Amazon.com Widgets

Patrick Dunn

Joined: Mar. 12, 2012

No bio


Most recent posts by Patrick Dunn:     (See all of them)


No posts yet


Latest comments by Patrick Dunn:     (See all of them)


Re: Two personalist popes canonized

May. 8 at 12:35pm | see this comment in context

I think such a glib and obtuse remark is beneath the dignity of the concerns I've raised, and below both of our dignities as persons. 

Can you please delete my permission to comment on this site any further?  I want to be charitable, before all else.  Thank you.

Re: Two personalist popes canonized

May. 8 at 11:43am | see this comment in context

Thank you for replying.

To the point about sanctity, I think the distinction made is correct, but there is another: that between sanctity and canonization.  I think people are struggling with the canonization side, not JP II's personal holiness.  It goes beyond the abuse scandals, such as the with ecumenical gestures that left many confused.  I don't think canonization, especially of a Pope, can be separated from their aspects of their lives that would contribute to a "bad record."

Secondly, I don't believe everything can be explained away by an ad hominem appeal, as if to suggest that all tension is due to pettiness, nor to an appeal to factionalism (just a Trad fad thing).  I think instead that there is serious concern.  Perhaps it is ultimately groundless, but the fact that the concern itself exists is real. 

It's not evident what it means to be in solidarity with the Pope.  The center of unity in the Church is Christ, the Pope is His Vicar.  With the multitude of communciations coming from the Pope, it is hard to know what is binding today.

And it's Cardinal against Cardinal in the Church today.  I do not understand how that does not tear at a Catholic's heart. 

Re: Two personalist popes canonized

May. 8 at 9:18am | see this comment in context

There is still much goodness and grace in the church today, and much growth and heroism among its members in Africa and Asia. But for the Western world, the post-Vatican II era, the one that is supposedly being consolidated and sanctified by these canonizations, has been one of shocking decline in Catholic practice, weakness of faith, and demoralizing immorality. Why the rush to canonize those who initiated and oversaw it?

...

I do not see the upcoming canonizations as the celebration of a great era in the Church — almost the opposite. It is another sign of the Church's auto-demolition, in which the shepherds who oversaw the Church in her agony are sainted, and our heretics speak with the holy fury of prophets."

I do not necessarily share this writer's views.  That's precisely the problem: I do not know what the truth is anymore.  But their very existence, and the contrast one can draw from any number of sources, is startling to me.

I only see confusion, division.  I see the "Traditionalists" and then I see the "Neo-Catholics", and then there's the "liberals" and "progressives".  Where is God in all of this, truly?

Re: Two personalist popes canonized

May. 8 at 9:14am | see this comment in context

I do not know what to make of the canonizations except to say that I accept them because I believe I must.  They are infallible pronouncements and so I must submit and try to understand. 

What I've observed continuously, and the canonizations are another instance of it, is confusion, a tension, division.  In contrast to your post, there is the view of this writer, to cite an example, who believes that

"John Paul II's record on sexual abuse was abysmal, full stop, even if there may be some room to doubt his personal culpability. I've sometimes wondered if his personal charisma blinded him to the obviously un-Catholic spirit of personal obedience written into the heart of the Legion of Christ, led by the noted abuser, liar, womanizer, and drug-addict Marcial Maciel. Or if his view of priestly abuse allegations were shaped by his experience in Poland, where communist authorities routinely accused priests in order to undermine the church. But for over two decades he was the supreme authority in the church, and he did next to nothing to abate this crisis.

...

Re: Everybody's a Critic

Apr. 8 at 10:15am | see this comment in context

Yet St. Paul has counseled: "Test everything; retain what is good." 

As to the movie itself, or the Catholic 'approach' to it,

"The scandal is this: of all the Christian leaders who went to great lengths to endorse this movie (for whatever reasons: “it’s a conversation starter,” “at least Hollywood is doing something on the Bible,” etc.), and all of the Christian leaders who panned it for “not following the Bible”…

Not one of them could identify a blatantly Gnostic subversion of the biblical story when it was right in front of their faces."

"Sympathy for the Devil", Dr. Brian Mattson

To me, the matter is simple: why do we even need to bother with something like Noah?  If it is as described above, and it comes down to entertainment vs. no entertainment (of this variety), I would rather suffer with none.  It is just clutter in my soul at that point.  Noise. 

Stay informed

Latest comments

  • Re: Personalism and the Judeo-Christian tradition
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: Too Much, Too Little, Too Late
  • By: Peter
  • Re: Too Much, Too Little, Too Late
  • By: Peter
  • Re: Too Much, Too Little, Too Late
  • By: Peter
  • Re: Too Much, Too Little, Too Late
  • By: Peter
  • Re: Personalism and the Judeo-Christian tradition
  • By: Peter
  • Re: Personalism and the Judeo-Christian tradition
  • By: Peter
  • Re: Personalism and the Judeo-Christian tradition
  • By: Peter
  • Re: Personalism and the Judeo-Christian tradition
  • By: Peter
  • Re: Personalism and the Judeo-Christian tradition
  • By: Katie van Schaijik

Latest active posts

Reading circles

Lectures