Paul VI's comment (in the scanned image) about people making complaints not out of "true devotion" but "spiritual indolence" disappoints me. Like really? Anyone who wants to kneel for communion just hates change? There's no devotional motivation behind it?
It reminds me of Pope Francis' frequent dismissal of traditionalists (as in his new…
Paul VI's comment (in the scanned image) about people making complaints not out of "true devotion" but "spiritual indolence" disappoints me. Like really? Anyone who wants to kneel for communion just hates change? There's no devotional motivation behind it?
It reminds me of Pope Francis' frequent dismissal of traditionalists (as in his newly published autobiography) as "rigid." You can't claim to be against clericalism if you're going to dismiss out of hand what the laity are telling you because you don't like it.
I bristle also because it's that lofty Ciceronian invective style of rhetoric which I see in a lot of educated corners of the Church, both on the "left" and "right." It's not pastoral or Christian. It's divisive, dismissive, and smug.
If you dismiss someone by calling them names in lieu of an explanation, it's a good indication that you are ignorant, don't actually have an explanation, and are hoping everyone is too hurt (or enthused) to notice.
Sherry Weddell has a statement in her book Forming Intentional Disciples that I come back to again and again: never accept a label in place of a story. I.e., never assign a label to someone, ask why they say/do/believe what they do.
A good corollary is to avoid labeling people names they wouldn't call themselves. Not an absolute rule, but a useful standard when engaging in spirited, but good faith, debate.
Interesting. I tend to accept labels that are essentially categorizing beliefs, e.g. Catholic, Arian, Stoic; or labels that indicate membership in a group, e.g. Catholic, conservative, pipe welder, prostitute, and only dispute the accuracy/inaccuracy of those labels.
But there are a lot of labels that are intended to describe why a person is or does or doesn't do something, and ascribing motivations to a person you do not know is something I generally classify as rash judgement. People are sufficiently complex, and what goes into our decisions is sufficiently complex, that we simply don't have enough information without, as you say, the story.
Paul VI's comment (in the scanned image) about people making complaints not out of "true devotion" but "spiritual indolence" disappoints me. Like really? Anyone who wants to kneel for communion just hates change? There's no devotional motivation behind it?
It reminds me of Pope Francis' frequent dismissal of traditionalists (as in his newly published autobiography) as "rigid." You can't claim to be against clericalism if you're going to dismiss out of hand what the laity are telling you because you don't like it.
I bristle also because it's that lofty Ciceronian invective style of rhetoric which I see in a lot of educated corners of the Church, both on the "left" and "right." It's not pastoral or Christian. It's divisive, dismissive, and smug.
If you dismiss someone by calling them names in lieu of an explanation, it's a good indication that you are ignorant, don't actually have an explanation, and are hoping everyone is too hurt (or enthused) to notice.
Sherry Weddell has a statement in her book Forming Intentional Disciples that I come back to again and again: never accept a label in place of a story. I.e., never assign a label to someone, ask why they say/do/believe what they do.
A good corollary is to avoid labeling people names they wouldn't call themselves. Not an absolute rule, but a useful standard when engaging in spirited, but good faith, debate.
Interesting. I tend to accept labels that are essentially categorizing beliefs, e.g. Catholic, Arian, Stoic; or labels that indicate membership in a group, e.g. Catholic, conservative, pipe welder, prostitute, and only dispute the accuracy/inaccuracy of those labels.
But there are a lot of labels that are intended to describe why a person is or does or doesn't do something, and ascribing motivations to a person you do not know is something I generally classify as rash judgement. People are sufficiently complex, and what goes into our decisions is sufficiently complex, that we simply don't have enough information without, as you say, the story.
“You can't claim to be against clericalism if you're going to dismiss out of hand what the laity are telling you because you don't like it.”
All of this was well said, but I particularly appreciate this astute observation.