol, golf and whatever else priests may indulge in? If the apologists for clerical celibacy talk about the "total gift of self to God" as just meaning celibacy, then yes, there is a problem with their use of words and logic. The current preferred Latin theological defense of clerical celibacy/continence (which was formulated and gained prominence only within the last 50 years or so) strikes me as just being a post hoc rationalization since it is so poorly thought-out.
Now it may be that someone can explain celibacy no longer as a "sacrifice" or the giving up of some good (wife and family), but I don't know of anyone who has done that yet.
The most reasonable claim would be a rather pragmatic one, that the celibate priest is free from the responsibilities of marriage (but not from responsibilities to family, friends, or even the political community necessarily), and in theory he would have more time to devote to ministering to his parish community. But let's not say that this is because the priest is making a "total gift of himself" -- that turns out to be a rhetorical exaggeration, at best.
"Celibacy, a total gift of self to God, only makes sense in a Kingdom context."
What does "total gift of self to God" really mean? Loving God above all others? All are called to do that. Giving up every good other than God, food, water, oxygen too? Loving God only? So we shouldn't love our parents or friends? Even monks still love others and the Church, even if they are free from any other concrete duties to others.
This theological language is very sloppy and doesn't help the Latin apologetic for clerical celibacy/continence. I thought it was sloppy in Karol Wojtyla's writing too, especially when compared to the scholastics.
If total gift of self requires the giving up of one good, why not the giving up of other goods as well? Hence my examples of food, water, oxygen. Now the response may be that it is giving up of all goods not necessary for life. Then why shouldn't "total gift of self" entail the giving up of all family ties and friendships, and a host of other goods not essential to survival, television, alcohol, golf and whatever else priests may indulge in? If the apologists for clerical celibacy talk about the "total gift of self to God" as just meaning celibacy, then yes, there is a problem with their use of words and logic. The current preferred Latin theological defense of clerical celibacy/continence (which was formulated and gained prominence only within the last 50 years or so) strikes me as just being a post hoc rationalization since it is so poorly thought-out.
Now it may be that someone can explain celibacy no longer as a "sacrifice" or the giving up of some good (wife and family), but I don't know of anyone who has done that yet.
The most reasonable claim would be a rather pragmatic one, that the celibate priest is free from the responsibilities of marriage (but not from responsibilities to family, friends, or even the political community necessarily), and in theory he would have more time to devote to ministering to his parish community. But let's not say that this is because the priest is making a "total gift of himself" -- that turns out to be a rhetorical exaggeration, at best.
A Reminder But Will Young Women Be Humbled By It?
Not if they just live in the present.
A friendly reminder that the wall spares no one.https://t.co/YH9ls5tcbs
— Richard Cooper (@Rich_Cooper) February 20, 2020
Wednesday, February 19, 2020
Did He Watch the Same Movie?
A Hidden Life Hides Too Much of Franz Jägerstätter's Life by Shawn Storer
I found the movie addressed everything that was supposedly missing or weak in his critique, but perhaps he wanted everything spelled out explicitly rather than artistically and through association.
I didn't see the portrayal as contradictory -- rather it is multifaceted, as it should be, and this image of the Lion of Judah was apparent, too.
Whatever is received is received according to the mode of the receiver.
I found the movie addressed everything that was supposedly missing or weak in his critique, but perhaps he wanted everything spelled out explicitly rather than artistically and through association.
The real life figure who was evocative of Revelation’s triumphant Lion of Judah—who comforts, encourages, and shows the way—is rendered in the film as a docile, existentialist lamb led to slaughter.
I didn't see the portrayal as contradictory -- rather it is multifaceted, as it should be, and this image of the Lion of Judah was apparent, too.
Whatever is received is received according to the mode of the receiver.
The Hispanicization of the Uhmerican Church Continues
CNA/CWR: Christ is hope for the Church and the world, Archbishop Perez says at installation
During a February 18 Mass at the Cathedral Basilica of Sts. Peter and Paul in Philadelphia, Archbishop Nelson Perez was installed as the 14th bishop and 10th archbishop of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
A Needed Explanation
to defend the Establishment.
CWR Dispatch: What Is Synodality? by Bishop Robert Barron
In a synod, the point is discerning, not the will of the people, but the will of the Holy Spirit, for the Spirit in that context is sovereign, or in the language of Pope Francis, the “protagonist.”
"Whatever Pope Francis means by “synodality,” he quite clearly doesn’t mean a process of democratization, or putting doctrine up for a vote. He means, it seems to me, a structured conversation among all of the relevant ecclesial players—bishops, priests, and laity—for the sake of hearing the voice of the Spirit."
How is one to judge who is spiritually qualified among the laity to participate? And if it is not representational, or excludes those who should have authority among the laity, then of what use is it? What should a synod be discerning that they should not already be discerning individually, and if there is no heresy to reject, what sort of concerted action are they considering? Can ecclesial reform really be done by a snyod that mandates the creation of solutions but does not look to address internal problems that may have always been there?
CWR Dispatch: What Is Synodality? by Bishop Robert Barron
In a synod, the point is discerning, not the will of the people, but the will of the Holy Spirit, for the Spirit in that context is sovereign, or in the language of Pope Francis, the “protagonist.”
"Whatever Pope Francis means by “synodality,” he quite clearly doesn’t mean a process of democratization, or putting doctrine up for a vote. He means, it seems to me, a structured conversation among all of the relevant ecclesial players—bishops, priests, and laity—for the sake of hearing the voice of the Spirit."
How is one to judge who is spiritually qualified among the laity to participate? And if it is not representational, or excludes those who should have authority among the laity, then of what use is it? What should a synod be discerning that they should not already be discerning individually, and if there is no heresy to reject, what sort of concerted action are they considering? Can ecclesial reform really be done by a snyod that mandates the creation of solutions but does not look to address internal problems that may have always been there?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)