Italian Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, a renowned biblical scholar and former archbishop of Milan, died Aug. 31 at the age of 85 after a long battle with Parkinson’s disease.http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/headlinebistro_complete/~4/NJTFoMLKZgM
Rest in peace
I posted this question as a new thread, but it’s been deleted…I assume because it repeats/duplicates the Cardinal thread here, so maybe I can ask it here.
God rest his soul, he seems to have been a very intelligent and well-respeced scholar, this Cardinal, especially by the pope.
But I don’t understand…if this Cardinal spoke publicly that he thought birth control/condoms were okay to use in some cases, is that not teaching against doctrine?
Isn’t birth control one of the few doctrine rules that cannot be changed because it’s an “intrinstic evil”?
Wouldn’t that mean he’s not in agreement with Church doctrine?
I don’t understand…
Ah, okay. I did some research and I think I’ve answered my own question.
I thought it was technically and spiritually “not possible” for a pope or priest or Cardinal to teach against doctrine.
Meaning…that “the holy spirit” wouldn’t allow it to happen (I had read something here on CAF about that…)
But just checked old threads and see that it is, indeed, possible. (right?)
So I think I’ve answered my own question…sort of…in case anybody can add or explain more?
Cardinal Carlo Martini says Church ‘200 years behind’
“Our culture has grown old, our churches are big and empty and the church bureaucracy rises up, our religious rites and the vestments we wear are pompous.”
“radical transformation, beginning with the Pope and his bishops”
Cardinal Martini’s message was probably not appreciated by the entrenched leaders of the Church, but he spoke the truth. The Church needs to change with the times or become irrelevant.
I was wondering the same as you. I actually came here to see what others thought about Martini’s comment about contraceptives.:shrug: Seems odd to me that he came so close to being the pope…and having such views.
One could wonder how relevant the Church is now when so many Catholics are not practicing, have spoken by no longer being in the pews attending Mass, nor following Catholic Church leaders. I just don’t see how She can become more relevant in the lives of more people unless Catholics draw more people in and drive less away. People need to be in the pews for the Church to be relevant to them. And I’m not sure what the percentage in the US is of baptized Catholics attending weekly Mass. Only 20 -30% seems to be the number I recall.
“While those Americans who are unaffiliated with any particular religion have seen the greatest growth in numbers as a result of changes in affiliation, Catholicism has experienced the greatest net losses as a result of affiliation changes. While nearly one-in-three Americans (31%) were raised in the Catholic faith, today fewer than one-in-four (24%) describe themselves as Catholic.”
“Approximately one-third of the survey respondents who say they were raised Catholic no longer describe themselves as Catholic. This means that roughly 10% of all Americans are former Catholics.”
our lady said at Fatima only portugal will retain the Dogma of the faith,but also said in the end her immaculate hearth will triumph.
St. John Chrysostom tells us: 'The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops, lets pray that
Cardinal Martini isn’t one of these
Wow, I never realized the numbers were so dramatic. I see it here in nyc but didn’t realize that the numbers backed up what I was seeing and experiencing here.
I read this article this morning and I don’t know what to make of it. The foundation of our faith can not change so he seems to be proposing birth control, married priests, divorce remarried folks, etc.
What I think has happened is Vatican 2 open far 2 many windows 2 fast and the resulting years afterwards has skewed the message of Jesus and the discipline of being a Christian. Today we are seeing the results of that with declining attendance and Catholics being confused on same sex marriage, abortion, and divorce. From what I read the church is actually growing among young people. There is real growth in church youth groups and programs with youth. The message of Christ and the stability of our church has returned after 35 years of listlessness. That is how I see this story, please correct me if I am wrong.
I don’t think people are confused at all. Many I think simply have been driven away which results in declining attendance because of the hardcore conservative stances the Church has taken on things such as contraception, women’s rights, divorce, civil rights for gays and lesbians, stem cell research. The Church today because of Her positions on such issues and the issues She appears to place most emphasis on, can even give the impression that She expects Catholics here in the US to vote only for one political party. This view I see expressed even right here on CAF. Even to the point where Catholics will tell other Catholics they can not be Catholic if they express a certain political viewpoint or vote a certain way. People can become turned off by all of that. I don’t think the sex abuse scandal helped any with attendance either.
As far as the youth, the link I provided in my earlier post says this:
“Latinos, who already account for roughly one-in-three adult Catholics overall, may account for an even larger share of U.S. Catholics in the future. For while Latinos represent roughly one-in-eight U.S. Catholics age 70 and older (12%), they account for nearly half of all Catholics ages 18-29 (45%).”
It appears any growth you see might in large part be the result of immigration as the same article I linked to in the earlier post not only speaks of the Latino youth mentioned above, but also speaks of the “disproportionately high number of Catholics among immigrants to the U.S”.
I do sense among up and coming younger Catholic clergy, a general turn to a more conservative and hardcore mindset. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out down the road with moderates and liberals and with polls showing the Latino population not exactly thrilled with Republican politics in the US. The Church seems to have taken a more liberal stance on immigration though than many conservatives so that could help.
Perhaps the Church will mainly become relevant to only conservatives and immigrants. Time will tell. But I found Cardinal Martini’s words interesting and may God rest His soul. Peace be with you Cardinal Martini.
Yah, I saw this today. I was gonna post it in a seperate thread. It does seem to fit hear.
I guess only he will know what God thinks of him speaking out against the Catholic Chruch.
Either way. RIP
I thought I read somewhere at one time people thought he would be Pope. I guess thats why he was not chosen to be the Vicar of Christ. God did not allow it.
I do find it weird that in cases of communicable disease, some even resulting in death or the death of a child, that contraception would not be allowed.
Cardinals other issues are age old. The Pope did not write the Bible. He will come up with a whole new can of beens if he trys to re write it. I think you will end up loosing even more Catholic because they will say “see if the church teaching have changed, then what else are the wrong about.?”
Just a thought. …
Really? So for the last 2000 years of Christianity, during which the world has changed in countless ways but the Church did not. . .why didn’t the Church become irrelevant in ALL THOSE TIMES???:shrug:
What makes AD 2012 so special???
True… Lets not forget the flip coin that we are not just loosing Catholics to the secular world. Are we forgeting the Protestants? Many ultra conservative, Protestant secs are groing in numbers. Some may even say the Catholic Chruch is too Liberal… To do a fair assesment, you have to look at all scenario’s. Do people not understand that we are at the end of times?. Christ did say at the end , his Chruch would NOT BE THE LARGEST. HE ONLY PROMISED it would not get eaten up by the DEVIL. Just more signs of the time.
Okay, I will now step down from my soap box! LOL
It’s arguable the world changed more in the last 200 years than the previous 1,800. Especially in the 20th century.
Actually, try to imagine the change between AD 380 and AD 580. AD 380 --the canon of the Bible, Roman’s empire at its height (and breadth). AD 580 – Rome fallen, sacking and pillaging. Civilization in Europe is gone. . .it’s all tribal warfare. The great bastions of early Christian Churches --Alexandria, Ephesus --overtaken by Muslims.
How about the changes from AD 1350 to AD 1550? AD 1350 was the start of the Renaissance in Italy–the flowering of chivalry in France–the mercantile strength of the Hanseatic League --and a UNITED Christendom though not a literate one for the most part. The Black Death --bubonic plague–is about to wipe out ONE THIRD OF EUROPE.
AD1550: The plague has come and gone several times. Christendom has fractured. A great threat of a Muslim invasion has been averted. More people than ever before have become literate. Instead of a feudal society we see NATIONALISM.
No, I don’t think the last 200 years have been the ONLY times when the Church has seen society change greatly. . .
Well, one might say the Church has changed drastically.
The demand for a reformation of the Catholic church 500 years ago by the masses who felt passionately moved and ready and needing a change led to the formation of a new Christian Church. Protestants may consider their churches a “reformed”, “better” version of the traditional one…a natural, organic, evolving process that the people demanded–and indeed got.
Which new Christian Church?
Are you saying the Catholic Church made a ‘drastic change’ from what it taught and was in AD 1500 from what it was in AD 100, 1000, etc? What were the changes?
Or are you saying the PROTESTANT churches are ‘a new’ (actually several hundred or more new) Christian Church, even though no two of them agree on core tenets and in fact teach contradictory and changeable teachings?
Either way, I think you’re wrong. The Catholic Church does not change doctrinally. Certainly its ‘outer’ appearance (made up by its people) changes. The earliest Churches were homes and catacombs; the Middle Ages saw great soaring cathedrals; the 20th century in the U.S. saw areas in the Northeast that (with the baby boom) had lots of churches built, some of which were in areas which lost population); saw areas in the South which had historically been Protestant begin to grow – the Catholic peoples through time, depending on their own socioecomic status, would have a small church if that was all they could afford, but would give the best they could, little by little, and if their own monetary fortunes thrived, would try to ‘give back’ to God by offering gifts to the Church --vestments, statues, scholarships for men to seek the priesthood, etc.) But through all the changes, whether it was the crash of civilization and the attacks of barbarians, the long history of wars, protection of the poor through hospitals, education of people through universities, protection of knowledge through the monks and their labors to copy precious manuscripts, improvement of people’s health through the monks’ labors in SCIENCE and husbandry, the Great Plague, the fracturing of Christian through heresy and schism, the industrial ‘revolution’, and the ‘globalization’ of society, the Church has held firmly to the teachings of Christ, as He gave them, nearly 2000 years ago, without change, without ‘bending’ to society and its demands for a ‘different’ gospel.