Thread: Should Christians be held to higher standards? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025200
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
There is an article in The Guardian written by Bishop Tom Wright called They may be hypocritical about sex, but is no one else guilty?.

He argues: "If the church is hypocritical about sex, the media are hypocritical about hypocrisy".

Now I'm a huge NT Wright fan but something about this article smells off. I like what he says at the end about the nature of Christian claims but what of the idea that Christians should be held to higher standards than others?

My primate (Archbishop Phillip Aspinall), certainly thinks so.

NT Wright gives the impression he doesn't think so in this article.

What do you think?

Should Christians be held to higher standards? If so, why?

And what does it mean when we don't/cant? Have we not received the gifts of the Spirit? Have we conformed to the patterns of the world too much and not been successful in the renewing of our minds through the Grace of God?

Where does that leave us?


(Lotsa questions I know. You're welcome to answer any or all [Big Grin] )
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
I think it depends on what our message is.

We need to find a way to be clearer that the standards we uphold are standards to which we strive, and from which we fall short, but toward which we continue to strive by God's grace. Instead, Christians have too often given the impression that our standards are lines no one should cross, and if you do, well... Many people have felt condemned - or worse, been overtly condemned - because they don't live up to the Church's standards.

If our message were one of forgiveness, healing, grace, and acceptance, we might be less subject to accusations of hypocrisy. We're seen as trying to hold others to standards we don't keep ourselves. People rightly call Christians on that when they see it.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Should we be held to "higher" standard - in the sense of more stringent than others? No, we are still human, and Christianity is not about being better than others.

It is about being held to different standards. And according to those standards, we should be held up.

The problems in the Catholic church (especially), are that they famously and publically hold up celibacy as an important standard to be upheld, and yet so many of the priests are failing in this and using their position to abuse others, expressing their sexuality despite their own standards.

Actually, everyone should be held up against the standards they proclaim (or rather, the groups they claim affiliation with proclaim) as a minimum.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
What Schroedinger's Cat said.

The Catholic Church's teaching on sex and sexuality is deeply counter-cultural in the West (and in other places too). It is natural that when Catholics and particularly Catholic clergy fail to live up to that teaching others will be properly critical. I think we should be held to the standards we set ourselves. If that means we feel the heat when we don't then that's just tough.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
"For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

There are issues about the way we judge and how measured we are. I've been arguing this on a different thread.

I think we do better to write ourselves into the script rather than become too abstract in our proclamations. "I do believe this is the right standard (for these reasons) and personally I have great difficulty in living up to it (for these reasons, maybe because of this experience)."

Standards proclaimed within a faith community have implications of submission for members. Standards proclaimed to folks outside the community are an offering, best made on an open hand, recognising the challenge which comes with them. It's the meek who will inherit the earth; not so sure about those who are sure they know "what's what" better than others and so pronounce "from on high".

Actually, I think the "outside" standard is a better approach to folks inside the community as well. But that raises other issues.

[ 09. March 2013, 11:04: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on :
 
Posted by Evensong

quote:
Should Christians be held to higher standards? If so, why?
Yes if we insist on being the moral guardians of society and/or that Christians have the monopoly on ethics. Having said that I think that being human we have the propensity to fuck things up, as well as the ability to go the extra mile. As Christians we have (various) standards and the habit of not matching up to them. We should be held to the standards that we teach with the caveat that we should my well make a balls up of it along the way. Genuine humility goes a long way when it comes to morals and ethics.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
I quite like Wright's last sentence about the Church being made up of 'prodigal sons' who have come to realise their Father still loves them despite everything.
However, can personal failings can be equated to the horrendous institutional failings that have come to light in the catholic church ?

On the vexed subject of child abuse . Considering it is now widely accepted that abused minors can grow up to abuse others, then any Christian institution knowingly harbouring abusers can quite rightly expect to be vilified for not holding to a higher standard .
Not sure that bringing the savile scandal in as a counter-argument helps much either . Most of us have already made a calculated guess as to how came by the *vampire's bite* as a youngster.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
What Schroedinger's Cat said.

The Catholic Church's teaching on sex and sexuality is deeply counter-cultural in the West (and in other places too). It is natural that when Catholics and particularly Catholic clergy fail to live up to that teaching others will be properly critical. I think we should be held to the standards we set ourselves.
What a bizarre concept. The Hell's Angels should be judged by how much mahem they can cause? Absurd. They are judged by the standards that we hold for all humans, not by the standard that each human decides to hold for him/her self. There may be some additional constraints we place on ourselves, either for professional or personal moral reasons -- we may choose to be Nazarites, if you will. But the core set of expectations continues to be those that we hold everyone to.

While it is true that not everyone agrees to the same code, the net effect of that is that those who live outside the norms of society are still held to that same standard and are judged accordingly. Were it not so, it would truly be strange for people who disagree with the current norms to work to change them.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
We may all be sinners, but we are not all rapists. I don't believe that celibacy drives people to sexual abuse.

If people 'fell short of standards' by masturbating - that is one thing. But this 'we're all sinners' thing seems to be fielded in response to more extreme 'falling short of standards'.

I have no partner, it hasn't driven me to sexually harass my colleagues.

Similarly, we might accuse the pope emeritus of giving evidence of some level of personal vanity - in what he chose to do about the papal vestments when he was in office. But I would be much more likely to call him a hypocrite and unfit for office, if he had insisted on vestments he liked despite they having been produced by illegal child labour. He didn't do this, and thus I view his being a little too concerned with his appearance as a human being falling a little short of the standards he aspired to.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Wright's article was a nice, gentle polemic (if there is such a thing), but I'm not sure he even describes hypocrisy correctly. Hypocrisy isn't failing to live up to your ethical standards: it's pretending you do live up to them, while you denounce other people who don't. Hypocrisy isn't having a plank in your eye: it's trying to remove the speck in your brother's eye before you remove the plank from your own.
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
When I first read the question, my immediate answer was: "Yes."

Then churchgeek wrote:
quote:
I think it depends on what our message is.
After reading his/her post, I realize I have more to think about.

One thing I do feel strongly about: Christians SHOULD be held to a higher standard when they are the sort who ...

(a) are prone to demonize or consign to hell those who disagree with them or fail to live up to their spoken standards. For some reason, this tendency seems to be most extreme when directed at those who disagree about matters relating to sex and reproduction.

(b) are constantly blathering on about their monopoly of truth and righteousness, often brandishing this or that Bible verse, or citing the teachings of "one true church" or other, as though that automatically made all doubt and disagreement irrelevant or (worse) evil. In this view, all sins are doubled: the sin itself, and the additional sin of "not listening to us" or "rejecting our teaching." I include many conservative evangelical leaders (especially in the U.S.) and Roman Catholic establishment figures in this group. (Fundamentalist Muslim leaders and devotees, too, though they are not included in the OP.)

c) are quick to rationalize (and downplay) bad actions among their own with glib references to the awful universality of human sinfulness and appeals to "pray for him/her/me." Recovering alcoholics are encouraged to examine their consciences, accept responsibility for their actions, make amends, and work hard, one day at a time, to become a different person. Not to whine about "I have a disease." It works.

[ 09. March 2013, 13:52: Message edited by: roybart ]
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
What Schroedinger's Cat said.

The Catholic Church's teaching on sex and sexuality is deeply counter-cultural in the West (and in other places too). It is natural that when Catholics and particularly Catholic clergy fail to live up to that teaching others will be properly critical. I think we should be held to the standards we set ourselves.
What a bizarre concept. The Hell's Angels should be judged by how much mayhem they can cause? Absurd.
I did add "as a minimum". The Hells Angels are also a part of the society, and so the standards that the society puts on them are also expected.

This does not mean that we should always obey the law, it does mean that we should be subject to the laws of the land. If we break those, we can expect sanction.

Hells Angels also have standards - loyalty to chapter, for example. It is fair to judge them by these standards.

the thing is, we are all members of multiple groups, and it is the minimum standards across all of them that we can be expected to live up to. At work, I am a member of "Professional Software Developers" which has a set of standards by which I should live up to. When not at home, in any relevant work, I should also live up to those standards. I do not expect others to live up the same standards when they are hacking together web sites.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
What Schroedinger's Cat said.

The Catholic Church's teaching on sex and sexuality is deeply counter-cultural in the West (and in other places too). It is natural that when Catholics and particularly Catholic clergy fail to live up to that teaching others will be properly critical. I think we should be held to the standards we set ourselves. If that means we feel the heat when we don't then that's just tough.
Interestingly, the Catholic Church - or any other Church for that matter - has not always been counter-cultural in certain of its standards, of course. That would appear to be a fairly recent development. It's only as recently as my mother's generation that sex before marriage was truly regarded by society as fornication; and homosexuality illegal. Church and society fairly shook hands on these things, at least legally and on the face of things.

Whereas now the Church which maintains the traditional stance is isolated from the new popular spirit which no longer condemns these things - or not in the same way. So not only does the Church no longer receive the approbation of society when it speaks against the new morality, but is held to have doubly condemned itself when caught in the act of the very behaviour the Church itself condemns, but which society views as harmless.

For me, it's a case of Christians being called to higher standards of moral behaviour, but on the understanding that we don't deceive ourselves when it comes to confessing the failure, repentance and reparation. These last three things should mark out the true Christian every bit as much as striving for perfection.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
As mentioned, society determines minimum standards. If one professes higher standards, one should indeed be held to them. If one is the guardian of any standard, one should be held all the more tightly to those standards.
That we are imperfect beings who, some, will fail is a reason not an excuse.
 
Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :
 
We can't win.

If we see practices which we think are wrong, not only might we feel it appropriate to speak out, but also, society in general expects us to speak out.
And then, if we (or some of us) do that which most of us agree is wrong, then the sky falls in ...
So remaining silent is seen as wrong, while if we speak out, we are accused of hypocrisy ...

but there are a couple of bright spots.

If we speak out on matters where most people will agree with us, then there are some Brownie points to be gained. (At this point one is reminded that the Bible says more about financial than about sexual malpractice.)

And a happy thought - we probably enjoy more public esteem in this matter than the average politician ...
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
We can't win. <snip>
So remaining silent is seen as wrong, while if we speak out, we are accused of hypocrisy ...
sigh
Not how it works. It is not that people are not allowed to fail their standards.
It is how one attempts to fix this that makes a hypocrite or not, understandable or not.
It is not the act of speaking out. It is that in doing so, one paints a target on oneself. The best defense is to have the fewest missiles fired be able to lock on to said target. i.e., don't fuck up and pretend you haven't. Or repeatedly do so and pretend asking forgiveness each time is acceptable.
My original comment on this thread was in no way limited to Christians.


BTW, one of the reasons Christians have the hypocrite label applied is not failure of a rule, but failure of principle. The Phelps clan being a prime example. That all Christians often get tarred with the same brush is unfortunate.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
I don't know what "held to" means, who is doing the "holding to" with what effects if the Christian doesn't measure up?

But if we advocate a way life, a set if principles, you know - love your neighbor, be good to your enemies, repent and turn away from your sin, hang out with the social rejects as equally valuable as the socially desireable, don't get hung up on accumulating possessions, take care of those with no family to watch out for them such as widows - if we study these things weekly for decades and strive at least some of the time to live in accordance with them, shouldn't our lives show some difference from the lives of people who don't strive to follow these principles?
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I think one of the core beliefs of Christianity is that people fail. This does not mean that we should therefore not hold people to standards. It means that the standards are even more important, BUT we all struggle to maintain these standards.

One of the issues with the Catholic Church problems, is that they espouse a claim that celibacy is a virtue; that clergy are celibate; and that this celibacy is something reasonable and achievable. The evidence is that this enforced celibacy simply hides the sexual outlets of Catholic clergy, and the failure of many clergy to practice celibacy is hushed up.

The thing is, if you hold celibacy as a critical part of clerical discipline, and if you say that this includes not abusing people in your care, then failing to achieve this should be treated as a failure to uphold the expected standards, and should be removed from the clergy. Yes there is forgiveness, but is you have certain standards for particular positions, you have to enforce this.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
So not abusing children and not concealing, enabling and protecting those who do is a "Higher Standard"? I think it's an everyday standard that everyone is obliged to meet.

This is similar to the rhetorical device that when failures are pointed out, to pretend that it's a charge of being imperfect, and well, nobody is perfect.
 
Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
...One of the issues with the Catholic Church problems, is that they espouse a claim that celibacy is a virtue; that clergy are celibate; and that this celibacy is something reasonable and achievable. The evidence is that this enforced celibacy simply hides the sexual outlets of Catholic clergy, and the failure of many clergy to practice celibacy is hushed up.

......
Since we seem to be slithering into comment on the RCC, I can't help noticing that:
we seem to have a mixture of two issues here.
One is the rule that requires clergy to be celibate.
And the other is sexual abuse by clergy and the possibility of cover-ups.
These are related to an extent in that sexual energy may force an unhealthy outlet if no healthy outlet is available; but this is the case only to an extent. It's clear that abusive sexual activities sometimes can and do occur even when non-abusive outlets are available. Married clergy can go seriously off the rails, as the Anglican church knows well; and there have been cover-ups in the Anglican church too.

And on the other hand, there are RCC clergy (a majority, I assume) who have been and remain celibate and certainly have never sexually abused anyone. So for them, celibacy is achievable (maybe reasonable for some and not for others).

Not that I see any virtue in celibacy per se, though I doubt that the RCC would seek my advice on the matter.

[/tangent]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
[W]e might accuse the pope emeritus of giving evidence of some level of personal vanity - in what he chose to do about the papal vestments when he was in office. [...] I view his being a little too concerned with his appearance as a human being falling a little short of the standards he aspired to.
Why assume this was personal vanity at all? It doesn't seem to fit with the character those who know him have described: he's pretty well known for his humility and lack of vanity.

What he chose to wear as the Pope - or as a priest at the altar - is just as likely to be about what he thinks of the dignity and importance of the office as it is about personal fashion sense or aggrandisement. Probably more so.
 
Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[QUOTE]....BTW, one of the reasons Christians have the hypocrite label applied is not failure of a rule, but failure of principle. The Phelps clan being a prime example. ...
It does depend on the definition of "hypocrite", a charge I would not level against the Phelps clan without some evidence that they actually practiced that which they attack. Plenty of other charges I might bring against them ...

quote:
.... That all Christians often get tarred with the same brush is unfortunate.
Well, at least we can agree on that.
 
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :
 
Skimmed the article - seems to be a standard attempt to dilute criticism by broadening the focus to as many others as possible. As though there is a finite amount of wickedness. There isn't - my old mum would have skewered that arguement "Two wrongs don't make a (w)right"
(Sorry - it seemed to good to be passed up)
 
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :
 
quote:
He didn't do this, and thus I view his being a little too concerned with his appearance as a human being falling a little short of the standards he aspired to.
That is ridiculous. If the pope, by restoring vestments proper to the office of the pope, is vain, then similarly every bishop is vain when he uses/wears the items appropriate to his office. Nothing Pope Benedict did with regard to papal vesture smacks of personal vanity.

[ 10. March 2013, 00:05: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[qb] [QUOTE]....BTW, one of the reasons Christians have the hypocrite label applied is not failure of a rule, but failure of principle. The Phelps clan being a prime example. ...
It does depend on the definition of "hypocrite", a charge I would not level against the Phelps clan without some evidence that they actually practiced that which they attack. Plenty of other charges I might bring against them ...

Hypocrite in that they espouse a religion which is supposedly based on love yet they preach hate. In that Jesus embraced sinners, they reject those they think sin.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
What Schroedinger's Cat said.

The Catholic Church's teaching on sex and sexuality is deeply counter-cultural in the West (and in other places too). It is natural that when Catholics and particularly Catholic clergy fail to live up to that teaching others will be properly critical. I think we should be held to the standards we set ourselves.
What a bizarre concept. The Hell's Angels should be judged by how much mahem they can cause? Absurd. They are judged by the standards that we hold for all humans, not by the standard that each human decides to hold for him/her self. There may be some additional constraints we place on ourselves, either for professional or personal moral reasons -- we may choose to be Nazarites, if you will. But the core set of expectations continues to be those that we hold everyone to.

While it is true that not everyone agrees to the same code, the net effect of that is that those who live outside the norms of society are still held to that same standard and are judged accordingly. Were it not so, it would truly be strange for people who disagree with the current norms to work to change them.

--Tom Clune
Tom, I'm sorry that I didn't make what I was saying clear enough. The "we" to whom I was referring was the a Catholic Church. What I meant was that if we - the Catholic Church - set ourselves standards that are so counter-cultural and we fail to meet them, we can hardly complain if we are judged harshly by that culture - not only according to that culture's standards but by those we have set ourselves.
 
Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
...Hypocrite in that they espouse a religion which is supposedly based on love yet they preach hate. In that Jesus embraced sinners, they reject those they think sin.
Well, by your definition of Christianity and mine, yes. But I hadn't heard that Phelps & Co preach Christian love by any definition which you or I might accept. So they could be true to their own standards.

AIUI the common definition of hypocrisy (which, I think, literally means "acting" in a theatre sense) is preaching one thing and doing another.

So, it depends on definitions. Which is where we came in.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
I've screwed up the OP.

My main question is:

With the gift of the Spirit, should Christians not be able to live up to ethical standards better than others?
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
He argues: "If the church is hypocritical about sex, the media are hypocritical about hypocrisy". Now I'm a huge NT Wright fan but something about this article smells off. I like what he says at the end about the nature of Christian claims but what of the idea that Christians should be held to higher standards than others? My primate (Archbishop Phillip Aspinall), certainly thinks so. NT Wright gives the impression he doesn't think so in this article. What do you think? Should Christians be held to higher standards? If so, why?
First, the article by +Wright is not about whether Christian should be held to higher standards, and neither is the quote Evensong has selected. That's just Evensong mistaking the educational 'mini-sermon' at the end for the main point. Second, concerning what the article is actually discussing - the media being the pot that calls the kettle Church black - the article is spot on. Money quote: "The media want to be the guardians of public morality, but some people still see the church that way. Very well, it must be pulled down from its perch to make way for its secular successor." Hear, hear. Third, the article uses a wrong definition of "hypocrisy", and so do most people here, but we have gone through that on another current thread at length. The Samuel Johnson quote from Wikipedia sums up that point.

Since however the discussion has focused on Evensong's question (rather than +Wright's main concern), I will play. No, Christians should not be held to higher moral standards. Rather, the moral standards to which everybody will be held - by God - are much higher than many people think. And Christians, unlike most and certainly unlike the post-Christians of the West, have sufficient insight into that and do on occasion still express that insight. Well, make that RCs rather than Christians; this is not really true anymore for everybody who is called Christian due to a valid baptism. It is true that certain additional moral obligations arise from not being ignorant or wrong-headed about God, like going to (RC) mass each Sunday. But this is hardly the focus of this little morality play. As usual, the only thing anybody ever thinks about is sex. Well, perhaps people can plead reduced culpability on accounts of being invincibly ignorant, but their acts as such will all be judged by the very same standard on Judgement Day. And I wish everybody, including myself, God's mercy on that one. We are going to need it.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
quote:
He didn't do this, and thus I view his being a little too concerned with his appearance as a human being falling a little short of the standards he aspired to.
That is ridiculous. If the pope, by restoring vestments proper to the office of the pope, is vain, then similarly every bishop is vain when he uses/wears the items appropriate to his office. Nothing Pope Benedict did with regard to papal vesture smacks of personal vanity.
Whether you agree with my view of his choice of vestments or not, you are rather missing the point of my original post. Which was there is a difference between falling short of high standards and criminal and or civilly actionable conduct.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
One is the rule that requires clergy to be celibate.
And the other is sexual abuse by clergy and the possibility of cover-ups.
These are related to an extent in that sexual energy may force an unhealthy outlet if no healthy outlet is available; but this is the case only to an extent.
This sort of statement really pisses me off - and has next to no evidence to back it up. Lots of people live without a sexual partner without engaging in sexual abuse. Abuse is not caused by celibacy. The vast majority of sexual abuse is carried out by people with other available sexual outlets. The percentage of celibate priests who are known to have engaged in abusive behaviour is, if anything, slightly lower than the percentage of the non-priest male population.

There are various arguments against a celibate priesthood - but this is a total red herring.

[ 10. March 2013, 10:57: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
What Adeodatus said.

Francis Spufford's recent book 'unapologetic' was very helpful for me in this area, in differentiating between religions of Orthopraxy - for example Judeism and Islam - where with effort, one may be righteous through the observation (_doing_) of a complex set of ethical codes; and Christianity which he differentiates as Othodox, since what matters (as well as those codes) is the spirit in which one obeys, or does not obey, them.

As Christians know, this means an apparently benign act can be malicious, and v-v; it also means that the bar is set insuperably high, and that outside certain 'holiness' movements (which as a Methodist I guess I might have more sympathy for than I do - Wesley was found about here) most people accept that almost total and continual failure will be our lot.

This changes church into (to paraphrase Spufford) a club-for-the-terminally-fucked - and places right emphasis on our moralising as describing the _target_. Our trajectory and rate of travel are something else altogether, and in my limited experience, themselves more the subject of God's grace and the indwelling of the spirit.

If we could get this message out, it would help a lot. I could be enthusiastic about that kind of evangelism, because for once I wholeheartedly believe in it.

This is not saying 'the church should do no better regarding child abusers' - viz trajectory. But it is, unfortunately, saying 'within the church there will always be child abusers'. Everything else must be a lie.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
The percentage of celibate priests who are known to have engaged in abusive behaviour is, if anything, slightly lower than the percentage of the non-priest male population.
Were I a member of the RCC I wouldn't be especially encouraged by that statement . If this organisation wishes to restore it's credibility then, in my books, the percentage of celibate priests engaged in abuse needs to be zero.

[ 10. March 2013, 12:14: Message edited by: rolyn ]
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
I really don't think 'zero' is ever going to happen.

I have kids. I hope there are no abusers on their school staff. I'm very much in favour of the procedural measures used to protect them. But to insist there would never be an abusing teacher is to radically underestimate the ubiquity of sin, and to radically overestimate the power of right procedures.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, to think that zero can be achieved would suggest that a foolproof method of filtering out paedophiles and hebephiles is available. I doubt if this is correct, since many institutions find abusers in their midst.

What can be changed is covering up, and passing the trash, as it has been known in the US public school system. Of course, this kind of covering up can be rooted out, and presumably, is being in many kinds of institutions.
 
Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
One is the rule that requires clergy to be celibate.
And the other is sexual abuse by clergy and the possibility of cover-ups.
These are related to an extent in that sexual energy may force an unhealthy outlet if no healthy outlet is available; but this is the case only to an extent.
This sort of statement really pisses me off - and has next to no evidence to back it up. Lots of people live without a sexual partner without engaging in sexual abuse. Abuse is not caused by celibacy. The vast majority of sexual abuse is carried out by people with other available sexual outlets. The percentage of celibate priests who are known to have engaged in abusive behaviour is, if anything, slightly lower than the percentage of the non-priest male population.

There are various arguments against a celibate priesthood - but this is a total red herring.
Sorry DT, but I have to say you have pissed me off somewhat.
If you look at my original post you will find that it is a reply to a post by Schroedinger's Cat, in while said feline made the point you complain about.
And I went on to point out (in the bit you have omitted) that a majority of a celibate priesthood do not sexually abuse anyone. Which is the point you have also made.

It is probably a good idea, before you criticise the substance of a post, to read it.
 
Posted by lilyswinburne (# 12934) on :
 
The reporting of the pedophilia (and other) scandals benefits the greater society at large.

The cover-up of the scandals hurts society.

Media +1
Church -1

It's not about hypocrisy.

Wright says:
"The media want to be the guardians of public morality, but some people still see the church that way. Very well, it must be pulled down from its perch to make way for its secular successor."

I would expect a better argument from someone as highly educated as he is.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
Hmmm...surely the equation is:

Prurient interest in the sexual lives of others on part of general public p{s}= +10^34 [factor may be squared where object has significant objection to the public discussion of their sex life]

Media corporation interest in selling product m{£} = +10^99

Column inches available = c

Prevalence of sex stories in newspapers = p{s}*m{£}/c (%) = ... some large number.


Sometimes the effects can be useful in exposing 'wrongdoing' - but the bottom line is, as always, expressed in units of {£}.

[ 10. March 2013, 15:35: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... Second, concerning what the article is actually discussing - the media being the pot that calls the kettle Church black - the article is spot on. Money quote: "The media want to be the guardians of public morality, but some people still see the church that way. Very well, it must be pulled down from its perch to make way for its secular successor." Hear, hear. ...
Good Grief. I find myself agreeing with IngoB. And with Mark-in-Manchester and definitely not with Lilyswinburne. This may be a difference between cultures, but if we're putting Tom Wright in competition with the sanctimonious, self-righteous humbug of the media, I stand with Tom Wright. On this one, he's bang on.

Fear of libel debars me from naming any names, but who in their right mind sets their moral compass by the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Mirror, or for that matter the Guardian?
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I really don't think 'zero' is ever going to happen.
Agreed . Meant to add a footnote that human transgression is always going to occur to one degree or another , even in a monastery full of enlightened Buddhists.
Aiming for zero would be more realistic . Glasnost in the RCC and working with the criminal courts is the way to achieve it.

There was a time when the general public might have been inclined to forgive the odd priest who had 'lost the plot' as it were . However now that such a scale of deceit and abuse has been uncovered ?
That kind of forgiveness is only going to come at a price to my mind .
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've screwed up the OP.

My main question is:

With the gift of the Spirit, should Christians not be able to live up to ethical standards better than others?
If the Spirit matters at all, then yes.

Which is why I'm not sure the churches in general are teaching Christianity or teaching awareness of and responsiveness to God.

It's not about being perfect, although Jesus tells us to. But the company we keep and the things we focus on gradually affect out personalities. I'm not seeing many lives that seem to have internalized keeping company with God and focusing on God's values.

Pursuit of material wealth, boasting instead of repenting ways of "getting ahead" that hurt others, envy instead of delight in someone else's good fortune, ignoring the poor except with a token dollar at Christmas ("because I need it all for my family"), etc, don't reflect interest in what God thinks!
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
quote:
There was a time when the general public might have been inclined to forgive the odd priest who had 'lost the plot' as it were .
I'd love to think that would have been a time when 'throwing the first stone' meant something visceral to the man in the street.

Now...not so much. Paedophiles, murderers, terrorists; along with in some circles homophobes, misogynists, fascists, Thatcherites [Big Grin] - are Them with a capital T. That makes everything so much further from a good way forward.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've screwed up the OP.

My main question is:

With the gift of the Spirit, should Christians not be able to live up to ethical standards better than others?
Maybe your question should be:

With the gift of the Spirit, should Christians not be able to live up to ethical standards?

and not... "Christians are better than other people who aren't Christians"

[ 10. March 2013, 19:53: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
One is the rule that requires clergy to be celibate.
And the other is sexual abuse by clergy and the possibility of cover-ups.
These are related to an extent in that sexual energy may force an unhealthy outlet if no healthy outlet is available; but this is the case only to an extent.
This sort of statement really pisses me off - and has next to no evidence to back it up. Lots of people live without a sexual partner without engaging in sexual abuse. Abuse is not caused by celibacy. The vast majority of sexual abuse is carried out by people with other available sexual outlets. The percentage of celibate priests who are known to have engaged in abusive behaviour is, if anything, slightly lower than the percentage of the non-priest male population.

There are various arguments against a celibate priesthood - but this is a total red herring.
Sorry DT, but I have to say you have pissed me off somewhat.
If you look at my original post you will find that it is a reply to a post by Schroedinger's Cat, in while said feline made the point you complain about.
And I went on to point out (in the bit you have omitted) that a majority of a celibate priesthood do not sexually abuse anyone. Which is the point you have also made.

It is probably a good idea, before you criticise the substance of a post, to read it.
SC did not say it led to abuse, just that priests were not maintaining celibacy. But if we want to wrangle this further - then we'd probably need to take it to hell.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've screwed up the OP.

My main question is:

With the gift of the Spirit, should Christians not be able to live up to ethical standards better than others?
Maybe your question should be:

With the gift of the Spirit, should Christians not be able to live up to ethical standards?

and not... "Christians are better than other people who aren't Christians"
Yup. That works

So what do you think?
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've screwed up the OP.

My main question is:

With the gift of the Spirit, should Christians not be able to live up to ethical standards better than others?
Maybe your question should be:

With the gift of the Spirit, should Christians not be able to live up to ethical standards?

and not... "Christians are better than other people who aren't Christians"
Yup. That works

So what do you think?
Not being a Christian or having the gift of the Spirit I don't know. I've certainly known Christians who live up to ethical standards and those who don't, but I've never asked their motivation. I've also known non-Christians who manage to live up to ethical standards without the gift of the spirit.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Not being a Christian or having the gift of the Spirit I don't know. I've certainly known Christians who live up to ethical standards and those who don't, but I've never asked their motivation. I've also known non-Christians who manage to live up to ethical standards without the gift of the spirit.
Depends on what you think the gift of the Spirit is or whether it's exclusive to Christians.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
I was thinking along the lines of Paul's definition in Galatians.

quote:
Galatians 5.17-6.1

17For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not subject to the law. 19Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 20idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, 21envy,* drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, 23gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things. 24And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25If we live by the Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, competing against one another, envying one another.

6My friends,* if anyone is detected in a transgression, you who have received the Spirit should restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness. Take care that you yourselves are not tempted.

 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Doesn't any sign of better behaviour depend on how bad you were to start with?

I think John Newton observed late in life that he was not the man he ought to be, not the man the wanted to be, nor yet the man Christ wanted him to be, but he was better than he used to be. By the grace of God.

Finger-pointing is best when it starts and ends with each of us being more open to pointing our fingers at our own acknowledged shortcomings. Even that might lead to inappropriate guilt, but better if we lay it on ourselves than anyone else.

Does that stir up any contrarian instincts you may have, Evensong? [Biased]

[ 11. March 2013, 10:49: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Doesn't any sign of better behaviour depend on how bad you were to start with?

I think John Newton observed late in life that he was not the man he ought to be, not the man the wanted to be, nor yet the man Christ wanted him to be, but he was better than he used to be. By the grace of God.
I think the last time I raised this question Lamb chopped mentioned the same idea: depends where we start.

This is fair enough in my view.

The only stirring of my contrary nature on that point is to ask:

Are Christians more fucked up than other people to begin with if we do not live up to our ethical standards?

If so, is this evidence to suggest that when Jesus says he came for those who were sick (those in need of a physician) and not the righteous he was referring to us Christians in this sense?
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
Do Christians claim to be pointing out a better way and encouraging people to live one?

I'd say yes. In that case the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If Christians and especially Christian leaders are not behaving better than the general public and the tree is bearing bad fruit then this says a lot about whether the methods preached are effective.

The authority any Christian leader claims is pretty much entirely moral. And anyone claiming moral authority should be judged by such standards.
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
Well, in assessing leadership, you seem to only be applying the biblically-sanctioned millstone. Pity the leaders.

We certainly claim that perfection exists and has walked among us. I would claim that my life in God influences my velocity (implying a vector with direction as well as speed) towards that person - but much less can be inferred from the first differential of that quantity with respect to time, in my case or anyone elses. Who knows what crock of sh*t Joe Bloggs started with.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And anyone claiming any authority should be judged by such standards.
Bold my revision.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
What Schroedinger's Cat said.

The Catholic Church's teaching on sex and sexuality is deeply counter-cultural in the West (and in other places too). It is natural that when Catholics and particularly Catholic clergy fail to live up to that teaching others will be properly critical. I think we should be held to the standards we set ourselves.
What a bizarre concept. The Hell's Angels should be judged by how much mahem they can cause? Absurd. They are judged by the standards that we hold for all humans, not by the standard that each human decides to hold for him/her self. There may be some additional constraints we place on ourselves, either for professional or personal moral reasons -- we may choose to be Nazarites, if you will. But the core set of expectations continues to be those that we hold everyone to.

While it is true that not everyone agrees to the same code, the net effect of that is that those who live outside the norms of society are still held to that same standard and are judged accordingly. Were it not so, it would truly be strange for people who disagree with the current norms to work to change them.

--Tom Clune
Tom, I'm sorry that I didn't make what I was saying clear enough. The "we" to whom I was referring was the a Catholic Church. What I meant was that if we - the Catholic Church - set ourselves standards that are so counter-cultural and we fail to meet them, we can hardly complain if we are judged harshly by that culture - not only according to that culture's standards but by those we have set ourselves.
From the context, your intention should have been clear to me. I apologize for being so obtuse.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Do Christians claim to be pointing out a better way and encouraging people to live one? I'd say yes. In that case the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If Christians and especially Christian leaders are not behaving better than the general public and the tree is bearing bad fruit then this says a lot about whether the methods preached are effective.
What this fails to mention is where the standard of moral judgement is coming from. For example, giving worship to the true God is both moral and just, and a primary duty and joy of Christian life. But that is reckoned as a side issue, basically as a kind of cultural hobby, by unbelievers and in particular the secular world. The scope of morality (or more generally: leading the "good life") is hardly agreed upon by the different sides. Furthermore, even if we allow for the sake of argument the restriction to a moral agenda that a secular commentator might be comfortable with, the question of the moral standard still has not been avoided. To ride Justinian's preferred hobby horse, contraception, it may for example be true that the difference of the RC laity from the secular population in the West is far from striking. But if we assume that there is such a difference, what moral value does it then have? By Justinian's moral system, it speaks against Catholics, but according to the RC moral system, it speaks for Catholics. The question whether the fruits are good or bad often depends on the person doing the tasting.

What we can agree upon is that if we restrict ourselves to the Western secular scope of morals, and if we use the Western secular yardstick to measure the quality of morals, then Christian (and in particular RC) "fruit" are a bit of a mixed bag. They may give more money to the poor, but they haven't swallowed yet that all consensual sex must be good (they still spit sometimes...).

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The authority any Christian leader claims is pretty much entirely moral. And anyone claiming moral authority should be judged by such standards.
This is true perhaps for unbelievers, and maybe for Protestants, but certainly not for RCs.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've screwed up the OP.

My main question is:

With the gift of the Spirit, should Christians not be able to live up to ethical standards better than others?
Maybe your question should be:

With the gift of the Spirit, should Christians not be able to live up to ethical standards?

and not... "Christians are better than other people who aren't Christians"
But we are not granted grace so that we can successfully adhere to some code of conduct. We are granted grace so that we can love the way we were meant to.

When we fail to live up to the standards we should be living up to (and, yes, I'm intentionally hedging around whether those are "ethical standards") it is as a direct result of failing to love as we were meant to.

But I'm not sure that the perceived failure in standards is directly proportionate to the actual failing in love. ie a little failing in love can lead to a big failing against the media's ethical standards, while an enormous failing in love might not lead to a failing in the media's eyes at all.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The authority any Christian leader claims is pretty much entirely moral. And anyone claiming moral authority should be judged by such standards.
This is true perhaps for unbelievers, and maybe for Protestants, but certainly not for RCs.
[Confused] Perhaps I am particularly dim today, but could you explain this?

[ 11. March 2013, 19:36: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[Confused] Perhaps I am particularly dim today, but could you explain this?
To me the RCC has Divine authority, given to her by Jesus Christ, and the Divine assistance of the Holy Spirit. She can and does set moral standards, but that's not the source of her authority. Rather it is part of what she does with her authority. Furthermore, the "personnel" of the RCC derive their authority from the Church, by virtue of executing her offices. They have no authority in and by themselves (at least none that requires particular mention). They also have no capacity of innovation, only of interpretation, concerning the deposit of faith once received. Consequently, their own morality plays a role for their authority as men of the Church only insofar as it may impede or strengthen the execution of their office and the progressive revelation of God's will to us. Obviously, they can be horrible in as many ways as any of us, and in addition they can seriously obscure and transiently derail the truth of the Church. But I believe that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, and hence that even the worst any of them can do will not ultimately bring down the Church.

Anyway, to me all this talk about authority by morals is a projection of Protestant ideas of self-sufficiency in questions of faith and morals projected on the authority structures of the RCC. The result is "guru" talk, the idea that somehow RCs assign authority to their hierarchs because they consider them to be particularly virtuous. But a RC bishop is not a "guru". We believe that RC bishops have authority, and we hope and pray that they are virtuous and wise in applying it. Where that is not the case, it's just a case of SNAFU, frankly.

In some sense the situation is actually closer to how we deal with political power. In George W. Bush, Americans elected a man of questionable talent as the most powerful man of the world. But just because he was not particularly suitable for the job doesn't mean that he wasn't the POTUS. You were pretty much stuck with the guy, for a while at least, and could only hope that the damage to the USA would be somewhat limited. Obviously, there are lots of differences between how "power" works in these institutions. But my point is simply that it is not individual excellence (in the moral or any other sense) from which the authority of a RC hierarch derives. It's Christ's authority through the agency of the Church as Divine institution. That the human instantiation of this often lacks tremendously is obvious to any fair observer, but does not change the principle.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I think it is because the Catholics claim divine authority, not simply moral authority. Peter got the keys to the kingdom and the divine authority has been passed on.

Nobody claims they can "match" God on moral authority, or any other aspect of His authority. But when Catholics get authoritative on faith and morals, it is an authorised exercise in handing down. Apostolic authority doesn't just mean what was originally handed down. It also means what was made of what was handed down by those who have the authority to do that. That's why a development can also be seen as authoritative.

Doesn't mean there isn't a moral obligation on Catholics to practise what they preach. But whether they practise it or not, they have a divinely handed-down authority to preach it.

Catholic's don't believe the same can be said about any other authority. We may speak moral truth and that's good if we do, be we aren't the authorised voice so we may not give the authorised version.

Something like that, anyway. Or maybe I'm dim too? I'm not authorised to give this explanation, just cheeky enough to have a go.

IngoB will put us both straight in due course.

(Nope, he got in first!. xpost)

[ 11. March 2013, 20:31: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Something like that, anyway. Or maybe I'm dim too? I'm not authorised to give this explanation, just cheeky enough to have a go.
Don't worry, you would make a good Catholic, Barnabas62. You only need to take that final step of non-conforming to non-conformism... [Razz]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In George W. Bush, Americans elected a man of questionable talent as the most powerful man of the world.
That's debatable.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
I think it is because the Catholics claim divine authority, not simply moral authority. Peter got the keys to the kingdom and the divine authority has been passed on.
Roman Catholic ethics actually grants far more credence to rational ethical discourse than Protestant ethics. The RC Church teaches that the ethics of revealed morality is compatible with reason. It's the Protestants that demand faith in the revealed Word of God alone.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Zach82

That may well be true of genuine sola scriptural types. But I think the majority of Protestants, including some who claim sola-scriptura allegience, believe in practice that faith rests on a three-legged stool of scripture, tradition and reason.

Perhaps the real difference is the scope allowed to critical-historical analysis of scripture and tradition. Do we "sit under it"? Or do we "pull it apart" by making reason the only real leg of the stool? That's an ongoing debate.

IngoB

I took that as a compliment as well as an offer; thanks for both.

If the nonconformists I've lived happily with for the last 38 years ever kick me out for Catholic tendencies, I'd be the most surprised man in England. I owe a lot to them for any vague insights I may have about Christian Truth and Christian Love. Authorised or otherwise. Mind you, I've learned a lot through dialogue here, but the foundations were laid long ago amongst them. They seem to stand up well to age and experience.

The Spirit of God seems to be able at least to teach us "something about all things" despite the effect of distorting lenses and gummed-up ears and the general nonconformist "noise".
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
That may well be true of genuine sola scriptural types. But I think the majority of Protestants, including some who claim sola-scriptura allegience, believe in practice that faith rests on a three-legged stool of scripture, tradition and reason.

Perhaps the real difference is the scope allowed to critical-historical analysis of scripture and tradition. Do we "sit under it"? Or do we "pull it apart" by making reason the only real leg of the stool? That's an ongoing debate.
Not really. The historical critical method is about discerning what the Bible really says, not a statement about the authority of what it really says in the Christian life.

The real difference is how we discern the good. Can we use reason alone, as St Thomas would argue, or faith in Jesus alone, as Augustine would argue?

[ 11. March 2013, 23:40: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Maybe your question should be:

With the gift of the Spirit, should Christians not be able to live up to ethical standards?

and not... "Christians are better than other people who aren't Christians"
But we are not granted grace so that we can successfully adhere to some code of conduct. We are granted grace so that we can love the way we were meant to.

...I'm not sure that the perceived failure in standards is directly proportionate to the actual failing in love.
Aren't Christian standards all various aspects or illustrations of love? Don't steal, give to the poor, forgive forgive forgive - it's all about love!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
@ Zach82

We might be a bit at cross-purposes, Zach. I'll have a guess at the cross-purposes by considering what you said about St Thomas.

I don't think e.g. that the Thomist view of intellect suggests that human reasoning is free from sin. Reason has to be rightly used. That's not just a matter of logical consistency, at least as far as I can tell. I think St Thomas argued that reason, rightly used, pointed to the revelations of Faith. But I've got a pretty basic understanding of Thomism, not just on that point alone. I could be wrong.

It does seem right to observe that St Thomas gave a higher value to reason (as a pointer to and confirmer of revelation) than e.g. Calvin did. However I'm inclined to think that some of this is caused by other differences e.g. over the damage caused by the Fall. I think Catholics see the image of God in Man as "tainted" by the Fall whereas Calvin was more pessimistic - "all but obliterated".

But then loads of Protestants aren't Calvinists on that point. When it comes to the effect of the Fall on image of God in man, my personal preference is the more Orthodox "obscured". When it comes to matters of faith, given our tendencies to self-serving, I see reason without revelation is a bit of a two-edged sword, given the problems of ensuring that it has been "rightly used". A view which I think is consistent with Catholic theology.

It's possible you might have been thinking about something completely different, Zach, in which case please excuse my waffle!

[ 12. March 2013, 06:56: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I think it depends on what our message is.

We need to find a way to be clearer that the standards we uphold are standards to which we strive, and from which we fall short, but toward which we continue to strive by God's grace. Instead, Christians have too often given the impression that our standards are lines no one should cross, and if you do, well... Many people have felt condemned - or worse, been overtly condemned - because they don't live up to the Church's standards.

If our message were one of forgiveness, healing, grace, and acceptance, we might be less subject to accusations of hypocrisy. We're seen as trying to hold others to standards we don't keep ourselves. People rightly call Christians on that when they see it.
So far as ordinary people - churchgoers or otherwise - are concerned, I think this answer is pretty good.

High standards from spiritual leaders, practicing what is preached etc; it's about dissonance - at least partially, between the singer and the song. Bit like the food scare at the moment. Too often the Churches - all Churches - advertize themselves as purveyors of the finest beef product, only for the DNA analysis to prove it's horse. People hate that! And it doesn't matter how much a Church might insist or claim that its spiritual and institutional credentials automatically ensure salvific spiritual 'beef'; or even that from a safe distance none of us can tell the difference! When the testing comes, if the product is not authentic, then such claims stand for nothing.

And the higher and more unassailable the claim for holding this authority for proclaiming on standards, the greater the dissonance, and therefore the greater the damage, when the stuff hits the fan.

However, the gospel is - in itself - the proclaimer of the highest of standards for human beings; love your neighbour as yourself. And a Church must proclaim that full message. Even the most inadequate ecclesiastical institution - if it's to do justice to that message - can't preach the half-message of 'this is what Christ says, but realistically we all know this is never going to happen, so don't stress over it!'

The only way - so far as I can see that the full message of Christlike living can be preached or taught effectively is with as complete a humility as possible, and with as much reflection and self-awareness as possible on individual and institutional frailty and failure. Constructively, of course. And all within a context of ensuring it is the message which is elevated and not the messenger.

Otherwise we're simply setting out to fail in our task from the beginning, in drawing the emphasis away from where it should be. Christ appeared, secretly, in glory to a few of his closest disciples before he died. But very unsecretly and not at all gloriously, he also washed all their feet like a menial and told them to do the same. If that was the standard which we tended to set ourselves (of service and humility) maybe accusations of hypocrisy, however defined, would be considerably fewer.

I'm pretty much in agreement with N T Wright about the hypocrisy of some parts of the media. There is some excellent journalism and analysis going on as well, but it can be hard to find amongst the dross.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Barnabas,

That's part of it. Is righteousness possible apart from faith in Jesus? Thomas and the standard RC theologian would say at least some righteousness is possible through the power of reason alone, while Augustine and the standard Protestant theologian would say no- Jesus Christ is the one hope of the world, and therefore no righteousness is possible apart from Him.

It is actually faith that is at the middle of Augustinian ethics, which comes before the three legged stool is even mentioned. So there is a place for reason and tradition with the scriptures when the time comes. Indeed, obedience to the letter of the scriptures apart from faith in Jesus is merely another form of unrighteousness.

This results in entirely different courses of dialogue with non-Christians. A Thomist ethicist can (and often does) offer rational reasons for accepting his or her view. An Augustinian ethicist can only point to Jesus, whom one either accepts or doesn't, and call the world to repentance.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
That's part of it. Is righteousness possible apart from faith in Jesus? Thomas and the standard RC theologian would say at least some righteousness is possible through the power of reason alone, while Augustine and the standard Protestant theologian would say no- Jesus Christ is the one hope of the world, and therefore no righteousness is possible apart from Him.
Apparently you are quite serious about this... But you are simply wrong about St Thomas Aquinas and RC theology; and the attempt to appropriate Augustine, the (RC) saint and eminent Doctor of the (RC) Church, for Protestantism is odious.
quote:
ST Ia IIae q113 a4 "Whether a movement of faith is required for the justification of the ungodly?"
... I answer that, As stated above (Article 3) a movement of free-will is required for the justification of the ungodly, inasmuch as man's mind is moved by God. Now God moves man's soul by turning it to Himself according to Psalm 84:7 (Septuagint): "Thou wilt turn us, O God, and bring us to life." Hence for the justification of the ungodly a movement of the mind is required, by which it is turned to God. Now the first turning to God is by faith, according to Hebrews 11:6: "He that cometh to God must believe that He is." Hence a movement of faith is required for the justification of the ungodly. ...

Objection 2. Further, the act of faith is required for justification only inasmuch as a man knows God by faith. But a man may know God in other ways, viz. by natural knowledge, and by the gift of wisdom. Hence no act of faith is required for the justification of the ungodly.

Reply to Objection 2. By natural knowledge a man is not turned to God, according as He is the object of beatitude and the cause of justification. Hence such knowledge does not suffice for justification. But the gift of wisdom presupposes the knowledge of faith, as stated above (68, 4, ad 3).

Catechism of the Catholic Church
1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.

1990 Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God's merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals.

1991 Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or "justice") here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.
Catholics do believe that the abilities and goodness of human nature have not been destroyed, merely wounded. But this does not lead to a grace-free good life even in natural terms, much less in supernatural ones.
quote:
ST Ia IIae q109
a1 "Whether without grace man can know any truth?"
... Hence we must say that for the knowledge of any truth whatsoever man needs Divine help, that the intellect may be moved by God to its act. But he does not need a new light added to his natural light, in order to know the truth in all things, but only in some that surpass his natural knowledge. ...

a2 "Whether man can wish or do any good without grace?"
... man needs a gratuitous strength superadded to natural strength ... in order to be healed, and furthermore in order to carry out works of supernatural virtue, which are meritorious. Beyond this, in both states man needs the Divine help, that he may be moved to act well. ...

a3 "Whether by his own natural powers and without grace man can love God above all things?"
... in the state of corrupt nature man needs, even for this, the help of grace to heal his nature. ...

a4 "Whether man without grace and by his own natural powers can fulfil the commandments of the Law?"
... in the state of corrupted nature man cannot fulfil all the Divine commandments without healing grace. ... being done out of charity ... neither in the state of perfect nature, nor in the state of corrupt nature can man fulfil the commandments of the law without grace. ... Beyond this, in both states they need the help of God's motion in order to fulfil the commandments, ...

a5 "Whether man can merit everlasting life without grace?"
... without grace man cannot merit everlasting life; yet he can perform works conducing to a good which is natural to man, as "to toil in the fields, to drink, to eat, or to have friends," and the like, ...

a6 "Whether a man, by himself and without the external aid of grace, can prepare himself for grace?"
... we must presuppose a gratuitous gift of God, Who moves the soul inwardly or inspires the good wish. ...

a7 "Whether man can rise from sin without the help of grace?"
... Man by himself can no wise rise from sin without the help of grace. ...

a8 "Whether man without grace can avoid sin?"
... Man can avoid each but not every act of sin, except by grace, ...

a9 "Whether one who has already obtained grace, can, of himself and without further help of grace, do good and avoid sin?"
... man does not need ... a further infused habit. Yet he needs the help of grace ... in order to be moved by God to act righteously ... for this special reason--the condition of the state of human nature. For although healed by grace as to the mind, yet it remains corrupted and poisoned in the flesh, whereby it serves "the law of sin," Romans 7:25. In the intellect, too, there seems the darkness of ignorance, whereby, as is written (Romans 8:26): ...

a10 "Whether man possessed of grace needs the help of grace in order to persevere?"
... And hence after anyone has been justified by grace, he still needs to beseech God for the aforesaid gift of perseverance, that he may be kept from evil till the end of his life. For to many grace is given to whom perseverance in grace is not given. ...

 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
you are quite serious about this... But you are simply wrong about St Thomas Aquinas and RC theology... Catholics do believe that the abilities and goodness of human nature have not been destroyed, merely wounded. But this does not lead to a grace-free good life even in natural terms, much less in supernatural ones.
Never said Thomas did posit the possibility grace-free good life.

quote:
and the attempt to appropriate Augustine, the (RC) saint and eminent Doctor of the (RC) Church, for Protestantism is odious.
Positing the existence of any good or grace in Protestantism is odious to you. So what?
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Positing the existence of any good or grace in Protestantism is odious to you. So what?
Neither is that the case, not can you point to any post of mine that has said so. Whereas your attempt to assign Aquinas' theology to the RCC, but Augustine's to the Protestants, can be found in all its ridiculousness just above.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In George W. Bush, Americans elected a man of questionable talent as the most powerful man of the world.
That's debatable.
Not really.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Positing the existence of any good or grace in Protestantism is odious to you. So what?
Neither is that the case, not can you point to any post of mine that has said so. Whereas your attempt to assign Aquinas' theology to the RCC, but Augustine's to the Protestants, can be found in all its ridiculousness just above.
I have posited nothing futher than a general tendency of Roman Catholic ethics to conform more the the Thomist mode, and of Protestant ethics to conform more to the Augustinian mode. If, for some reason, you feel that a strict identification is there, I hereby solemnly and sincerely deny that conclusion. If I inadvertently said something of the sort I hereby apologize for misstating the matter.

Though I never said anything of the sort, I also sincerely deny the conclusion that Thomas posits the possibility of justification apart from faith.

[ 12. March 2013, 16:13: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
and the attempt to appropriate Augustine, the (RC) saint and eminent Doctor of the (RC) Church, for Protestantism is odious.
Augustine was writing before the Reformation. For that matter he was before the Great Schism. Which means that trying to claim that the mainline Protestants don't have a claim on him is ahistorical. (Now to claim the Latter Day Saints don't have a claim on him would be a whole different story).
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Maybe your question should be:

With the gift of the Spirit, should Christians not be able to live up to ethical standards?

and not... "Christians are better than other people who aren't Christians"
But we are not granted grace so that we can successfully adhere to some code of conduct. We are granted grace so that we can love the way we were meant to.

...I'm not sure that the perceived failure in standards is directly proportionate to the actual failing in love.
Aren't Christian standards all various aspects or illustrations of love? Don't steal, give to the poor, forgive forgive forgive - it's all about love!
Yes, which is why I said that when we fail to live up to those standards it's because we've failed to love as we are meant to.

However, to be simplistic, stealing £100 is not necessarily 10 times as unloving as stealing £10.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
However, to be simplistic, stealing £100 is not necessarily 10 times as unloving as stealing £10.
Certainly not, as you say! However it does mean it is ten times more profitable for the thief! And I'm sure there can often be a correlation between how deeply a standard may be permitted to fall, and the degree of reward in doing so!
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I have posited nothing futher than a general tendency of Roman Catholic ethics to conform more the the Thomist mode, and of Protestant ethics to conform more to the Augustinian mode.
We (and in particular, you) were not talking about "ethics". For the actual topic at hand, righteousness, the contrast between Aquinas and Augustine is not one that allows the imposition of your sectarian divide. It is largely a matter of detail and emphases, and of compatible development. And the same is true with regards to modern RC theology compared to Aquinas and indeed Augustine. The only major issue related to righteousness where there are fault lines, the fate of dying unbaptized infants, is not likely one where you would want Protestants to out-Augustine the RCC. But if so, be my guest.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Augustine was writing before the Reformation. For that matter he was before the Great Schism. Which means that trying to claim that the mainline Protestants don't have a claim on him is ahistorical. (Now to claim the Latter Day Saints don't have a claim on him would be a whole different story).
I'm happy for the Protestants to claim St Augustine as well. Let them claim him more and more, Oh Lord, so that they may become Catholic over his example. But what I did protest was Zach82's silly attempt to divide apart Aquinas+RCC vs. Augustine+Protestants on the issue of righteousness. If that was possible, then St Augustine would likely not be a Saint of the RCC, much less a Doctor (i.e., eminent teacher of theology) of said Church. Indeed, the title given by the RCC to Augustine is Doctor Gratiae, Doctor of Grace, because the RCC has always followed his teachings first and foremost on grace. And of course, righteousness is all about grace. (As far as history goes, the reception of the Protestants of St Augustine was through the RCC, not independent from her. That is particular true for that troublesome German Friar of the Order of St Augustine, which was back then and still is now Roman Catholic.)
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I only explicitly denied what you accuse me of saying, Ingo. Is your ultimate argument that there is absolutely no point in trying to discuss anything with you?
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I only explicitly denied what you accuse me of saying, Ingo. Is your ultimate argument that there is absolutely no point in trying to discuss anything with you?
This is what you said just above: "Is righteousness possible apart from faith in Jesus? Thomas and the standard RC theologian would say at least some righteousness is possible through the power of reason alone, while Augustine and the standard Protestant theologian would say no- Jesus Christ is the one hope of the world, and therefore no righteousness is possible apart from Him."

I have refuted the first part of your claim with direct quotes from St Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Catechism. And I have explained why the explicit contrast that you draw there is nonsense. Whether you want to discuss that further or not is up to you, really.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I didn't use the modifier "standard" for nothing. I used it to indicate that a strict identification was not possible, and if there was any mystery I clarified myself.

quote:
Whether you want to discuss that further or not is up to you, really.
Said the man that is apparently going to continue throwing out false, pissy little comments about something I never said? Do grow up.

[ 12. March 2013, 18:52: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The dispute between IngoB and Zach82 has stimulated me to look at Calvin's Institutes, particularly Book 2 Chapter 2.

A complete critical analysis of that chapter and my reservations about it would probably require a 10,000 word essay. A crude two sentence summary would be as follows.

"Calvin thinks the human race is utterly ruined, much more than you'd think from the writings of the Church Fathers, though he gives St Augustine a bit of an exemption here and there. I think Calvin overstates his case for the sake of the 'we're ruined, I tell you, ruined' conclusion he seeks to reach".

Actually, I like IngoB's summary here, and I think a lot of protestants would give it a tick.

quote:
Catholics do believe that the abilities and goodness of human nature have not been destroyed, merely wounded. But this does not lead to a grace-free good life even in natural terms, much less in supernatural ones.
.

We might differ about the means and operation of grace, and we might argue in detail about the severity of the wound.

But I feel much more strongly that the "ruined" conclusion of Calvin discounts virtually to zero the image of God in Man, and that is an error.

[ 13. March 2013, 08:24: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0