Protestant or Catholic: Anglicans must decide

Hard words for Anglicans from the head of the Council for Christian Unity in Rome. Cardinal Walter Kasper has told the Catholic Herald that now, with Lambeth approaching, is the time for Anglicans to decide whether they are Catholic or Protestant. 'Ultimately, it is a question of the identity of the Anglican Church. Where does it belong?' he said. 'Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox - or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century? At the moment it is somewhere in between, but it must clarify its identity now and that will not be possible without certain difficult decisions.' The genius of Anglicanism has always been its ability to straddle the divide, but maybe the Cardinal is right and the Communion's present difficulties reflect the impossibility of continuing to do this.

Photos: ACNS Rosenthal

His comments coincided with the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams' 'friendly' meeting with Pope Benedict XVI. This is the Pope who, as Cardinal Ratzinger, delivered a strong message of support to an early meeting of a group of conservative Anglicans in Plano.

I wonder how much the Catholics understand, however, that the Anglo-Catholics who might be the ones most naturally tempted towards Catholicism are not really where the present dissent stems from. Most of those who were going to go over have already gone, over women priests.

The 'orthodox' or 'traditionalists' now are from the opposite end of the spectrum, in Anglican terms. They are from Kasper's Protestant wing. The irony is that if the Anglican Communion does what Kasper is asking and decides it is in fact a 'Catholic' Church, it will emerge as a Church in the mould of the liberal Catholic provinces of TEC, Scotland and the Catholic wing in England. This would not fit at all with the present mold of conservative catholicism in Rome.

If on the other hand it decides it is Protestant body, the resultant church would be more like the evangelical independents that the Catholic Church is going head-to-head with for proselytes in Latin America and parts of Africa.

But of course simply to ask the Anglicans to make a decision of this nature is to illustrate a lack of understanding of the nature of Anglicanism. George Bernard Shaw said that England and the US were two countries divided by the same language. Catholics and Anglicans are the same, two denominations divided by the same religion.

More on events in Rome from Thinking Anglicans.

HT to Damian.

Comments

[Marcia]

"George Bernard Shaw said that England and the US were two countries divided by the same language. Catholics and Anglicans are the same, two denominations divided by the same religion."

Very well put. Much to think about here.

[Malcolm+]

'Ultimately, it is a question of the identity of the Anglican Church. Where does it belong?' [Cardinal Kasper] said. 'Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox - or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century? At the moment it is somewhere in between, but it must clarify its identity now and that will not be possible without certain difficult decisions.'

____________________________________

In fact, historic Anglicanism has decided this long since. Are we Catholic or Protestant? Yes.

That this kindly prelate cannot wrap his head around it is irrelevant.

[Robert Ian Williams]

The fundamental mistake of the past 40 years of Anglican-Catholic dialogue , has been to treat the Anglican Communion as anything but Protestant.

The irony for Cardinal Kaspar is that the oposition to homosexuality has overwhelmingly derived from the Evangelical wing...who have no interest in unity with Rome.

With 17 women bishops at Lambeth 2008, I hope that Caerdianl Kaspar will explain to the Conference why he seems to think ARCIC is principally dailogue with the Church of England.

[Michael Stevens]

Ruth I think your Shaw analogy is spot on. The levels of misunderstanding on both sides seem high. It is an odd ultimatium (for so it reads) to come now.

[LP]

I don't think this article rightly interprets what the cardinal means by "protestant" or "catholic" -- for I expect him to mean those terms theologically.

The liberals and apostates of the Episcopal (U.S.), Canadian, English and Scottish church are in no way "catholic" in any meaningful theological sense of the word, for they have abandoned the very basics of that Scriptural and Creedal Christianity which is the sine qua non of "catholic" Christianity.

In terms of Scripture, the spectrum is, rather:

* Catholic -- is aided by the teaching and practices of the apostolic and early Church ("Tradition") to understand the objective meaning of Scripture

* Protestant -- insists on "sola Scriptura", so that anything not expressly forbidden or enjoined by Scripture is debatable...though who gets to decide what Scripture actually says is always problematic, and it's often just each individual

* Liberal/Apostate -- turns to Scripture only secondarily and only where convenient, while cultural agendas, "experience", and personal predeliction are given primary authority; thus largely dismissing Scripture either as metaphor or as an antiquated and increasingly irrelevant cultural artifact.

The librals and apostates are even "less catholic" -- not more -- than the Protestants in the fundamental theological issues, even if some of them are "high church" in liturgy or more episcopally oriented in polity.

Thus I expect what the cardinal means is that Anglicanism has to decide whether it is going to hold to the faith presented in Scripture, preached by the apostles, practiced by the early Church, defended by the Ecumenical Councils, and practiced in East and West for 1500 years... or if it is going to reject that normative Tradition of interpretation & practice on fundamental issues, in order to adopt "Protestant" innovations of theology and practice which abandon that faith to a lesser or (as the liberals and apostates have) greater degree.

At least, that's how his comments strike this Anglican.

pax,
LP

[Rick Beekman]

Ruth;
Thanks for this information.

"The council for Christian unity in Rome." So this is Going to The council That eventually leads up to The One World Religion?!

This all Started at Vatican II in 1965. Slowly but surely The RCC is drawing Many churches back under "Mother Church". The Chickens are coming home to roost in other Words.

The RCC Hates competition at all levels so they have been very accomadating to Their once sworn enemies. Just Like The Bible says; They'll be a One World Government Headed By The Man called Biblically "The Beast" then the head of the soon coming One world religion; "The False Prophet". All the Religions and Faiths who claim they are "Christians" but now practice watered down un-biblical Teachings and Doctrines will join up gladly. No thanks not I Their fate is foretold also in the scriptures...

[Peter Farrington]

Hasn't this always been obvious to people outside Anglicanism who love Anglicans but do not accept that the failure to have a coherent theology is a genius, rather a crippling flaw. If Anglicanism is Catholic then why are half the Anglican congregations not very Catholic at all, and if it is Protestant then what is Walsingham all about? Anglicanism does need to make up its mind, and maybe that will require that it become the 3 or 4 Churches it really is. It cannot be either Catholic or Protestant while it is trying to be both.

[Prior Aelred]

Ruth, this is extremely well put -- historic Anglicanism has never been an "either/or" but a "both" -- modern Evangelicalism is decidedly not that! Anglican comprehensiveness doesn't just mean tolerating diverse points of view, but welcoming them.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

I am rather appalled that Cardinal Kasper shows such ignorance of Anglicanism after all these years.

[Escandal]

Cardinal Lluis Martinez Sistach has a priest in his diocese; Manel Pousa, who in an interview in a Spanish newspaper, acknowledged that he had paid abortions, thus demonstrating that it is progressive. The Cardinal has not done anything with this person. From Spain we need, that we uphold our pastors of these scandals. And the Vatican rewards Martinez Sistach appointed member to the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts and the Congregation for the Clergy.

I do not speak English well, I hope you will understand ...

http://tinyurl.com/6est8r

[Frank Davis]

Please, Ruth! The Roman Catholic Church is NOT a denomination.

[Rick Beekman]

Frank Davis;
You are correct sir; the RCC is not a "Denomination". In reality it's the largest Cult in the World.

[Tony B]

Does the Anglican Church really need to split another way?

[Chris Gillibrand]

I declare an immediate and personal interest in this matter- my identical twin brother is an Anglican vicar.

My brother can speak for himself whether he regards himself and the church which he serves as protestant or Catholic. The name itself, Church of Wales counts against the latter judgement as well as a whole tidal wave of historical accounts of the Reformation.

I have lost count of the number of conversations that I have had with continentals, which begin, "Yes, the Anglicans are just the same as Catholics" which is followed by a tactful history lesson on my part and results in Cardinal Kasper's question being answered.

However, Cardinal Kasper has already touched on the subject in his 2004 book, “That all may be one- the call to Christian unity today”

“Thus we are confronted with two different approaches: on the one hand, the universally-oriented, episcopal approach of the Anglicans and some Lutheran churches, inspired by ancient church tradition; and, on the other hand, a more local, community-centred, presbyteral approach. Behind the two approaches lie different interpretations of the precise intention of the Reforma¬tion. Did the Reformers intend to renew the then universal Church, maintaining continuity with its fundamental structure, as the Augsburg Confession (1530) suggests? Or was the development of a new type and paradigm of the Church an inevitable and deliberate consequence of their actions? Is there a fundamental consensus or - as many state nowadays - a fundamental difference?

Currently we receive different signals from our partners, and it is not easy for us at the moment to distinguish the direction in which they are moving in ecclesiological terms. There is still a need for clarification on ecclesiological issues, especially on the ordained ministry, both ecumenically and within the Protestant world itself. The Joint International Dialogue Commission with the Lutherans is now working on these issues and the Faith and Order Commission has also initiated a consultation process on The Nature and the Purpose of the Church which - we hope - will build constructively on the Lima documents on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1982).

Unfortunately, while we are engaged in overcoming these and other traditional differences, new problems have now arisen in the field of ethics, where there had previously been a general consensus. As well as the issue of women's ordination, which Luther strictly denied, the Anglican and Protestant worlds are also deeply divided today on the ethical problems being debated in our modern Western culture, including abortion, homosexuality and euthanasia. This creates new barriers, which make common witness, which our world needs so much, more difficult and sometimes even impossible.”

The reality is that attempted Episcopal ordination of women is the final hammer blow to the claim that the Church of England and its sister churches are Catholic in any sense. The only show in town is unity with Orthodoxy, that the two great lungs of Christendom should be breathing and praying together, while not necessarily thinking in the same categories. As secularisation relegates even the Orthodox to a similar relation to the state to the Catholic Church, less and less divides but the grace of God calls these great churches to unity. The issue of the nature of Papal primacy will be decided between the Orthodox and the Catholics, and then the other churches will have to decide where they stand (or fall!).

[Malcolm+]

I am an Anglican.
I am C of E.
I have a perch
in Holy Church.
I'm Protestant AND Catholic AND Free.
Neither Prebyterian, nor Methodist,
nor Baptist flecked with foam,
I am an Anglican,
several steps ahead of Rome.

[Bruno (ROME)]

Rick Beekman you sir are a ignorant fool. all you speak is trash. Everytime there is an article about the Catholic Church you show up with your garbage. No one is asking you to become Catholic. You sir are [snip]

[Chris Gillibrand]

I have to concede that there are elements of the Church of England that believe themselves Catholic and in response to Malcolm+, cannot resist posting a poem by the Revd Dr E L Mascall, the great Anglican Thomist theologian, whose work took me on the path to Rome.

The Ultra-Catholic

I am an Ultra-Catholic-No ‘Anglo-,’ I beseech you,

You’ll find no trace of heresy in anything I teach you.

The clergyman across the road has whiskers and a bowler,

But I wear buckles on my shoes and sport a feriola.

My alb is edged with deepest lace, spread over rich black satin;

The Psalms of David I recite in heaven’s own native Latin,

And, though I don’t quite understand those awkward moods and tenses,

My ordo recitandi’s strict Westmonasteriensis.

I teach the children in my school the Penny Catechism,

Explaining how the C. of E.’s in heresy and schism.

The truths of Trent and Vatican I bate not one iota.

I have not met the Rural Dean. I do not pay my quota.

The Bishop’s put me under his ‘profoundest disapproval’

And, though he cannot bring about my actual removal,

He will not come and visit me or take my confirmations.

Colonial prelates I employ from far-off mission-stations.

The music we perform at Mass is Verdi and Scarlatti.

Assorted females form the choir; I wish they weren’t so catty.

Two flutes, a fiddle and a harp assist them in the gallery.

The organist left years ago, and so we save his salary.

We’ve started a ‘Sodality of John of San Fagondez,’

Consisting of the five young men who serve High Mass on Sundays;

And though they simply will not come to weekday Mass at seven,

They turn out looking wonderful on Sundays at eleven.

The Holy Father I extol in fervid perorations,

The Cardinals in Curia, the Sacred Congregations;

And, though I’ve not submitted yet, as all my friends expected,

I should have gone last Tuesday week, had not my wife objected.
End

Having been an Anglican, I have to confess when from time to time attending Anglo-Catholic services to struggling to rediscover the authenticity that many of the participants believe them to have- this even given the liturgical depredations since the Second Vatican Council. That said, I was sent recently pictures of the Corpus Christi procession at All Saint's Margaret Street that looked pretty impeccable at least outwardly.

[Michael Stokes]

As Oscar Wilde said, "The Catholic Church is for saints and sinners alone. For respectable people the Church of England will do"

[Fr Mark]

The comments by His Eminence are surely just politicking: the Vatican is terrified that when Anglicans publicly parade women and openly gay people as , this will lead to their flock asking why on earth their own out-of-touch and unaccountable hierarchy cannot countenance such things within the RC Church. The RC Church is dying out rapidly across Europe: its statistical decline is even more vertiginous than that of the C of E, and its elderly on-message male leadership is equally not up the task of dealing with the causes.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

The Church of England is a wonderful treasure of great antiquity, rooted in the universal church of the apostles, faithful to Jesus Christ revealed in gospels and creeds, celebrating word and sacrament for the people of God who gather in its churches, and marking the times and seasons of our lives and of the nation.

It does not need to make some hypothetical choice in order to satisfy some Cardinal's notions. It is what it is by the grace of God, and I thank Him for it.

[stephen clark]

There is a frequent confusion in much of what is written above, and that is confusing liturgical high jinx with catholicism.
Anyone whose known Anglo-Catholic craziness knows that a lot of it is idiosyncratic, indvidualistic and exceedingly sectarian....all those things would seem to be antonyms of 'catholic'.
Here in the colonies, where many of the traditional churches, Anglican, included, are often narrowly ethnocentric...there is a real challenge for the church to understand itself as in the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic.
BUT it is nto about how much smoke there is in the sanctuary. It is about whether or not you are playing the same game

[Peter Carey]

I find it really strange that Cardinal Kaspar would feign such ignorance about Anglicanism. He is too bright and too intelligent to actually think that Anglicanism is "either" Roman Catholic, or Protestant.

The binary question of "either" one or the other reminds me of the pharisaical questions often posed to Jesus - was John's message from God or from man, for instance...

I can't help believe that Cardinal Kaspar is using this question as a tactic, as some kind of feigned ignorance in order to try to "trap" the Anglicans....luckily Rowan Williams has a pretty good knowledge of the scriptures, and of the tradition, and has a reasoning brain on his shoulders....

Interesting development, however, I will follow along to see the next chapter of this story!

Thanks for the post!

Peter Carey+
http://santospopsicles.blogspot.com

[bill]

"I feel much freer now that I am certain the pope is the Antichrist."

"Jews and papists are ungodly wretches; they are two stockings made of one piece of cloth. Undoubtedly they do more and viler things than those which we know and discover."

quotes from Martin Luther

Did Luther just roll a bit in his grave??

[Rick Beekman]

Yo Bruno!!

I'm not ignorant nor stupid bro.

Well I used to be when I Was a member of the RCC. I now see The light abd know the truth. If you'll put away your Rosary Beads and Get rid of Your Graven Images of Mary and saint "What's their name" I can teach you how also to see the Light...Think about it. Have a Blessed day!!

[alan]

Bruno in Rome - why so impolite towards our Rick? We all love him in spite of his views.
Is the RCC a denomination? Well, I tend to think it's more of an abomination.
But, to be serious, I'm so happy that I don't have to be either a Catholic or a Protestant or a mixture of the two. I'm just a simple atheist, with a free mind and a free conscience. It's such a relief.

[Malcolm+]

Stephen, while there is much merit to your charges of sectarianism against certain Anglo-Catholic extremists, it is worth noting that the same applies to certain Evangelical extremists.

[Antonio]

Are there people within Anglicanism who would love this question to be answered?
"We are protestant and catholic" may be good for many (even maybe for the majority of Anglicans). But not all of them think so.
Perhaps Kasper's question is not completely irrelevant.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Antonio, the Church of England frequently describes itself as a "reformed Catholic" church. It is a description which few Anglicans would question.

I appreciate that this does not fit into any neat category - it is after all sui generis. This will disappoint those who like to have pigeonholes for eveything.

But the principle is that it is neither Protestant nor Roman, and therefore asking it to choose between the two is wholly inappropriate.

Those individuals for whom this is a burning issue generally leave for other churches. But there are many who become Anglicans precisely because the Church of England satisfies the need for a spiritual home which does not force the conscience in such a manner.

[andrew holden]

"I'm so happy that I don't have to be either a Catholic or a Protestant or a mixture of the two. I'm just a simple atheist, with a free mind and a free conscience. It's such a relief."

I'm only a follower of Christ but find that leaves me with both mind and conscience free also. Yet what does freedom mean in this context? To me it means freedom to follow both truth and goodness wherever they lead rather than license to think and act just to please myself.

As the boss said, "you shall know the truth and the truth will set you free." Genuine truth liberates rather than constrains.

Aside from religious questions of whether God exists and who was/is Jesus Christ does an atheist really have such a radically different take on freedom?

[Bruno (Rome)]

Rick

Why do you worry about us Catholics? We don't worry about you or what religion you belong too. You don't see me attacking other religions like you attack the Catholic Church. If you are so call a Christ follower you sure dont act like one. Because he said to love one another. All you do is talk hate. I will say a prayer for you so all the anger will leave your soul and find the love of our lord and savior.

[alan]

Andrew - you say being a Christian means freedom to follow the truth. With all due respect, consider the following example:
A faithful Marxist thinks he too is following the truth.
You see - anyone with a faith is convinced he's following the truth. Unfortunately the claimed truth varies with the faith.
Being free from the shackles of any faith-system (religious or ideological) means being intellectually free to seek the truth - difficult though this may be.

[cg]

I regard myself as both protestant and catholic. I enjoy being part of a church with such diversity. I just wish other Anglicans could tolerate their co-religionists more.

[George Parr]

Andrew, in that atheists, or indeed humanists are not hidebound by conventions informing them how to approach certain moral issues possibly makes them more free than those embracing faith. This seems to me to apply only when measured in religious terms and I can clearly see all manner of ambiguities surrounding the arguments of those who claim a general freedom of thought, against those with faith. Most commentators here, who cite open-mindedness as a viable alternative to slavishly following dogma, only approach the subject of freedom from this perspective. But they are also mutually subject to cultural, social and political pressures and conventions and exist within a fairly normal tension of tradition and innovation in very many respects.

The value of free thinking must be in personal interpretation, and as usual there is a spectrum. If you follow instructions, (say) papal edicts, to the point where in a religious context you no longer have to think in order to be, then I would say that is problematic, dehumanising and evidence of a closed mind.

For me this extends to applauding some early texts; unreliable sources which, for some is the unthinking bedrock upon which ideologies are constructed and policies conceived. These may affect not only faith groups but also have consequences for other disinterested souls.

Freedom of choice within religion seems to apply to an extent - some more than others. The ultimate variation in freedom of thought is to choose either to renounce it or, like some here, to follow blindly, perhaps interpreting the bible literally. I think that most Christians exist somewhere between the two - which proposes that faith cannot exist without doubt; the freedom to think openly a necessary ingredient to maintain the equation.

[Mike Homfray]

Truth according to who, Alan?

Having recently given up Christianity, I now recognise it to be simply a method of mind control and constraint, which is neither needed nor beneficial. It relies on an entirely erroneous view of humanity and is essentially a set of rules from premodern times.

[andrew holden]

Alan, distinguishing between truth claims is something we all have to do, whether religious or not.

Now you could do that simply by comparing them to some authoritative text, whether that's the catechism, the Bible or Das Capital.

Alternatively you could see that there are all sorts of traditions of wisdom in the world which need to be assessed and judged by human reason and conscience.

As I have maintained before and am happy to say again, religious people can do ethics on the same basis as everyone else - we can discuss right and wrong without bringing God, the Church or the Bible into the debate and funily enough we don't seem to end up with a vastly different perspective. Do atheists believe in selfishness, murder or theft? Would they argue against love or justice?

[andrew holden]

"If you follow instructions, (say) papal edicts, to the point where in a religious context you no longer have to think in order to be, then I would say that is problematic, dehumanising and evidence of a closed mind."

George, of course that is true and undoubtedly there are many religious people who behave just like that.

Neverthless I would argue that the point of religion(or indeed any ethical tradition) is to equip people with the tools to do their own thinking about right and wrong. We don't believe that murder is wrong just because the Church, the Bible or John Stuart Mills tell us so - we can work that one out for ourselves informed by conscience and tradition.

That even means that we can change our minds about some things, such as homosexual practice, because we are adopting a principled approach to ethical thinking rather than a legalistic one. I see no reason why religious people are not as free to do this as anyone else - and lots of evidence that they have, at least at times, been pioneers in developing new ethical understandings rather than historical moralists stuck with the thinking of the past.

[George Parr]

On a question of 'truth' I agree with Mike. Notions of 'truth' have been variously represented, imagined or constructed within religion and they clash head on with 'belief' and cannot mix. Premises of arguments are either true or not. Belief and faith stop short and are ranked more with opinion than fact. Holy 'truths' are only loose interpretations of singular beliefs and come into being as part of a doctrine which is attempting to crystallize the indefinable or the stubbornly absent.

I think that mind control and constraint are real and the product of squirming human beings who live in fear of losing power and credibility in a situation they have constructed. They are also signifiers that 'religion' is wholly divorced from any genuine and gentle notions of faith.

Some people derive a form of spiritual peace from pursuing faith. But I also believe that seemingly inexorable religious speculation has also been responsible for centuries of corrupted ideas of what is important, moral, necessary, inevitable, right and wrong in terms of human value in the world.

On one level (he prepared himself to be shouted at) those who seemingly are obsessed with their own religious self-importance or its place in society are desperately trying to make a set of wholly inapplicable rules, gleaned from this continuum of speculation, fit cultures that have resoundly left them behind. Moreover, equally obsessive theologians, arguing interminably from a position of academia over the relevance of obscure liturgical practices or the abstruse pronouncements from long-dead councils, cannot even begin to connect with the people who have the vestiges of faith but no doctorate. Are these the people who have to have the 'truth' explained to them, in order to discover what throttling constraints apply to them?

[Malcolm+]

Antonio, if some member of Gordon Brown's Cabinet made a public statement to the efect that the Liberal Democrats must choose whether they are Labour or Conservative, most reasonable people would presume that the minister in question was mad as a hatter - or possibly dumb as a post. (If your not in the UK, choose a set of parties from your own country. If elsewhere in Europe, there will certainly be no shortage of parties.)

Rather than presuming the good cardinal to be either mad as a hatter or dumb as a post, I will presume that he hasn't got the first clue about Anglicanism.

[alan]

Mike, did you mean to address your question to Andrew, rather than to me?
Because if you read my last comment (9 May, 16.48) you'll see that I say truth can only be "followed" if one is free (freed) from religious or ideological blinkers.

[andrew holden]

Mike, ultimately we are the ones who distinguish truth. There is no definitive textbook or guru - it's down to you and your conscience. That shouldn't mean, of course, (unless one is a completely arrogant person) that previous guides and traditions are worthless. Rather they have to be tested and sifted by the conscience of each individual who is ultimately responsible to God alone.

I happen to believe, unlike you, that this can be done at least just as easily within a religious tradition as outside it - but it is something that all of us, catholic, protestant, Jewish or muslim, believer or atheist, can do and indeed need to do. Seeking for answers is a human instinct. In my experience religion is about that search, but it's also about the affirmation that none of us has all the answers and the acknowledgement that the ones we do have are provisional. It also means, and this may surprise you, that we need the humility to recognise that there may be many different sets of acceptable answers.

I fail to see how that is a blinkered ideology nor do I think there is much mind control involved - although I can see both those things in much bad religion.

[George Parr]

Andrew, your post does give examples of the freedom of thought you claim exist within religion and they are the same freedoms that I am talking about.

I wholly agree with your assertion that conscience and tradition inform us that murder is wrong, but that also implies that other forms of moral behaviour are informed in the same way. I would say that this also incorporates a desire for a mutual and civilized balance, arrived at through experience. Within 'tradition' exist the ideals of Christianity, which undoubtedly are in the mix, but they do not describe the absolute reality.

For me, the claims that a religious framework of morals underpins contemporary ethics is only half of the story. However, your 'principled approach to ethical thinking' over, for example, the human rights of homosexuals, which to my mind is relevant, applicable and essential, clashes head on with a large percentage of Christians. But as a demonstration of your own open-mindedness, informed by reality, it is a fine example.

[andrew holden]

"I say truth can only be "followed" if one is free (freed) from religious or ideological blinkers."

Well you would say that wouldn't you! To the contrary, whilst I admit that religious people can be blinkered (just as much as non-religious people can!) I believe that being aware of a religious dimension in life opens one's mind to all sorts of potentialities and possibilities often denied (without evidence) by the non-religious. Reductionism and materialism, to my mind, may furnish spectacles which are just as limiting when it comes to viewing the world.

[alan]

Andrew - although we have different standpoints, I think we agree on most questions of morality and seeking the truth.
I agree with you that one's conscience and one's common sense can dictate what is right or wrong, good or bad.
I'm pleased that you agree that it is not, repeat not, necessary to believe in a deity who then dictates (from above, so to speak) what is moral and what is not.
Many religious people insist that only they know what is moral (because their god tells them so), whereas atheists like me must exist in some kind of moral vacuum.
As you point out, if I've understood you correctly, you reject this rather arrogant position.

[Rick Beekman]

Bruno;
Thank you for your prayers and I also will pray for you as well.

This may be hard for you to fathom..I love ALL Catholic People. I Have 43 Members in my Family who are devout Catholics. I Don't Like The Religious System the Faithful Catholics Believe in. Bruno I Used To Be In Your Church Bro. I Know What They believe and teach. I Had some Great Nuns Teach me In Catholic School O.K.?

You need to know the RCC is not just a Church..It's up to it's neck in Political Schemes Worldwide And They In Fact Have Control Over Catholic Politicians In Third World Countries Where The RCC Has Majority Belivers. 'nuff said for now. Tell me about Italy I Love You Folks And The Culture!

[David Smith]

Bruno (Rome) to Rick Beekman:
'Rick Beekman you sir are an ignorant fool. All you speak is trash.'

And then:
'All YOU do is talk hate.'

It seems to me, Bruno, that all the personal and hateful comments are coming from you and not Rick.

I have never seen him say anything personally hateful about any individual Roman Catholic. He just believes Roman Catholicism to be a false belief system that neither saves nor sanctifies. He has had personal experience of this.

You also ask Rick:
'Why do you worry about us Catholics?'

If you believe that you have saving truth, and love others who you think have been misled, you are bound to be concerned, as is Rick. Love cares.

Did you know that many of the most respected of the founding fathers of the Roman Catholic church themselves preached hatred of individuals?

Take early church father Bishop Chrysostom (347-407 AD), whose influence on church teachings is interwoven throughout the current Catechism of the Catholic Church (revised 1992) and which cites him in eighteen sections, for example.

Of the Jews he wrote:
"When it is clear God hates them, it is the duty of Christians to hate them too." (Homiliae Adversus Iudaeos)

Don't you think it might be worth questionning whether Roman Catholicism, with its 'saints' who laid foundations like this, is really God's own belief system and chosen agent on earth?

[Peter Richardson]

There is one God, one Christ and only one way for a Christian life. There is a lot of unnecessary,cloudy confusion.
So many cooks, but only one simple recipe to follow. No matter how many divisions there might be, and there are very many, it still comes down to the individual to make their own personal commitment.

[andrew holden]

"I'm pleased that you agree that it is not, repeat not, necessary to believe in a deity who then dictates (from above, so to speak) what is moral and what is not."

Well of course not. God does not arbitrarily decide what is moral and then impose his dictatorial decrees on us all. Do I find it an intolerrable thing to be required by God to be loving and just? Of course not because being loving and just is the right way to live. Not at all - though it's not always easy to live up to that standard. Yet God (to me) helps make those principles clear and gives me encouragement and moral strength to live by them - but he doesn't just make them up.

My point is obvious. If what is right and wrong is so in and of itself then rational argument may be used to help us decide. As a Christian I do believe that God is in himself the standard - he IS Love and he IS Justice. It is his very nature that gives value to the currency. Neverthless believing in God is not necessary for doing ethics - we've all got a (God-given) conscience and a rational mind for that task.