It’s hitting the fan

It’s interesting that it’s moral conduct—in particular, active homosexuality—and not moral or theological teaching that puts the kibosh on communion and ecumenism: UPI Analysis: A rift worse than schism? The Anglicans have been consecrating bishops for years who think homosexuality is just great and who reject almost any Christian doctrine you care to mention. But it’s only when they consecrate an unrepentent practicing homosexual that ECUSA conservatives and Anglican primates really get serious and even Cardinal Kaspar thinks there’s a problem.

Maybe the explanation is that people today don’t really think words mean anything. A statement of doctrine can be explained or nuanced into almost anything. Someone who says “I’m an atheist” may be viewed as an anonymous Christian whose phrasing happens to be different from that traditionally used by the Church. But if substantive unity of doctrine becomes hard to pin down, then unity of practical conduct becomes a more important standard. The emphasis on practical conduct is clear in the attitude toward church/state relations currently dominant among Catholics—the state need not and probably should not recognize Catholicism as true, but it must conform to Catholic moral doctrine in what it does.

The response to the Robinson consecration suggests that such an attitude of relative indifference to belief has taken hold with regard to relations among Christian communities. To my mind that seems wrong. Christianity seems to me primarily a recognition of realities that affect the whole of life, including morality, rather than primarily a way to live. And however that may be—the parable of the Good Samaritan may suggest the contrary—goodness can’t be separated from truth. How can it be a problem for those who say “homosexuality is good” to become teachers and pastors only if they dare act on their beliefs?

3 thoughts on “It’s hitting the fan”

  1. The State “should not”
    The State “should not” declare Catholicism true?

    That is a violation of the Syllabus of Errors of Blessed Pius IX. The Syllabus is a morally binding document on Catholics, not just in America, but also in Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Israel, India and every other nation on Earth without exception. We are forbidden to accept such a state for our State, and are morally bound to convert the nation, and change the laws to make Catholicism the religion of the State…even if the effort literally takes thousands of years to accomplish.

    The thing that needs work on is how to change those laws and that state of the State without violating the civil and human rights of all non-Catholics, not even implicitly. It is imperative that we make America a Catholic State, but not in a fashion that has no substantial difference from Wahhabi Suuni Saudi Arabia, the Taliban-dominated Afghanistan, mostly Hindu India or the militant atheist “former” Soviet Union.

    Comments, please. Thank you.

  2. *If* such a thing could work
    *If* such a thing could work (and I’m not convinced it can), it would have to happen through explicitly entering the catechism as a rule for arbitrating common-law disputes.

    In systems based on English common law (such as ours) the charter/constitution takes precedence over statutes, and statutes take precedence over executive discretion and common law. Where there is no higher law disputes may be handled in civil court solely according to the common law.

    I don’t know how it would work in systems based on Roman law, such as in continental Europe. Roman law gives greater discretion to executive authority, even above statute law.

  3. Yes, it can work. The thing
    Yes, it can work. The thing is to, as I said before, fashion it in such a way that the civil and human rights of non-Catholics are not violated.

    As a reference work, I would point to the book “The Framework of a Christian State” by Fr. Edward Cahill, S. J., published by Roman Catholic Books of Ft. Collins, Colorado. There are some points I disagree with him on – he writes from an Irish perspective – but on the whole, he makes a good case.


Leave a Comment