www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Catholic Bishop vs. "Catholic" Politician

Dear Friends,

At least one RC Bishop is standing up to the so-called "Catholic" politicians on the subject of the definitions of marriage and family. The following was posted on EWTN News.

----------------------------------------------

6-August-2003 -- Catholic World News Brief

CALGARY BISHOP SAYS HE WOULD REFUSE PRIME MINISTER COMMUNION

Calgary, Aug. 6 (LifesiteNews.com/CWN) -

Calgary Bishop Fred Henry has not been daunted by politicians and newspapers attacking him as a hatemonger and worse for his clear defence of Catholic teaching on homosexuality and his daring to call to account Prime Minister Jean Chretien who calls himself "Catholic". Rather than back down from his widely reported warning that the Prime Minister was risking his eternal salvation, Bishop Henry used the media frenzy to teach.

In an interview with Sun Media, Bishop Henry noted that a good Catholic must be in communion with the Church. "As a Catholic if he can't listen to the Pope and he can't listen to the bishops then we have a problem with the Catholicity of this man. We have a serious problem. You can't go around calling yourself a good Catholic and act in a contrary manner. Acts have consequences."

The Bishop also noted that he would refuse Chretien Communion. "Given his status, if the prime minister were to come to Calgary and line up for Communion in the ranks at the cathedral and I were the celebrant I would probably refuse him and give him a simple blessing. I don't want to embarrass anyone publicly but at present he is not in communion with the Church. I don't intend to threaten the prime minister but I think his eternal salvation is at risk and I pray he experiences some kind of conversion and enlightenment and mend his ways."

-------------------------------------------

May all of our Bishops find the courage to tell the poiticians that there is a perfectly fine name for those who do not accept the teachings of the Church. That name is protestant, not Catholic.

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

Does anyone know of the official Vatican policy re: such public statements specifically attacking a political leader?

Yours,

kl

attacking a political leader?

That was no attack, that was stating a truth. He is stating what many should have been doing all along.

It's too bad that some bishops waited for this issue to take such a stand.

I wonder what would have happened if some of them had done the same thing with the abortiion issue after Roe vs. Wade in 1973.

In Christ,

BOB

There's a pretty comprehensive article [globeandmail.com] on this subject in the Globe And Mail of Friday, the 8th, written by Margaret Somerville, Samuel Gale Professor of Law at the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law.

Rumors in California that like he did for Davis, the bishop of Sacramento will declare that pro-abort "Catholic" Arnold Schwarzeneger should not go to communion. Any confirmation of this?

Axios

Dear Friends,

The issue is not the politician's opinions about any issue. The issue is whether someone who publically advocates or participates in a policy or activity which the Church has stated to be immoral, can properly be called a "Catholic" politician in campaign materials, news coverage, etc.

The issue is whether the Church can determine who is a member of the Church. You are not Catholic because you say you are, but because you accept the moral authority of the Church.

A second issue is whether the right of free speech is abandoned by those who profess the Catholic faith. Do clergy and laity abandon their rights to participate public debate by following the teachings of their Church? Margaret Somerville seems to think so. This seems to be becoming a serious problem in Canada, with recent court decisions about "hate speech".

A parallel situation occured some years ago in New Orleans, during the times of racial segregation. The Archbishop proclaimed that all Catholic Churches, Schools, and services were to integrated, although state and local laws required segregation. Some local "Catholic" public oficials said that they would continue to enforce the local laws. The Archbishop excommunicated a number of Sheriffs, County Commissioners, etc.

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

Of course "the Church" can and has every right and responsibility to make that determination. I am no expert on the canons regarding how the church does that, but ISTM that the Bishop of Calgary is way out of line is in making a declaration of excommunication ("he is not in communion with the Church") regarding a someone who is (presumably) not a member of his diocese. I further assume that such a judgement is beyond the realm of the laity.

I don't think so (nor do I think that Margaret Sommerville does). If people wish to argue that thay are opposed to certain legislation solely because it conflicts with the teachings of their church, they have every right to do so. But in a nation that has no established religion, such an argument is likely to carry little weight, and may generate more backlash than support. It is necessary to make better arguments.

Where do we find in the teachings of our Lord the idea that a man can be a Christian on Sunday and act and behave like a pagan the rest of the week? Where do we find the idea that "church is church and public life is public life and n'er the twain shall meet?" Where do we find the idea that politics is a sacred arena where religion must not infringe the truth?

This is the issue, and it is high time that the Church begin to make people realize that the living of the Christian life goes to every spectrum of society in every day and affecting everyone. The bishop was well within his rights to openly declare what he did. He was merely stating the obvious: i.e, that if this political hack came to a Liturgy in which he was the celebrant, as a matter of conscience and responsibility before God, he would have to deny the politician the Eucharist. He further went on and urged the politician to repent. Now that is certainly Biblical.

In Handels' magnificent MESSIAH, there is in the "Halleleujah" chorus, this great truth:

"for the kingdoms of the world have become the kingdoms of our Christ" (sorry, I know the wording is not precise -- brain cramp).

THAT, my friends, is the whole point of the redemption: taking the world back from the devil. Bringing it in line with the heavenly. Making disciples of both men and nations, so that they are ruled and governed by the law of God, which first law is LOVE. But love does not excuse sin or give men a "right" to practice it openly and defiantly in the name of "tolerance" or "civil rights".

In the early days of Christianity, whole cultures were changed because the missionaries to these people groups would not bend God's law to accomodate their pagan practices such as cannabalism or human sacrifice. Many died martyr's deaths as they continued to bring the message of God's love and justice to the faces of those who wished the status quo to continue so that their power over others might continue also.

The culture war is PRECISELY about this issue:

WHO is going to rule?

Christ the King through the ministry and governance of the Church?

Or the world, the flesh, and the devil, the three enemies of our souls according to Scripture, through the ministry and governance of the depraved passions and emotionalism?

"Choose ye this day whom ye will serve..."

And here is the flaw in all of this. The bishop specifically made the point if the Minister came to HIM at HIS Cathedral. If this is a private judgement of the bishop he is way out of line.

If it is a universal truth, then why the ommission of any instructions to his clergy? Why not calling to task his fellow bishops who allow the Minister to receive? Why does the bishop not mention other public officials (like members of the Conservative Party) who have the same views?

I think the bishop in his ham-fisted approach committs a sacrilidge, treating the Eucharist as a doggy biscuit to be given for sitting up and begging.

Let the proper authority come up with some universal, consistent and transparent standards. Anything less is a greater scandal than the communion reception of these people.

On a relatd note, it appears that the Bishop of Sacramento refuses to apply to Arnold the same standard he applied to Davis. How to you say 'hypocrite' in Latin?

Axios

Good. The constant teaching of the Church holds that clerics MUST refuse Holy Communion to those who are living in a state of "public sin." In my opinion, the Bishop of Calgary is a courageous man for standing up when other bishops refuse.

Axios, you can't condemn the Bishop of Calgary just because the others aren't doing THEIR duty. And there IS a universal, consistent standard in the teaching of the Church--Bishops these days simply don't apply it--for which they ought be (and sometimes have been) rebuked even in public. We'll see what happens with Schwartzanegger. I didn't even know he was a Catholic.

I think, Axios, that you would do well to stop grinding your anti-Catholic axe. (Cf: the thread on starting new parishes).

In Caritate Christi,

LatinTrad

And here is the flaw in all of this. The bishop specifically made the point if the Minister came to HIM at HIS Cathedral. If this is a private judgement of the bishop he is way out of line.

No, he's not. And you could think along these lines:

"Wonderful. One brave bishop who is setting a standard in a see of wavering vacillation."

But you would just rather punch holes in the RCC, right?

If it is a universal truth, then why the ommission of any instructions to his clergy?

I don't know. Good question. Perhaps you should write him and suggest that he make it a diocesan law.

Why not calling to task his fellow bishops who allow the Minister to receive?

An excellent question. Perhaps there are reasons. Rocking the boat is not always a lot of fun or something one engages in recklessly.

Why does the bishop not mention other public officials (like members of the Conservative Party) who have the same views?

Again, good question. Worth consideration. Let's indeed be even handed.

I think the bishop in his ham-fisted approach committs a sacrilidge, treating the Eucharist as a doggy biscuit to be given for sitting up and begging.

The last time I checked out my understanding of how a covenant relationship works, and particularly the New Covenant, eternal life IS the reward of obedience and covenantal faithfullness. The whole point of excommunication is to put the fear of loss into the laity, that they might understand that by their choice of wickedness, they are forfeiting any claim they have to eternal felicity. It is union with Christ which gives us this eternal blessedness, therefore, being severed from Him here on earth is a true mercy, for it should make the one severed stop and reflect upon his eternal destiny and repent. It only seems ham fisted to you perhaps because I have never heard of an Orthodox excommunication. Do you guys actually perform such discipline, or is that reserved for Latins and Byzantines only?

Let the proper authority come up with some universal, consistent and transparent standards. Anything less is a greater scandal than the communion reception of these people.

We have one. It is called the Catholic Catechism. The problem is that we have a bunch of traitors in mitres who have no interest in what it says. That does not detract from what is written in the catechism.

On a relatd note, it appears that the Bishop of Sacramento refuses to apply to Arnold the same standard he applied to Davis. How do you say 'hypocrite' in Latin?


Not sure. Never learned Latin. But I would agree with you. If it's good for Gray Doofus, it's good for the Bavarian Muscleworks.

Dear All:

What I'm about to post might be really dumb, but here 'goes.

While talking about this subejct with a friend the other day, I was reminded of an episode of the West Wing.

I was the one where the President was faced with the decision of whether to commute a death sentence to life in prison for a federal crime.

The President's Catholic faith told him that the killing of a human is wrong, even in situations of a grave crime. On the other hand, the President could not find any justification in the civil law to commute the sentence. (I'm over-simplifying, but you get the picture).

The final scene of that episode was an overhead shot as the Jeb Bartlett the man knealt (on the Presidential Seal no less) on the carpet in the oval office and offered his confession to his priest.

Yours,

kl

AMDG
Okay, we need to clear up this thing about "killing a human being is wrong."

The Catholic faith does not teach that "killing a human being" is always wrong.

The Catholic faith does teach that MURDER is always and everywhere and under all circumstances wrong.

The question then becomes, what makes killing murder?

The deliberate killing of an innocent person is murder. Judicial execution is an ESSENTIALLY different act. To be perfectly clear: it is NOT because "circumstances" sometimes justify doing what is objectively wrong. Circumstances NEVER justify doing what is objectively evil. It is because judicial execution, just wars, self-defence, etc., are ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT ACTIONS that they are not considered intrinsically evil.

The present Pope's stance on the Death Penalty is widely misunderstood, and wrongly invoked by those who believe the Death Penalty is *in and of itself* wrong. JP2's call for the elimination of *most* executions is based on the present state of the prison and judicial systems; the Church has NEVER taught, in 2,000 years, that the Death Penalty was intrinsically evil.

Thoughts?


In Christ and Mary,
LatinTrad

Dear Latin Trad:

I knew I would get in trouble by over-simplifying the issue, and so I have.

The main point, of course, is that Bartlett the man felt he committed a sin while Bartlett the President did what he thought he had to do as President.

Difficult choices. That's all I'm saying.

kl

AMDG
Dear Krylos Leader,
I'm sorry if I made you feel "in trouble." My point was that there is no situation in which there is one right thing for Bartlett the man and another right thing for Bartlett the Christian and another right thing for Bartlett the President.

There are no insoluble dilemmas in Moral Theology. That's why clear distinctions are so important. We need clear distinctions 1) within moral theology, and 2) between moral theology proper, and "virtue-based" ethics which are necessary, but do not provide the answers to moral dilemmas.

It was in the interest of clarity that I sought a distinction between the various "moral objects" in question.

I apologize for coming off the wrong way--my bad.

In Jesus and Mary,
LatinTrad

Altar Boy posts:

Gee, and LatTrad thinks I am overly critical of the Catholic Church.

I think as long as one shares Altar Boy's presumption that most of the rest of the Catholic episcopate are traitors in mitres, the bishop's action becomes defensable.

I don't think the bishop's action is defensible if one does not share Altar Boy's presumption.


So the bishop has failed to provide clarity is a publicly taken action.

More fuzziness in the bishop's action. One standard of recklessness for politicans, another for one's own "fraternity".

The third example of the bishop's failure to make a clear statement by his actions.


To summarize, I hardly think I should be called anto-Catholic when those making the accusation damn the vast majority of leaders of their own church. Second, if a bishop is going to issue a press release (as opposed to other fora such as the confessional or counseling) to a public person not under his pastoral care but who he thinks might travel in his diocese at some point, he is obviously trying to make a sign and statement to the world and not us to the one individual soul. Under such circumstances he has a heavy obligation not to be reckless and to make sure his decision to make a public expression of a private act is done in a way that it fully and properly represents what it is indented to.

Yet, as we see here, even his defender has no explaination to three aspects of his action.

Axios

If it is a universal truth, then why the ommission of any instructions to his clergy?

Detailed instructions from a bishop to his clergy are not usually printed on page 1 of the local newspaper. Since Bishop Henry has spoken publicly on the issue it is highly likely that his priests will simply follow his lead. Generally speaking, however, a bishop would never forbid his priests from giving the Sacraments to anyone, unless there was a formal excommunication. It is always possible that the PM Chretien would recant and repent his embracement of immorality. I believe that about a year ago Bishop Henry also forbid the marriage of a man and woman in one of his parishes because both were abortionists. He appears to be very consistent in staunchly upholding Christian moral teachings, especially when they are attacked by people calling themselves Catholic.

Why not calling to task his fellow bishops who allow the Minister to receive?

Don�t know. It is quite possible that he has done so privately. It is also possible that he respects that different bishops may have differing pastoral views on how best to handle the situation. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops did issue a strongly worded statement to Creitien.

Why does the bishop not mention other public officials (like members of the Conservative Party) who have the same views?

One would not expect him to publish a list but I believe that Bishop Henry has said much the same thing about other politicians. I think it is a fair comparison to when Mother Theresa spoke in Washington, DC in 1994 and then publicly scolded then President Clinton for his pro-abortion position. Speaking out against the leading individual of a particular political organization is, in effect, speaking out to all who hold such an immoral position.

--

Actually, Axios, people have been complaining about your anti-Catholic posts. You post as if you were trying to make Orthodoxy look good by calling to attention of the sins committed within the Catholic Church. When you routinely compare the best behavior of one person or group to the worst behavior of another person or group you wind up wit a reputation for being against the group you continually attack.

I don�t think that Bishop Henry was at all reckless in his statement. If people are going to call themselves Catholic they ought to start living like Catholics and supporting Catholic moral values within society. If they are not they should not be approaching the Chalice. The bishop�s words might just have been what was needed to call Canada to action to prevent the destruction of marriage and the family.

"There are no insoluble dilemmas in Moral Theology?" Ever hear of the movie 'Sophie's Choice.' What of all the Christians in World War II who had been told all their lives by their pastors to be obedient to lawful authority and yet risked their lives to hid Jews? If you ever saw the movie on the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and how he struggled as to whether or not to join the conspiracy to kill Hilter was the right moral choice you might realize how difficult making such decisions are in the real world. Arvid

Educate me, but I thought there was a princple of Catholic canon law (and a latin phrase that goes with it which I cannot recall) to the effective of related actions are to be conducted in a like forum -- i.e. public forum or private forum. So I don't understand a public act by the bishop with private instructions to his priests to do the same.

Yes, that's my question as well.

I think one would either expect him to desribe the situation in which one is barred from communion or name all of those individuals are are barred.



You should see the complaints I get about you in private messages and off-line emails!!

However, if you think it would be best I will try to post more often on failures of the Orthodox Church. I certainly stood up and defending the Catholic Church's rights in Russia and objected to the unecumenical and illiberal positions of the MP. I have expressed an admiration for Catholic social teaching and the fact Catholicism has a very strong pro-life witness while sadly Orthodox women have the highest abortion rate of any religion. I have been critical of the Orthodox Church for being passive on evangelization while complaining that others plow the fields we abandon.

Nevertheless, I am not going to accept that someone can call the Catholic episcopate "traitors in mitres" and concurrently call me anti-Catholic for questioning the actions of one bishop.

Axios

Yes, I am aware that a few have accused me of being a homophobic bigot because I defend Christian morality and am not silenced by such false accusations.

There is a difference between calling people to account for not upholding the Faith and what you are doing. You are purposefully and knowingly attacking the Catholic Church.

AMDG
Arvid, just because there are difficult questions does not mean there is no right answer. That is why clear Moral Theology (as used to be common in Dominican and Jesuit seminaries) is so important.

That is why I think Byzantines who refuse to engage scholastic thought are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Just a thought.

In Jesus and Mary,
LatinTrad

AMDG

Axios, I think I said before that if you want to criticize individual clerics or bishops, then fine.

The problem is when you go out of your way to tar the Catholic Faith, and make far-fetched arguments in order to poke holes in the Church.

For instance, in the thread on starting new parishes, you came in and started making snide remarks about "abuse." It had nothing to do with the thread. As I told you then, and I'll say it again, the abuse problem is primarily a problem of infiltration by those who see nothing wrong with homosexual acts. Most of the relationships in question have nothing to do with "children" but with young men. Yet, your profile links to a website that calls homosexual behavior "healthy."

Please consider, through prayer, bringing YOUR OWN position in line with that of right reason and Divine Revelation, and then your criticisms of bishops will have all the more weight.

And also, please reflect on how necessary some of your comments are.

In Jesus and Mary,
LatinTrad

I believe your preferred spelling is "unecumencial", Kurt/Konrad, er, I mean, Axios... :rolleyes:

I disagree. While the East has not done a good job of presenting the Eastern Christian approach to applying reason to faith one should not automatically conclude that scholastic thought is superior. It isn�t. Even within classis Western scholasticism there are many different approaches. The only thing that all scholastics hold in common is that the philosophical approach to reason and faith should always take into account Christian faith (and faithfulness). These are the same essential elements one finds in patristic thought.

AMDG

Nevertheless, St. Thomas Aquinas developed the relationship between Faith and Reason to an exquisite degree, giving us all a leg up in answering many questions.

I don't think that Easterners should aviod St. Thomas merely because he is western. Westerners do not feel the need to avoid Cyprian or Basil.

Certain good things can come from the West, after all . . .

In Jesus and Mary,
LatinTrad

Friends:

I think the Latin West journeys deeper into the realm of reason, edging toward its common boundary with Faith.

Is it superior to that of the East? I don't know; but it is a journey of discovery as it should and always will be.

As such, the Catholic Church is armed with perhaps a more potent weapon to face and ward off the challenges thrown at her, in her attempt at global evangelization, by the differing and various philosophies of the world's religions: from Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism to Greek philosophy intricately wrought by Plato and Aristotle.

The Catholic Church can and did host a prayer meeting at Assisi twice, involving the world's religions, with confidence but to the chagrin of some of the Eastern Churches, if I remember it right.

Pope John Paul II's Encyclical "Fides et Ratio" presents clearly the Catholic Church's position.

Amado

Dear LatinTrad and Amigo Amado,

St Thomas Aquinas, in his day, was called the "Father of all Heretics" by St Bonaventure, you know

Orthodox theologians after him did borrow his moral musings and some even came to venerate him as a saint in private, calling him "Blessed Thomas" and excusing his defence of the Filioque as a result of having been born in the West - something out of his control (Meyendorff "Byzantine Theology" - I forget the page numbers though . . .).

And, Latin Trad, you are really getting on my nerves today, Big Guy!

You assume that all EC's are against Aquinas.

Well, I can't speak for the Ruthenians here (there will come a day when I'll understand them, I know it will! ), but our Patriarch Josef the Confessor had a Byzantine icon of Aquinas written in his Church of St Sophia in Rome and had a great veneration for him.

You really have no idea about Eastern Catholics, like most of my TradLat professors in Catholic high school, and yet you presume to pass judgement on us.

Again, you've got a lot of "sifting" work to do in your own church before you can come to us to presume to teach us Christian faith and morals.

It was St Thomas Aquinas and his discussion of the procession of the Holy Spirit "From the Father THROUGH the Son" that first twigged my interest in that topic.

I don't want to say too much more on the Filioque because I know it sends Cantor Joe Thur off the edge . . .

Alex

AMDG

Chill out, Alex. Take a deep breath and count to ten.

I sincerely apologize for any offense given--it was all in good humor. I respect your erudition as far superior to my own and I would never want to get on your nerves.

I have spent time in Byzantine parishes and Byzantine circles and I have met SOME Byzantines (especially Arabs) who avoid studying Thomas because he is one of "us". It was of them that I thought, as I spoke in my rashness. Of course I don't presume to pass judgment on all Byzantine Catholics.

I love the Byzantine liturgy and traditions, and have always made an honest effort to appreciate the Eastern "side" of the "differences" between us. My only intention was to humbly submit that Scholasticism is not something of which to be afraid. I am only thinking within my experience in certain parishes.

I apologize to all.

(on the side, I have been reamed by some for using "Western Terminology" capital w capital t, and maybe I was feeling a little defensive about using "Western" solutions to the moral issues.)

Much Abashed,

LatinTrad

Really? Should this be important to Eastern Christians? Why? Are you suggesting that we abandon the Eastern Christian way of doing theology because you have a personal preference for Aquinas? Would it not be better to learn the Eastern Christian way of doing theology and approaching questions of faith and reason before condemning it? I studied Aquinas in college and his approach just does not make sense for Eastern Christians.

In defense of my friend LatinTrad - I don't think he meant to imply that "all Easterners" are opposed to Aquinas.

However, SOME EC's do seem to actively dislike any philosophy, devotion or motion picture originating out of the West. And since this is the Internet, those voices do tend to drown out the more reasonable folks in the center. That's the nature of chat groups.

It's good to be reminded that most EC's don't march in lockstep - neither do most RC's.

Dear Trad Lat,

One, two, three . . .ten!

O.K., how come you don't like me going after you, but you are silent when the Administrator takes a go at you?

Is it because you think I'm a pushover?

Appearances can be deceiving, Friend!

And my attitude is also affected when I go to episcopal consecrations and the RC Cardinal, a former theology professor and one who otherwise should know better, keeps referring to us as a "Rite."

Again, someone for whom Vatican II happened to other people . . .

You should just know that we Ukies are very Latinized, like you in some respects!

Some of us are downright more papal than the Pope himself!

How many times do you guys commemorate the Pope during the Mass? Once?

We do it four times. There are some of us who would do it more times but, alas, those pesky liturgical rubrics. . .

But I feel complimented that you consider my post to be hurtful and not the Administrator's.

That shows great respect that you have for me.

Thank you, Friend!

Alex

AMDG
Actually, I had not seen the last post by the Administrator.

See my "Sorry" thread.

L-t

I'M SORRY, ADMIN--FORGOT TO LEAVE OUT THE AMDG

Dear Theist Doll,

I really don't think Trad Lat needs an advocate here!

I don't pick just any sparring partner - I choose the very best.

And that is Trad Lat!

What I'm doing is giving him Byzantine Shock Treatment (BST) to really hurry his Eastern education along . . .

So far, it's working, wouldn't you say?

Trad Lat also has the benefit of getting a direct insight into what it means to be picked on as a minority in a majority context.

In other words, hands on exposure to what EC's have had to put up with from you guys for years!

(How are you today, otherwise?)

Alex

I am doing just fine, thanks! Just got a new "glamour photo" taken (see my profile!). It turned out so well I'm feeling extra kind and compassionate towards all my fellow men and womenfolks (Latin or otherwise!)

Dear LatinTrad:

I went through this gauntlet once, nay more than once, manned on either side by Ruthenians and Ukrainians. :p

Everything went "well;" as you can see I'm still here. I have become even a Ukie-wannabe; supporting their "Kyivan Patriarchate" and all!

To be singled out by the Admin and Alex the Great is an "honor" unto itself. So, stay put and don't you worry. Steve and Memo, and now Theist Doll, are standing by.

AmdG
(I am the original, you HEAR!!!)

Dear Amigo Amado,

You are a better man than I, then!

But you always were . . .

Alex

Dear Theist Doll,

God bless you always!

Alex

Same to you, Alex - just remember, be nice to my "buds", 'cause I'm always lurking in the corner, ready to rush to their defense!

Posted by Administrator:

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LT wrote:
Nevertheless, St. Thomas Aquinas developed the relationship between Faith and Reason to an exquisite degree, giving us all a leg up in answering many questions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? Should this be important to Eastern Christians? Why? Are you suggesting that we abandon the Eastern Christian way of doing theology because you have a personal preference for Aquinas? Would it not be better to learn the Eastern Christian way of doing theology and approaching questions of faith and reason before condemning it? I studied Aquinas in college and his approach just does not make sense for Eastern Christians. "

Dear Administrator,

There are Western Christians who would take your statement even further and assert that Acquinas's approach just does not make sense for Western Christians, too!

Steve

Maybe the problem is that we're treating it as if it is - or should be - a "one size fits all" approach.

St. Thomas Aquinas (who, by the way, is one of my favorite saints, not for his philosophy but because he was a chubby guy, and I like chubby guys ) labored very hard on his theological work, and yet near the end of his life, he is said to have had a mystical vision which made him describe his previous work as a "theology of straw."

Here's my own personal opinion: at certain times, in certain places and for certain people, St. T.A.'s approach can be, and has been, very valuable, helpful and worthwhile. For others, it has not.

St. T.A.'s work was and is something which all Christians ought to be proud of. This was a guy who devoted his entire life to trying to understand God, and trying to 'splain it to the rest of us. He would be the first one to say that he didn't get everything right!

So - if you study it, and find that it helps you, great! Praise God and apply it to your own life. If you study it and find that it doesn't help you, great! Praise God, and move on. My chubby St. T.A. would be the first to tell you that ...

Dear Administrator,
I would like very much if you could elaborate on this point, summarizing your understanding of his approach, and why it does not make sense for Eastern Christians.

"Scholasticism" is the frequent butt of little disparaging remarks on this forum. I've wondered and asked why in various contexts, here, before, but never got any response. (I'm very fond of the angels on the head of a pin question; I don't think we'd be having an on-line discussion were it never asked.) On some occasions, I've suspected a hint of anti-intellectual or post-modernist sentiment. But I didn't study Aquinas or the Schoolmen, so I'm in the dark, looking ofr illumination.


Say it ain't so! (and wasn't that Olga's spelling, anyway?)

It isn't exactly the Scholastics per se that are the cause for concern from us Byzantines, but rather the historical development after them.

The Byzantine world had neither Scholasticism, nor the Enlightenment, nor the Reformation to contend with in the way these shook the West. In Byzantine minds when the study of theology became divorced from a liturgical framework and basis, as happened after the Scholastics, bad things started to happen. Viewed with Byzantine eyes the Enlightenment couldn't occur philosophically without Scholasticism.

And is the Enlightenment considered an intrinsically bad development in Byzantine eyes?

Absolutely. The outcome of the Enlightenment is seen as anthropocentric, diametrically opposed to Byzantine concepts of communion and theosis which are theocentric.

Also, as more recent reinforcement, the direct connection between Marx and the Enlightenment and the ensuing attack of Communism to Orthodoxy makes the Enlightenment even more suspect with its separation of faith from reason in the eyes of Byzantine Christians. For the Enlightenment, viewed from a Byzantine perspective, man is enlightened by his own reason, not from God or the indwelling of His Holy Spirit.

"not" or and"
Diametrically opposed or complementary? Or synergystic? Are the two commandments of Christ opposed, complementary, or synergistic? Are the criteria He spoke about our being judged antropocentric, theocentric, or both.

Is Byzantine Christianity un-enculturatable in Western civilization? Does it imply a disregard for, and, at some level a revolt against the achievements of Western civilization?

Just to remind you, (above), your initial question had to do with the Enlightenment as seen through Byzantine perspectives and not its effect on Western Christianity nor its ramifications of inculturation. I answered it as such as a Byzantine Christian.

Your response brings up tangents not present in your initial question. I fail to see how Kant, Hegel, and later devotees such as Marx could even remotely be considered synergistic with St. Symeon the New Theologian, St. Gregory Palamas, Cabisilas, etc. nor how this relates to Our Lord's commandments of love.

I am unsure what to make of this nor how it relates to your initial question, which had to do with the Byzantine perspective of the Enlightenment and not the "achievments of Western civilization".

The Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire of the East and as such is generally considered part of "Western Civlization". The inculturation of Byzantine Christianity in Eastern Europe and later North America speak for its ability to do so. Are you reducing the achievements of Western civilization to the Enlightment? This discussion seems to be taking a circular path.