As you know, I have been following all things Catholic for some time now and feel that the Catholic Church is on the cusp of seeing some fundamental changes in the way it operates or at least I hope it is.
Sunday, I ran across an interesting article in the New York Times “FOR PRIEST, INTERSECTION OF FAITH AND DOUBT” by Katharine Q. Seelye.
The article describes a priest (Rev. Robert J. Bowers) of Boston who took an indefinite leave of absence (sabbatical) from the priesthood when his parish was closed in part to help pay for legal fees and cash settlements stemming from the many sexual abuse cases in the Boston diocese. He felt betrayed by Church leadership and their mishandling of the whole sex abuse issue. He could no longer promise priestly obedience saying that “You can’t promise obedience when you feel like you can’t trust the person you’re supposed to obey”.
The article goes on to talk about elderly Catholic women (backbone of the Church) who are asking Rev. Bowers questions like “can you still be a good Catholic and not believe in the authority of the Pope” or variations of what it means to be a Catholic or better yet, a good Catholic. To me, seeing older women question Church leadership and their own faith due to the handling of sexual abuse cases throughout the years, is not only historic but makes me look at Catholics who I have mostly equated to sheep, in a different way; maybe they do pay attention to what is going on?
I have long advocated that the American Catholic Church break free of the Vatican knowing full well that it would not but now I am starting to wonder if that potential exists. The article mentions a poll that found that seventy seven (77%) percent of American Catholics believe that you don’t have to believe in the authority of the Pope to be a good Catholic.
The Rev. Bowers remarked that the Vatican was made up of “very, very old men who can’t grasp what’s happening”.
I will explore this issue in more detail but suffice it to say that the Pope’s and the Vatican’s claim to power rests on the “apostolic succession” principal which states that in the beginning, Jesus created this church and appointed Peter as the head of His church and therefore each Pope is a successor to Peter and thus ordained by Jesus Himself as the head of His church.
Well the apostolic succession claim is not supported by history as we know it (empirically) but is a myth promoted by the Church in Rome as a historic “tradition.
Historians say that Paul (the founder of Christianity and not Jesus who Paul did not know) and the Apostles, did not get along and in fact, opposed each other as to who Jesus was, what he did, what he stood for and even whether he was divine or not. In fact, Paul was trying to buy the Apostle’s favor for his new religion because without it, Paul could not connect even Jesus to his new religion.
The Gospel writers were not eyewitnesses to anything and their words cannot be taken as representing history but they are the ones that created the myths that were used to anchor the Christian faith; Jesus’ Apostles never did sign on.
Was Peter ever in Rome? There is no evidence to support that and there is no evidence that Peter was even a part of the new religion and certainly not its first leader or Pope. The person in charge of the Apostles after the death of Jesus was Jesus’ brother JAMES and we have confirmation of that from sources outside the Gospels.
Did not mean to get carried away but let me just say that the Vatican does not have a valid claim on the leadership of the Catholic Church; they just have been leading the Church for a very, very long time.
Another question worth exploring is what makes a Catholic Catholic…
No comments:
Post a Comment