I wish to thank all those who have contributed their opinions to the discussion what ways the Church
can/should change in the next pontificate and ways it cannot/should notchange. Some of the responses have come in the form of full blog entries, rather than comments. I’d like now to offer rebuttals and clarifications.
There’s been much talk lately of what the Church should do and/or change – according to American Catholics. It’s driving me nuts. First off, I wish Americans would get over their own self-importance. There are lots on non-American Catholics throughout the world. Secondly, the Church is not run by popular opinion. The Church seeks to conform the world to Christian principles when and where it can and to form sub- and counter-cultures if that fails. We are to be in the world but not of it. Divine Truth does not change with time. True, it sometimes must be reworded or re-examined in light of temporal realities, but that only means that implementations change, not their bases. Last, but not least, the pope does not have sole power to change a lot of the things people want changed. That which has been stated infallibly, either ordinarily (i.e. implicitly) or extraordinarily (i.e. explicitly), cannot ever be changed.
That said, I do think we have a fascinating topic for discussion here (not pontification – no pun intended). The following are commonly reported issues “the majority” of American Catholics (at least in name – they weren’t asked about their devotion) would like and my reactions to them. Rather than just say, “My way or the highway!”, I’d like hear your opinions. Please specify the source of your viewpoint – Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Jedi, Sith, atheist, etc. – and explain how your group would be affected by choices made by the Church after the election. I hope this isn’t too tall an order. 😉
[NOTA BENE: These are my opinions. I believe some of them are based on solid Church teachings, some of them dogmatic. Some are very strong opinions about issues that push my buttons. Please don’t let that discourage you from responding and offering opinions of your own. I do want a truly open and honest discussion/debate of these issues. I do not
think that is possible to any reasonable degree without total honest. Thus, I haven’t pulled any of my punches. I hope you won’t either (within the limits of civility). – Funky]
Somestimes I just have to scratch my head and say, "Huh?"
I mean, contrast the Unspace (moderate/conservative Christian who sings the church choir) on the Dobson attack against Spongebob vs.crazy Funky Dung’s defensive take that there is a homosexual conspiracy that needs to be fought and the criminals killed, by implication I guess. (Read this for more on this kind of pathology logically extended…)
Do I or did I ever believe that there’s homosexual conspiracy? Did I ever imply that the criminals ( I assume he means homosexuals and their co-conspirators) be killed? Would I ever suggest such a thing?!?
No. I merely suggested that people should dig through caches and archives in search of the evidence Dr. Dobson spoke of. If it’s there, that’s news. If it’s not there, it’s still news. Apparently, it’s there. That doesn’t mean I think their’s some kind of conspiracy (a pink scare, if you will). It does mean that WAFF has some explaining to do.
Now who’s the paranoid? BTW I won’t be linking to this bizarre critic of mine. "I just find his prattling about the nuances of his fantasy belief system to be really uninteresting."
I don’t know a lot about Dr. James Dobson, but from what I’ve seen, the media’s
been giving him a bad rap over Spongegate. A few days ago, I
challenged my readers to go through the Internet Archive Wayback Machine and
find evidence of a hidden pro-homosexual agenda at the We Are Family Foundation.
Emily
did just that. Go read about her adventures in digital dumpster diving!
Ibuprofen? No, SpongeBob Squarepants. There’s
an entertaining defense of Dr. James Dobson’s seemingly quixotic endeavors at Christian
Conservative. Michael includes a
link to Dobson’s own explanatory letter.