Great piece by Austin Ruse on the recent family conference

I like what Cardinal George recently said, that categories like conservative and progressive or liberal are wrong. We should be thinking in terms of what is true or false, right or wrong.

Anyway, Austin Ruse has a nice recap of the conference that took place last week on marriage and complementarity and so on in Crisis Magazine.

There are limits to messaging. In the end, everyone pretty much knows who you are and what you are talking about.

It’s true: the conference was one long beautiful meditation on how men and women uniquely fit together and how this is agreed upon across cultures, across the globe and across faiths. It was also about something else.

A soft-spoken Taoist woman lectured on the Yin and Yang, not the two Yins or the two Yangs.

She made it clear that two Yangs aren’t complementary. They can’t be. Two Yins can’t make a baby. Two Yangs can’t make a family. This does not denigrate or demean them or their relationships. It is simply a beautiful truth that was discussed in depth at the Vatican this week. But totally off message.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Great piece by Austin Ruse on the recent family conference

  1. John Walter S. says:

    Yes. “Conservative” and “Progressive” are inaccurate titles that came about after the French Revolution to apply towards political and ideological sentiments within the framework of a secular democracy.

    But it’s a shorthand for describing the sentiments of people in the Catholic Church who believe themselves either “Conservative” and “Progressive.”

    I guess in such a schema, “Traditionalists” are not Conservative nor Progressive, but rather Reactionary. Are they Orthodox, or Heterodox? It’d depend on whether Tradition equals Orthodoxy, and the Status Quo is entirely Heterodox. It does make sense to equate Tradition with Orthodoxy, because things that exist in the past do not change. It is there, it is concrete, it is only mutable through lies and misinterpretation in the present, but only in the present, not in the past. We cannot go back in time and change what was said. Those who look forward live in dreams, in things still undefined and unknown, that is why Traditionalists seem backward-looking. “Conservatives” in the Church want things to remain how they are, maybe with all its problems being regarded as not being problematic. Traditionalists, maybe, see the past as the only way to the future, because through the past, we see mistakes that were made, assumptions that turned out wrong, and a reliable guide which the saints have lived through and tested.

    What do “progressives” look to? Dreams, illusions, lies, delusions, and it is not the past, which they hate, that guides them but rather things in the present, things outside the Church; the horrible things brought about by an “open mind” even if it is from the Devil. They discard the sayings Fathers and the examples of the saints, believing them irrelevant and misguided. Their arrogance is so great that they confidently lie about Jesus Christ and His works, they lie about the lives of the saints, saying things that are tantamount to slander and libel, yes, even towards our own Blessed Mother. Their blasphemies have no end, and that is why Traditionalism is the inevitable backlash, and Conserving the way things are in the Church do not hold much sway in its stagnant position. These Conservatives were those former Progressives from the 60’s who want to keep the Status Quo. They find themselves contending with those who want to “Change” the Church, and those who want to Change it Back to How It Was.

    It can’t be avoided. It’s going to come to a head with either another Great Schism.

    It seems to me that every 500 years or so, there’s a Great Schism in the Church. First, the Miaphysites, then the Eastern Orthodox, then the Protestants. What, then?

    • Rev22:17 says:

      John,

      You wrote: But it’s a shorthand for describing the sentiments of people in the Catholic Church who believe themselves either “Conservative” and “Progressive.”

      I rather suspect that these terms are in fact political in nature even when used in reference to groups in the church. Those described by these terms want to conform the church to the respective agendas to which these labels refer in the political sphere. In this respect, both groups are wrong. The gospel is NOT a political manifesto.

      You wrote: I guess in such a schema, “Traditionalists” are not Conservative nor Progressive, but rather Reactionary. Are they Orthodox, or Heterodox? It’d depend on whether Tradition equals Orthodoxy, and the Status Quo is entirely Heterodox. It does make sense to equate Tradition with Orthodoxy, because things that exist in the past do not change. It is there, it is concrete, it is only mutable through lies and misinterpretation in the present, but only in the present, not in the past. We cannot go back in time and change what was said. Those who look forward live in dreams, in things still undefined and unknown, that is why Traditionalists seem backward-looking. “Conservatives” in the Church want things to remain how they are, maybe with all its problems being regarded as not being problematic. Traditionalists, maybe, see the past as the only way to the future, because through the past, we see mistakes that were made, assumptions that turned out wrong, and a reliable guide which the saints have lived through and tested.

      At the root of this discussion is what one understands “tradition” to be. In reality, those regarded as “Traditionalists” typically seek to preserve customs that began in the eighth century and gradually spread throughout western Europe until they were widespread and that became rigorously codified and entrenched in the Counterreformation of the sixteenth century — but those customs are not the most ancient (original, or orthodox) practice that the Second Vatican Council sought to restore.

      Ultimately, the magisterium of the church, operating under the unique protection of the Holy Spirit against doctrinal error, is the only arbiter of what is and what is not authentic tradition.

      Norm.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s