cinq_cinq raises an interesting point, but I think it is adding a new dimension to our considerations, rather than replacing one. The tug and pull between heterodox and orthodox is an interesting, but different phenomenon. Although I can guess that converts like Beckwith and Sam Brownback probably aren't too heterodox, I don't know where they stand on the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church, and it's not really discussed in the article.

What I was talking about was not the theological institution of the Roman Catholic Church, but the social institution. Although in church doctrine there is no left or right, the church is nevertheless made up of people, and these people have political dimension...

cinq_cinq raises an interesting point, but I think it is adding a new dimension to our considerations, rather than replacing one. The tug and pull between heterodox and orthodox is an interesting, but different phenomenon. Although I can guess that converts like Beckwith and Sam Brownback probably aren't too heterodox, I don't know where they stand on the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church, and it's not really discussed in the article.

What I was talking about was not the theological institution of the Roman Catholic Church, but the social institution. Although in church doctrine there is no left or right, the church is nevertheless made up of people, and these people have political dimensions as well as theological ones, and they don't always correspond.

What I found interesting is the increasing political diversity among Catholics. I'm going to assume that Beckwith is more conservative than the average Catholic, partly because he's more conservative than the average person. On the other hand, in Latin and South America, I'll bet that most Liberation Theology Priest is going to be more liberal than the average person.

What I find interesting is that the Catholic Church does not seem to be moving in any direction politically (perhaps due to the more complicated debate between Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy that cinq_cinq brings up) instead it is simply expanding the diversity of its members.

I still think this is a good thing. I have a certain degree of admiration for any institution that can appeal to both Christian Conservatives in Texas, and Revolutionary Marxists in Brazil. And in fact, I might be tempted to argue that cinq_cinq is right, in a sense, and that it is the theological unity that can allow for so much political diversity.

To cinq-cinq...

We are mostly in agreement. I furthermore think this sets the Roman Catholic Church apart from certain other Protestant groups which have explicitly introduced political ideologies into their beliefs, and have lashed out at their members who take independent political stands.

This is also one of my chief issues with Liberation Theology, although I support many of their political ideals in principle, I think it is a mistake to conflate religion and social practice. I think faith should inspire individuals to act on their concious, but when they seek to combine religious and political ideas into a single theological dogma, they are doing something very dangerous.

However, I ...

To cinq-cinq...

We are mostly in agreement. I furthermore think this sets the Roman Catholic Church apart from certain other Protestant groups which have explicitly introduced political ideologies into their beliefs, and have lashed out at their members who take independent political stands.

This is also one of my chief issues with Liberation Theology, although I support many of their political ideals in principle, I think it is a mistake to conflate religion and social practice. I think faith should inspire individuals to act on their concious, but when they seek to combine religious and political ideas into a single theological dogma, they are doing something very dangerous.

However, I don't believe that faith based on contemporary political situations can survive once situations change. I believe a person should recognize the independence of their relationships with religion, politics and science. Not that they would not influence each other, but that we should understand that by trying to reconcile them we are implying that they were at some point in opposition to each other, when in truth they are separate phenomena.

Then to Enbar...

...which is why I like Appleby's work on Ireland. His ideas about "nonviolent religous millitance" recognizes that political expressions of faith (often violent) can be countered by religious (and nonviolent) expressions of faith. By deconstructing the need to fight for your faith, he opens the door to peaceful co-existence of religions, which is one of my primary interests.

Oh, and Enbar, in response to a separate thread, if you are interested in my research, email me and I'd love to begin a correspondence.

Actually, I meant South America and Africa. That's where the real
center of gravity of Roman Catholicism is going to be in the coming
decades.

Undoubtedly, much will come from both continents in the future. I've visited both and I wouldn't lump them together however. To use your example of LT, while some in South America would need to be reproached for such beliefs, those in Africa would be leading the censure. Also, don't forget Asia. There are some very dynamic currents there but Asia never seems to be able to compete with Africa or SA when it comes to the public spotlight on religion.

As far as to where the center of gravity will end up, I think the future is going t...

Actually, I meant South America and Africa. That's where the real
center of gravity of Roman Catholicism is going to be in the coming
decades.

Undoubtedly, much will come from both continents in the future. I've visited both and I wouldn't lump them together however. To use your example of LT, while some in South America would need to be reproached for such beliefs, those in Africa would be leading the censure. Also, don't forget Asia. There are some very dynamic currents there but Asia never seems to be able to compete with Africa or SA when it comes to the public spotlight on religion.

As far as to where the center of gravity will end up, I think the future is going to be much different than the past has shown. As Europe wans, I'm not sure that one center will actually be formed. Influences are going to be much more diffuse. You can already see that amongst the cardinals today. Missions are going to be traveling in multiple directions and the flow is not going to be one way.

We are mostly in agreement. I furthermore think this sets the Roman
Catholic Church apart from certain other Protestant groups which have
explicitly introduced political ideologies into their beliefs, and have
lashed out at their members who take independent political stands.

Although, as a Catholic, I pray for the day when they will come back into fellowwship with Rome, I also know that Catholics had to learn about the poisons coming from church-state dominence of one another the hard way. I took us more than a few centuries to have the lesson driven home and so there is hope for Protestants in the future. On the other hand, once you begin the process of breaking away over ...

We are mostly in agreement. I furthermore think this sets the Roman
Catholic Church apart from certain other Protestant groups which have
explicitly introduced political ideologies into their beliefs, and have
lashed out at their members who take independent political stands.

Although, as a Catholic, I pray for the day when they will come back into fellowwship with Rome, I also know that Catholics had to learn about the poisons coming from church-state dominence of one another the hard way. I took us more than a few centuries to have the lesson driven home and so there is hope for Protestants in the future. On the other hand, once you begin the process of breaking away over differences again and again instead of searching for Truth amongst yourselves, an endless spiral of splintering may be inevitable. Think of how many Evangelical "denominations" exist today. Thus the church-state lesson may be harder to learn.

I believe a person should recognize the independence of their
relationships with religion, politics and science. Not that they would
not influence each other, but that we should understand that by trying
to reconcile them we are implying that they were at some point in
opposition to each other, when in truth they are separate phenomena.

Separate, or merely two wings of a single bird? Neither faith nor reason can give man a complete view. There are insights one has into certain problems that the other does not, and visa versa. The key is understanding the limits of both and thus mastering their harmonious use.

Dr. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary—"the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention"—and Dr. Bruce Ware, vice president of Evangelical Theological Society, talked at length yesterday about Dr. Francis Beckwith's return to Rome on Dr. Mohler's radio program. You can listen to it here; the topic takes up the last 60% or so of the program. As a teaser, I'll just say that I was struck by a number of comments, including Dr. Mohler's statement: "Scripture alone doesn't protect Evangelicalism from error. That's why we have to have constant correction."

[url=http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2007/05/southern_baptis.html]http://insightscoop.typ...

Dr. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary—"the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention"—and Dr. Bruce Ware, vice president of Evangelical Theological Society, talked at length yesterday about Dr. Francis Beckwith's return to Rome on Dr. Mohler's radio program. You can listen to it here; the topic takes up the last 60% or so of the program. As a teaser, I'll just say that I was struck by a number of comments, including Dr. Mohler's statement: "Scripture alone doesn't protect Evangelicalism from error. That's why we have to have constant correction."

http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2007/05/southern_baptis.html

I'll have to listen to the program to tease out that sentence. I cannot see the logic of wrecking one the key pillars o fProtestantism (sola scriptura) to protest a reconciliation with Rome. What would be the difference between "constant correction" and Tradition?

Hmm, interesting point Cinq-cinq. So perhaps you could say that there are certain development paterns followed by large and stable establishments, like the Catholic Church (like Reformation, then Counter Reformation) but that these development processes may be disrupted by the fractiousness in some of the protestant movements, which split rather than resolve their ideological crises.

I must admit that I have found it alarming that many protestant groups are so quick to talk about spliting (most prominently, the Episcopal and Methodist churches) rather than engaging in a constructive internal dialog that allows them to develop, and answer the questions of faith that are driving them apart.

...

Hmm, interesting point Cinq-cinq. So perhaps you could say that there are certain development paterns followed by large and stable establishments, like the Catholic Church (like Reformation, then Counter Reformation) but that these development processes may be disrupted by the fractiousness in some of the protestant movements, which split rather than resolve their ideological crises.

I must admit that I have found it alarming that many protestant groups are so quick to talk about spliting (most prominently, the Episcopal and Methodist churches) rather than engaging in a constructive internal dialog that allows them to develop, and answer the questions of faith that are driving them apart.

What do you think is the mechanism in the Roman Catholic Church that has allowed it to address its internal issues more effectively? Is it the authority of Papal leadership? Is it a more complex doctrinal system? Or perhaps the theological literacy required of Catholic priests? Or some complicated combination of several influences?

(I find this especially interesting because many observations on Catholic / Protestant differences serve as useful counterpoints to Sunni / Shi'i differences.)

What do you think is the mechanism in the Roman Catholic Church that
has allowed it to address its internal issues more effectively? Is it
the authority of Papal leadership? Is it a more complex doctrinal
system? Or perhaps the theological literacy required of Catholic
priests? Or some complicated combination of several influences?

It is certainly a comdination of several factors. The authority of papal leadership, as you mention, is one, although not in the way some would assume. It is a factor, not because there is a "central authoritarian" figure to quell dissent, but because fidelity is embedded in the Catholic ethos. This fidelity is to the Church as the Bride of Chris...

What do you think is the mechanism in the Roman Catholic Church that
has allowed it to address its internal issues more effectively? Is it
the authority of Papal leadership? Is it a more complex doctrinal
system? Or perhaps the theological literacy required of Catholic
priests? Or some complicated combination of several influences?

It is certainly a comdination of several factors. The authority of papal leadership, as you mention, is one, although not in the way some would assume. It is a factor, not because there is a "central authoritarian" figure to quell dissent, but because fidelity is embedded in the Catholic ethos. This fidelity is to the Church as the Bride of Christ through the ages, not any one man or cleric. It is a fidelity which challenges one to reproach the human memebership of the Church when needed -- in the mold of St. Francis of Assisi or St. Catherine of Sienna -- rather than abandon her.

Doctrine would also be a factor. Probably more so in the fact that it is slow to devolop and thoroughly considered, rather than the beliefs themselves. This gives doctrine a permanence (factoring back into fidelity) which faddishness cannot provide.

I'm not sure I'd give much weight to the theological literacy of priests. This can often be uneven and at times a hinderance when clerics become overly impressed with their own cleverness. Look to liberation theology as we've discussed or the USCCB's obsession with political minutia in the 1980s.

The fact that the Church does not root Herself to a single place or time is also a factor. The fact that the Church is willing to draw on two millennia (and more -- think of Scholasticism) of thinking actually leaves the Church freer to adapt to changing times. Note, adaption does not imply that doctrines need change. What it does require is a recognition that different ages require different voices.

The tradition of self-examination is also important. Outsiders often equate the doctrine of infallibility with an arrogant belief that all the Church does is right. In actuality, this doctrine is only narrowly applicable to dogma -- faith and morals. The members of the Church do err and they certainly sin. The Church accepts this and opens Herself widely to critical examination. Again, this goes against the stereotype and many would argue that the process is too slow, but as in the development of doctrine it is slow because it is intentionally deliberate. Reactionary impulses only serve to promote more errors or an atmosphere of faddishness.

The tradition of addressing these internal ...

The tradition of self-examination is also important. Outsiders often equate the doctrine of infallibility with an arrogant belief that all the Church does is right. In actuality, this doctrine is only narrowly applicable to dogma -- faith and morals. The members of the Church do err and they certainly sin. The Church accepts this and opens Herself widely to critical examination. Again, this goes against the stereotype and many would argue that the process is too slow, but as in the development of doctrine it is slow because it is intentionally deliberate. Reactionary impulses only serve to promote more errors or an atmosphere of faddishness.

The tradition of addressing these internal issues through councils and the like is in itself part of the mechanism. The behavior of the past reinforces that of the present and the future.

Thank you very much, Cinq-cinq, for your very illuminating and well considered analysis. I find it particularly useful because it can show which institutions in the Catholic church have moderated it, compared with what could be seen as its Islamic analogue, Shi'i Islam.

It is interesting that Catholic and Shi'i doctrine is generated by spiritual leaders such as the Pope or an Imam, while Protestant and Sunni dogma is generated from a more direct and (and sometimes personal) interpretation of sacred texts.

Yet it strikes me that the Catholic Church and Sunni Islam remain the more moderate or even neutral politically (and by this I refer to the average Sunni or Catholic, not ones involved i...

Thank you very much, Cinq-cinq, for your very illuminating and well considered analysis. I find it particularly useful because it can show which institutions in the Catholic church have moderated it, compared with what could be seen as its Islamic analogue, Shi'i Islam.

It is interesting that Catholic and Shi'i doctrine is generated by spiritual leaders such as the Pope or an Imam, while Protestant and Sunni dogma is generated from a more direct and (and sometimes personal) interpretation of sacred texts.

Yet it strikes me that the Catholic Church and Sunni Islam remain the more moderate or even neutral politically (and by this I refer to the average Sunni or Catholic, not ones involved in radical struggles) while Protestantism and Shi'i Islam seem to have embraced more directly contemporary political issues.

Your comments shed much light on what may be the moderating forces in all religions around the world, which is a very important thing to understand indeed!