From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Re: Asbestos suits and a pointy-earred salesman
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 16:18:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.142909.10296@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow) writes:
>Strictly in the spirit of debating I'll try a response 
>to this.  I know this response could sound harsh so I got permission 
>from Bryan before posting this  -- and I am still not sure it is the
>right thing to do because I think Bryan was just venting.
>
>bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle) writes:
>>I will take a stab:
>>1) a well-meaning, but weak Pope who, by trying to accomodate all
>>of the factions, ended up taking the avenue of least resistance and
>>aceeding to the wishes of the European and liberal american pereti 
>>(assistants to the bishops at the council) as well as the modernist-bent
>>liturgists in attempting to revamp the Church in a pseudo-protestant
>>direction.
>
>I think this is protestant bashing, and I find that unacceptable as a
>christian and a Catholic.  There surely was need for protest and the
>Church at the time did not handle it too well.  Maybe the crew at V II
>got over their pride and the pig-headedness you mention below. It is
>just possible that some protestant ideas might be good!  I don't think
>the Holy Spirit only talks to Catholics.

Not protestant bashing, but diluting the essence of our faith to make it
more palatable to non-catholics (i.e. taking the corpus off the crucufix
so it wouldn't "offend" non-catholics in some post-VII
churches...downplaying such traditional practices of piety as the
covering of the stations during lent, praying the rosary, etc.).  It is
widely accepted that Pope Paul was a good man, but a lousy administrator
that allowed the "last person in the door" to have the final say.   
 
>
>>2) the tenor of the times (this is the late 60's, now, remember?) would
>>not countenance a fully authoritarian "hierarchy" forcing its heavy hand
>>upon the "enlightened" populace.
>
>Having been in the service in the '60s I still haven't been able to come
>to grips with those times, so I have to pass on this comment.  However,
>dismissing something just because of when it happened doesn't seem right.

Not dismissing it.  Putting forth a (somewhat) small attempt to view
what happened in terms of social attitudes, mores, and stresses extant
at that time.  I haven't come to grips with the late 60's or early 70's,
or, for that matter, some of the stuff today.  But, I believe, IMHO,
IMO, *ME*, from where I sit, that things happen or not based on whether
we as a society, whether secular or not, let them happen.  And, just
like public opinion of one thing or another, the "times" we live in at
any given juncture of a step change in what we are will determine the
outcome.  That being said, it doesn't mean that *I* like everything 
that was done...a lot of babies were thrown out with the bathwater...

>
>>3) Expectations were set by the media at the start of Vatican II that 
>>the "windows would be thrown open, and fresh air let into the musty 
>>back rooms" of Roman Catholic theology.
>
>Theology is the study of God and His relationship to the world.  Surely 
>that is an ongoing thing and there must be continuous advances in that
>understanding.  The Holy Spirit is still at work.  So I think this is 
>right and just.  It needed fresh air.

And still does.  But change for the sake of change (which a lot of 
what was done post-VII is.) is not necessarily in the best interests
of the faithful.  I agree there were a lot of musty rooms in our faith-
but the winds of change blew away a lot of what was necessary for 
Catholicism to continue in a reasonable fashion.  Massive dislocation 
and a cavalier attitude on the part of the agents of this change (ie:
"ah, the old folks will be gone soon anyway, so let them whine..." sort
of stuff don't cut it.  Neither does a wholesale rewriting of the
"traditio" of the faith, with shoddy scholarship ex post facto provided
to justify the dislocation.

>
>>4) Many of the pereti hewed to the modern humanistic philosophy of 
>>Fr. de Chardin, SJ, who, if not formally silenced in the 50's, came 
>>as close as anyone has before or since...
>
>Smile when you say that pardner :-).  

As one who spent many long hours both in class and in the library 
plowing through the turgid prose of this closet humanist Jesuit, 
and seeing up close and real personal the destruction of the greatest
order of scholars, administrators, and priests in the church, I made
that statement.  Even today, the secular orientation of this 
man is permeating the Church-with the corresponding person-centered
theology versus God-centered theology being espoused.  
>
>>5) We are just as pig-headed and self-centered, as well as lazy as the 
>>multitude of generations before us.  No doubt, Catholicism is hard.  There
>>  [attack on theologians, bishops and priests deleted]
>
>Emotional junk.  Living Christlike is what is hard.  Accepting change is
>what is hard.

Especially when it is just change for the sake of change (or, worse yet,
change for the sake of satisfying a secular political agenda, or
satisfying a secular political pressure group...)
I am a firm believer in contextual language-St. Paul wasn't being 
sexist in his use of the word "he" since the time he lived in, wrote in,
and died in did not have the multitude of forms to reference a person
that we have, for instance.  Sometimes our oversensitization to 
language is getting in the way...

>               Catholicism should help us live Christlike.  Accepting that
>help should be a joy.  If there is some obstacle impeding that acceptance
>of help, the obstacle must be removed.  The proverbial plank in our own
>eye, don't ya' know.

the removal of which I pray for constantly...but the d**n splinters are
what really bug me...:-)

>
>>(asbestos suit on...)...anyone want to pick up this thread?
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>>Bryan Boyle
>
>This was not really a personal attack, Bryan, I just had to try out my
>new industrial strength flame-thrower on your new asbestos suit.

That's OK.  A little carbon tracking...nothing damaging...
>
>Now that I've tried it out, I DON'T LIKE IT.  It leaves me with a bad taste
>in my mouth.  I'm going to return it for a refund.  Now where is that 
>pointy-earred dude with a pitch-fork that sold it to me?
>
>Bob
 
Nah, not a pointy-eared dude...he beamed up a couple of hours
ago...something about a glass of Saurian Ale...:-)  Peter Maurin of 
the Catholic Worker Movement spoke of clarification of thought in 
many of his writings (see, I'm really not a reactionary...) from the
30's...and having spent time on silent 30-day Ignatian retreats, it
helps to understand the baseline of what is being discussed.  I don't 
agree that taking a stab at my stab at a question shouldn't be viewed as
anything other than "opening up new dialogues" and trying to come to
some sort of modus vivendi...and I take it in that vein (as I told you,
bob...:-)).