New Testament Christians were racists
Is Catholicism "Racist" - And Who Is Catholic?
I would like to have this debate: We all know that there are camps in the Church. Many of those who call themselves progressive or liberal want changes in their teaching positions on classic excitement topics such as consecration, sexual morality, celibacy, leadership.
And because it is clear that with these requests for change they are often no longer within the scope of the currently applicable teaching, they speak of “further development” because there has actually always been further development in teaching. It is usually not mentioned too often that in the end the Magisterium decided on possible or impossible further development in our church - and thus ultimately said and still formulated validly what is part of the Catholic Confession and what is not .
A new, constantly communicated rule of faith: Yes, do not deny the other person that he is Catholic
This hint is probably ignored because one would like to see one's own convictions as still ecclesiastical and oneself still catholic. And quite a few of whom I speak here also make a living from the Church. And so I realize that a new rule of faith is being propagated underground and massively defended. It reads: Under no circumstances may one deny the other that they are Catholic. This sentence, in turn, is now often formulated with an objectively and morally presented vehemence that gives the impression that this is the actual dogma of the current discourse.
And to say a personal word: Yes, of course, there has always been a development of doctrine - and I am also interested in that, provided that it only allows us to understand anew and deepened how the Gospel can be appropriated today and spoken and lived in the world . But I still trust the Magisterium, and with it the Church as a whole, to be bigger than myself and to have a horizon that is wider than my own. In addition, the successor of Peter, confirmed by Scripture and tradition, is given a charism that serves in a special way to preserve the unity and the substantive integrity of the faith. That is why I orient myself in a critical-loyal conversation and at the same time out of inner conviction in the question of who or what the church is and what it teaches, especially on this.
The envelope in disrespect
Now, of course, it is becoming more and more evident that this insistence on the part of the more liberal forces on "further development" is increasingly turning into a real disrespect for the teaching office, in which we bishops also have a special share. And then it becomes clear that in many cases one does not even wait for the teaching office to decide, but is only satisfied when the teaching office is based on one's own wishes and convictions. And then, in my opinion, such an attitude would actually not be Catholic. G.K. With this in mind, Chesterton once said the remarkable sentence: “I don't need a church to tell me that I am wrong when I know that I am wrong. I need a church that tells me that when I think I am right, I am wrong. "
The most recent utterance of the Roman Magisterium as a clarifying response to an important question was simply dismissed by large parts of the Church in our country - usually with the note that it is neither theologically nor in human science up to date and therefore under-complex and actually not worth it at all, to deal with it more closely. As if those who deal with the preparation of such texts in Rome, including the Pope who approves of him, are all people whose horizons are by no means wider and wider, but in any case narrower and smaller than all those who are already longing for what they call “further development” - and which they would probably not go back to even if the teaching post would definitely decide otherwise; what it has already done with regard to the possibility of the priestly ordination of women.
Ecclesiasticalness is determined by the contents of belief
In fact, for almost 2000 years, our church has judged what is Catholic and what is not, by teaching at councils or through papal decisions - and thereby preserving the unity of faith. Over and over again in the past the decisive saying followed who was in the “anathema” due to his or her content-related (!) Convictions, ie under the “spell”, in the “damnation” or similar - whichever translation one may choose . But it was always clear: The Church has established that certain divergent beliefs lead to the fact that one removes oneself from a community, which is especially formed by common convictions in terms of content. The Second Vatican Council renounced this anathema practice for good reasons - but without ever declaring the previous practice null and void. The last council wanted - according to Pope John XXIII. In the opening speech - correct errors and explain the traditional truth unadulterated. But new and deeper and with the means of mercy - and less of severity.
Are loyal teachers racists?
But since it is now becoming apparent in the Church in Germany that a majority of the faithful, united with some bishops, many from academic theology and pastoral staff, want the solutions to the so-called irritating topics in the sense of the more liberal positions, some of their protagonists leave now more and more offensive and shameless to counterattack. “Catholic” actually seems to be exactly what they mean - and no longer what the magisterium says.
Recently, for example, the Tübingen dogmatics professor Johanna Rahner declared Catholics loyal to the teaching profession, including the Pope, to be “racists” when asked about the consecration of women, at least if the wording of the KNA report, which was picked up on the portal kathisch.de, is correct and processed it with a sensational headline (see link below). With this, Ms. Rahner would join a growing chorus of those who now also like to say that the real splitters in the church are those who, out of respect for the teaching office and their own convictions, at the applicable and, well, out of respect for the teaching office and their own convictions, would join a growing chorus in a hitherto unheard of intensification of the expression to actually adhere to Catholic doctrine and proclaim it. I would also like to ask: What effects does such a use of the term “racism” produce on people who are actually victims of racism?
So here we are at a point of quite the opposite. The widely shared and vehemently repeated new rule of faith is: No one should please be allowed to explain to the other what he is saying is not Catholic. On the other hand, those who think themselves in the majority can now shamelessly call those believers splitters and even racists who know they are committed to the current doctrine. And of course, the fact that the positions that seem to have majorities in Germany are by no means shared by a majority worldwide is hardly taken into account. Even this sometimes disdainful view of the universal Church is historically not really new to us and has not always had positive consequences.
What then seems almost grotesque: We bishops, who are actually particularly responsible for Catholic teaching and who have solemnly promised this, enable the use of church tax revenues for the financing of certain media through our consent and thus enable a large stage on who we ourselves (at least I feel that we are meant to be) can be called “racists” - without a lot of contradiction or without an editorial team considering what they are producing, despite all the journalistic freedom they are allowed to enjoy. We bishops also share responsibility for who is allowed to teach Catholic theology in our faculties. Strange world, isn't it? Anyway, I think it's worth debating.
But what I don't want: That this text will only be discussed by me in hatred or pointed polemics. Presumably the essential questions are: How do we actually see ourselves as a Catholic Church with substantive obligations? What can and should the teaching post? Or where are the limits to arbitrariness in the interpretation of what we believe to be the gospel? And finally: where are verbal boundaries in the discourse and what is really “racist” and who actually “divides”?
Here is the link mentioned: https://www.katholisch.de/artikel/29498-rahner-nur-rassisten-gegen-gleichrechtigung-von-frauen-in-kirche
And here is the original message from the Catholic News Agency from last Saturday:
Theologian: Only Racists Against Equal Rights for Women
Stuttgart (KNA) Anyone who does not advocate equal rights for women in the church is, according to the Tübingen theologian Johanna Rahner, “a racist”. It is not acceptable to speak of the equal dignity of women and men, but not to grant them the same rights. Current whistle of the Catholic Church rightly headwinds around the ears. The professor said literally: "If you don't do anything now, you still do something." There is "an obligation to resist". Rahner, who is the chairwoman of the Catholic Theological Faculty Conference (KThF), called for a new canon law in order to achieve equality for women within the church.
Today's problems cannot be solved with the current church law, said Rahner on Saturday in Stuttgart. Canon law is not compatible with the Basic Law of the Federal Republic. If the state were to apply the criteria that it uses in talks with Islamic associations to the Catholic Church, it would have “bad cards”. Rahner spoke at a women's forum to which the Rottenburg-Stuttgart diocesan guide and the diocesan and priest council in Württemberg had invited. The Stuttgart city dean Christian Hermes said at the event that the church had not learned to come to terms with the freedom rights of the modern age; the church is "in a dramatic dead end". According to Hermes, the Catholic reform debate on the Synodal Way will fail.
The Rottenburg vicar general Clemens Stroppel, by his own admission, is also tired of “having to deal with this topic every day”. The proclamation of the faith is in question. The Rottenburg bishop Gebhard Fürst renewed his demand that women be ordained as deacons. However, this could not be done without the consent of the universal Church. Diocesan council spokesman Johannes Warmbrunn sees, according to his own admission, "design possibilities" that could be used. The principle applies: just do it. It should not come to the departure of all reform-oriented Christians from their church. The event also discussed whether women might not, for example, donate the sacraments of baptism and the anointing of the sick or act as assistants in marriage.
- Should I do IB or A level
- Can cellulose wood be melted
- Are actors usually friends with their stunt doubles
- Should I take care of my guinea pig?
- Are some derivatives comparable to games of chance?
- My cousin is raped in jail
- What is a simple definition of existentialism
- How do astronomers age in space
- Why is my book rejected again and again
- Why is a DNA amplified
- Did you know what graphic design is
- Will marry Brad Pitt again
- How do you fly wherever you want
- When did the first cyber war happen?
- How do you express your excitement in Swedish
- Who plays George in Grey's Anatomy
- Could Trump afford to buy Twitter?
- What is a Freelance Photographer
- What could the acronym SKOSA stand for?
- What are some meditation words
- What is the Sharpe Ratio in Mutual Funds
- Why do we use green in VFX
- What stomach problems can hyperventilation cause
- Can Twitter survive without advertising
- Itachi still lives in Boruto
- Which BTS member has the biggest muscles?
- How is fur made
- How do I get international health insurance
- Why dividends are important
- What is the market size for supercapacitors
- Which is the most creative C ++ program
- Who was Adolf Hitler's mother
- What is your favorite unknown band 1
- Is Meteor scalable