As an objective observer, I'd say it would be idiotic in any case to turn this thread into a post on the "battle of the sexes" and equality of women (not that there is such a thing, since apples and oranges cannot ever really be equal even as fellow fruits).
There is something here worth discussing... this strange aspect of the crisis of the Church, whereby someone would actually abandon all the apparent options and just flee. THAT, I believe, was the point of the post, and is worth discussing as such. Whether or not the person who wrote it was a woman really, in the scheme of things, doesn't matter, and has no real bearing upon the issue at hand. It would, however, be interesting to actually discuss the topic that it DOES raise, if anyone else would care to give their views.
Personally, my point of view is thus... Christ founded a church, and promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. That's pretty plain language there. Secondly, St. Thomas, I believe, pointed out in his Summa how that, according to justice, if there is to be a hell and a punishment for not obeying God, then all men of all time must be able to find the truth... it cannot be invisible.
While the average layperson may be deeply confused or scandalized by what has passed in the Church over the last 40 years or so, that doesn't mean the Church becomes invisible. If it has problems, does it loose it's identity? That hardly smacks of reason. Is the situation distressing? Of course. Confusing? Absolutely. Bizarre? Definitely. Unprecedented? I'm sure. But none of those things would result in the church being destroyed.
It's difficult to sort out the picture for many people. What common sense DOES obviously suggest, is that the answer has got to be one that both the intellectuals and the lowest of intellects could probably figure out. What is that? Well... if someone comes in and tries to change what God put down... you just don't go along with that. That much, I think, is obvious. What then is the answer that any intellect would be able to find? Go on with the Faith as it was before.
This answer, of course, means not denying anything of the Faith as it was... neither it's visibility, it's promised continuation, it's apostolic succession, or the need for clergy and the sacraments. This does require careful discretion. Having to admit that "something is wrong" is painful to some people, and as a result, they'd rather go along with the changes (apparently) destroying the Church from within. Having to "sort it out" is daunting to others, and so they choose a solution that is simple and easy, and removes the problem of having to think and perhaps make great sacrifices to cling to the true Mass and sacraments. Let's face it, it's easier to throw the baby out with the bath water than having the burden of living it as fully as one can in a time of such trial to the Faith. I'm sure some people in the days of the early martyrs thought it "unreasonable" for Christ to ask people to die rather than "just get along" with everybody else, and so they denied their faith or else held it so loosely that they could practice paganism alongside it. That's nothing remarkable. There have always been those who don't want the fight, the sacrifice and the effort that is the fight for salvation. But it has existed in various forms for most of history, usually in outward persecutions, and often requiring the lives of those who hold to it. But this is the "pearl of great price" and worth giving up "everything one owns" even one's life, to keep it. I very much doubt that just because it's the year 2000, and "everything is better now," that we somehow have passed the days when having or holding the faith is a hard, often bitter and heavy cross to carry. It's foolish to think that because of the date on the calendar, today we have a right to easy, comfy, non-problematic and no-sacrifice religion.
Heaven is a great prize. But nobody will win it without great effort. In times past, many have bought it with their blood. Today it seems we must buy it with great emotional and intellectual hardship, having to "sort out" this mess with a downright saintly balance of letter and spirit of the law. To err on either side is to err indeed. It's a tightrope, but heaven is at the other end. It's not easy, but we won't win heaven by running away from anything that isn't.
"Home alone" faith seems like a runaway answer of someone who knows something is gravely wrong, sees the problems in many of the solutions, and has been confused enough by everyone around them to not find their way to the most probable answer, and so, in frustration, has decided it's much too hard to figure out at all, and therefore the answer is to give up, go home, and do their own thing.
Reason would suggest, however, that if there is a grave problem, and one has examined all the solutions, finding them all lacking, that either there exists a solution one has not yet found, or else one has misjudged or erred in one's opinion of one of the proposed solutions. But in regards to the perfect religion of Christ, the solution must be complete and not heretical in any way. Rejection of the clergy outright, however rotten, would be error. Common sense says there ARE real priests out there somewhere. The only real issue is to find them. And there we can take a hint from the Bible, "I know mine, and mine know me." The sheep recognize the voice of the shepherd. We know His words and His works, and ought to know His religion when we see it. And, "by their fruits you shall know them."
Of course we also have to give reason and God's law/religion the last word in our choice. Ultimately, it's not "what religion do we want to go with?" but "where is the real thing?" Therefore it also stands to reason that some people will not LIKE the real thing, even if they find it. (Just like dying for it wasn't fun way back when.) Intellect, not emotion, has to have the last word. That's what God gave it to us for.
Topic: "Stay at Home" Catholicism (Read 12574 times)