True Catholic

True Catholic
[ True Catholic ]

The pope and his ideal family

Posted by Tony M on January 12, 2020, 3:20 pm

David Schindler says wonderful things horribly.
Still, I think, worth devoting 45 mins quiet time to hear him charitably give the pope a smack around the ears.

https://vimeo.com/316457555

Charitably, this speaker needs a 'smack around the (proverbial) ears'

Posted by Faz on January 14, 2020, 8:52 am, in reply to "The pope and his ideal family"

I have always tried to understand positions that I disagree with in relation to church teaching.

The whole issue of human sexuality has been one of those issues.

My experience however is that the church's position is often represented by people who are aggressive and dismissive on the one hand, or obscure and impenetrable on the other.

David L. Schindler fits into the second category!

I tried a couple of times to 'hear him charitably' but it was so not connected to my lived experience that I couldn't continue.

Re: The pope and his ideal family

Posted by John on January 14, 2020, 9:04 am, in reply to "The pope and his ideal family"

I eventually put aside the necessary 45 minutes, watched the video, and listened to the treatise. It’s not the sort of stuff one will ever hear from most pulpits these days. Indeed, I wonder how few of our priests even admit that there is such an entity as intrinsic evil, and that some acts are intrinsically disordered. And “Who am I to judge” constitutes no motivation whatever to exert any mental activity on the matter, although Schindler’s closing statements do leave us with hope that eventually the Church, small though it may have become, will return to the truth.

Re: The pope and his ideal family

Posted by Alex Caughey on January 14, 2020, 6:41 pm, in reply to "The pope and his ideal family"

Intellectual sophistication is no substitute for living on life's mean streets where human life struggles to discover its reason for being alive.

Our journey of self discovery cannot be uncovered living in a cave where the shadows bounce off the walls as if to say,
... beware...for outside there are risks.

Plato's cave allegory teaches us that self incarceration within a cell of our own construction imposes a life long sentence cemented in fear of the unknown.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
and do not lean on your own understanding.
In all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make straight your paths.

~ Proverbs 3:5-6

end

Re: Charitably, this speaker needs a 'smack around the (proverbial) ears'

Posted by Tony M on January 14, 2020, 7:18 pm, in reply to "Charitably, this speaker needs a 'smack around the (proverbial) ears'"

'I tried a couple of times to 'hear him charitably' but it was so not connected to my lived experience that I couldn't continue.'

You hold then, Faz, that we are all consigned to the limitations of our 'lived experience'.
That's post-enlightenment autonomous man liberalism gone mad.
I'm not content to finish my time here as some contingent, historical artefact.
I'm desperately seeking how I fit in with God and the notion of God fitting in with me/my lived experience is just bizarre.

Re: The pope and his ideal family

Posted by Tony M on January 14, 2020, 7:35 pm, in reply to "Re: The pope and his ideal family"

Not sure where anyone claimed to be substituting anything for anything else, Alex.
Charging the good professor with 'leaning on his own understanding' (or me for citing him?) is a nice piece of judgementalism, if that's your thing.

Re: The pope and his ideal family

Posted by Tony M on January 14, 2020, 7:58 pm, in reply to "Re: The pope and his ideal family"

Good on you, John.
Schindler's writings are a source of much hope.

Post-enlightenment autonomous man liberalism gone mad?

Posted by Faz on January 15, 2020, 3:32 am, in reply to "Re: Charitably, this speaker needs a 'smack around the (proverbial) ears'"

You hold then, Faz, that we are all consigned to the limitations of our 'lived experience'.

Not at all, however I don't think Schindler is going to help many see beyond their 'consignment'.

That's post-enlightenment autonomous man liberalism gone mad.

Talk about over-react!

I'm not content to finish my time here as some contingent, historical artefact.

OK.

I'm desperately seeking how I fit in with God and the notion of God fitting in with me/my lived experience is just bizarre.

Not really. I guess it's my own way saying what you evoked. That is, no matter how 'wonderful' the content, saying it 'horribly' is a problem.

As I said earlier '... the church's position [on human sexuality] is often represented by people who are aggressive and dismissive on the one hand, or obscure and impenetrable on the other'.

IMO, your response is evidence of the former and Schindler's video is evidence of the latter.

To be fair to Schindler, he's a specialist speaking (I assume) to a specialist audience and, I suspect, that's where he'll stay.

Re: Post-enlightenment autonomous man liberalism gone mad?

Posted by Tony M on January 15, 2020, 4:18 pm, in reply to "Post-enlightenment autonomous man liberalism gone mad?"

That's post-enlightenment autonomous man liberalism gone mad.

Talk about over-react!

I thought that was restrained, I'm trying very hard not to be an aggro dismissivist.

I'm not content to finish my time here as some contingent, historical artefact.

OK.

But you are!?

As I said earlier '... the church's position [on human sexuality] is often represented by people who are aggressive and dismissive on the one hand, or obscure and impenetrable on the other'.

Neat categories, and for the purposes of imitating ostriches, they clearly work well.

To be fair to Schindler, he's a specialist speaking (I assume) to a specialist audience and, I suspect, that's where he'll stay.

I agree D L Schindler will never be top of the pops, but his ideas are important and they do and will filter down into the life of the Church and eventually, God willing, the life of our society.
I'm sure blokes like Schillebeeckx, Kung and Bultmann were just as horrible to the untrained ear, nonetheless, I dare say, they have still had quite an influence on your "life experience".

Restrained ostrich?

Posted by Faz on January 16, 2020, 5:57 am, in reply to "Re: Post-enlightenment autonomous man liberalism gone mad?"

I thought that was restrained, I'm trying very hard not to be an aggro dismissivist.

Really? I'm curious as to what you might have come up with that was less restrained.

But you are!?

It's hard to know if that's a statement or a question. I'll settle for loaded question.

Neat categories, and for the purposes of imitating ostriches, they clearly work well.

Not quite up to your 'aggro dismissivist' standards.

I agree D L Schindler will never be top of the pops, but his ideas are important and they do and will filter down into the life of the Church and eventually, God willing, the life of our society.

Good luck with that. The signs are not good.

I'm sure blokes like Schillebeeckx, Kung and Bultmann were just as horrible to the untrained ear, nonetheless, I dare say, they have still had quite an influence on your "life experience".

And, I dare say, there have been hundreds of 'blokes' who've faded into obscurity, despite the confidence of their followers.

Re: Restrained ostrich?

Posted by Tony M on January 16, 2020, 7:02 am, in reply to "Restrained ostrich?"

But you are!?

It's hard to know if that's a statement or a question. I'll settle for loaded question.

I am quite used now to the summary Fazian shutdown when it comes to such things, and that's fair enough.

But just to clear up my intention in asking - it was actually a concerned question.

Contingent, historical artefact

Posted by Faz on January 16, 2020, 8:29 am, in reply to "Re: Restrained ostrich?"

I am quite used now to the summary Fazian shutdown when it comes to such things, and that's fair enough.

Yes. I generally don't attempt to 'answer' loaded questions. They are, essentially, a 'shutdown'
manoeuvre.

But just to clear up my intention in asking - it was actually a concerned question.

In that case, you're welcome to elaborate what you actually mean by 'some contingent, historical artefact' and I'll respond (sans exclamation marks!)

Re: Contingent, historical artefact

Posted by Tony M on January 17, 2020, 5:03 am, in reply to "Contingent, historical artefact"

An artefact as defined by dictionary.com: any mass-produced, (usually inexpensive!!!) object reflecting contemporary society or popular culture.

Having been made sons of the Father, achieving artefact status is not something any of us should be very satisfied with during death bed reflections, I would have thought.

To define our own reality by reference to our 'life experience' is to forgo the freedom of the children of God, instead to prefer servitude to the accidents of our historical context, with its prevailing philosophical fashions, along with the accidents of our psychological formation.

And rigid, prideful, contingent self-assertion is never going to end well, certainly not according to our potential, having been made as we are in the image and likeness of God.

Augustine's cor inquitem: "My heart is restless until it rests in thee o' Lord," functions to pull us out of the mires of sin and depravity on the one hand, and our self-sufficiency and pride on the other.

John of the Cross, who understood the necessity of transcending 'life experience' better than anyone, might perhaps be mistaken as aggro dismissive when he stated:

Those who trust in themselves are worse than the devil!!!!!

Sayings of Light and Love 166

Re: Contingent, historical artefact

Posted by Faz on January 17, 2020, 6:40 am, in reply to "Re: Contingent, historical artefact"

An artefact as defined by dictionary.com: any mass-produced, (usually inexpensive!!!) object reflecting contemporary society or popular culture.

I like dictionary.com, but by this definition, artifact doesn't apply to any human being. Artefacts are created by human beings and can reflect a particular period of history.

On that basis I assume you meant it metaphorically, but I'm not clear on how you apply it to a human being and I'm not willing to guess.

Having been made sons of the Father, achieving artefact status is not something any of us should be very satisfied with during death bed reflections, I would have thought.

Again, I'm not sure what 'artefact status' means.

To define our own reality by reference to our 'life experience' ...

Whao! I didn't say our 'life experiences' define our reality. It represented a particular criticism of David Schindler in this context.

And rigid, prideful, contingent self-assertion is never going to end well, certainly not according to our potential, having been made as we are in the image and likeness of God.

'Rigid, prideful, contingent self-assertion'?

What about broad, sweeping, unjustified, condemnations? How are they going to 'end'?

Augustine's cor inquitem ...
John of the Cross ...

It's not at all clear how you recruit these insights into this conversation because I didn't like David Schindler.

Taking you on face value ('... it was actually a concerned question ...') I asked what you meant by 'contingent, historical artefact'. In reply, you supply a dictionary definition of artefact, which seems to have no relevance, and then go on to make statements which you virtually pull out of the air.

My first instinct was that it was a loaded question and not a 'concerned' question. Your response makes me think that instinct was correct.

Re: Contingent, historical artefact

Posted by Tony M on January 17, 2020, 6:20 pm, in reply to "Re: Contingent, historical artefact"

My first instinct was that it was a loaded question and not a 'concerned' question. Your response makes me think that instinct was correct.

That's fine, Faz. If you can't take me at my word then there' s really no scope for further conversation.

More significant impediments

Posted by Faz on January 18, 2020, 9:56 am, in reply to "Re: Contingent, historical artefact"

That's fine, Faz. If you can't take me at my word then there' s really no scope for further conversation.

I did take you at your word though, Tony, and asked for an elaboration.

A much more significant impediment to further conversation is not explaining what you meant and then going on to make unsubtle references to 'rigid, prideful, contingent self-assertion'.

I didn't like the Schindler video you offered. You over-reacted.

« Back to index

[ True Catholic ]