Main Menu  


   

Human

Contemporary Catholic Belief and Action

 

The mission of ARCC is to bring about substantive structural change within the Catholic Church by seeking to institutionalize a collegial understanding of church where decision making is shared and accountability is realized among Catholics of every kind and condition.
 
Once people start to believe change is possible, 
the drive to achieve it accelerates. 
                                          -   Patrick Sullivan, ARCC Emeritus President
 
 
A New Opportunity?

Ray Temmerman

****

 
 

The myth of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17) in the Garden of Eden, whose fruit Adam and Eve were not to eat, is at times seen as a test of the first humans, a test they failed. It was, in a sense, a one-time event, with calamitous consequences not only for Adam and Eve, but for all subsequent humanity.

Could there be a reasonable alternative understanding of this event? Allow me to outline one that is less of test and more of invitation and opportunity for human growth, and then propose that we are facing a similar invitation and opportunity today.

Consider the way loving parents encourage their child to learn to crawl, walk, and run. They hold out their arms, calling the child forth, encouraging her to take a step toward their open arms. They are not testing the child, seeking perhaps to trap her in failure; they are helping her to take actions which will strengthen her muscles, her sense of balance, and thus grow into the fullness of her latent capacity. That the child may choose to move in a different direction and so run into a coffee table instead of the parent’s loving arms does not change the intent of the parent.

If this is so for a human parent, why should we expect less from the God whom we call Father?

Prior to the tree of knowledge, man and woman were authentically and only human, as God had created them. They could walk, run, play, eat, drink, and sleep as they saw fit. Food was plentiful, no work was needed. They seemingly had everything. And yet, we know that we humans are meaning-seeking life-forms. We value being able to see, judge, and act, as part of the process of seeking and calling forth meaning in our lives.

Within their body, a child has all the latent capacity to crawl, walk, and run. Yet until the child begins to exercise those capacities, he cannot do any of these things. The body needs to grow into these capabilities, starting with small steps, then gradually developing into the strength of full activity.

The man and the woman of Genesis were truly human, nothing less, yet their ability to seek meaning, to see, judge, and act, had not yet been developed. It is here that the tree of knowledge of good and evil plays a key part. It provided a means whereby their latent capacities could be strengthened and developed so they could become the meaning-seeking creatures God had created them to be. The tree became not a test or a trap, but a sign and a sacrament of God’s loving call to growth into full humanity.

We see this in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. He began life in a normal way, being born to loving parents. Later we are told that he spent time discussing with the elders of the temple, then growing in wisdom and stature. He experienced the challenge of a long period of fasting, then by the tempter who offered him ample opportunity to feed himself, draw great attention to himself, seemingly accomplish his life’s work through a simple act of subservience. Yet in each case he saw the reality before him, judged the action being called for as inadequate and inappropriate to the life of true humanity before God, and chose to act differently. From there on we see, again and again, his capacity to see, judge, and act in a way that resonates with and remains faithful to his relationship with the God who is total, unconditional, and irrevocable love.

With the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God extended an invitation and provided the means to grow into the full expression of humanity which was until then only latent within Adam and Eve. Unfortunately, rather than choose to grow into this full expression, they sought to short-circuit the process—to become, in a sense, gods of knowledge themselves. The result was that they fell short of their meaning-seeking potential, as has all of humanity since. We still see through a glass darkly rather than with the clear, open, and transparent vision God had invited humans to possess, a vision demonstrated in the life of the truly authentic human we know as Jesus of Nazareth.

We can choose to see that Genesis episode as a one-time event, a simple story used to explain our present reality. I suggest, however, that it was not, is not.

Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, we have encountered a new reality of energy availability and usage. By taking from the fruits of the earth, we have grown that usage enormously. In the process we have expanded our lifestyle and physical well-being, and enjoyed many wonderful privileges heretofore unknown.

We now come face to face with a new, contemporary reality. We are called to look at the fruits of the earth, judge how to relate to those fruits, and act in a way which expresses the stewardship God has given us of his earthly creation.

What will we do? Will we step forward in response to God’s invitation and opportunity, and choose to see, to judge, to act for the well-being of all earthly creation? Or will we choose instead to be the “gods” of energy?

If the former, I believe we can look forward to a new relationship as humans with all creation. If the latter, I believe the resulting destruction will be far greater—first of God’s earthly works like the forests, rivers, and oceans, and consequently the destruction of vast swaths of humanity itself.

I believe God is issuing such an invitation and opportunity. What, as people of faith, will be our response?

Ray Temmerman (Catholic), with his wife Fenella (Anglican), administers the website of the Interchurch Families International Network. A former Board member of the Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church (ARCC), he continues to conduct research into the place of interchurch families and the gift they bring to their churches and the Church.

This article was published 12 June by Today's American Catholic.
We are grateful for permission to publish it here on ARCC News.

Note:

ARCC News is closing down. Our dedication to church reform continues but we now move to a different format. Thank you for traveling with us!

_____________________________
If you have reactions about this article please write to: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

 _____

 

 Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church
 
 

Quick Links... 

JOIN ARCC or RENEW

CONTACT ARCC 

 

DONATE` to ARCC

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

 

Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church, ARCC,

16 Big Dipper Drive
Clancy, MT  59634

Human

Contemporary Catholic Belief and Action

 

The mission of ARCC is to bring about substantive structural change within the Catholic Church by seeking to institutionalize a collegial understanding of church where decision making is shared and accountability is realized among Catholics of every kind and condition.
 
Once people start to believe change is possible, 
the drive to achieve it accelerates. 
                                          -   Patrick Sullivan, ARCC Emeritus President
 
 
My Ideal Church

 Prof. Dr. John A. Dick

 Historical Theologian

****
 
 

Thinking about chaotic polarization in todays church, there are several qualities I would like to find in my ideal church: a church that is a healthy Christian community:  

  • I would begin by saying I want a church that is truly a supportive community of friends: men and women striving to live in the spirit of Christ. Not a doctrinaire, authoritarian institution. 
  • Some institutional structures of course are necessary but they should be understood as provisional. They, along with institutional leaders, should be regularly critiqued and changed. 
  • Institutional structures are tools – a means – constructed to help and support Christian communities. The innate danger in all institutions is that, if left unchecked, they cease being service-oriented structures and become hard-nosed self-serving institutions demanding unquestioned loyalty. A kind of institutional idolatry.
  • A healthy church affirms the dignity and equality of all men and women, regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. It does this not just in official rhetoric and documents but in personal and institutional behavior. We need male and female ordained ministers. IGBTQ people should be welcomed in church ministries and employment. For too long church leaders have patronized, insulted, or simply removed people who do not fit their mold. It still happens.
  • An honest and humble church must realize that it does not possess all the truth and has to collaborate with a variety of people in pursuit of the truth. It has to acknowledge as well that all church doctrines are time and culture bound. They are provisional and changeable. Some doctrines may have been meaningful in the past but just don’t work today. Others evolved more from religious fantasy and folklore. I think, for example, about the great assumption about the Assumption. 
  • A healthy church asks questions and welcomes the questioner. Asking questions brings greater self-knowledge, a more realistic life understanding. It is an essential element in personal conscience formation.
  • All the great advances in human knowledge have come from people who dared to ask questions. Isaac Newton asked: “Why does an apple fall from a tree?” and “Why does the moon not fall into the Earth?” Charles Darwin asked: “Why do the Galápagos Islands have so many species not found elsewhere?” Albert Einstein asked: “What would the universe look like if I rode through it on a beam of light?” By asking these kinds of basic questions they were able to start the processes that lead to historic  breakthroughs in human and scientific understanding. And of course, Jesus of Nazareth asks in the synoptic gospels: “Who do people say that I am?” In John 7:19, Jesus asks: “Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?”
  • I want a church that stresses and practices tolerance and freedom of inquiry: a church that realizes that all doctrines, even RCC infallible papal declarations, are temporary. All “official teachers” must also be humble learners. A healthy Christian community rejects intimidation and realizes that conflicts must be resolved through patient and humble dialogue. It may not be easy but it has to happen.
  • I  want a church in which the higher-up ordained leaders dress and act like normal contemporary leadership people not museum-piece Renaissance princes. I just checked by the way. It costs between four and five thousand dollars to dress an RCC cardinal. I often think about the comment of Jesus in Mark 12:38: “Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes…”
  • I want a church in which leadership people are elected by the community for set terms of office, like five or ten years. They – like professors where I taught for many years — should be regularly evaluated. They should be replaced by new leadership people when their terms of office expire. If a bishop knew that he or she would only be bishop for about five years, his or her behavior would be greatly modified. Can you imagine, for instance, what would happen in places like the Archdiocese of New York? Or of course in the Holy See of Rome?
  • I want a church in which openness to the signs of the times is a key virtue rather than a closed-minded condemnation of all that is contemporary. We live in the present. God – whatever one wants to call God – is alive and closely with us right now. Not as a controlling authority but as a loving companion.
  • And yes indeed… I want a church open to the bigger questions that touch on a contemporary understanding of Jesus Christ and a contemporary understanding and experience of God. For many people today the old anthropomorphisms just don’t work anymore. God is just as much Mother as Father, but much more than that. Why don’t Christian religious leaders sit down with, pray, and meditate with leaders of non-Christian religions? God is much more than a Christian. 

As we move along in Lent 2023, it is good to ask more questions about contemporary Christian belief and practice. To support those who question. To explore together, in respectful and earnest dialogue, the complete range of answers. More questions will arise of course. 

We are on a journey. We have not yet arrived. And a healthy Christian community is our GPS.

 

_____________________________
If you have reactions about this article please write to: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

 _____

 

 Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church
 
 

Quick Links... 

JOIN ARCC or RENEW

CONTACT ARCC 

 

DONATE` to ARCC

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

 

Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church, ARCC,

16 Big Dipper Drive
Clancy, MT  59634

Human

Contemporary Catholic Belief and Action

 

The mission of ARCC is to bring about substantive structural change within the Catholic Church by seeking to institutionalize a collegial understanding of church where decision making is shared and accountability is realized among Catholics of every kind and condition.
 
Once people start to believe change is possible, 
the drive to achieve it accelerates. 
                                          -   Patrick Sullivan, ARCC Emeritus President
 
 
Paul, Peter, and the Gospels

 Prof. Dr. John A. Dick

 Historical Theologian

****
 
 

Most contemporary scholars agree that Jesus (Yeshua in Hebrew) began his public ministry when he was about thirty years old; and they place the date of his death at Passover time around the year 30 CE. What did Jesus do before his public ministry? We don’t know. We can can only speculate. We know Jesus lived in Nazareth and had brothers and sisters. His mother’s name was Miriam (Mary) and traditionally his father’s name was Joseph. But Joseph, the husband of Mary, is never mentioned by Paul or by Mark the earliest gospel. He is never quoted. He is only mentioned by name in the Nativity of Jesus narratives in Matthew and Luke, and only mentioned in passing in John 1:45 and 6:42 where Jesus is called the “ son of Joseph.”

Some scholars believe that Jesus, like his father, was a first century craftsman. The Greek word so often translated as “carpenter” is tekton, and is more accurately rendered as a craftsman or handyman working with wood and stone. Other scholars theorize that Jesus was a monk and spent years in study and prayer, before entering his public ministerial life. Frankly, I have no pet theory. I am more interested in what Jesus said and did, as reflected in New Testament literature.

If we turn our attention to the New Testament books, the earliest “scriptures” we have are the letters written by Paul the Apostle (c. 5 – c. 64/65 CE) composed in the decade of the 50s CE. Paul's Hebrew name was "Saul" perhaps after the biblical King Saul, the first king of Israel and like Paul a member of the Tribe of Benjamin. The Latin name Paulus “Paul,” meaning small, was not a result of his Christian conversion, as it is commonly believed, but was a second name for use in communicating with a Greco-Roman audience.

Today we know as well that not all letters attributed to Paul were authored by him. There is general scholarly agreement that Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon are genuinely Pauline. Other letters bearing Paul’s name are disputed among scholars, namely Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus. Most contemporary biblical scholars agree that Hebrews was certainly not written by Paul. In fact, the emphasis on Melchizedek and priesthood in Hebrews seems out of sync with Pauline theology. (Pope John Paul II, by the way, was very fond of Hebrews.)

And Peter? When we look at the history and biblical testimony about the apostolic community of Christians in Jerusalem, clearly the leader was James, the “brother of the Lord.” Peter played a role at the Council of Jerusalem (c.50 CE). But James was in charge and James issued the definitive judgment that converts to Christianity did not have to be circumcised. Then, according to the Epistle to the Galatians, Peter went to Antioch. There he tangled with Paul, who rebuked him for treating Gentile converts as inferior to Hebraic Christians.

There is a later tradition that Peter and Paul went to Rome and were put to death at the hands of Nero probably between 64 and 68 CE. According to an old legend, Peter was crucified upside down. Other folklore fills out the details of Peter’s life and death in Rome: his struggles with the magician Simon Magus, his miracles, his attempted escape from persecution in Rome, and a flight from which he was turned back by a vision of Christ, the “Quo Vadis” legend. Well, history is based on actual events. Legends may or may not be.

By the second and third centuries, however, we see stories about Peter springing from historical suppositions, legends, and much creative imagination by people like Irenaeus of Lyons (died 202 CE) the influential early bishop in the south of France. 

Contrary to what some think, neither Peter nor Paul brought Christianity to Rome. Before Peter and Paul would have arrived, there were already Christian elders and house churches in Rome. But there was no central administrator. No bishop. At some point Peter may have been one of these elders. We really do not know for certain. 

Most contemporary Catholic and Protestant historians, however, would stress that Peter was NEVER a bishop of Rome. The Roman Catholic theologian priests Raymond Brown and John P. Meier were quite emphatic about this in their book Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Christianity, (Paulist Press 1983): “There is no serious proof that he (Peter) was the bishop, or local ecclesiastical officer, of the Roman church: a claim not made till the third century. Most likely he did not spend any major time at Rome before 58 CE when Paul wrote to the Romans; and so it may have been only in the 60s and relatively shortly before his martyrdom that Peter came to the capital.”

But then what about Peter as “the first pope”? Thanks to Constantine (272 – 337 CE) and the influence of his relics-collecting mother Helena (246/248 - c. 330 CE).         In her final years, Helena made a religious tour of the Palestine region and Jerusalem, during which she discovered what her tour guide said was “the True Cross.” Thanks to her as well, legends about Peter were held in high regard in third and fourth century Rome. 

The first great acclamation of “Peter as a pope,” however, came from Pope Leo I, also known as Saint Leo the Great. Leo was pope from 440 CE until his death in 461 CE. Leo greatly contributed to the development of the doctrine of a papal Petrine succession, based on his personal religious imagination and pious devotion to St. Peter. Interestingly, Pope Benedict XVI said that Leo's papacy "was undoubtedly one of the most important in the Church's history." Like minds?

Today, perhaps, one can understand the popes as successors of Peter in faith, witness, and ministry. It is only with a bit of creative historical imagination, however, that one can really call Peter “the first pope.” Sometimes we need to adjust old understandings based on updated historical research and information.

Four Gospels: After the deaths of James, Peter, and Paul, as well as others who had known Jesus face-to-face, it became essential for the survival of the way of Jesus that his words and deeds be recollected and written down. This led to the birth of the Four Gospels.

The clear majority of contemporary biblical scholars believe that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, sometime around the year 70 CE. This scholarly consensus holds that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke were composed, independently of one another, sometime in the 80s or 90s. Both used a written form of the Gospel of Mark as source material for their own narratives. In addition, because both Matthew and Luke contain a large amount of material in common that is not found in Mark, most scholars hold that the authors of Matthew and Luke also drew from a collection of Jesus’ sayings that they incorporated into their works. These sayings of Jesus, known as “Q” were most likely assembled in the 40s or 50s. (The “Q” comes from the first letter of “Quelle” the German word for “source”.) This understanding of the origins of the “synoptic” Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke explains why they are similar yet different in details, descriptions, and focus. 

The Gospel of John emerges from an independent literary tradition that is not directly connected to the Synoptic tradition. This accounts for the major differences between John and the Synoptics. The Gospel of John reached its final form around 90 –110 CE.

All four Gospels evolved from oral traditions, passed on from person to person, and from place to place. More than one single person (i.e. Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) composed the final versions of the four Gospels as we have them today. Each time the narrators adapted their accounts to the needs, understanding, and cultural and religious backgrounds of their listeners. The Gospels were not written therefore to give us strict “history.” They are about faith and living in the Spirit of Christ.

The Gospels contain bits of history, parables, metaphor, symbol, re-interpreted passages from the Greek (Septuagint) Hebrew Scriptures, and imagined scenarios for key events in the life of Jesus. We see for instance, in Matthew and Luke, two quite different accounts about Jesus’ infancy. Their focus was not primarily to present an historical narrative, but to affirm and proclaim their theological belief about Jesus the Christ. 

Anchored in Christian faith, the authors of the Gospels – using a variety of literary forms — wanted to pass on to future generations their understanding and belief in and about Jesus Christ. Their words inform, stimulate, and encourage us to grow in our own Christian faith.

I subscribe to an historical/critical understanding of Sacred Scripture, because I find it not only helpful but biblically correct and responsible. I am not a literal-interpretation fundamentalist. I am also keenly aware that correct translations of biblical texts are essential for a correct understanding of what the biblical authors were saying. One small example: the Latin word ecclesia or ekklesia in Greek is often translated as “church.” The original biblical meaning of the word however is an “assembly” or a “gathering of people.”

We live. We study. We grow in our understandings. (Or we should.) 

 

_____________________________
If you have reactions about this article please write to: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

 _____

 

 Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church
 
 

Quick Links... 

JOIN ARCC or RENEW

CONTACT ARCC 

 

DONATE` to ARCC

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

 

Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church, ARCC,

16 Big Dipper Drive
Clancy, MT  59634

Human

Contemporary Catholic Belief and Action

 

The mission of ARCC is to bring about substantive structural change within the Catholic Church by seeking to institutionalize a collegial understanding of church where decision making is shared and accountability is realized among Catholics of every kind and condition.
 
Once people start to believe change is possible, 
the drive to achieve it accelerates. 
                                          -   Patrick Sullivan, ARCC Emeritus President
 
 
 An Open Letter from
 
Roman Catholic Women Bishops

(Certainly one of the most hopeful developments in the Roman Catholic Church has been the ordination of women as priests and bishops.
This week I am pleased to post this letter, sent to me by my friend Bishop Nancy Louise Meyer.
It is dated January 6, 2023. – Dr. John A. Dick, Editor ARCC Newsletter)

****
 
 

An Open Letter to: the People of God, Pope Francis, Curia Officials, Conferences of Bishops in Europe, the Americas, Africa, Asia, Australia and Oceania.

Hope arrived for women in the Roman Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). Pope John XXIII called the Church to open the doors and windows and to “read the signs of the times”. When Pope Francis recently called for a global synodal process, we, the women bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, dared again to hope that the leadership of the Church would listen and walk with all the People of God. 

In a November interview published in America magazine, Pope Francis attempts to justify the exclusion of women from ordained ministry utilizing the archaic, patriarchal theology that Jesus was a man and he chose men as his apostles, therefore, priests must also be male. He appealed to the medieval spousal imagery of an active-receptive relationship, in which the Church is the bride and the priest the bridegroom. This disregards the fundamental message of the Gospel and contradicts our baptismal oneness in Christ: “. . . there is no longer male nor female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28) Baptism rests on faith, not on gender, not nationality, nor any other form of discrimination.

In the interview, Francis fails to acknowledge the many times in Scripture where women are chosen by God or Jesus to minister. Mary of Magdala was proclaimed ‘Apostle to the Apostles’ and a host of other women named in Scripture went out to proclaim the Good News in the early church. The argument that maleness is necessary for ordination damages the Church and greater society. A church subjugating women with their structures supports similar subjugation in the world. In this the Roman Catholic Church violates its own words from the Second Vatican Council which states that, “Forms of social or cultural discrimination in basic personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language or religion, must be curbed or eradicated as incompatible with God’s designs.”(Gaudium et Spes 29) Francis’ attempt to justify the exclusion of women from ordination is a failure to “read the signs of the times” and to understand the basic human rights of all members of the Church.

Roman Catholic Women deacons, priests and bishops have answered the call of God and their communities through valid ordination in apostolic succession. We are providing a vibrant experience of community and sacraments where we live. We are not responsible for people leaving the Church, we are bringing people back to the faith. We heal those grievously wounded by physical, emotional and spiritual abuse and exclusion. We offer a model of church easily recognizable as Roman Catholic, but offering transparency of governance, the inclusion of those marginalized, and recognition of gender equality.

We call on Pope Francis and the Conferences of Bishops in Europe, the Americas, Africa, Asia, Australia and Oceania to meet with us, the Roman Catholic Women Bishops serving across the world. Despite his call for dialogue, Pope Francis refuses to engage in authentic conversation with us. Francis can use his Petrine key to unlock that door.

On behalf of Roman Catholic Women deacons, priests and bishops around the world:

+Jane Kryzanowski, Regina, SK, Canada; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.,

+Martha Sherman, Washington, IA; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

+Mary Eileen Collingwood, Cleveland, OH, USA; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

+Christine Mayr-Lumetzberger, Pettenbach, Austria; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

+Jane Via, San Diego, CA, USA;This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

+Olga Lucia Álvarez Benjumea, Envigado, Colombia

+Jean Marie Marchant, Boston, MA, USA

+Suzanne Avison Thiel, Portland, OR, USA

+Mary Keldermans, Springfield, IL, USA

+Ida Raming, Stuttgart, Germany

+Bridget Mary Meehan, Sarasota, FL, USA

+Marie Evans Bouclin, Sudbury, ON, Canada

+Merlene Olivia Doko, Pismo Beach, CA, USA

+Andrea Michele Johnson, Annapolis, MD, USA

+Sibyl Dana Reynolds, Pebble Beach, CA, USA

+Joan Clark Houk, South Bend, IN, USA

+Patricia Fresen, Johannesburg, South Africa

+Nancy Louise Meyer, Brownsburg, IN, USA

+Dr. Gisela Forster, Berg, Germany

www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org

_____________________________
If you have reactions about this article please write to: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

 _____

 

 Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church
 
 

Quick Links... 

JOIN ARCC or RENEW

CONTACT ARCC 

 

DONATE` to ARCC

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

 

Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church, ARCC,

16 Big Dipper Drive
Clancy, MT  59634
   

Other Voices  

   
© ALLROUNDER