Catholics vs. Provos
By Diogenes (articles ) | July 05, 2006 11:18 AM
Some days ago Amy Welborn made reference to a Touchstone article wherein Austin Ruse gives an appreciative account of the development of the National Catholic Reporter's Vatican correspondent John Allen:
Allen has achieved something remarkable [Ruse says] and that is genuine dialogue among sometimes competing voices in the church. He has written often about the lamentable factions among the faithful, each with its own publications, conferences, sympathetic bishops, and so on. His observation is that these groups tend not to talk to each other, but to shout past each other.
Second. While there's no denying the "lamentable factions" in the Church, it doesn't seem to me that they "shout past each other." On both sides they -- or better, we -- manage to deliver most of our polemical letter-bombs to the right address. Nor is it a situation whereby the lack of trust can be removed by better communication. The more accurately each side learns the another's opinions, the clearer it is that its suspicions are merited.
Then-Cardinal Ratzinger's document Dominus Iesus serves as a kind of shibboleth here, because it forces one to take a stand on the question of what the Roman Catholic Church is in herself: either she's dispensable or she ain't.
Lots of self-identified RCs believe that, for the time being, the Roman Catholic Church might be the best option out there, but they're quite willing to consider jumping ship if she deteriorates in respects they deem important or if a better option presents itself. In their writings they indicate that their membership is conditional and provisional. Yet this very "provisionality" puts them outside the Church proper in the eyes of their antagonists, who (when we're on our best behavior) can only treat the Provos as "courtesy Catholics" -- like civilian visitors at an army base, they may be assigned a military rank as a courteous fiction, but it's a fiction for all that.
Are we too eager to exclude, too quick to judge? Well, you make the call. In virtually every issue of the National Catholic Reporter there are classified ads touting some totally bogus schismatic cyber-church ("holy orders open to all!"), as cheerfully as if it were a summer cottage for rent. If the folks at the NCR don't take their own faith seriously enough to see the problem, on what basis are the rest of us supposed to take their faith seriously? When a married woman has put her virtue up for sale, one might condole with her husband, but to congratulate him on his marriage would be complicity in fraud.
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 five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Our Fall Campaign
Progress toward our final 2013 goal ($19,491 to go, assuming receipt of matching funds):
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: Eleazar -
Jul. 06, 2006 8:13 AM ET USA
I also agree with Novak, but quickly come to the question, what to do about it? Allen and the “provos” are not going to take advice. In fact, they have been at it for so long that they think that they are the Church. The solution obviously includes prayer and support for faithful, orthodox bishops and priests. But my heart and soul are telling me that the Father is expecting action from the faithful remnant.
Posted by: -
Jul. 05, 2006 4:32 PM ET USA
I agree with Novak. In addition, I also question whether Allen is the best in the business. Too often, his interviews are tendentious. Moreover, when he begins to do theology, i.e., "interpret" what Pope Benedict means in certain of his statements, the result is basically a liberal "translation" of what the pope actually said. Perhaps he can ferret out certain items of information, but he would be advised to leave the hermeneutics to others.
Posted by: Lucius -
Jul. 05, 2006 12:46 PM ET USA
We have been living with an anti-church for some time. It's presence and strength is related to the unwillingness of Rome to discipline those who no longer believe with the Church. Unfortunately Bl John XXIII began this with his "medicine of mercy" policy: no one gets suspended,excommunicated etc. This reached a nadir (?) with Paul VI and continued with JP II.True mercy is beholden to the truth and there can be no mercy or charity without the truth. As Grissom of CSI remarked: truth is closure.