"Identity Politics" and "Gang-banging" in Catholicism
#11
(08-08-2013, 08:47 AM)guacamole Wrote:
(08-08-2013, 08:35 AM)2Vermont Wrote: One question:  did we have these divisions before Vatican II?  Because although a simplistic response, I do believe that the division in our Church stems from Vatican II.

sweetheart, there have been divisions in the church since the first century.  have you read the epistles of st. paul?  the acts of the apostles?

most recently, the gallicans v. the ultramontanes.  a bit earlier, jesuits v. jansenists.  and so on, and so forth.

The problem with that analogy is today it's heretics opposing different heretics.

tim
Reply
#12
(08-08-2013, 08:02 AM)Tim Wrote: I wrote a bit on this in a comment in another thread, so yes I agree. What's worse in some cases I see the word catholic becoming the modifier as in catholic Liberal or any other. But this has always been with us just not as pronounced. I can remember families in those long ago ghetto parishes that were walled off from the rest of the Catholics because we didn't practice the faith stringently enough. Kids can pick up on this real quick when they climb three flights of stairs and knock on the door and the mom answers the door and the look says "oh no Satan's son is here for my perfect son". Pope Francis would have seen them as bona fide Pelagians, yet  we saw them as shallow and confused believing the letter of the law but frightened by other Catholics.

Today it's way worse because our society has learned to slice and dice into tiny sub groups. In fact many of the raging debates here are political and not really religious.The Libertarians see the distributists as commies and socialists. The free trader neo-cons see them as socialists. The liberals avoid the truth and believe they all lack charity, and on and on. I mean we had Fr. Neuhaus with access to "W" spouting neo-con dogmas on EWTN, and now we have Fr. Sirico of the Lord Acton Institute spouting all manner of nonsense, and this is key ignoring that free traders are one and all useful idiots for the Dynastic Families. (read satanists)

Next we have the Saul Alinsky wing of the church, note small c, the liberals have no idea how this one satanist has changed the church into another NGO. They don't know Msgr Egan from Chicago in Mundelein Seminary was known as Alinsky's disciple. These liberals were never taught that Catholics can not be part of these politics because it's utopian, denying original sin and by extension Our Lord Jesus Christ's  passion and death on the Cross.

Some have asked why I don't describe myself as a trad or such. Because when I was formed there was no need for that word, and I believe in future when this goes away it won't be necessary anymore. The TLM is the best catechesis one can get, then imagine kids that go daily 6 days a week for eight years. That's about a trillion times better than reading councils and encyclicals etc.Catholicism isn't as complicated as trads make it out to be. Jesus came at a time almost as evil as now, and he taught in parables not in Universities. He went to the unwashed and uneducated, and they got it. It was the educated that reasoned that couldn't get over themselves which did not and became Talmudists. There is a real lesson in there somewhere.

tim

Interesting read. Chicago as a whole has bad a great influence on the North American church, just off the top of my head Alinsky, the communist Party of America, the Chicago 7....  What unique environment was there, other than the size of the labour force that prompted this? Coincidently I believe even Anton LaVey is from Chicago. And of course the seat of Americas most infamous cardinal.
Reply
#13
(08-08-2013, 09:05 AM)Tim Wrote: The problem with that analogy is today it's heretics opposing different heretics.

there will always be differences.  what remains constant is man's fallen nature and its consequences.
Reply
#14
Guacamole that's true dat ! But today it's worse than at anytime except before the flood. Sodom and Gommorah were two  little cities and today it's every city, and the depravity isn't just one kind anymore. Here in Chi-raq they arrest for bestiality, and cruelty to animals in the process. You heard it here first..

tim
Reply
#15
(08-08-2013, 09:30 AM)Tim Wrote: Guacamole that's true dat ! But today it's worse than at anytime except before the flood. Sodom and Gommorah were two  little cities and today it's every city, and the depravity isn't just one kind anymore. Here in Chi-raq they arrest for bestiality, and cruelty to animals in the process. You heard it here first..

yes.  but i really wish people here would stop focusing almost exclusively on sins of the flesh, as bad as they are.  there are so many others -- and not so coincidentally, these unmentioned sins (anger, detraction, gossip, refusal of mercy, etc.) are rife among rad trads.

there is a saying in the sayings of the desert fathers that i've been trying to find to post here.  i think it's in the "i's".  the monks foresee that the men of our time will be greater than they or their forebears, despite the fact that we will not accomplish works as great as they.  in fact, we will not accomplish any works at all.  instead, they said, we will endure temptation.  that's it.
Reply
#16
No, I don't see it.  And no, I have never seen that.

I do see, however, that I personally get "put into a camp" when I merely defend the faith without appeal to a 'gang" or a "group."  Sacred Tradition is not a gang and is not "identity politics."  The Church is universal because Christ is universal.

There is actually no justification for any Catholic of any rank or function in the Church, including the Pope, feeling apologetic about the Faith.  None whatsoever.  That includes a fear of being labeled for non-offensive defense or explanation of the Faith.  The Truth offends now, however, to a level like never before, and that's what has changed.
Reply
#17
Guacamole,
I hope you find that and post. The reason sins of the flesh are so much spoken of is Our Lady at Fatima said most go to hell for those. That means the others not so much. The sexual revolution is what sets us apart from our fore bearers. We before sinned but because there were natural consequences, a baby, snuck around and kept it hidden, and it was infrequent because women understood the consequences. Today it is brazen disregard for sexual morality all the way around the block.

tim 
Reply
#18
(08-08-2013, 10:04 AM)Miriam_M Wrote: I do see, however, that I personally get "put into a camp" when I merely defend the faith without appeal to a 'gang" or a "group."  Sacred Tradition is not a gang and is not "identity politics."  The Church is universal because Christ is universal.

I've definitely seen this. Not so much the other stuff, because I tend to stay away from debates in whch both sides are traditionalists, but in daily life I've been on the receiving end of the dismissive attitudes. It'll make you feel defensive about whatever buzzword is being used, pretty quickly.
Reply
#19
(08-08-2013, 10:04 AM)Miriam_M Wrote: I do see, however, that I personally get "put into a camp" when I merely defend the faith without appeal to a 'gang" or a "group."  Sacred Tradition is not a gang and is not "identity politics."  The Church is universal because Christ is universal.

"Sacred Tradition" isn't a group, but Catholics are, and it's my experience that within that larger group are smaller groups that like to beat each other up, metaphorically speaking. The problems aren't with the religion; it's with people.

Whether you put yourself into a group or not, what I'm saying is that others will put you into groups. Mind you, I think some groups actually  exist and there's a good reason for calling them out, talking about the differences, etc. I even think that various groups tend to use words and phrases in a stereotypical fashion (some of which I find quite annoying. I'm esp, annoyed by trads who speak/write as if they're living in hte 19th c. and writing for the back of a Holy Card or something). That isn't the problem. The problem is the quick, E-Z judgments made about who belongs in what groups, typically based on things like a few uses of buzzwords, the dehumanizing and the ignoring of the real arguments the other is trying to make, the great willingness to have a "them" against which to pit ourselves, etc.


Reply
#20
There's a lot more methods to distribute information than there was even 20 years ago.  Consider before when you had to write everything by hand, versus now you can type things out, place'm on a web site, and send out a link to your contact list.

It seems as if there's more problems, but I would posit that a lot of the issues have always been around, we just have more visibility of them.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)