This blog explores both historical and current events guided by the thought of the leading thinkers, past and present, of this school or movement of theology. Refer to the Classic Posts, Great and Contemporary Thinkers, various links of all kinds, in addition to the Archives themselves. David is the founder and manager of this website, but many friends contribute to it on a regular basis.
It's funny, I almost went to this conference in Chicago. Dr. Griffiths and Lumen Christi Inst. are close to the Movement. In fact, they co-sponser talks on Giussani's books with us. I'll talk with Doug Bond, the Chicago CL Responisible, and see what I can get on this topic. I'm sure it will get published in a journal. Everybody at this conference are "giants."
It would be nice to know what else he said. The author of this article certainly pulled many conclusions from it. I am very interested in the thoughts of every one at this conference. It would be nice to read a reasonable article about the conference. Good luck searching David.
To my knowledge, what Cardinal George puts together for a speech at a conference is not intended for print and is not printed. So I doubt that that would have happened here. The article in Commonweal looks like a gross over-reaction to the Cardinal's contribution to the conference, not to mention that the author doesn't explain what he or Cardinal George means by "secularism." I think that they have two different things in mind. The author seems to view it as that pluralistic political arrangement which protects man from sectarianism and religious despotism; whereas Cardinal George seems to view it as a prevailing attitude that tends to remove man from relationship with his Creator.
This confusion reminds me of the fears that many people have about our new Pope: that supposedly he hopes to impose Catholicism on people. Such confusion results from the belief that one cannot both embrace freedom and embrace Jesus Christ as the only answer to the desires of the human heart. They are not contradictory positions, and yet hardly anyone can understand why. That's because modern man is trained to avoid making judgments in the realm of religious activity and concerns, and is terrified of the possibility of a single, efinitive answer to any moral or spiritual problem, believing that it must necessarily be an enslavement and therefore against man. Modern men, who extoll freedom, don't know what it is!
I believe the author has also mistaken what Cardinal George means by Christendom. Consider that Benedict XV was excluded from the dialogue, and the effect that the slavery of atheistic communism had by removing Christ, and in general dialogue in the context of religious mystery and truth, from the public sphere. Christendom has import as a theological concept where the truth presented by our religious heritage is part of the dialogue in the public arena. Christendom does not necessitate locating temporal power in the church. It would be interesting to know precisely what Cardinal George has in mind in his use of the concept of Christendom.
5 comments:
David, have you been able to find Cardinal George's addresses online (or anywhere else)?
It's funny, I almost went to this conference in Chicago. Dr. Griffiths and Lumen Christi Inst. are close to the Movement. In fact, they co-sponser talks on Giussani's books with us. I'll talk with Doug Bond, the Chicago CL Responisible, and see what I can get on this topic. I'm sure it will get published in a journal. Everybody at this conference are "giants."
It would be nice to know what else he said. The author of this article certainly pulled many conclusions from it.
I am very interested in the thoughts of every one at this conference. It would be nice to read a reasonable article about the conference. Good luck searching David.
To my knowledge, what Cardinal George puts together for a speech at a conference is not intended for print and is not printed. So I doubt that that would have happened here. The article in Commonweal looks like a gross over-reaction to the Cardinal's contribution to the conference, not to mention that the author doesn't explain what he or Cardinal George means by "secularism." I think that they have two different things in mind. The author seems to view it as that pluralistic political arrangement which protects man from sectarianism and religious despotism; whereas Cardinal George seems to view it as a prevailing attitude that tends to remove man from relationship with his Creator.
This confusion reminds me of the fears that many people have about our new Pope: that supposedly he hopes to impose Catholicism on people. Such confusion results from the belief that one cannot both embrace freedom and embrace Jesus Christ as the only answer to the desires of the human heart. They are not contradictory positions, and yet hardly anyone can understand why. That's because modern man is trained to avoid making judgments in the realm of religious activity and concerns, and is terrified of the possibility of a single, efinitive answer to any moral or spiritual problem, believing that it must necessarily be an enslavement and therefore against man. Modern men, who extoll freedom, don't know what it is!
I believe the author has also mistaken what Cardinal George means by Christendom. Consider that Benedict XV was excluded from the dialogue, and the effect that the slavery of atheistic communism had by removing Christ, and in general dialogue in the context of religious mystery and truth, from the public sphere. Christendom has import as a theological concept where the truth presented by our religious heritage is part of the dialogue in the public arena.
Christendom does not necessitate locating temporal power in the church. It would be interesting to know precisely what Cardinal George has in mind in his use of the concept of Christendom.
Post a Comment