kcstar | Are American nuns paying for the sins of a Jesuit priest who died in the 1950s?
It
might seem that way, given the ongoing showdown between doctrinal
hard-liners in the Vatican and leaders representing more than 40,000
U.S. sisters, with one of Rome’s chief complaints being the nuns’
continuing embrace of the notion of “conscious evolution.”
To many
ears, “conscious evolution” probably sounds like a squishy catchphrase
picked up after too much time in a New Age sweat lodge, and that’s
pretty much how Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, leader of the Vatican’s
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, views it.
The German theologian bluntly told the Leadership Conference
of Women Religious last month that the principles of “conscious
evolution” — that mankind is transforming through the integration of
science, spirituality and technology — are “opposed to Christian
Revelation” and lead to “fundamental errors.”
That’s tough talk, and Mueller warned them that if the nuns persist in pursuing such dangerous ideas, Rome could cut them loose.
Yet
those principles, and indeed the very term “conscious evolution,” also
lead directly back to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), a French
Jesuit who was by turns a philosopher and theologian, geologist and
paleontologist.
It was Teilhard’s thinking about original sin and
humanity’s future evolution that got him in trouble with church
authorities, however.
Teilhard argued, for example, that creation
is still evolving and that mankind is changing with it; we are, he said,
advancing in an interactive “noosphere” of human thought through an
evolutionary process that leads inexorably toward an Omega Point — Jesus
Christ — that is pulling all the cosmos to itself.
“Everything
that rises must converge,” as Teilhard put it, a phrase so evocative
that Flannery O’Connor appropriated it for her story collection. This
process of “complexification” — another of his signature terms — and
Catholic theology could aid in that process if it, too, adapts.
8 comments:
Damn, the tithe money ain't what it used to be. I believe that people are growing the fuck up and are moving on without them. Most of them weren't reading their bibles any way so why bother?
Brother CNu:
I saw no purpose to your post beyond "listing" the ailments of one faction of a Christian church body.
If I showed you that the "Evangelical Christian" movement is successfully turning "Catholic Hispanic Immigrants" into members of their church would this provide you with the comfort at knowing that ORGANIZATIONS grow and deflate over time?
Why no index upon SOCIETAL CONDITION that might trigger you to question if there is a correlation between the "Turning Away" from certain traditional values and thus the net loss in Southern Baptist membership?
* Heterosexual Marriage rates at levels too low to provide a stabilizing force upon society?
* Consumerism's growth upon the American populous' psyche - in which they choose NOT TO associate with an entity that tries to tell them that there are MORE IMPORTANT THINGS in this world than a "Michael Kors" handbag at $500
* The notion of the promotion of CHOICE (in having an abortion or a homosexual relationship as 'norm'), while the truth that CHOICE WITHOUT THE GUIDING LIGHT OF A "PURPOSE" IS A GREAT PERVERSION. Soon Man Will WORSHIP The Notion Of CHOICE - Without Noting That So Much That He Once Believed To Be Aberrant Is Now Seen As Moral Because CHOICE Is Expressed
Ultimately, Brother CNu - the "Southern Baptist Church", "The Nation Of Islam", The Church Of Secular Government As A Replacement For Religion AND The "Fake Jesus Of Social Justice / Black Liberation Theology Through Mass Mobilization Via Black Voter Registration Church will all be appraised NOT BY THEIR "POPULARITY" but by their COMPETENCE at DEVELOPMENT "MEN" who agree to direct their lives toward this end.
In as much as ENTROPY is coming upon the society like a airborne pathogen - the NEXT PHASE will be a study of how each of these entities successfully generate "disciples" who - in following in this path - are actually SAVING SOCIETY as the masses who lacked vision - PERISH - becoming SOUL-LESS vessels for secular manipulations .
lol, the turning away is from "do-nothing", parasitic, pimp-in-the-pulpit, breath-and-britches claims of authority. Ain't nobody buyin that bullshit anymore except the most feeble-minded wattles. Your welcome to every single one of those atavisms...,
Brother CNu:
Is it your view that under the same umbrella of "Christianity" resides Rev Fred Luter, Rev Al Shaprton, Rev Michael Eric Dyson, Rev Jim Wallis and Rev James Dobson (Focus On The Family) and that EACH of these are "Pimps In The Pulpit"?
OR is there a COMMON THEOLOGICAL CONSTRUCT that each of these men work off of and then each of them apply (worldly) RELIGION to achieve a measure of societal control, as they compel their religious congregation to act POLITICALLY?
It seems that the failure to enforce the INTEGRITY of the Christian message has allowed the entire lot of them to suffer criticism from outside observers like you.
What say you about the SECULARIST NON-PREACHING Pastors who construct a framework that operates like a RELIGION and has been expanding exponentially in its number of baptisms of lost souls?
lol, Feed, I'm Roman Catholic. We do schools, hospitals, orphanages, etc..., you know, WORKS. Without exception, your list of politicized pimps-in-the-pulpit don't work anything but their jawbones. The common construct that these pimps work off of is suggestibility exploited by parasitism.
So I went back to WaPo, looked for the link you enclosed, couldn't find it, and so just went there directly.
I still don't see the coercive redistribution you're on about outside of the whinery going on in the comments under this article at religionnews.com - Ken, what you've claimed is there, is simply not there. Sorry.
First of all I gave you the phrase in the wapo article where they link to it, the word "story" was the link.."The Religion News Service {story} on the smackdown of trickle-down ran under the headline... secondly, I don't want to say this guy is speaking for the church, but it is clear he is not asking his brothers and sisters in Christ to give more to help the poor, but is asking for a economic change for all that he believes will help the poor. I.E. here are the quotes..
"one of Pope Francis’ top advisers said Tuesday (June 3) that today’s free market system is “a new idol” that is increasing inequality and excluding the poor.... this here could still something directed at his Kingdom family, admonishing them not to let the free market system be their idol.
"This economy kills,” said Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga.... I don't know about that, it's like saying knives or guns kill, people still do the killing, and no human system will ever be utopia, I would have to hear what system he contends will end up not killing people or causing poverty.
"The pope, Maradiaga said, grew up in Argentina and “has a profound knowledge of the life of the poor.” That is why, he said, Francis continues to insist that “the elimination of the structural causes for poverty is a matter of urgency that can no longer be postponed.”.....
What is the structure he is talking about? Don't you think the text of the article would be the economy and the free market system?
"Maradiaga, who heads a kitchen cabinet of eight cardinals from around the world that Francis established to advise him shortly after his election last year, also argued that personal charity was insufficient to solve global problems.
“Solidarity is more than a few sporadic acts of generosity,” he said.
Instead, he said, solidarity with the poor, as envisioned by Catholic social teaching, calls for “dealing with the structural causes of poverty and injustice.”.....
So personal charity and generosity will not be enough, and I would agree with currently, personal charity and generosity is not enough, but I wouldn't say it couldn't be, like he is saying here. He again is not going after his family members to give more, be more loving and caring and having the eyes of Christ, or he is not talking to poor to do what they can, but instead he is blaming it on a structural cause, and the only structure he has talked about with a problem in this text is free market and libertarianism.
"Instead, he said, solidarity with the poor, as envisioned by Catholic social teaching, calls for “dealing with the structural causes of poverty and injustice.” The cardinal stressed that the church “by no means despises the rich,” and he said Francis “is also not against the efforts of business to increase the goods of the earth.”
“The basic condition, however, is that it serves the common good,” he said.
I would agree with that if he were referring to the church and what it should believe its members should strive for, but there is no call for its members to take responsibility, but instead to blame the system and seek to change it.
quoth Tom:Interesting speculations, CNu, but Ken will tell us what the article really says. we didn't have to wait very long either. priceless.comedy.gold....,
Post a Comment