The topic of change in the Catholic Church has come up several times so there was curiosity about what treatment the discussion would get when CNN raised it. (CNN: 'The face of our church is changing')
Prior discussions have been with Kannafoot as he is devout in his Catholic belief but has no desire to be a missionary so this permits some open discussion and his view of tensions within the faith are based entirely on orthodoxy. There are two primary factions with conservative Catholics (i.e. not necessarily GOP) favoring orthodoxy whereas liberal Catholics (i.e. not necessarily Democrats) favor the progressive agenda of Pope Francis. There was some discussion of a schism on this basis. There are always secondary considerations but this is the most important one which has been presented to me.
The CNN article is focused almost entirely on the changing population of the U.S. and how the increasing percentage of Hispanic people means more and more of the Catholic faithful will be of central or south American descent. The journo goes to some length to review cultural differences but most disturbing was the emphasis on racial differences since that opened the article.
There's no question of Kannafoot's knowledge, sincerity, and belief as I've known him for a good many years and this not something on which he will waver. The man is a rock in this way. You can kill him but you won't change his faith.
As to the CNN writer, how should I know. My take is the article is somewhere between misguided and grossly under-informed.
Racial and cultural differences factor into everything as it's the nature of the species. If you review the ancient history of pre-humans, you will find new species being discovered all the time. I don't follow this with scientific fervor but there are enough pop science articles about new bones to be clear there has never been any single type of human on the Earth at one time and there was never even any single pre-human. The nature of existence is co-existence and apparently always has been.
Political conservatives often reason beginning with the premise from Hobbes that mankind is in a constant state of war. It's novel that at least they come forward to the seventeenth century but these species co-existed for thousands of years. If they were at war, they really sucked at it even worse than the English with the French (i.e. Hundred Years War).
There is a counter that reasonable evidence exists Homo sapiens didn't graduate to full self-awareness until about forty thousand years ago therefore the behavior of any species prior to that time is only distantly relevant. It's a fair response and it means the argument can go on ... well ... forever.
The issue Kannafoot raises is not inherent to human nature but rather is primary to the core of the philosophy of the church. It's an unfortunate oversight this was not mentioned in the face of the changing church as there has been substantial airplay regarding public dissatisfaction with various things Pope Francis has said and the indications they give as to where he is going. There hasn't been so much airplay for liberal Catholics saying the guy is great as presumably that's not such a sexy news story as someone flaming at the Vatican.
Final review on it: shallow. Some interesting perspective but not enough depth to address a profound source of conflict within the faith rather between people of the faith. It's a major distinction and omitting that is the basis for the final review.
Prior discussions have been with Kannafoot as he is devout in his Catholic belief but has no desire to be a missionary so this permits some open discussion and his view of tensions within the faith are based entirely on orthodoxy. There are two primary factions with conservative Catholics (i.e. not necessarily GOP) favoring orthodoxy whereas liberal Catholics (i.e. not necessarily Democrats) favor the progressive agenda of Pope Francis. There was some discussion of a schism on this basis. There are always secondary considerations but this is the most important one which has been presented to me.
The CNN article is focused almost entirely on the changing population of the U.S. and how the increasing percentage of Hispanic people means more and more of the Catholic faithful will be of central or south American descent. The journo goes to some length to review cultural differences but most disturbing was the emphasis on racial differences since that opened the article.
There's no question of Kannafoot's knowledge, sincerity, and belief as I've known him for a good many years and this not something on which he will waver. The man is a rock in this way. You can kill him but you won't change his faith.
As to the CNN writer, how should I know. My take is the article is somewhere between misguided and grossly under-informed.
Racial and cultural differences factor into everything as it's the nature of the species. If you review the ancient history of pre-humans, you will find new species being discovered all the time. I don't follow this with scientific fervor but there are enough pop science articles about new bones to be clear there has never been any single type of human on the Earth at one time and there was never even any single pre-human. The nature of existence is co-existence and apparently always has been.
Political conservatives often reason beginning with the premise from Hobbes that mankind is in a constant state of war. It's novel that at least they come forward to the seventeenth century but these species co-existed for thousands of years. If they were at war, they really sucked at it even worse than the English with the French (i.e. Hundred Years War).
There is a counter that reasonable evidence exists Homo sapiens didn't graduate to full self-awareness until about forty thousand years ago therefore the behavior of any species prior to that time is only distantly relevant. It's a fair response and it means the argument can go on ... well ... forever.
The issue Kannafoot raises is not inherent to human nature but rather is primary to the core of the philosophy of the church. It's an unfortunate oversight this was not mentioned in the face of the changing church as there has been substantial airplay regarding public dissatisfaction with various things Pope Francis has said and the indications they give as to where he is going. There hasn't been so much airplay for liberal Catholics saying the guy is great as presumably that's not such a sexy news story as someone flaming at the Vatican.
Final review on it: shallow. Some interesting perspective but not enough depth to address a profound source of conflict within the faith rather between people of the faith. It's a major distinction and omitting that is the basis for the final review.
No comments:
Post a Comment