the Good News, elucidated
By Diogenes (articles ) | Nov 11, 2005
Few clergymen are better able to reduce thorny theological concepts to their pristine socialist simplicity than Bishop Thomas Gumbleton.
What is the reign of God? Well it means our being able to be fully alive as a human person. You know, I guess, if you wanted to put it in specifics, you could say for a hungry person the reign of God means food. For someone who's starving it would mean food. For someone who's thirsty it would mean drink. For someone who’s lonely it means love and friendship. The reign of God is when we become fully alive in all of our humanness and the fullness of the reign of God will happen at some point where every one of us will be fully alive and all of creation will come to its fulfillment.
And you thought it was, like, some big deal!
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Thomist -
Nov. 12, 2005 8:20 AM ET USA
The Bishop is simply another "purvey of self-centered worship", as Chuck Colson puts it. It sounds as though Joel Osteen writes his homilies.
Posted by: -
Nov. 11, 2005 10:41 PM ET USA
Nowhere in Bp. Gumbleton's view of the reign of God do we see active people. All the citizens of Gumbleton's description are needy, stand-around, apetite-driven folks whose needs could best be met by a welfare state manned (heh heh) by nurturing women. Is this a coincidence?
Posted by: Bill116 -
Nov. 11, 2005 6:35 PM ET USA
Before you condemn too heartily it might pay to review Isaiah 25. Seem I read somewhere that many famous Catholic theologians don't agree entirely on an exact definition of the "Kingdom of God" and what it encompasses. Some say it’s here now, some say is totally eschatological and some would argue for something that includes both.
Posted by: Janet Baker -
Nov. 11, 2005 6:26 PM ET USA
Why, oh why, when I read this, does the song "Age of Aquarius" seem to play in the background???
Posted by: Pseudodionysius -
Nov. 11, 2005 2:11 PM ET USA
I do think that -- sometimes -- the Holy Spirit moves the Holy See to leave some of these men in their posts to babble every more incoherently until their public pronouncements resemble the teacher figure in Peanuts cartoons that were rendered by a harmon mute on the end of a trumpet. Waa waa waa waa wa.
Posted by: -
Nov. 11, 2005 2:02 PM ET USA
Not to question your brilliance, Diogenes, but as part of the unwashed masses who depend upon the smart people to think for us, lately I have been wondering just why the paid thinkers have not solved the world's problems after soooo long? Modern society has never been worse: mass slaughter of the unborn, sodomites in the Holy Temple, pestilence, disease, euthanasia, and now scientists and theologians comtemplating eternity instead of the recent movement to recreate life. Please enlighten us.....
Posted by: patriot6908 -
Nov. 11, 2005 12:26 PM ET USA
Bishop Gumbleton is not the brightest candle on the cake, so his flickering opinions in the twilight of his life here with us will eventually just drip into the frosting. Like so many other cute, pop closet secularists (Curran, McBrien, Greely, Chittister, Grammick, ad absurdum), he's good for one quick round of "Happy Birthday" and then it's time to blow out the candles.
Posted by: Sir William -
Nov. 11, 2005 11:12 AM ET USA
So, Uncle Di - wanna head down to the pub for a beer & a ham sammich? We chat, become alive in our humanness and hail the reign of God.......or something.