An interesting counterpoint to my entries of the last several days.

[sophiaserpentia]

Seen on the Beliefnet B-Log:

People have used the Bible to predict the Second Coming and the end of the world. But John M. Brown is one of the first to rely on the Old Testament to hunt for oil in Israel, where others have tried and failed. "Over the last five years significant amounts of gas have been discovered off the shore of both Israel and Gaza," insists Brown, chairman of Dallas-based Zion Oil & Gas. Decoding verses from Deuteronomy, he is determined to look for black gold to the south of the Mount Carmel range, a region known as "the head of Joseph," and an area near the Mediterranean, a.k.a. "the foot of Asher."

How to pay for this holy flyer? Zion recently went public on Nasdaq in a best-efforts offering for 1.3 million to 7 million shares at $5 apiece. The kicker: Brown must pay a hefty 8% to 10% of the proceeds to the underwriters--no believers, they. The money will support drilling on sites licensed from the Israeli government. And if the first efforts bear no fruit? Brown seems ethereally unconcerned. Many of his backers are evangelical Christians who want him to succeed. Besides, we are entering the season of miracles.

And, posted by arisbe, this article on Catholic social teaching:

The approach found in many of the encyclicals has led the Church to attempt to impose on the economic order principles external to the science of economics, and thus, it promotes policies that are bound to fail, and that will bring disrepute to the Church, leading people to reject its teachings as unserious.... [T]he principles of economic activity are orderly and unchanging, and attempts to impose particular policies from outside of that system reflect a lack of comprehension or recognition of the reality of the economic order.

On this second article, these comments are spliced together and greatly edited from two comments made in challenging_god:

The article made a very good point in showing that the way the Catholic Church has gone about making economic pronouncements from its "bully pulpit" takes it into potentially dangerous territory. In the Catholic Church there is effectively no two-way discourse; the Church is not a democracy.

What I've advocated in mixing theology with practical concerns like economic or political implications envisions a two-way flow of information and argument. That is, if theology has economic implications, then economics should have theological implications. The Church should not then promote potentially flawed economics simply because that is what is compatible with its theology; economic innovation may suggest that theological innovation is needed. But it does not appear (from my detached perspective) that this is compatible with the way the Church sees it.

It has been demonstrated time and again, in business and government, that when the people in the trenches have a clear means of questioning policies that come from above, the entire structure works more efficiently. The Church does not have an effective mechanism for this. (Again, that assessment comes from a somewhat detached perspective.)

The Church is structured as it is to avoid giving heresy a chance to take root; but the Church also plays at being an institution of the world. Protestantism allows more of a feedback loop, but Protestant denominations are much more prone to schism over "timely" issues, which suggests that there is no easy answer on how to implement the economic implications of theology.

Comments

[badsede.livejournal.com]

I see Catholicism as incredibly democratic. However, the thing to remember is that it is not only the living who get to vote, but all Catholics of all times. That is the nature of Holy Tradition, it prevents just those "timely" shifts in opinion to unduly swing the theology of the Church.

It constantly amazes me what a misconception people - including Catholics - have about the nature of the Pope's authority. It is incredibly limited. The Pope cannot act in contradiction to Holy Tradition, that means that he must heed the voices of all the faithful through time.

I for one think that the Latin Church has a really bad papal dependancy problem. It's not that the Pope *can't* make these pronouncements on such issues, it's just that he shouldn't have to. We keep looking to the Pope for answers that he should not have to give. Our desire for absolutism may have prevented much of the schisming rampant in Protestantism, but it has become quite a crutch.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

After posting this I went back and edited it a couple of times to pull back from making "firm" statements about the Church not being democratic, to "soft" statements with disclaimers.

I don't mean the Pope per se; I have in mind the upper echelons of the Church, which make pronouncements that people further down the line have little course to question. It also seems to me that the Church has ways of screening entrance to the upper echelons that prevent strong dissidents from entering.

I've heard priests express private qualms about points of doctrine they would never openly voice. I also know personally a former priest who was accused of heresy but resigned before the trial.

But I do confess that I am not as familiar as I should be with the way the Church is structured. There is much I still need to learn.

[badsede.livejournal.com]

Authority always has the tendancy to make some people feel that those with the authority are unapproachable. But my esperience has been otherwise with the authority structure in the Roman Church. I have spoken to my bishops on many occasions. Even more, I have spoken to my priests. I think this ties quite well into my papacy dependancy remark earlier. It is true that the Pope is not too accessible to the average member of the laity, but the pope should not have to be. Many things can be addressed much lower in the heirarchy than people bother trying.

It amazes me reading the catholicism community. People ask questions - oftentimes that cannot be answered universally - that they could easily just go ask their priest. But they don't, they just leave their questions insufficiently answered.

I think it is rather difficult to look at the Church from the outside and really understand the structure .. especially for Westerners and most especially for Americans. The Church hierarchy is not legislating like our government does. They are not creating beliefs, but revealing them. Take the example that you give, either it is morally acceptable to purposefully allow someone to starve to death or it isn't. Yes, there are all sorts of other considerations, other moralities and immoralities, extenuating circumstances and circumstantial specifics, but they do not change that one issue. Though much of our world is - and though catholics often woefully fall into the same trap - there is no place for moral relativism in Catholicism. It is not that the "lower" people in the Church have no choice as to whether to accept what the "upper" people say, it is a matter of all the church either embracing or rejecting that which is good and that which is bad. In fact, the lower/upper dichotomy is a perversion of the structure of the Church - one that even the church falls into from time to time unfortunately.

And, we cannot forget, that at one time, every priest, every bishop, every pope, every religious, was once a member of the laity. Every one of them was raised to some extent by the laity. Many of our theologians come from the laity. Most sponsors for converts come from the laity. Motherhood and fatherhood actually play the biggest role in shaping the Church through the way they raise their children. Most movements that have changed the Church - catholic workers, liberation theology, liturgical reform, clerical reform, popular devotion, the very nature of the sacraments - have started in the laity. The laity has tremendous power in the Church, it is just that many choose to live their faith passively and not embrace their role as a priestly people.

The clergy will tell you unabashedly that there is nothing about their vocation that inherently makes them more holy. They are sinners just like the laity. They need forgiveness just like the laity. It truly is a situation of where the only one that can disenfranchise a person is themself.

I have heard priests quietly voice their qualms about certain doctrines. But I have also heard priests vocally express their qualms. Passive-aggressive behavior changes nothing, and I find that most of the people who complain about the these matters do not truly act.

BTW, do you know what heresy the priest was being accused of?

I am, of course, biased on this account. I see the Catholic faith *and* religion as tremedously empowering and vitalizing. But many just go through the motions and then complain about the "failings" of the religion. Many do not take an active role and then complain about how things are going at their parish or in their diocese. Many use the excuse of a "preist shortage" to justify all kinds of stances, but simultaneously raise their children to avoid the religious life. Faith must be lived. Many want the faith to transform to suit them, but the point of faith is to transform us.


sorry for the rant .. i just looked at the preview pane and this is quite long