It is important to remember that the organization of the the church - is a human organization. As such is inherently flawed. — Rank Amateur

Good point. I'm not suggesting the Church can be perfect, only that it can be more credible.

There is no doubt at all that the sex abuse scandal is horrifying on many levels - and will certainly have an impact on the faith of many followers - and that is completely understandable. But The Body of the Church has endured worse and it will survive this. — Rank Amateur

This is what I'm rejecting, the "just be patient and this will blow over" mindset. Let's remember how the Church failed to take decisive action when it discovered child rapists in it's employ. The "this will blow over" mindset is more of that. Will the Church survive no matter what it does? Probably so. It will survive as a religion increasingly dominated by old ladies lighting candles in parishes with dwindling membership. It doesn't have to be that way.

As to what The Church should do, well I am a traditional leaning Catholic, so at least IMO what the Church should do is to just be Catholic. Be clear and constant in the same core message that has been the heart of the Church for 2,000 years. — Rank Amateur

This is what I mean. You've failed to learn anything from the crisis, and plan to keep on doing more of the same that got the Church in to the crisis. You have every right, but it's not going to work.

Carlos, as a reminder. what I actually said was this....

The clergy has proven itself to be a congregation of paedophile enablers, not just here or there, but globally.

I didn't say this....

there nothing to say to a person who defines the Church as a group of paedophiles? — Carlos

You're arguing with assertions of your own invention.

just be patient and this will blow over — Jake

this interpretation is in absolutely no way consistent with my concern over this horror. That is just a restatement of your view of the situation attributed to me. My only point is the Church will survive this.

This is what I mean. You've failed to learn anything from the crisis, and plan to keep on doing more of the same that got the Church in to the crisis. — Jake

actually the point was to just keep doing what the church has been doing for 2,000 years. To continue to tell Its truth as It see it, and ( to be religious for a sec) as the Holy Spirit directs it. Because that is all it can do.

to this point

a brief aside - there is a Jesuit ( and others) concept called Spiritual Freedom. It says in context of this discussion is that the Church should just do what it believes is right and be unconcerned of the consequences.

this interpretation is in absolutely no way consistent with my concern over this horror. — Rank Amateur

Well ok then, what bold action do you propose other than just waiting?

What you said was...

As to what The Church should do, well I am a traditional leaning Catholic, so at least IMO what the Church should do is to just be Catholic. Be clear and constant in the same core message that has been the heart of the Church for 2,000 years. — Rank Amateur

I don't see anything but waiting for it to blow over in there, but if you can correct my impression, please do. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just reporting what I'm hearing.

actually the point was to just keep doing what the church has been doing for 2,000 years. To continue to tell Its truth as It see it, and ( to be religious for a sec) as the Holy Spirit directs it. Because that is all it can do. — Rank Amateur

Except that this is not all it can do. It could do something decisive, such as have the male clergy and nuns swap jobs. People like nuns because nuns are usually associated with service and not speeches. Nuns are credible. Nuns are very Catholic. What's the problem?

I'm not suggesting that this is the one and only suggestion that could possibly work, I'm just trying to provide an example of the scale of action which is required to restore the Church's credibility. The industrial scale raping of kids is a very big deal, which I assume you agree with. My point is only that a very big problem requires a very big response. The child rape scandal needs to be replaced with another big story. Again, this is just a practical tactical point, that's all.

It says in context of this discussion is that the Church should just do what it believes is right and be unconcerned of the consequences. — Rank Amateur

In my understanding, what would be right from the Church's perspective would be that the Church be an effective change agent in the world, that it be credible, and capable of winning the hearts and minds of those not already in the Church.

It could do something decisive, such as have the male clergy and nuns swap jobs — Jake

It can not do this - Pope John Paul II "authoritatively" declared that women can not be ordained as Priests, and it is "authoritatively" stated in the Catechism and less importantly Cannon Law . These are theologically impossible hurdles to overcome. We can ordain woman to the deacons , and I think this will happen at some point.

In my understanding, what would be right from the Church's perspective would be that the Church be an effective change agent in the world, — Jake

I think that has always been the mission of the Church.

that it be credible — Jake

This is more personal opinion than my view of what the Church believes, but I think the best way it can do this - is what I said above - be Catholic and say and live the truth as they see it - as the Church as done - or at least aspired to do since the beginning.

is there nothing to say to a person who defines the Church as a group of paedophiles? — CarlosDiaz

Probably there isn't much that can be said that will make much difference. One could say something like"The Church hierarchy clearly has tolerated child abuse when it should have rooted out the individuals who were in violation of everything the church considers holy. It did not, much to its undoing." or something along those lines.

Then move on, unless you really want to get into the child abuse scandal, which you probably do not want to do.

It's like when I reference socialism, and somebody says it's a totally unworkable fraud, I know there is no common ground with this person. One just has to move on.

Don't you think that before pinpointing mistakes in my writing... — CarlosDiaz

I wasn't criticizing your writing really, just the way you (and other people) terminate engagement. I mentioned that it wasn't all about you, it was about that sort of termination popping up fairly often.

Some people do not share enough of your commitment to or interest in the church to have a conversation in much depth. The same goes for me and people who loathe socialism: we might as well avoid getting into a squabble, because their views and mine are just not going to be similar.

Jake and Rank Amateur were discussing your topic several hours ago and it didn't go very well. They don't share enough agreement.

Sometimes. you know, it is impossible to get simple arguments through the thick skulls of otherwise intelligent, caring, sensitive, handsome, charming, Christ-like individuals. For the sake of the forum, just move on. You'll eventually be writing about something they and you can agree on enthusiastically, then it will be nice to be on good terms with them.

(Yeah, I know; sounds great in theory, and truth be told, there are times when I have been painfully rude and undiplomatic in face-to-face settings, and it's surprising that those people ever spoke to me again. (Well, some of them haven't, actually. I've been banned from one of my sisters homes by her husband who found my views on certain elderly -- now dead -- southern senators (real racists) to be intolerable. I think the last time I visited their house was 20 years ago.)

yes, you are right, "there isn't much that can be said that will make much difference" (about Church's scandals) but there is even less about my supposed pompous response. I don't care what Jake and Rank Amateur are doing above, I am not reading them but if you say that "were discussing your topic several hours ago and it didn't go very well" I certainly believe you and you now may understand why I left that conversation (or why what you call "terminate the engagement" is the wisest thing to do because you see what's next before it happens). If people "do not share enough of your commitment to or interest" (which is OK and I am old enough to assume it without any problem) or they don't have anything to say, the best thing to do is to ignore me (and by the way, I am not in bad terms with them, I am just not in terms of any kind, good or bad).

Your advice came late, I already moved on but thanks anyway (and I don't think you are "painfully rude and undiplomatic" when you talk face-to-face with a racist, in fact it is just the other way around)

It can not do this - Pope John Paul II "authoritatively" declared that women can not be ordained as Priests, and it is "authoritatively" stated in the Catechism and less importantly Cannon Law . — Rank Amateur

Where in the New Testament did Jesus say that women could never lead the Church, even 2,000 years after his death?

Let's look at who you are referencing...

1) Pope John Paul II
2) Catechism
3) Cannon Law

That is, you are accepting as your authority not Jesus, but the clergy, the very people who have lost Europe and trashed the reputation of Catholicism.

It is of course true that Jesus had only male apostles. And it's likely true that the social structure 2,000 years ago was too rigid for women to be effective as leaders, so Jesus's decision was probably wise for his time.

But today, in the world we actually live in now, women are in leadership positions in many other Christian denominations, and guess what, nothing bad has happened.

But, the Catholic Church will ignore all this, cling stubbornly to a social model from 2,000 years ago, and have great difficulty attracting priests, who won't be listened to once they are ordained.

yes, you are right, "there isn't much that can be said that will make much difference" (about Church's scandals) — CarlosDiaz

There is so much that can be said. But I agree it won't make much difference in Catholic culture.

but there is even less about my supposed pompous response. — CarlosDiaz

For what it's worth, I didn't find your dismissal of engagement to be pompous or otherwise problematic. You no longer wanted to chat and reported that situation. No harm was done to anyone. And...

Your hasty retreat illustrated a situation which may be educational for those unfamiliar with Catholic culture online. In my experience your retreat was quite representative of Catholic dialog with non-Catholics online.

Here's evidence of that claim. Visit as many Catholic sites as one can. What you'll see is that they are overwhelmingly, close to exclusively, Catholics talking to other Catholics. I've never seen a site specifically set up for Catholics to talk to non-Catholics, and if there is one I'll bet my bank account that it was established to create a platform for Catholics to play the role of teacher, ie. not real dialog.

I should add that Catholics have no obligation at all to talk to anybody outside of their community. Except that, um, their mission is supposed to be to change the world, which is kinda hard to do when one hides inside one's own house. Thus, when Catholics retreat from real dialog with non-Catholics they aren't arguing with me, but with their own religion, with Jesus.

I was not arguing with you, I was just giving you some information. Although you may have been raised Catholic, it is obvious you do not understand what it means, or bothered to look up what it means when a Pope speaks authoritatively.

It would take a bit to explain what undoing something like that would mean, but it would be very much like pulling on a thread that unravels the entire sweater. I am sure you will tell me how wrong I am about this, but I do know something about Catholicism, and it would not be possible for the Church to ordain women, without putting in question all of what the Church believes to be Divine Revelation by apostolic Tradition. In other words, it can not do this, and be Catholic.

Again, this is just information, not argument.

I was not arguing with you... — Rank Amateur

For what it's worth, it's ok to argue with me should the need arise, I don't object. Should you need to yell at me, that's ok too, doing so does not make you a bad person etc. Or, if you prefer, you can pretend you're not arguing while you argue.

Although you may have been raised Catholic, it is obvious you do not understand what it means, or bothered to look up what it means when a Pope speaks authoritatively. — Rank Amateur

I understand what that means to a traditional Catholic, I just don't share that view. And, reality check, most American Catholics ignore the Pope when they feel that's necessary. Do a search for Pew Research and look up their professional objective "no skin in the game" analysis of Catholic opinion. Roughly half of American Catholics ignore the Pope on gay marriage and abortion, and almost all of them ignore the Pope on contraception, even though such personal morality issues have been a key focus of the Church in recent years.

So, what does it mean "when a Pope speaks authoritatively"? It means that those who agree will agree and those that don't agree will withhold agreement. In other words, the Pope has no real world authority, even within his own community. He can suggest, he can share, he can point in this direction or that, but he has no control over any Catholic's interpretation of the faith. That is the REAL WORLD of Catholicism beyond the traditionalist's fantasy, a billion Catholics, each crafting their own version of Catholicism.

As example, many conservative traditionalists have adamantly claimed in the past that Catholics must follow the Pope no matter what. And then Pope Francis, a somewhat liberal Pope (at least compared to recent Popes), came along and now they are in an uproar.

and it would not be possible for the Church to ordain women, without putting in question all of what the Church believes to be Divine Revelation by apostolic Tradition. In other words, it can not do this, and be Catholic. — Rank Amateur

Where exactly in the New Testament does Jesus say that women can never ever take on leadership roles in his church? You've dodged this entirely reasonable question because you know the answer is nowhere.

You're also ignoring the reality that the credibility of Catholic male clergy is trashed, over and done, at least for the next century. At this point the clergy has no power to influence anybody except those who already agree with them, which is to say, they have no influence. And so as humanity rushes towards some kind of existential crisis during the 21st century Catholic clergy will be stuck on the sidelines, unable to do anything but watch.

In my view, to accept this situation is to betray the mission Jesus gave to the Church.

Imagine that I were the leading spokesman on the forum for an imaginary ideology we'll call Jakism. But then I get caught raping children or covering that up thus putting more children at risk. In such a circumstance what credibility would I then have with members of this forum?

This would bring the Jakist community to a decision. Which is more important? Father Jake, or the message of Jakism? If they chose me, that would reveal they aren't too serious about their message.

Where exactly in the New Testament does Jesus say that women can never ever take on leadership roles in his church? You've dodged this entirely reasonable question because you know the answer is nowhere. — Jake

This concept of Sola Scriptura ( where does Jesus say ) that you are alluding to - along with your challenge of Papal authority were the heart of the Reformation.

You can personally believe, along with millions of others if the the fundamental teachings of the Church on Apostolic Tradition and Papal authority are good, or real, or anything else - I will have no argument with your beliefs. I am not an apologist or an evangelist - believe what you will.

I am merely trying to give you what the Church itself believes - specifically on the ordination of women - and the reason why it can not do this, without giving up the core beliefs that make it Catholic.

Where exactly in the New Testament does Jesus say — Jake

maybe I am not being clear on what I mean by Apostolic Tradition -

It is a fundamental belief of the Catholic Church that the totality of Divine Revelation is both the Bible AND what the Church believes by Apostolic Tradition - the Church does not say either of these is superior or inferior - they are equal.

Also the Church believes when the Pope speaks authoritatively on matters of faith or morals, it is the inspired word of God ( Holy Spirit ), in effect it is God speaking through the man, it is not the man speaking - it is why it is believed to be infallible.

Again - like a few million others - you are more than free to think this is nonsense - but it IS what the Church believes. -

This concept of Sola Scriptura ( where does Jesus say ) that you are alluding to - along with your challenge of Papal authority were the heart of the Reformation. — Rank Amateur

Yes, agreed. I hope we might also agree that the challenge to Papal authority also exists within the Catholic community, as example, those millions of Catholics who blatantly ignore Church teaching on some collection of issues.

I am not an apologist or an evangelist - believe what you will. — Rank Amateur

I'm accusing you of neither, not that there would be anything wrong with being an apologist or evangelist. You know, I'm an evangelist for my own perspectives. I do appreciate your willingness to engage as Catholicism is still interesting to me, and probably should be of interest to any member of Western civilization. I'll try to dial back some of my rhetorical excess, though as you wisely advised us, we are not dealing with perfection here. :smile:

I am merely trying to give you what the Church itself believes — Rank Amateur

Here we arrive at the question of, what is the Church?

For many people, what they mean by "the Church" is the clergy and the products of the clergy, such as doctrinal statements etc.

What I mean by "the Church" is the sum total of a billion or more Catholics, who obviously do all not believe any one particular thing. In my view "the Church" is instead a meeting place like this forum where people who are interested in a certain set of topics can come together to explore those issues.

To me, the clergy is not "the Church" but instead a small group of serious influential Catholics who have appointed themselves to leadership positions.

It is a fundamental belief of the Catholic Church that the totality of Divine Revelation is both the Bible AND what the Church believes by Apostolic Tradition — Rank Amateur

Ok, "apostolic tradition" is another way of saying "clergy". And, the clergy do not all agree among themselves. Some support traditionalist perspectives, some are more progressive, some felt hiding crimes was a good plan for the Church, some did not etc.

Also the Church believes when the Pope speaks authoritatively on matters of faith or morals, it is the inspired word of God ( Holy Spirit ), in effect it is God speaking through the man, it is not the man speaking - it is why it is believed to be infallible. — Rank Amateur

Yes, I understand this doctrine. But the Church, even defined as being the clergy, does not believe this. If they did, there would not be constant ideological maneuvering among the high ranking clergy. If the clergy believed in this doctrine they would simply fall in line peacefully behind whoever was currently Pope, given that according to the doctrine it is God speaking through the man.

As a sidebar, here's a site by Catholic academics.

https://catholicmoraltheology.com/

There's no conversation there, though they have the comment section enabled for some reason. They might accept comments from those whose focus is entirely supportive. Or maybe they just stopped reviewing comments altogether, can't say.

Anyway, the authors are professional Catholic theologians, and their perspectives may be of interest to some. I was interested, until I realized the opportunities for dialog were pretty much non-existent. To each their own.

Ok, "apostolic tradition" is another way of saying "clergy" — Jake

No, not even close - may be a bunch to type here - but a quick search would get you there.

Yes, I understand this doctrine. But the Church, even defined as being the clergy, does not believe this. If they did, there would not be constant ideological maneuvering among the high ranking clergy. If the clergy believed in this doctrine they would simply fall in line peacefully behind whoever was currently Pope, given that according to the doctrine it is God speaking through the man. — Jake

actually none of that is true when the Pope is speaking "authoritatively" on matters of faith and morals. And it is completely true, often productive, when he is not speaking " authoritatively". This is an important distinction - not everything the Pope says is "authoritative" and therefor inspired. It is rare when they do - and they make it clear when they do.
I

No, not even close - may be a bunch to type here - but a quick search would get you there. — Rank Amateur

Who is creating apostolic tradition but the clergy?

actually none of that is true when the Pope is speaking "authoritatively" on matters of faith and morals. And it is completely true, often productive, when he is not speaking " authoritatively". This is an important distinction - not everything the Pope says is "authoritative" and therefor inspired. It is rare when they do - and they make it clear when they do. — Rank Amateur

I know all this too, and I also know you are dodging around the fact that there is constant ongoing ideological maneuvering among high ranking clergy, and no evidence of peaceful universal agreement with the Pope in whatever mode he is speaking. And little of this never ending internal ideological conflict would be necessary if the nuns were in charge and the focus was put squarely on love in action.

In an attempt to leapfrog over ideological arm wrestling I would propose the following...

Thought is an electro-chemical information medium which operates by a process of division. That is, a single unified reality (sometimes called God) is broken up in to conceptual parts. The human condition, for the better and the worse, arises from this fundamental process.

All products of thought inherit this property of division. As evidence, we can observe that every ideology ever invented has inevitably sub-divided in to competing (often warring) internal factions. Remarkably, this is true even of Christianity, an ideology which has the explicit goal of uniting people in peace.

Trying to say, it may be that ANYTHING made of thought (including my own proclamations) will inevitably lead to conflict, which if true seriously undermines any debate regarding which idea represents the "one true way" to peace.

Where does that leave us?

With the nuns, and a shift of focus from ideology to service.

As example, if a nun were sitting next to me right now I'm guessing she might give me a stern but loving look over the top of her glasses, and tell me to stop screwing around inflating my ego with all these grand ideas and get serious about doing something that's actually useful.

Now that's Catholicism, as I understand it.

But we're never going to get that level of sanity from men, as my own posts should clearly demonstrate.

Who is creating apostolic tradition but the clergy? — Jake

the Catholic answer is God -

here is the teaching:

ARTICLE 2
THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

74 God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth":29 that is, of Christ Jesus.30 Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth:

God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations.31

I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32

In the apostolic preaching. . .

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33

- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".34

. . . continued in apostolic succession

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38

79 The Father's self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."39

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

I also know you are dodging around the fact — Jake

I am not dodging anything - except the an argument on merits of the teachings of the Church - I just continue to tell you factually, what the Church teaches - and you want to argue about the validity of the teachings - I have no desire to do that. Pointless.

My only issue was, to give you, from the perspective of the Church why they can not ordain women and remain Catholic - there is a bunch of Theology behind this. And I know it pretty well.

So, how about we just agree to disagree - Or if you prefer - you win - you are 100% right on everything you think is true about the Catholic Church - I really am indifferent to either option.

I am not dodging anything - except the an argument on merits of the teachings of the Church - I just continue to tell you factually, what the Church teaches — Rank Amateur

That is what the Church teaches IF we accept your definition of what the Church is, ie. Church=Clergy. What you're dodging is that even if we accept your definition of the Church we are left with the reality that the clergy is not of one perspective, thus the Church is not a single thing, but instead a collection of related things. In the real world beyond theory, the Church is like this thread, a collection of people interested in similar subjects, but having no universal agreement on those subjects.

So, how about we just agree to disagree — Rank Amateur

How about we keep discussing, instead of running and hiding from inconvenient challenges? I propose that this procedure is more in line with the mission of the Church. The Church can not influence the world by hiding within it's own walls.

I really am indifferent to either option. — Rank Amateur

The classic Catholic attempt to be both in the debate, and above it, at the same time.

The classic Catholic attempt to be both in the debate, and above it, at the same time. — Jake

as you wish

How is Catholicism going to change the world if Catholics can't handle dialog with people who don't share their views?

Are Catholics who dialog almost exclusively with other Catholics honoring the mission of the Church to change the world? That is, are they actually Catholics?

The Church not only takes into account the spiritual dimension of believers but also the needs that can't be meet by dysfunctional international politics. With Pope Francis, it keeps displaying that image, taking care of those who most need it (this is basically the Catholic church in Latin America). — CarlosDiaz

It's indisputably true that the Church does a lot of good work. It also seems true that these good works are good for the reputation of the Church, which increases it's credibility, and thus ability to influence the larger world. Increasing such influence seems an important point of leverage because ideally the Church would not just be doing good works itself, but also inspiring others to do good works, thus multiplying the impact of the Church's good works.

So if good works are good for the Church, would doing more good works be better for the Church? A larger issue would be, is the Church in a position to ask this question? Is the Church capable of using the processes of reason to analyze it's charitable operations so as to dramatically boost their impact? Can the Church both adapt to the crisis of the modern world, and the crisis of confidence within the Church, while remaining true to it's core values?

Here's one example of how such a fully and truly Catholic rethinking might unfold to the benefit of all, including the Church.

I live in the American south, where one comes upon a fancy multi-million dollar Christian church building on every fourth corner. The Catholic Church alone owns billions to trillions of dollars worth of expensive church buildings, which sit empty most of the time. What if this vast investment was redirected out of real estate and in to people in need?

We know what the clergy would say, because they've had 2,000 years to make such a decision and have declined to do so. Their perspective on such a matter is firmly on the record for all to see.

So we arrive at the question of what Jesus would do. What we know from the gospels is that Jesus the carpenter never led a church construction fund drive. To my knowledge, Jesus the carpenter never showed the slightest bit of interest in church building construction. When Jesus talked about building his church, he was referring to people, not stained glass.

But, but, but the sleeping faithful will demand, without a fancy building where would we celebrate Mass??? How about in the same place that Jesus did, in a park, an open field, a hill, the town square, anywhere that people would gather. If that was good enough for Jesus, why is it not good enough for you?

Some people, with the best of sincere intentions, will tell us that they are very faithful Catholics, while they ignore the clear example set by Jesus and take food out of the mouths of hungry children so as to construct elaborate expensive buildings which typically get used only one day a week.

Ok, so that's the human condition, and none of us are perfect including this writer. The goal here is not to poke anyone in the eye, because we all live in glass houses. The goal is instead to challenge the Church to rise to the example set by it's founder, and by doing so dramatically improve it's reputation, influence and impact upon the world. That is a very Catholic goal.

But of course, as is always true in life, there is a price tag. And that would be to let go of the tradition of blindly following the clergy as they lose entire continents, drag the Church's reputation through the mud, create a crisis of confidence in the congregation, squabble endlessly among themselves etc.

Can the Church rethink it's future while maintaining it's core values? As a wannabe person of reason I would have to vote no upon examining the evidence. But I could be wrong, and it would be cool if I was.

In the coming Catholic utopia, somewhat pompous hardly humble wannabe clergy such as myself found burping long winded sanctimonious sermons will suddenly find a nun at their shoulder, who will grab them firmly by the ear (ouch!), and drag them in to the soup kitchen where they will be instructed to wash the dishes of the homeless, and then mop the dining room. And I mean right now mister!

In the coming Catholic utopia the endlessly repetitive argumentative ideological squabbling which has afflicted Christianity for 20 centuries will finally come to an end because the nuns will have us too busy building houses for poor people to have time for such hobbies.

Jake there is absolutely no doubt at all that the Church is a flawed organization. As I said above there is no way it could not be. Both the Organization of the Church - and The Body of the Church ( the faithful) are comprised of flawed people - unified in a belief in something we can not really understand.

I see the Church as much closer to the Whiskey Priest in "The Power and The Glory" than to the perfection of Christ.

Stealing this part because it is written better than I can -

The protagonist in The Power and the Glory is also a good metaphor for the Church. We would like to imagine the Church striding through history like a hero or a saint. But, if we are honest, we must admit that the Church has ever staggered through history like the Whiskey Priest – all too often drunk on (worldly) power and sin, cowardly, less than faithful, self-interested, etc. But, while it has never been more than a Whiskey Priest, it has, by the grace of God, never been less. In spite of all its shortcomings, it has borne Word and Sacrament to the world. And it has also raised up exemplary saints – known and unknown. As with Graham Greene’s priest, we know that in spite of its shortcomings, the Spirit does not abandon the Church and God’s power and glory are present in and through it. But only and always by God’s grace, not its own heroic or saintly purity.

And there’s the rub. The compulsion and presumption to create a pure Church, whether that be pure in holiness or pure in teaching or pure in justice – however and by whomever any of those is defined – is rooted in either pride or impatience (or both). If we continually expect and demand that the Church stride through history like a hero-saint we will continually be frustrated by its actual plodding through history like a Whiskey Priest. But we will also miss the opportunity to learn what it means to live by God’s power and glory rather than our own. We will miss the fact of God’s sheer grace. I wonder if the refusal to accept and love the Church as a corpus permixtum – a mixed body of sinners and saints – is not rooted in our own unwillingness to see ourselves as simul justus et peccator – simultaneously righteous and sinful. We only ever live under the Mercy.

The Whiskey Priest has no such illusions about himself. As a result, he ends up exhibiting those basic gospel virtues, humility and charity – virtues that continue to be shaped even, and perhaps especially, in a Church that, like the Whiskey Priest, bears the Good News in spite of its all too evident imperfections.

Jake there is absolutely no doubt at all that the Church is a flawed organization. As I said above there is no way it could not be. — Rank Amateur

I agree of course. True of any group of humans. I'm not demanding perfection, just wondering if improvements are possible. I don't know the answer, but apparently I'm still interested enough to find the question interesting.

The compulsion and presumption to create a pure Church, whether that be pure in holiness or pure in teaching or pure in justice – however and by whomever any of those is defined – is rooted in either pride or impatience (or both). If we continually expect and demand that the Church stride through history like a hero-saint we will continually be frustrated by its actual plodding through history like a Whiskey Priest. — Rank Amateur

Not pure, just improved.

That said, I plead guilty to impatience and frustration. Impatience and frustration are the price tags of progress. Would you not prefer that lapsed Catholics experience impatience and frustration with the Church rather than boredom and utter disengagement?

As a result, he ends up exhibiting those basic gospel virtues, humility and charity — Rank Amateur

My point throughout the thread has been that, fairly or not, Catholic sermons on virtue, humility and charity are no longer credible or persuasive to those outside the Church. The sermons sound like empty sanctimonious platitudes now. At the first mention of the word "Catholic" the first image to come to mind in many or most people's minds is now the scandals. The brand has been burned.

In my comments above I've tried to offer examples of possible remedies. The specific suggestions I've offered are of course debatable, but I hope they at least serve the purpose of illustrating the scale of change I believe is necessary to reverse the brand damage.

The challenge as I see it is to implement dramatic change without violating core Catholic values, and that's what I've aimed for in my suggestions.

In the coming Catholic utopia, the nuns will finally turn to the priests and say...

"If you're going to keep preaching that homosexuality is a violation of God's law, you probably shouldn't be wearing a dress when you say that." — Nuns

Ouch!