I couldn't agree more about the absurdity of all this free and easy "armchair theologizing" on matters which have taxed the learned intellects of the greatest theological minds for ages. What's really galling sometimes is that there is not even the slightest show of diffidence or self-doubt, such as those great minds DO show! People pontificate, "I can see no reason why not etc..." Pontificate? It's more like "I am the Lord."
Personally, I avoid all such theologizing. Tricky marriage issues? Consult at least three learned and orthodox priests. I won't even get into such matters as whether or not the New Mass is valid. I don't care whether it is or not. Let the theological sharpies duke it out. I don't care what they come up with anyway. Let it be their big secret. I'm just a layman. It's all beyond me and that's the way I'll keep it. Why should I pretend that their Latin and their nit-picky citations from the pious Stickenburger and the worthy Shtickenfurter impress me either way? I'm only a layman. What do I know about that kind of stuff? What should I care?
But why do some Traditionalist priests write on such issues in a deceptively popular style in forums in which their audiences are bound to be mostly laymen? Why do they egg mere laymen on by writing in jocular "we're all on the same team" ways and then assume hoity-toity postures of clericalistic superiority when those laymen want to be team players and show soon enough their propensity for dropping the ball?
Analyzing and denouncing, say, the iniquity of so-called orthodox churchmen who seek to inculcate the ways of Sodom in Catholic schoolchildren is another matter entirely. THAT is not "theologizing." How could doing what any half-way decent Communist or agnostic psycho-killer have done before Vatican II be called "theologizing"?
Let's not have naively exaggerated ideas about how learned most clerics really are nowadays. If we see things as they are, we will be less likely to do an injustice to admittedly presumptuous and inept layman who may only be trying to fill a void with their "armchair theologizing."
I think that in general, even the most learned Catholic clerics have little knowledge of Scripture, modern Scriptural science, and modern Scriptural errors. They have extremely wide knowledge of sacramental theology, wide knowledge of moral theology, adequate knowledge of philosophy, oddly spotty knowledge of Christology, and, I have found, barely any knowledge at all of the Bible, especially insofar as it stands under assault from Modernists and must be defended and considered in conjunction with Tradition provides the basis of Catholic apologetics. Of the Catholic Faith.
And they don't even know how much they don't know and how dangerous they are not knowing. I have argued even with "orthodox" and "Traditional" priests who have been minded to uphold Rome and the scholars on the Pontifical Biblical Commission as fully orthodox and Traditional. "I would have to agree," said one, "that it does seem unlikely that everything that the Gospels depict as having happened on Good Friday morning really could have happened all in one morning."
And here is where a 10 year old Evangelical Protestant of average intelligence but great zeal for the Word could step into the fray with these so wonderfully trained and educated Roman Catholic clerics and put them all to shame. He would need three tools. One, something with which those clerics might be vaguely familiar. A Bible. The other three, things of which they would not even think. A map of the TINY walled city of ancient Jerusalem, an area of comparable size in which to walk and talk, and a stop watch.
But The Mornac Thread in particular? As regards the posters who were expressing reserve and dismay, there is no absurdity there. No oddness, and no untrained layman presumption. (I think that there is incredibly bad taste, and gross imprudence, but that's just I.) There is a shocking crisis in a would-be Catholic community. No one was trying to be pretentious about commenting on marriage law for the sake of being pretentious. I agree that this particular exchange on FE was an example of laymen biting off more than they could chew. But did the more orthodox posters really do so badly?
In any case, it doesn't seem ODD that they should be driven to do so in this and other areas, given the overall ineptitude of their priests on more basic matters of Faith and the simple fact that most Catholics are doomed to be like sheep without a shepherd.
And is this really the time to be imploring Heaven to save us from armchair theologians? What about those who with grave simplicity and appropriate citations expressed concern about possible scandal on that very thread? I would argue that it's a mistake to get involved with that sort of mess at all, but I couldn't dismiss people who do their best in such communications with their public figure Catholic friends as armchair theologians. They are seeking Catholic company in this world and trying to offer fraternal correction when the need arises. (I have my own ideas as to why they will be doomed to failure unless they make certain theological adjustments...)
I would think that Heaven is more concerned with giving strength to the simple who are trying to combat fully accredited theologians in position of power who justify putting idols of Buddha on Catholic altars so that some old priest who was probably not THAT well accredited theologically ran into the streets crying, "Che scandalo! Che scandalo!"
As far as we know, Christ felt gloriously happy only once in His Life. If we took the trouble to ascertain what in particular made Him, as it would seem, so uniquely happy, we would not be so quick as mere lowly know-nothing-or-next-to-nothing laymen to play up to the learned and the wise of this world- or even of this Church.
In any case, the last word on the Mornac Thread will probably be: "They spoke to The Priest. We are only laymen and are forbidden to judge of these complex matters." Shouldn't that make EVERYONE here happy? Of course, no Traditional priest would have recommended that any announcements sure to cause scandal be made. But still... Maybe it's all very priestly and canonical in some way we mere laymen cannot comprehend. Who knows what the learned and highly trained Shtickenburger taught on the subject?
I'm not happy. I blame Traditionalist priests for teaching mere laymen to have a kind of endless, inordinate self-contempt and self-doubt that are bound to border on animalistic godlessness and Final Despair. Which naturally lead to all sorts of scandalous break-downs in us dumb-as-dirt ovine creatures who are trained to doubt that such an august idea as Divinity has any real place in our wooly little heads, since the strings of our wills (it is devoutly hoped) can be pulled by the cleric who is trained to do so.
Topic: Mornac's thread and moral theology (Read 1332 times)