One can't win if one refuses to fight.
I have been hearing from some who oppose my statements regarding Abortion and Paedo-communion. There are, of course, the cries of outrage from feminists. But there are some more reasoned thoughts, as well.
I am not a theologian. But some things are clear. No one can escape the consequences for their decisions. That is true of the Church as much as of any of us mere mortals. As such, the Church must face the world that the Church created. For the modern world was in large measure created by the decisions that the Church has made.
Over the lifetime of the Church there has been a continual progression in which the Church has grown farther and farther from the lives of simple family men and women.
How many bishops know a thing about raising children? How many priests do? Perhaps they remember how their own parents worked themselves to the bone for their families. Perhaps that is one of the reasons they chose a life far removed from the daily cares of ordinary human beings.
Long ago, the Western Church decided that only bishops should be allowed to administer Holy Chrism (''Confirmation''). What was the result? Well, bishops are Very Important People. It would hardly suit their elevated estate to be going about chrismating babies. So the age when one received Holy Chrism was pushed back. There are ways of justifying that, theologically. They weren't wrong to do that, but there are consequences to that decision.
Priests are, of course, Very Important People, as well. Administering the Eucharist both as consecrated bread and as consecrated wine is inconvenient. It was easy enough to come up with reasons why priests shouldn't be expected to do that. After all, they might spill the wine. The Church wasn't wrong to restrict the Eucharist to consecrated bread, but there are consequences to that decision. One of the consequences was that it became impossible to give the Eucharist to the youngest of Christ's Faithful. To get around that, they invented First Communion. The Church wasn't wrong to restrict the Eucharist by age, but there are consequences to that decision.
Then things started to unravel. One of the consequences of the Church's denial of the Eucharist to children was that it seemed to imply that if you don't understand the Eucharist, you could not profit from it. Thus, by denying the Eucharist to children the Church had made the Sacred Mysteries appear to depend on the understanding of the recipient. Slowly, mere devotion to the Eucharist had replaced the ''essential'' grace of the Mysteries in the minds of all too many.
By the time Martin Luther came on the scene, faith in the Sacred Mysteries had all but evaporated in the minds of many.
But things continued to get worse. Protestant ministers are Very Important People, too. It seemed to many of them that they didn't need to baptize children. After all, the Catholic Church had denied the Eucharist to children. It was a simple step to deny them baptism. There are, of course, ways to justify that.
Perhaps the Council of Trent could have returned to the ancient practice of giving the Eucharist to children. But that would have been embarrassing. So they held firm and dug the hole a bit deeper by expressly forbidding the practice. They claimed the right to do that. I do not disagree with that claim. But there are consequences to that decision.
Unfortunately, things continued to unravel. Protestants had no real basis for authority. As a result, their congregations fragmented again and again. And as religion fragmented the state became unstable. They tried replacing religion with secular humanism, a project that was bound to fail.
Was anyone surprised when the United State's Supreme Court decided that abortion is unconstitutional? Without faith to back it up, the result was inevitable.
Where did we go wrong?
Perhaps Saint Augustine would have said that it was when the Church decided that it could bypass the Lord's command: "Suffer the little children to come unto me..."
I am not a theologian. But some things are clear. No one can escape the consequences for their decisions. That is true of the Church as much as of any of us mere mortals. As such, the Church must face the world that the Church created. For the modern world was in large measure created by the decisions that the Church has made.
Over the lifetime of the Church there has been a continual progression in which the Church has grown farther and farther from the lives of simple family men and women.
How many bishops know a thing about raising children? How many priests do? Perhaps they remember how their own parents worked themselves to the bone for their families. Perhaps that is one of the reasons they chose a life far removed from the daily cares of ordinary human beings.
Long ago, the Western Church decided that only bishops should be allowed to administer Holy Chrism (''Confirmation''). What was the result? Well, bishops are Very Important People. It would hardly suit their elevated estate to be going about chrismating babies. So the age when one received Holy Chrism was pushed back. There are ways of justifying that, theologically. They weren't wrong to do that, but there are consequences to that decision.
Priests are, of course, Very Important People, as well. Administering the Eucharist both as consecrated bread and as consecrated wine is inconvenient. It was easy enough to come up with reasons why priests shouldn't be expected to do that. After all, they might spill the wine. The Church wasn't wrong to restrict the Eucharist to consecrated bread, but there are consequences to that decision. One of the consequences was that it became impossible to give the Eucharist to the youngest of Christ's Faithful. To get around that, they invented First Communion. The Church wasn't wrong to restrict the Eucharist by age, but there are consequences to that decision.
Then things started to unravel. One of the consequences of the Church's denial of the Eucharist to children was that it seemed to imply that if you don't understand the Eucharist, you could not profit from it. Thus, by denying the Eucharist to children the Church had made the Sacred Mysteries appear to depend on the understanding of the recipient. Slowly, mere devotion to the Eucharist had replaced the ''essential'' grace of the Mysteries in the minds of all too many.
By the time Martin Luther came on the scene, faith in the Sacred Mysteries had all but evaporated in the minds of many.
But things continued to get worse. Protestant ministers are Very Important People, too. It seemed to many of them that they didn't need to baptize children. After all, the Catholic Church had denied the Eucharist to children. It was a simple step to deny them baptism. There are, of course, ways to justify that.
Perhaps the Council of Trent could have returned to the ancient practice of giving the Eucharist to children. But that would have been embarrassing. So they held firm and dug the hole a bit deeper by expressly forbidding the practice. They claimed the right to do that. I do not disagree with that claim. But there are consequences to that decision.
Unfortunately, things continued to unravel. Protestants had no real basis for authority. As a result, their congregations fragmented again and again. And as religion fragmented the state became unstable. They tried replacing religion with secular humanism, a project that was bound to fail.
Was anyone surprised when the United State's Supreme Court decided that abortion is unconstitutional? Without faith to back it up, the result was inevitable.
Where did we go wrong?
Perhaps Saint Augustine would have said that it was when the Church decided that it could bypass the Lord's command: "Suffer the little children to come unto me..."
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home