Press well before reading This week I only consider the Capsule.
DOWNS SYNDROME BOY Strange case here of the Capsule and the Catholic Herald (I think) reporting the same case and the same facts but stating different conclusions. The Case concerns a Downs Syndrome boy who was refused admission to a lst Communion class at his parish. When he missed the first class his parents were told he would have to wait. So the mother approached the Vicar General on the grounds that it was really discrimination against Downs syndrome children. Correctly the V.G. said that there might be concerns over the child's ability to understand the meaning of Holy Communion but that the diocese would examine how it could activele engage with the parents to reach a situation whereby the child could prepare for first Communion. The Capsule incorrectly headlined their account "Downs boy to receive Communion" while the Herald made clear a decision had not been made at the moment. The Church's position is that Downs syndrome children (varying in understanding) should be considered on an individual basis before a decision is made. The child (any child) should have an appreciation of what Holy Communion really means...the host is not merely a piece of bread...but Christ himself under appearances of bread and wine. In this case as in others, all parties should be considered..
CHRISTIAN UNITY> At home Cardin Murphy O Connor worries that ecumenism is undermined by lack of action by Christians on a local level in matters of co operation , joint action on issues, and lack of prayer together. Suspicion, inertia and impatiene, he urged, were the main causes of this position. "Ecumenical work requires perseverance over months and years" . The problem is that while in 50 years since the Council there has been a movement towards progress on these fronts, there has been virtually no progress on the read core issues, the vital differences of belief between the Catholic Church and the other ecclesial bodies over key issues, both moral and theological.
In his recent visit to Germany , the Holy Father spoke of "steps towards rehabilitating Luther", and that he was impressed by his Luthers struggle theological searching and inner struggle" over the key question of how does a person receive the Grace of God ? I have to say I feel rather uneasy about the idea of rehabiliting or re evaluating Luther and the Reformation.
MORE either tomorrow or Monday.
19 minutes ago
2 comments:
An example of co-operation between the Churches occurred in Scotland over the issue of so-called same sex ‘marriage’. Cardinal Keith O’Brien and leading figures in a number of ecclesial communities, including the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland (not to be confused with the established Church of Scotland) jointly signed a petition to the Scottish Government. However, notably absent were any currently leading figures in the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Episcopal Church. (There were also no representatives from the Baptist Church or the Methodist Church.) Both of the latter sent response to the Scottish Government’s consultation on so-called same-sex ‘marriage’ in which they indicated that they were opposed but the people who sent the response from the Church of Scotland indicated that that was only their current position and that it could, at any time, change in the future. Indeed, there are many in the Church of Scotland who openly endorse the idea of so-called ‘same-sex ‘marriage’. So co-operation at the local level on that issue depends very much on the view of the local minister. The same applies to any co-operation in the area of pro-life activity. This is the problem with local co-operation on issues: it depends very much not on the view of the other churches but on the views of the local clergy.
On the question of Luther I thought that we had summed up the fellow very adequately for the past 500 years. He is the main person responsible for the problems I refer to above.
It seems that Cdl. Murphy-O’Connor is not on the same page as the Holy Father, who just yesterday spoke to the CDF on true and false ecumenism. It seems ecumenism went from barely speaking to one another, to non-stop ‘dialogue’. And the good Cardinal wants more of the same…?
I had reservations about the ecumenical movement, post Vatican II. While I saw advantages in a change of attitude, it could not be at the expense of truth or doctrine. Yes, we had been smug in the past – “we’re right, you’re wrong!” And while that hadn’t changed, we were encouraged to become more charitable and understanding in our approach. That was good – and necessary.
After all, what is the purpose of ecumenism? To bring everyone to the fullness of truth, surely? To help everyone get to heaven. And where are the means of salvation in their fullness to be found? Only in the Catholic Church – nowhere else. We needed to get that across to our separated brethren - not in a triumphalist manner, but in charity. We want their salvation too.
But it seems that for many people ecumenism became a means of accommodation. We’ll concentrate on what we have in common and gloss over our differences as if they didn’t exist. But they do exist and if they didn’t we wouldn’t need ecumenism. We would all “be one”. But we’re not - and pretending that we are except for some ‘minor differences’ is false ecumenism and a betrayal not only of the Truth, of our separated brethren themselves, but of our mission to preach the Gospel in its fullness. They deserve better and we ought to be better than that.
Or don’t we believe in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that is the Catholic Church?
Post a Comment