In Theory: Is sacred doctrine being sacrificed when today’s religious leaders address contemporary issues?
In a “Signs of the Times” opinion piece published on the Religion News Service website, columnist Thomas Reese argues that conservative Catholic philosophers in opposition to Pope Francis and the writings of his predecessor are ideologues living in the past.
“The job of a theologian is to show people what lies at the heart of the Gospel,” Reese writes, not to view church dogma within a set of “rigid categories and rules.”
Citing early Christian thinkers like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, who adapted their messages to the avant-garde vernacular of the times, Reese says rejections of Vatican II and Pope Francis’ attempts to reach out to the modern world show a misunderstanding of theology by reactionary 21st-century thinkers. “Such an approach is not only ahistorical, it is doomed to failure,” Reese writes.
Q. Do modern-day religious leaders sacrifice sacred doctrine when they address contemporary concerns and, as Pope Francis puts it, “proclaim the Gospel in a new way”?
“Doctrine” is from the Latin “doctor,” meaning teacher. A doctrine, whether sacred or secular, is a belief, position, or principle, or a set of such teachings. Nothing in the meaning speaks about language in communicating a doctrine. In fact, a message is most effective which is relevant to its audience and in language accessible to them.
Pope Frances has put a humane and compassionate spin on Roman Catholic doctrine, while not liberalizing its key strictures. The church rules on divorce and remarriage, same-sex marriage, and birth control and abortion remain unyielding.
Even so, his critics disapprove of Francis’ expressions of love and acceptance, uncontroversial though they would seem. He is more popular than his recent predecessors so my take is that the conservatives see no future in criticizing him or his message, leaving them to attack his language.
Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose
--
I am not a Roman Catholic, and the reason for this has much to do with today’s question. It is the primary reason a billion some-odd Christians decline allegiance to Rome, as it was there that someone did “proclaim the Gospel in a new way,” and it ceased to be the Gospel. It became bound up in all sorts of medieval traditions and also money-making schemes for Vatican building projects. This is why there was a Protestant Reformation; faithful Christians “protested,” calling for a restoration of God’s key to salvation. We were summarily condemned and ejected from the then church.
What is the Gospel? It is the “good news” of God coming to man in the person of Jesus Christ to reconcile sinful humanity to his Holy self. The Gospel is bound up in the events recalled just this past Easter, and all but the Vatican leave it at that; the simple message of Christ’s sacrifice on behalf of penitent. In other words, the Gospel is the single constant in Christian faith and it transcends time and culture. How many different ways can we point to it with relevance? There is no time that will exist where this simple message of sinners receiving acceptance by God — merely by repenting of their sins and giving themselves to him — ceases, except when the time arrives that this world concludes and the sinless state inaugurates. I am reminded of how the Apostle Paul in his day would quote Greek philosophers when their words confirmed biblical truths. Today we can approach our own culture with the Gospel because mankind still exhibits a sin nature, still hungers for what God provides, and still has its own philosophers.
Jesus paid for sin on the cross. If you want your sins remitted, accept what he has done for yourself, accept his method and provision, throw your allegiance to him, and you will live free of condemnation. The Gospel requires no sacramental system, no confessions to priests, and no ecclesiastical rigmarole; it requires making a choice for Christ and what he alone could do. Nothing else; nothing added, nothing removed.
Rev. Bryan Griem
Tujunga