'I'm not sure if this fits into the area of hypocrisy so much as being an offshoot of a more serious matter, but do you plan to approach any historical failures of the church? By that I mean times in the history of the CC where doctrine was waylaid for the sake of greed - indulgences (always a biggie in these discussions), crusades, general power struggles between kings & Rome. Big topics - not even sure if they're easily addressable, but i'm intrigued by those in particular because i've been taking Church History classes here at my Baptist college & I'm all too aware of the slant. I really need to do some research into the Catholic perspective on this history. Curious if you ever have.'
Yes, I have researched these topics in seeking to be reconciled with the Church. These issues you mention are actually excellent topics to explore, Laura; I'm probably going to take you up on that exploration, but not anytime in the near future (for reasons mentioned in the previous entry :-)).
Here is a good place to start your search:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/inquisition-crusades-catholic-scandals.html
I would also like to point out that many of the Protestant objections to Catholic abuses are completely unfair; squatting around in a puddle of a hyper-individualised, decentralised, and nihilistic/semi-Manichean version of Christianity (not to mention also harbouring similar controversies/abuses), many Protestants and Protestant groups begin launching attacks on historical Catholicism - that is, back upon a time when Christianity was something that had such a sway as to be central to any understanding (even one arrived at incorrectly) of human existence (i.e. the Kingdom of God was the central model for earthly kingdom). Everything and anything done in the historic Europe/Mediterranean region was done by Christian people, because Christ was understood to be King. There are no Protestant Crusades because, well, Protestants can't really unite on just about anything (though the secular 'war in Iraq' could be seen as a sort of perverted 'venting' of such efforts). So I find such vitriolic critiques of 'those horrible Crusades' and such to be aggravating and hilarious, in that they are something like that of the homeless and lazy grasshopper standing outside the situation and chiding an entire ant hill when some horrible tunneling brings the ant hill to a collapse. That is to say: at least Catholic peoples did attempt to do something in relation to Christianity, even failing sometimes and in some regards, which is more than can be said for the vast majority of Protestantism (in this neo-pagan era it has ignorantly allowed/christened for us).
...So, basically, yes, that's my gut/sheerly-emotional reaction to the sound-byte synopses of Catholic scandals: one shouldn't so blithely and happily rebuke the historical choices of others (1) when one suffers from the same basic disease as the defendant and (2) when one doesn't even have the option of having that responsibility and making such large choices because one's faith tradition is so disjointed.
'I think a necessary distinction to be made is that between Catholic behaviour and the behaviour of Catholics. Perhaps this seems to be hair-splitting, but it is worth considering that the hypocrisy of a Catholic lies not in whether or not he or she commits sins or scandalous activity, but rather if that same person insists on his own innocence before God. Just because a person who is a member of any Church or ecclesial community sins doesn't make them a hypocrite; It makes them a sinner. One of the great glories of the Catholic Church is that in its Sacraments, Christ has instituted the means of purification and grace into the world. So i would encourage you not to consider this deviant behaviour as "hypocrisy" but rather as what it is...sin. Then, one can BEGIN to contemplate hypocrisy based upon the subject in question. But if that same person is kneeling in the confessional the next morning pleading to God to forgive him and indicting himself, it is hardly just to call him a hypocrite. Guilty, weak, sinful: yes...a hypocrite: that is dangerous territory. This is why the Church refers so often to scandal. I believe that is what you are referring to here, scandal. Not necessarily hypocrisy. But as always, we must err on the side of mercy, especially when it comes to such serious allegations as hypocrisy.'
You're right, Terry. And even what I have so vaguely labeled as 'hypocrisy' is often nothing of the case . . . it is simply something of a falling short, which does ring differently. Also, as I've said in a previous entry, (1) I've noticed that Protestant (at least, Nazarene) falling short seems to be just as prominent among members, but it is more 'hush hush' than I have witnessed among Catholics, and (2) most of the 'hypocrisy' - or falling short - I've heard about is generally a Protestant misunderstanding Christianity (e.g. 'They were drinking alcohol with friends on Saturday night and were in church the next morning!!').
Thanks for your clarification; I think it's brought an edge to this consideration that I had let slip.
-Rick
. . .Increasingly, we hear that our assignment is not to make Nazarenes but to win persons to Christ. There is partial truth in the claim, but it is an unbalanced assertion. Those who make it may be applauded for seeking to avoid sectarianism and escape mere institutionalism. But it overlooks the incarnational element of our faith. When Jesus came to earth, He became a part of a particular nation and people—Israel—while at the same time proclaiming a universal gospel (i.e., for all peoples everywhere).
