From what I’ve seen, what’s most upsetting is not the closure of parishes, but rather 1) the careful management of PR in a way that pretends that’s not what’s going on (e.g. “WE have no plans to close parishes… that’s for you to discern”), and 2) neglecting to take any responsibility for the current situation, or outline any lessons learned and changes based on the failures of the last 50 years.
Good question. Three things:
1) Confirming alignment on the big things (money, family, kids, faith, etc) before getting married.
2) Learning early on how to argue well. That is, to authentically share what one believes is best and work toward that outcome, while trying to avoid causing unnecessary pain to the other even when you disagree. This also requires being able recognize when yourself or your spouse has failed in this area, and help each other recover gracefully and apologize rather than spiraling.
3) Communicating openly and confiding in each other. If your fiancé isn’t your confidante, something’s wrong.
Put differently, Jesus was and is the victor in all things. He won at everything he intended to do, in exactly the way he intended to — comes with being omnipotent.
There’s a world of difference between a mindset of “Jesus did not win with the polis (people, i.e., ‘political victory’) so we shouldn’t expect to either” and “we should ensure that all our political battles are fought to bring about the kingdom of God, not for personal victory and glory, and accept that victory may not always look like we expect or be on the timeline we want.”
@fathermaurer It is. “Winning … is exactly the opposite of what Jesus modeled.”
We should of course seek to emulate what our Lord modeled. Saying that winning is the opposite of what he modeled is to say that we should not seek it. If we are not seeking to win, then we are planning to fail.
I agree with you.
At the same time, “being Catholic” also means recognizing that popes & bishops frequently contradict each other and have no special wisdom or protection from error in most cases — including the pragmatic evaluations of foreign policy, economics, criminal justice, immigration, & military matters.
There’s a reason the requirements for infallibility are so narrow.
That definition makes sense -- I'm somewhat puzzled by the concept of "knowing actual spells." If one were to have intention, pick random objects, and invent a ritual ... is that an actual spell? Or is there a component of arcane knowledge here, where some combinations of objects & rituals are actually more efficacious in invoking pagan/demonic spiritual entities?
I'd always assumed that intention / willful cooperation with evil entities was the efficacious component, and the rest was all poppycock. But, that's not based on any research or knowledge of the area.
I’m reacting strongly to this because I see a lot (the majority?) of Catholics in teaching roles say that it’s “complex” and leave it at that, without actually sharing the teaching of the Church. I think this is one of the reasons why the phenomenon has spread rapidly with little cultural pushback.
Not in any way saying this is your intent — but highlighting the danger of treating the issue as something overly complex.
How is this complex? Don’t deny the God-given role and complementary nature of the sexes. Don’t speak falsehoods. Don’t mutilate the body. Some people have delusions (about any number of things), have a complete lack of moral formation, and should be treated with compassion.
Like most teachings, there’s a lot of nuance as you go down the rabbit hole. I think it’s counterproductive to imply that it’s more complex than the average case of application of universal principles to the specific case. Every topic can be presented with more or less complexity, appropriate to the situation.
There are certainly good pastors, too. They do the hard work of making up for decades of poor formation and poor leadership to get a parish back on track, by bringing as many people as possible to understand the WHY of what needs to happen. From my experience, they are a small minority of pastors.
@fathermaurer is one such example.
Three times now I’ve had pastors who were willing to listen and privately agree with the improvements needed … but unwilling to disrupt the status quo of slow decline.
The poorly-formed geriatric who’s been there 40 years and has the parish in her will. The choir director who plays guitar and hates chant & Latin, but would be hard to replace. For the vast majority of even well-meaning pastors, these types of people have more authority than the GIRM and encyclicals.
Listening is not enough. Pastors must be willing to show backbone and lose parishioners in order to create an environment that fosters spiritual (and demographic!) success.
I've had the conversation with a trad family that was doing all the right things to make their parish better, that the pastor was never going to listen to them, so they needed to either make peace or leave (I no longer work at that parish).