MikeLigalig.com

Michael Coren, Special to National Post | 12/11/13 12:01 AM ET



In a new book on Catholicism's future, Michael Coren writes that those who demand the Church 'reform' are really calling for its destruction.
Christopher Furlong/Getty Images


When Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires, became Pope Francis in March 2013, there were almost 6,000 journalists in Rome to cover the Papal election. Some of them reported on the conclave with expertise and empathy, but others — either out of ignorance or just some jaundiced agenda — insisted on asking the same questions again and again. Is the Church going to change; will the new Pope be flexible; is Catholicism going to adapt to the times and alter its teaching on same-sex marriage, abortion, contraception, female ordination, celibate clergy, divorce, and so on.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=76615.0

Many of the underpinnings to the questions those journalists in Rome and their international counterparts insisted on asking were staggeringly naïve, but in all honesty, they did represent the views of many ordinary non-Catholics and even numerous “sort of ” or cafeteria Catholics out there. Answering them can be a little frustrating at times because we would hope, perhaps naively, that these critics would have at least a basic understanding of Catholic theology and apologetics. But it is nevertheless, and largely because of this baleful ignorance, that an informed response is absolutely necessary. At the risk of sounding banal or facile, the Pope is the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church is the Roman Catholic Church. There are major commentators and influential pundits who seem to want the Church to be anything other than Catholic and the Pope to be anything other than Papal. Sorry and all that, but the Pope cannot change certain aspects of teaching anymore than he can suddenly decide that Christ is not the Messiah or God not God. It’s not a question of changing with the times; good Lord, the times can be bad just as an idea or a person can be bad. Catholic teaching is not the same as a dinner party opinion or a water-cooler suggestion, and just because it might be difficult to accept does not mean it is impossible to justify or vital to believe. Change, then, is often a euphemism for compromise, if not downright surrender.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=76615.0

Mark Davies is the Bishop of Shrewsbury in Britain and is one of that country’s most dynamic Catholic leaders. He had fascinating things to say about all this in the May of 2013, when he addressed the Union of Catholic Mothers. The Bishop said that Pope Francis had become “the focus of fascination” in the press because of three factors: his “evident goodness,” his “informal style,” and his “Christian simplicity.” Because of this, he continued, the media assume that all sorts of changes and reforms will shortly take place. That, he said, was certainly not the case. The Holy Father “leads us not towards abandoning the demands of the faith, as some commentators might hope or suppose, but directly to those demands in their most radical, beautiful and uncompromising essence. I can’t remember how many times I have been asked, everywhere from radio stations to petrol stations, whether I liked the new Pope. To the Catholic mind this is a strange question as the loyalty we owe to the Pope is not based upon personal ‘likes’ or ‘dislikes.’ My invariable reply is that ‘We love the Pope whoever he is.’ This may seem just as puzzling to my questioners. Those long experienced in the media warn of something we may already see taking shape and will require of us the very supernatural perspective Pope Francis urges. They tell of how a public personality can be built up in the media. In this case, it is based on the Pope’s evident goodness and an informal style which is then contrasted even with his most saintly predecessors. Expectations are subtly or less subtly raised that this is the man who will change the Catholic faith itself in accordance with the commentator’s own wishes and agenda. I noticed only last week a concern being expressed in our national media that our Holy Father is proving as ‘hard-line’ as his predecessors. We know, as Catholics, that the loyalty we owe to the Pope is greater than the passing loyalties people give to political figures or celebrity personalities.” A roaringly direct and disarming explanation and analysis of Catholic obligations and beliefs, and media and public misunderstanding and confusion.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=76615.0

Being loved, however, is not the same as being relevant. We are often told that Catholicism is not relevant, being a prerequisite for the demand that it changes. This is sloppy reasoning. The Church is more relevant than ever, in that it’s often the sole voice crying out for genuine justice, but it’s less loved than it might be precisely because of its acute relevance. A small but telling case in point: Have you noticed that whenever Hollywood brings out yet another movie about the devil, the man standing up to old Nick and giving Satan a kick between the horns is never — with the greatest respect — a United Methodist minister, never a Unitarian, never even an Episcopalian!

No, it’s always a Roman Catholic priest. So, when the going gets tough, the toughs get Catholic. That heroic priest defying Lucifer and all of his works is seldom lovable, but he’s always relevant. Boy, is he relevant. This, of course, is the same Hollywood that routinely marginalizes, mocks and even abuses Catholicism and its clergy and followers in its movies — those, at least, don’t mention the devil at all.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=76615.0

Many of the people most critical of the Church and most vociferous in demanding change and a different future play the moral prince in public while living as ethical paupers in private. It’s more than mere hypocrisy and directs us to a malfunction, an arrogant presumption, at the very heart of demands for Church change. The fiercest critics insist on change because they are convinced of their own righteousness, but refuse to question whether their moral certainties are anything more than projections of their own desires and insecurities. They claim to be looking down on Catholicism from the intellectual high ground, yet more often are looking up to something they cannot understand and have no intentions of trying to do so. As I said earlier, when critics or even occasional friends of the Church call for change, they are seldom speaking of theological reforms. Actually, theology doesn’t play a major role, perhaps not any genuine role at all, in the general attack on Catholicism. Theologians might regret and dispute this, but it’s an absolute, I’m afraid. It’s perhaps regrettable, but certainly undeniable, that very few people are rushing to the morning newspaper to find out the latest pronouncement from a theologian. “Have you seen the evening news, dear?” “Yes, amazing stuff. An obscure German theologian has demanded a rethink of Thomas Aquinas’s early writings!”

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=76615.0

what a terrific article.  incisive.  this inspires me more to hew close to the basics of my faith, come what may.  hello, there, fr chic and lorenz!

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=76615.0