religio2
Wed 02/14/07
for 400 years -- the church is a perfect society.
bellamur
-- hierarchical model
visible structure
john said I know this is the answer, but its the wrong way to understand the church.
- how should the church think of the modern world.
esp. since the enlightenment, the catholic church's aditude toward the modern world was pretty critical.
so the curch would tend to condemn things that happened in the world -- it was a defensive , reactionary stance.
so instead of seeing something positive, the church was ordinarily very negative.
1864 - pius ix
when he became pope, he seemed to be good, but then he had a huge personality change etc.
but in 1864 pius comes out with a dcoument called "syllabus of errors" -- essentially condemned a lot of developments that happened after then enlightenment.
condemned every change that pius saw in the world.
enlightenment told people to put more confidence in the authority of reason.
pius didn't like that -- saw it as questioning the authority of leadership
rise of democracy - pius was nervous about this.
rise of socialism --
even freedom of relgion -- pius condemned this -- the catolic position at the time was that catholics should have freedom of religion but not the rights of other groups
because really the catholic position up to the 2nd vatican council -- "error has no rights"
if you're a perfect society, your rights should be protected -- outside the chruch you have error and therefore no rights
john realized that this had to change .
in effect, the church was like a fortrace on a mountain top
looking down on the world and condemning it
dignitatis humanae - john courtey murray sj -- american catholic
argued for freedom of religion
but this had a hard time of passing because that was saying that in 1864, the pope was wrong.
theologically risky -- popes are seen to be guided by the spirit
so passing this document it was admitting that 100 years earlier the syllabus of erros was a mistake -- pius was wrong.
john xxiii saw this
thought that if the church did not engage the modern world, the world would pass it y
otherwise he though that the church would eventually become a museum.
john did not fear the world -- didn't have a cautious, skeptical position toward the world
said that yes the world had challenges for us, but those challenges are graces -- for john the spirit, worked not only in the church but also was at work in the world.
some people criticized him as being overpositive and overnaive -- but he wasn't..
understanding that god works everywhere in the world.
not just a question of what the curch teach the woold but also what can the world teach the church.
john believed that the church could learn something from everybody -- even a committed athiest. .. GOD WORKS EVERYWHERE.
if the church is going to teach, it has to be able to learn -- from all peoples .
the document that addresses this -- gaudim et spes -- joys and hopes.
title of the documetn came from the first two words.
"the joys and hopes of the world are the joys and hopes of the church"
- vatican ii was really the beginning of the ecumenical movement in the church
other churches had been coming together for ecumenical conferences long before
1810, catholics were forbidden to go to the ecumenical conference.
when tr went to see the pope, e wouldn't see him because he was protestant
cathoic stance was that we don't have to be part of the dialogue because we're the true church -- all others are in error.
so prior to vatican ii -- never had contact with other religious groups -- never have contact with them.. for a catholic to go to a non-catholic church was a sin.
what goes on in protestant churches???
this wrrked both ways -- prior to vatican ii, catholics were ignorant and suspicious of other religions, but the same kind of ignorance was on the part of protestant communitys towards catholics
some more fundamentalist groups saw the catholic church as the antichrist -- the pope as.
john wanted to change this =- he felt that the lack of unity was the sin, not praying with them
john wanted to begin a movement to restore unity amoung christian churches.
cattoics were told you have to know about oteer churches.
council almost had a short life.
started in october 1962 -- almost didn't make it out of the first session
when announced, the conservatives at the vatican were very much against this -- they tried to talk john oout of it but he woouldn't listen
if they couldn't talk him out of it, one way they trie to control the council was to stack the committies.
like the givernment -- if you controll the committies you control what getsttto the floor
by doing this, at least these documents would refect their vision of what the church to be
leads to a kind of crisis point. -- one of the bishops said "we should all have a right to say who's on these committies"
so they disbanded them and had not just conservatives but also the more moderate and progressive bishops.
cardianal ottavianni -
there was a 10 minute limit wfor speaking ...
he went over this limit and the presiding bishop cut off his mic .. there was applause -- a sign that the times were turning
so the documents represent generally the viewpoints of some of the more moderate/ progressive bishops there.
but the conservatives were still powerful
thus, a lot of the documents read like compromise document -- nobody got everything they wanted.
so reading the documents, it really debends on where you read them -- because some parts represent the more moderate view and other parts represent a more conservative view.
in general , conservatives rather dominated.
changes from vatican ii.
in a lot of ways, vatican ii didn't happen.
t was supposed to get at the roots, but that wasn't explained to most catholics.
most catholics were not taught the theological vision -- the reason behind te changes.
Mass -- prior to vatican ii -- mass was always in latin
most people could not understand latin .. so it was common for most people not to follow the mass but to say the rosary etc
one reason why the bells were rung was to try to get peoples attention -- this is important , pay attention
mass was in a universal language but it wasn't one that most people understood.
it was the "priest's mass" -- people would attend -- but the empahsis was on fullfillling the obligation .
the mass happened between the priests and the server .. not among the people
altar was as far away from the people as possible
refelcted an understanding of god -- god is unreachable -- uncomprensible.
what was really important was between him and god.
-------
Thu 02/15/07
vatican ii birth control committie -
started as all priest but then the next pope opened it uup
became up to 58 people
met along side council
did conclude that some types of birth control was ok -- but the pope said .. no, only nat. fam. plan was ok.
pat and patricia crowley -- solicited the opinions of married people
--- theology by experience --
vote was like 56 to 4 towards changing the teaching on contraception
report given in 1966
there wee a lot of bishops who wanted birth control & marriage of priests into the council -- but the pope decided that would be too much
but many people think that was a missed issue
it would have been a oportunity to look at the church opinion as a whole.
paul VI.
the people pro changing birth control wrote to the pope
but the people against it also wrote to paul -- this became known as the minority report
they argued that while the current argument for the church's stance was weak, they shouldn't change the stance because it would give the impression that everything was up for grabs.
the comittee thought that the change would for sure go through
patricia crawley was shocked when humanae vitae came out and he had rejected it
the problme was that pual had agonized over this for two years, during which time the conservatives argued against changing the stance.
this was enormous
part of vatican ii was that the spirit works in everybody -- sensus fidelium.
the voice of lay people had to be incorporated into church teaching becasse the holy spirit works in everybody.
people knoew about this committee -- there were stories about vatican ii in all the newspapers -- they also knew what the vote was (majority report had been leaked).
that's why humanae vitae was a shock -- they expected this to change.
paul vi -- struggle with this -- when he released it he made it clear that this was not an infallable teaching of the church.
paul knew that this would be hard for people to accept but never thought there'd be such an outlash.
maybe if he had allowed it to be discussed at vatican ii then he would not have felt that the had to dicide this all on his own.'
one of the people future jpii did not attend any of the meetings but didn't want the teachings to change
there was a lot of disillusionment amoung cathoics because of this -- it was a test to see if everything would change.
this never made it to the council and neither did the idea of married priests -- there wasn't a shortage of priest at the time, but good time to talk about the issue.
vatican ii -- so many things went 180°..
we are the one true chruch -- well we don't really believe that any more
whole development of the cumenical movement at the end of vatican ii -- right after the council ended there were discussions among jews, etc. there were ecumenical prayer services on sundays. this became part of the cathoic vocabulary -- but it didn't really hold.
if you want to know where people are in church, look at what they are praying for .. after vatican ii every sunday had petitions for unity between the faiths.
you don't hear that anymore. - fading.
vatican ii is saying -- if you're catholic, you gotta be ecumenical.
for wadell, vatican ii was an exercise in the ecclesiological imagination
- the church coming together on what are we about -- how should we imagine ourselves.
- unleashed a lot of energy in the church -- and some of that energy has diminished a lot -- too bad -- there was an energy of realy moving forward -- it was an exiciting time to be a catholic . . . the church was alive. and there were crazy things that happened, but there were great things that happened too.
really was a new penticost for the church -- and we have kiind of lost that.
vatican ii -- not an atmosphere of fear but of hope
and the hope came from john xxiii that the spirit of god is alive everywhere -- so even if you screw up, there is nothing to fear.
once we start operating out of a stance of defensiveness -- then its hard to tell the truth.
hard to have conversations and say "lets get to the bottom of this"
sexual abuse crisis was about an understanding of power
communion -- we're all in this together
sometimes the truths can be painful but if you can't speak the truth to one another, then its not a healthy community
last 20 years -- the church as become much more polarized .
at its best, the catholic church ought to be big enough to embrace different theologies -- different understanding of things.
you agree on the core things, but there should be room for diversity ..
what happens to day -- it reflects the pulitics of our culture.
in vatican ii -- there were different viewpoints but people were able to talk to each other -- these days, the conversation is missing -- one group yelling at the other.
ex: building a new church
after vatican ii -- with ecumanism -- the focus was -- what unites us --
to day , we have our disagreements but we have a real unity amoung us
started with -- all christian churches profess a faith in christ
we all use essentially the same scriptures
we all have a common baptism
most have some kind of eucharist
was looking for ways to build connections, bridges.
was saying not that we wouldn't talk because we disagree, but rather lets build on this unity.
focus now has changed to the differences -- less reason to talk.
changes .. particularly to thh liturgy.
- change in sanctuary - before vatican ii -- wheee the priest was -- he was considered holy.
people were on the other side of the comunion rail.
after vaticnan ii -- church looks completely different
no statues - vatican ii thought that christ was being overshadowed by the prayers to the saints.
... what happened was that the pengulum swung so far that it was steril -- .. now we are swinging back -- lets remember some of the saints.
receiving comunion.
before vatican ii -- DONT TOUCH THE HOST. only the priest could because he had consecrated hands.
we take host in hand for granted -- but for a lot of catholics this was a big change.
also see this in the MUSIC ..
after, everything was open .. beatles "dear prudence"
another example:
collegiality - opposite of a hierarchical aproach .. move away from the centralized in rome idea -- to emphaisze the local churches -- they should have some freeodm to do things differently -- attempt to take culture seriously. what should christianity be like in other parts of the world.
attempt to shar authority
this was a hughe change -- instead of all the authroity being in the hands of the priest -- lay people were called to have a hand -- to move to collegiality.
finally,
the church discovered the bible.
-- before vatical ii, protestant children knew the bible .. catholics different.
the bible was there and you'd pull it out for birth or death
but the real imprtant book was the catechism -- everyone knew their catechism. but not really the bible
a good catholic was somebody who knew the catechism and new the teachings and followed them
bur really what vatican ii said was that martin luther was right .. we need to know the bible.
after vatican ii -- high explosion of bible scholarship .. great time of change.
some will say vatican ii went to far; others will say we need a vatican iii .. part of the reason by that , it was really dominated by the european church .. today the center of catholicism is in africa, latin america, and south american -- even though those bishops were there, they were somewhat marginal ..
look, christianity is realy no longer western european -- its gone beyound that .. do we need a third vatican council to eally recognize the worldwide church.
cardinal rotzinger -- transitional? next pope asian or african?
Chapter 4.
page 86.
preconciliar ecclesiology
robert bellarmine -- primary views for 400 years
-- "church as a perfect society"
1) very hierarchical - top down model -- pyramid.
pope on top -- essentially -- the power of leadership is in the hands of the hierarchy -- the roll of the layety is kind of passive .
dullis -- models of the church.
institutional model -- connecdts with bellarmine's perfect society.
bellarmine also saw the church as structures and instiution -- emphasis on the visible church
also a more juridical model -- church identified by its laws.
-- advantages of that -- roles in the church are very clear.
very clear here what it means to be a catholic
advantage to this is clarity -- clear sense of order. -- emphasis on structure.
but that's not real life- there's ambiguity.
role of the laity -- is poassive and secondary.
church is like a rock - good but can lead to inflexibility -- lack of oopennes to change.
there can be a kind of loss of the personal.
there was such en emphasis on laws -- but then it was very clear abbut what was a sin and what wasn't
such an emphasis on sin, could cultivate a fear -- God as judge.
fear but also minimalisic -- "as long as i don't do these sins, i'm ok" -- doosn't take into account doing good. you had to boey the law but you didn't have to go beyound that.
and there's no Christ in this model of the church!!
why did bellarmine say thhs -- well he was reacting to martin luther -
one of his complaints " the church is too hierarchical"
he felt that with baptism, everyone became a member of the preisthood of christ -
a fundamental truth about christianity was that we're all equal in christ
for luther, every baptised christian was a priest -- every baptised christian receives the spirit.
then, all baptized christians have an authority
god works through everybody.
luther also talked about the church as the people of God.
luther wanted to retrieve the bible (less focus on the catechism .. should be 2ndary to the bible)
council of trent condemned him in the worst possible way -- anathema
bellarmine's theology is in reaction to luther.
at vatican ii -- ultimately luther wins.
everything that he said the church needed to address in the 16th century, they address at vatican ii.
-------------
page 87 -
1943
mystici corporis - bridge document (pius xii) between luther and vatican ii.
church as a spritual reality - body of christ.
identifies the body of christ with the catholic church
salvation only thru the catholic church
eventually vatican ii rejects ____ (this idea by pius i think is what he means, but he said "luther") but not without a struggle .. lumen gentium -- took 3 years to get this passed.
1) first draft - controlled by the traditionalists - took it from the first vatican council of 1870
they were supposed to work on this document but never got to it in vatican i.
oct 1962 - bishop joseph desmedt .. roundly denounced this document.-- said it was too triumphalistic -- critiquing bellerman's view of thh chruch, too clerical hierarchy, and too juridical. totaly denounced it.
chapter 1 about hierarchy
last chapter
"the people of god"
- only referred to the laity .
2nd draft
chapter 1-- the church as mystery.
hughe change -- says that the first fact of the church is not the visible structure but the spritual reality of christ.
chapter 2 - the hierarchy
a jockying to see which church was going to win.
chapter 3 -- was the people of go d-- so moved up -- but still under the hierarchy
Finally, in 1964 -
final draft
1) church as the mystery of christ
2) church as the people of god
3) church as heirarchy
yves congar - lumen gensium was a copernican revolution of the church -- the church not only reclaims an image of the people of god (very biblical) but they're placing it ahead of the hierarchy.
you need hierarchy but ere they become secondary
every baptised christian is first a member of the people of god; only then are you a member of the hierachy.
chapter 3 reads very differently -- sound a lot like bellarmine - because no one got really waht they wanted.
page 89
the church is essentially mystery-- then you're saying that you can never fully describe it. .. so they play around with different metaphors of the church.
eople of god is one
light to the world is another.
but the church is not the only light -- christ is the light of the church
the church can only be a light to the world if it lives from the light of christ.
if the church lives by any other light, it is no longer a church.
church also seen as a sacrement of christ
church was to reveal christ, make christ present.
make christ present.
--- how do you do that? -
thru love.
helping people
share, whitness the story of christ.
compassion
broader -- solidarity
friendship
innocence, simplicity --- not be childish
laughter!!!!
whole idea is the chrrstians shoud reveal chirst and its not something beyond our reach.
loyalty
Tuesday -- finish mcarthy .. chapter 6
bulk is on "people of the truth"
-------
Tue 02/20/07
get notes for tara!
mission and identity of the church
vatican ii .
bellermaine -- church as a perfect society
moving away from that
central reality of the church is the mystery of christ. . . then you can never really define the church.
for bellermine, the church was an instituational reality
mystery -- lumen gentium -- you have got to use all sort of metaphors to try and explain it.
metaphors:
- light of the wordl -- church called to bring light of christ to the world
- people of God -
- screment of chirst -- should reveal christ, make him present.
- church as comunion centered in christ
two others:
- church as pilgrim - contrary to bellermine's idea that the church doesn' have to go anywhere, a pilgrim is on the move, it has to find its way .. so it has to be a church that undergoes ongoing reform, change.
-- dynamic , also in history. -- bellermines church in a sense was above history -- already a perfect society
- also means you're going to have some hardships
- you can make mistakes, lose your way
pilgrimage -- you meet all kinds.
pilgrim brings the church down off the mountain, -- as the church goes along the journey its going to change - sometimes its going to lose its way
- but you're also going to learn something -- the journey will change you
last metaphor -
church as servant .. a key way for the church to live in immitation of christ.
going against bellermine's triuphalistic church
-- lumen gensium connects this to the sacrement metaphor .. the church most fully makes christ present when it serves.
how vatican ii changed the thinking of evangelization and salvation
prior to vatican ii,
salvation
- - cross
sacrificed to save us from our sins.
so to be saved was to be saved from your sins.
evangelization was proclaiming the gospel for liberation from sin
they were understood in largely spiritual terms
the church becomes key because the church has the means of salvation -- particularly -- christ and the sacrements
if you start to speak of the church as servent -- what happens to this definition?
one change, cuased christiaas to really witness to christ
salvation can't just be interior.
2) after vatican ii , social sin emergies -- so not just individual sins, but there's also sin that's in the world -- that's in the institutions and structures of the world
see that in the reality of injustice.
after vatican ii, - what have we said about ourselves in lumen gentium
- servant -- how do we serve those in need
gaudium et spes - church in the modern world.
begins to make a knind of identification of the church with the esp. poor.
vatican ii said this, but it took a few years to explore what it mean.
Latin american bishops .. Medellin - 1968
what do these documents mean for us?
out of this comes liberation theology
- key theme -- the church has to make an option for the poor
if the church is really to be the servant of christ -- it not only has to come down from the mountain, it has to take a stand -- has to stand with the poor.
debate = what do we mean by evangelization
1971 - bishop synod in rome.
- produces "justice in the world"
tried to take the two vatican documents and say what really is involved here.
at the beginning
"action on behalf of justice is a constitutive part of evangelization .
means: not just about talk ing reading --
being a christian is not primarily about dogma -- its about giving witness to a certain kind of life - that makes christianity credible.
constitutive -- you can't have the gospel without acting on justice.
you cannot be a christian and be indifferent about this.
what changes then -- salvation includes Human liberation.
not enough to tell someone in extreme poverty that their sins are forgiven.
salvation -- has to include economic, social, and political dementions. can't be purly spiritual.
salvation has to transform the world now.
this message did not go down easily.
buckley said that the church was becoming marxist -- in a way , it was listening to the marxist critique.
the statement that "justice is a constituite .." got a lot of criticism.
page 80 - new civilization of love
if you create situations of injustice, opression, in effect, you're defacing the image of God in a person.
his cannot be just words -- if i say that every human being is the image of God but i insult you, then i'm not living out the image of God.
lastly,
Beginnnings of ecumenism
before vatican ii, no need for ecumenism -- catholic church was the one true church.
mystigi corporis, pius 12 says that the church of christ is the catholic church.
in the first draft of lumen gensium , it says the same thing .. the church of christ is the catholic church.
that was bellermines' position, that's what the vatican i draft said.
this gets voted down
one word changes.
in the final draft, "is" changes to "subsists"
really an enormus change -- "is" said christ cannot be found outside of the catholic church
subsists says something different.
subists means " exists in a special way in"
or " is most fully present in"
but not "exculsively present"
so that's the change.
so, does not say christ is ONLY present in the catholic church.
- once you say the church is a mystery of christ, you can't contain a mystery -- if the church is essentially a spiritual presence of christ, then the mystery is larger than the catholic church -- no church can fully represent christ.
so thht was really the beginning of ecumanism.
- once you say this
- you recognize them as real churches.
no longer saying that there's no truth in them.
if christ is larger than the catholic church, then christ can really be in these churches.
that means, christ is present there -- hhere's holiness in those churches.
also starts to recognize that there's a real communion, unity that exists between the catholic church and these other churches.
if christ is present in al of us, then there is a way we have things in common
there's a deep bond of unity.
-- notion of who's in the church and who gets saved is really blown open by this -- if christ is a mystery and outside every church, much more ways to get to him
----- whole different understanding of salvation and who can have it.
d) if christ exists in these churches, then catholics can learn from them -- some of these churches may be doing things better than we are.
--- other christian denominations were much better at proclaiming the word (preaching) -- after vatican ii, church say -- we're way behind on this; we can learn frrm other churches.
next tuesday, start material listed for feb. 15.
-------
Tue 02/27/07
Chapter 6
how does the catholic church work with other religions?
chapter 6
religious pluralism -- there's never been just on e world religion. .. not even during christendom
.. there's different paths to God
different ways of thinkning about God , of understanding him.
Positive aspects to religious pluralism :
-- humility - other religions have insight about God/ human nature
-- works against churches becoming stagnent -- want churches to be able to think about different understandings, views of God.
-- can create "bonds of friendship" among different religions
-- no single religion can completely understand God ... if God is a mystery that surpasses human understanding, then no single religion can completely comprehend God.
acquinas: "there's more that we cant say about god than we can"
negatives of religious pluralism:
- shopping around - picking a little from each religion.
- can foster division instead of bonds of friendship
- can lead to a kind of false unity "well we're all really similar, there's not many differences" - there ARE many differences that make complete unity impossible.
- truth claims? - if religous pluralism says every traditions has truths -- then every religion is true to a certain extent - then how do you pick one religion over another -- relativism -- if one religion is the same as any other, why would you chooose one over another.
---- disputed question in theology ---
confusion in theology -- tension between these positions -- tension for christians comes from two basic convictions of christianity
(1) - God wants all people to be saved -- basic tenant of christianity -- a god who created us from loved does not want us separated from God.
(2) - all salvation comes through christ.
prior to batican ii, these two claims were really what propelled missionary activity
-- idea that to be saved you have to be christian
but a good bit of the world is not christian, has never been christian . page 150.
catholic position -- the church had the means of salvation -- you had to become catholic.
tension -- slavation for other people was outside the norm -- somewhat questionable -- an exception to the rule.
so there were all kinds of terms to deal with this.
suppose someone was not baptised -- does that mean they are lost -- baptism of desire -- suppose the gospel had never reached a person but they had aspirations for God, lived a (good) life ..
then you are implicitly christian
.. ranier's -- anonymous christian
three positions on this question today
(1) - all salvation comes from christ -- you must become christian to be saved .. there's been a resurgence of this position against religions pluralism --- the exlusivist position -- strict.
the benefits of that is that its very clear
(2) Inclusivists position - karl ranner - 'anonymous christian'
-- but that makes other religions "sorta christian"
-- grace -- comes from christ .. and grace is everywhere in the world -- this allows ranner to say that there's a way in which you don't have to be baptised to be christian .
-- for ranner, even an atheist can be an anonymous christian if they live an upright life.
-- for ranner, anything good is really from christ -- so there's a way that even a buddhist is an anonymous christian ..
good: brings every religion in
bad: what if a muslim said to a christian "yo're really an anonymous muslim" -- collapses everything into christianity .. glosses over religious differences. that wasn't ranners intent -- he was dealing with a theological issue.
(3) radical pluralism -- Paul Knitter -- former member of the divine mercy missionaries.
not only accepts the fact of relgious pluralism, but celebrates it.
different paths to god -- each is true in its own way.
-- salvation is not from christ , its from God.
for knitter -- christ is the way of salvation for christians -- but not for other world religions. .. salvation is from God.
-- but that's a kind of relgious relativism.
how do you make truth claims?
JPII was very nervous about this position.
Nostra Aetate - handout - "in our day" or "in this time"
issued oct. 28th, 1965
by far the shortest document of vatican ii. hardly more than 1000 words. -- they are unsure about this .. the church had never really addressed this before because "all salvation comes from christ"
very much like a first draft. in no way is it the last word.
initially, was only going to deal with judaism - this was only 20 years after the holocaust. very much on people's minds, esp. european theologians.
can we even continue to do theology in light of the holocaust?
j. baptist metz -- the very fact that the holocaust happened in a christian country .. that should halt all theological thinking.
Nostra Aetate was a first attempt to say no only we gotta reccon with religiou pluralism but also holocaust ..
how did anit-semitism get into christianity -- Jesus was a Jew -- he never renounced that.
what made this document different
(1) -- tone -- not saying "we're better" but a tone of openness and respect.
consistantly looks for the positive.
what can we learn from other religions.
(2) looks for bonds of friendship -- uses that languages -- wants to cultivate bonds of friendship between christians and other religions -- does this because it reads the signs of the times and notices that around the world people are working to over come divisions -- .. people are reaching out to try to understand one another.
-- the church should always foster unity & charity - the church should never ben about fostering divisions .. charity == love .. and love brings people together, love unites.
friendship is a blend of similarity and differences -- the last thing i want is for my friend to be just like me.
so Nostra Aetate is going to look for similarities but at the same time, not going to deny the differences .. but instead of letting them create division, it will use them to foster unity.
we don't begin by fighting
tomorrow -- passages and chapter 7.
-------
Thu 03/01/07
what lead to splits in christianity
protestant reform --
martin luther
didn't want to break away from the church .. saw that it had flaws
major problem -- selling of indulgences.
-- linked to the understanding of purgatory --
believef at the time was that even if you're sins were forgivne , you had to do time for them -- purgatory -- way of paying a penalty , even if you're sins were forgiven.
so no one made it directly into heaven.
popular belief of purgatory -- a place of fire -- can be a purifying element.
but ends up being the idea that purgatory is like hell but you get out of it.
so indulgences sort of bought you so many days, months, and years out of purgatory
at its best, purgatory is theologically important - says that no one is directly ready to encounter God
so purgatory can be a final transofrmation of the self that prepares me for God -- doesn't have to be a place of pain.
so in that sense, purgatory becomes necessary if we're really going to enjoy god
luther's critique was two-fold
1) there was a lot of $$ involved
2) crtitical of what became known as merit theology. for luther, there's nothing we can do that allows us to merit the kingdom of God -- for him, we're justified by faith; human actions can be a response to that.
but leo X condemns his teaching, the following year excommunicates him. then luther creates his own church
then tthings begin to move quickly
john calvin - , switzerland
john knocks - scottland
they create calvinism
at the same time 'enery VIII wants to mary XXX but can't says pope so he creates the anglican church (in the US, called the episcopalian church)
holland and switzerland were calvenist
northern germany was luthern.
etc.
all this happens in a space of 75 to 80 years
methodists -- john wesley .. he was anglican and wanted to begin a spritual reform movement -- evenutally breakes away and starts his own church.
free churches - there began to be a certain identification between denominations and countries. the free church said "one should freely choose to be a christian" shouldn't be an accident of where you're born.
so the free church rejected infant baptism and went with adult baptism -- ex: southern baptist.
one should be able to freely choose to be a christian.
final group
pentecostals -- ex: assembly of God -- churches of the nazarine.
they emphasize a "born again" experience -- being siezed by the spirit -- procedes baptism.
emphasis on speaking in tongues.
more literal on interpretation of the bible.
growing in latin america.
unitatis redintegratio
----------------------
opening paragraph -
jepordizes christ
jesus was about creating unity -- he never worked to create divisions.
several times refers to john 17:21 .. jesus prays that all may be one -- a prayer for unity.
so this lack of unity contradicts the will of christ.
lack of unity also weakens the credibility of the hcurhces -- why should people believe what we say if we cant even agree on it ourselves.
so this really scandalizes christianity.
starts by saying "we've got a problem" -- never should have been this brokenness in the church.
next quote -- well we're not without hope - god's patient with us .. he's waiting to get our act together.
hope here -- god's plan is for unity.
god is patiently waiting for this to come about.
also, good things are starting to happen .. john xxiii -- the church has got to read the signs of the times -- this docuement does that and says "yeah there's divisions, but we're beginning to see a desire for unity"
.. its the work of the spirit -- God working through human beings.
so it begins on the one had by saying there's a problem -- the credibility of the church is weakened -- but there's all sorts of reasons for hope -- because people are starting to move together and its also God's work.
"the sacred Council gladly notes all this. ...."
call to catholics to get on board.
there's no note of fear and caution -- not saying lets be careful about this , instead, seen as a kairos moment.
Kairos -- God's time.
understood to be an especially graced moment. -- wake up and pay attention -- something good is happening here . don't miss out on it.
mark 1:15 -- this is the time of fullfillment -- the word for time there is kairos, not chronos.
don't let this be a missed oportunity -- seize the moment because God's behind it.
how does the church repond to this?
not on the sheet -- three very important points form nostra atatae.
1) all christians, including catholics, are responsible for the divisions - we're to blame, too -- there's fault on both sides.
maybe there's things about the church that drives people away -- maybe luther and the reformers are right in some points.
this puts the church in a stance of repentance.
2) unitatis redintegratio has a completely different aditude towards other christians
-- speaks of them as our borthers and sisters. - unity there already -- this is saying that there may be strains in the family there's divisions, but we're all sisters and brothers.
catholics should have respect and affection for other christians .. prior to this, we were told, "dont talk to them"
(3) despite our differences, there's a real community that already exists between christians. - instead of starting with the differences -- start with the real community -- imperfect, but nonetheless real communion.
saying that we're already one in more ways than we communly think;
and we should not allow this deeper unity to be forgotten.
things that would unite christians even with our differences.
- common faith belief in christ
- _bible_
- moral codes (a lot of agreements there)
- common baptism.
- communion - very similar to catholic at luthern and episcopalean
so there's a real union that's already there. -- not perfect but its real.
(4) 4th paragraph on handout.
"moreover some even very many"
saying that the church of christ is bigger than the catholic church.
therefor , christ works in those churches to lead people to salvation. .. there is salvation outside of the catholic church.
- the catholic church has no monopoly on christ.
so those are kinda the starting points.
last paragraph on the first page.
"our separated brother and sisters"
that's big for that time.
"today in many parts of the world"
this rrequires not a few -- but all catholics to take part in the work of ecumanism.
gives catholics something to do - principles to guide this.
(1) Catholics have to be truthful and fair in what they say about other christian churches.
no room here for prejidice or bias --
(2) "then 'dialogue' between"
-- everyone has to explain clearly what they believe.
(NA came after this)
(3) - if you're going to have unity, people have to be albe to pray together and share their faith together.
-- catholics should pray with other christians.
(4) - before you start telling other people that they need to change, look at yourself -- put oyour own house in order before you start telling someone what to do with theirs
this decree is really rooted in lumen gensium -- light to the world, light to the nations ..
says that the catholic church has not always been that .. sometimes we've hidden that lright more than wwe've revelated it.
considering what we have -- devine true, etc -- we should be doing a good job -- but we're not always the light that we sohould be.
connects us with the death of jesus -- church needs to be purified , humility -- we haven't always lived a gospel life.
----------
"on the other hand"
(5) see the good that is there.
in a way, its undeercutting any kind of rivalry between the churches.
saying that there's good things in other christian communities that have to be affirmed and celebrated.
we can learn and be inspired by them.
- 'whatever is truly christinn is never contrary to what genuinely belongs to the faith " -- if its of God, its good.
- vision .
so these are the principles
now practices.
six suggestions
1) not on sheet -- there can be no unity without first conversion in ourselves.
- vatican ii is talking to catholics -- parallels the principle that catholics need to get their own house in order -- get your heart in order
.. there can be no unity unless ctholics examine their own hearts and see do we need to change.
- is there anything in my heart tht works against unity
calling really for an examination of heartt-- is there anything about my additues that really works against unity.
(2) if we say we have not sined then we call him a lier.
- document begins in a kind of stance of repentance.
-- saying that catholics have sinned against unity -- so in humble prayer, we ask for forgiveness not only from God but from toher christians -- confess if we've been arogant , etc
if we think we're without sin, we're decieving ourselves.
(3) best way to bring about unity -- be who you say you are. -- unity results from lives that imitate christ - instead of speding time arguing and being polarized and divided, if we just were who we said who we were, maybe we wouldn't have so many of these problems.
(4) praying together creates unity
prayer unites you -- makes your differences irrelevant -- praying together is a way of learning to see differently.
if you pray with somebody, you begin to see them differently.
"we must become familiar"(?)
going to other churches - on the one hand there's caution -- saying lets be thoughtful and relfective abou it
- not forbidden but don't use it indescriminately --
two main principles -- unity -- but second sharing in the grace.
there's an opening here -- going to depend on the circumstances -- in general catholics shouldnot be worshiping at other churches, but there may be occasions where grace will come from that.
big change -- before this document, to go to another christian church was a sin.
-----
communion is supposed to be a sign of unity of faith -- unity of belief. -- so if you are not catholic, then that unity is lacking -- and in that sense it contradictts what the eucharist is supposed to symbolize -- that's the official catholic position.
but theologically problematic !! - you can argue from a theological principle, but there's also pastoral principle --- andy's funeral -- real unity -- unity should be established by a bond of live -- . we shouldn't be flippand or careless about how we think about the eucharist -- but if you tak the words of jesus that all should be one, shouldn't we try to represent the unity?
if the eucharist is really about unity -- none of us should go -- none of us can agree!
eucharist is all bot God's avilability -- and churches should be really careful about limiting that availability
we would never invite someone over but then not let them eat when its time to eat.
sure you can argue for it theologically, but does that really worship God??
and when you think about it, none of us are /worthy/ of the eucharist. it should never symbolize exclusion.
bigger problem -- people receiving communion with total non-shalance.
by only getting a blessing, you're depriving the person of what's is really all about.
to receive communion , you have to be in full union.
Jesus didn't say get your life in order and then come and eat -- no! he invited tax collectors .. come and eat .. and then let's see what happens.
traditionalism vs tradition
tradition -- should be a vibrant living thing, -ism tends toward legalism and rigorism -- tends to put all kinds of emphasis on ritual practices.
who can clean the vessels after communion?
this takes the SOUL out of religion
religion should not make a scrupulous.
"i've come to see you free"
you find comfort in following every letter of the law.
"we must become familiar with the outlook"
you gotta know the other if you're going to treat them on equal footing
last passage -
(5) Study up -- learn about these religions
(6) sometimes, instead of talking, go to work on something together.
if you immitate the christ who served others, that'll bring about unity.
last paragraph -- this is all great; let's get behind it!
end of the chapter -- mcarthey says "where are we today?"
state of the question
(1) overall, we're going backwards -- vatican ii got the momentem under way -- the differences are less theological, but more differences on moral questions and church practices .. not so much different understandings of God etc, but differences of moral questions -- esp in the area of sexuality and women in the church.
(2) this desire for unity has not really entered the mainstream of ordinary catholic life.
the enthusiasm of 40 years ago has pretty much disappated.
-- part of the reason is complacency -- we're content with where we are. -- and that's a loss.
tuesday -- opening chapter of fox.
-------
Tue 03/06/07
the awakening discussion -- after spring break.
tuesday at 6. march 27th. location TBA.
Chapter 1 from fox:
sexuality and the christian tradition.
birth control -- church opposed to it -- takes away the chance of life.
historically, a very negative view of human sexuality -- connected with sinfullness, fall of human nature.
1968 - strange year - early on , john 23 had set up the committee to work on birth control question --- committee met for a number of years -- initially a few theologians .. expected to just reaffirm the church position .. based on natural law -- one understanding is that the sole purpose of sex in marriage is for procreation.
but with paul 6 as pope -- he extended the group to include drs., married couples, etc. then things started to shift -- became much more open to the experience of marriage. -- where your theology ends up depends on where you start -- if you start with natural law, then what you say about sexuality has to fit that theory.
the committee started with the experience .. its about method -- if you start with the theory, they experience is always secondary.
what happened with this committee -- they came around to the idea that the church's teaching on contraception could change , should change
totally expected that paul the sixth would simply follow the recommendations of this committee .. and that would get him off the hook. particularly because it was not disputed question -- overwhelming majority.
so catholics were stunned by humanae vitae -- they thought there would be a change. -- after all, the position had changed on other things.
griely says that there's a way that the church has never recovered from this .. because so many people were expecting a change.
why does fox say that the church is in a crisis on this question? why all not well?
fox is arguing that there's a crisis in the catholic church -- page8 -- why so much pain in a relgion that ultimately professes hope?
disenchantment, disallusionment .. people can feel hurt by the church
but this is not over the major documents of christianity .. when it comes to the most fundamental teachings, that's not the source of the problem.
on the other hand -- there's a kind of condition of alienation that many catholics can feel against the church .
they want to be catholic -- God, christ, sacrments.
the source of the pain : moral teachings esp. in the area of sexuality.
why is this a big deal?
- well its a big part of our life.
- such a basic part of our nature simply because we have bodies -- we can't escape our bodiliness.
so sexulity is dealing with a part of who we are.
we don't feel some of the other things that deal with theology because we dont feel them as pointed parts of our bodies.
- we expect wisdom and guidance on this issue
but what is it that gives any kind of teaching authority? why is the teaching on sexuality often rejected?
the teaching authority of the church, the magisterium - consists of essentially the pope , cardinals, and bishops. so the source of this teaching is celibate men .. not to say that they can't have insight or wisdom, but its gonna be incomplete. its not so much that catholics don't want teaching, but what's missing here is the experience of others.
who should be able to teach? who's voice has authority?
and there was a time when the magisterium was understood much more broadly. it had to include the "sensus fidelium" .. what are ordinary people .. married, single, divorced, gay, what are they saying about their experience?
today, those who are able to teach , are a very limited group .. and people are a lot more educated today than before.
another reason people are questiong the teaching is.....
the sex abuse cases.
why such a big deal .. it was covered up for so long. .. people shifted around rather than dealt with.
in certain professions, esp with priesthood, there's a bond of trust .. to violate that trust is an extreme betrayal.
cover up: a lot of times the people who were victims were told, if you really love the church, you won't say anything.
and we're not over this.
there's structural problems in the church -- if you have a ver select group in charge of everything, that's going to create problems -- a lot of it becomes a question of power .. and not wanting to let go of it.
image of priesthood .. p to the time of the 2nd vatican council . . priests were high up .. for to come down... but the cover up
lying going on .. something wrong in the first place, but big pretending that all was fine.
how human do we want the priest to be?
on the one hand, we don'' want to put him so high that he's not of the world
but he should have some grace -- a priest should be another christ (so should we, but priest esp. so).
recognize humanity, but grow in grace.
other thing: a priest makes a promise to live a cerain way -- what becomes problematic is when we no longer take our vows seriously, our promises.
important to hold one another to certain ideals, certain standards.
where people are on the question of sexuality:
they want more dialogue, conversation --
people are not against moral teachings, but what's the tone -- if its overly harsh, restrictive, people are going to question that -- sexuality should be seen as fundamentally good.
2) who's involved in shaping the teaching .. who's heard? -- celibate men - really limited.
but at the same time, we need wisdom -- we live in a culture that's really messed up about this -- we're being formed every day by cultural messages on sexuality
what people want form the chruch is wisdom -- but the way to being is not with a harsh tone.
what gives a teaching authority -- what makes us really listen to something, take it seriously.
ultimately, its reasonableness gives it authority --
does it make sense , is it really wise, does it show wisdom about what it means to be human?
for a lot of people, the church as lost credibility on this -- reason is that "are these teachings reasonable?"
what's strange about this is that in catholic social teaching -- there's a lot of room to "make up your own mind"
make a wise decision based on the circomstances of their lives. pope ? document.
so in other areas of catholic teaching, there's much more room for people to make a wise, informed , decision. when it comes to sexuality & medical ethics, there's no laditude --- much more black and white .. "this is the decision"
.. so for a lot of people , this becomes problematic.
furthermore, for a lot of people when you talk about catholic morality, they automatically talk about sexuality.
example: "living sin" .. so people living together who are not married ..
so there's a tendancy to identify sin with sexual sin.
sexuality is an important area of human life, but not the whole of the church's moral teaching.
teaching on sexuality - "intrinsicly true" .. never needs to change.. but social teaching can and has .
-------
Wed 03/07/07
back to our discussion yestertday.
not that catholics don't want guidance on sexuality.
we are so formed by society on this issue .. there's a great need for moral wisdom in this area
at the same time, the problem is that in many respects, people want a kind of healthy understanding of sexuality and an OPEN CONVERSATION.
a lot is gained if people are able to just sit down and talk about this.
sees to be no conversation, just "you have to accept this"
church's teaching gains *credibility* when its open to the insight of other people
and the teaching has been open in other areas, but not in sexuality so much.
vincent genovesi -- wrote a book on sexual ethics called "in the pursuit of love"
(1) the human vocation is a vocation to love .. humans are created from love for the sake of love .. so a lifetime vocation is learning waht exactly love involes, entails.
(2) he applies this to sexuality .. what ought to be true in other areas of our life ought to be true of sexuality -- ought to be an externalization of love -- should be love -in-action.
-- can we truly say as we live out our sexuality that its deepening our capacity for love.
not only love or neighbor but *_ourselves_*
that's a positive starting point .. but thtat isn't picked up so much in the christian tradition of sexuality because there are 3 things that have shaped the christian understanding on sexuality:
(1) stoicism
(2) the effects of Gnosticism --> and its subsett manicheism
(3) Augustine.
what fox wants to say is that those things are very different from a biblical view of sexuality.
if christianity had allowed itself to view sexuality biblically, things would be quite different.
old testament:
(1) rooted in the theology of creation --
- creation's going to express the love, generosity , and goodness of God.
- also, imago dei -- we're the image of a God who's good
- the goodness of creation is affirmed by god "and god said it was good"
god doesn't create anything that's evil
so if you apply this to our bodies -- to our sexuality, there's no sense in the bible that sexuality is connected with sin .. the first sin was not sexual, it was pride.
so sexuality is not associated with human sinfulness. rather, like everyting it is seen as BLESSED.
we can misuse that gift like any gift, but its a gift that allows us to enter into relationship with others, to know intimacy (its not good for us to be alone)
- sexuality can be a way of learning to love.
- gift from god that's meant to achieve good purposes.
if you come to the new testament ..
what does jesus say about sex: he doesn't really talk about it.
f you look at his basic moral teaching -- the sermon on the mount , he talks a lot oabout the important of justice, non-violence, forgiveness, reconciliation, compassion, concern for the poor .......
but no mention of sexuality.
jesus does talk about divorse when he's pushed on the question. .. he doesn't accept it .. one of the reasons for that was to protect women .. because men could divorse women but not the other way around.
- story of adultry woman -- but the focus is really on th men who want to kill. he doesn't deny that she committed adultry but doesn't make it the worst sin. .. not so much a story about sexuality but about hypocrisy of the men.
so in the bible, sexuality is not front and center in either the OT or the NT.
other reason that cristianity should have a positive view of sexuality . . .
incarnation -- Jesus has a body .. in Jesus God receives a body ; God takes on a body.
if its good enough for God, it ought to be acceptable for us.
beyound that - is the catholic notion of SACRAMENTALITY ..
its amazing how much christianity was influenced by dualism .. that's not the central idea of cristianity.
god (connects) with us through physical, material things,
but also, marriage is a sacrement -- and that means that the whole of marriage -- including the sexual, has the potential of connecting us to God.
its in our physically bodily existance that we find God.
and all these things get overshadowed by forces , such as dualism, that are really outside of cristianity (except augustine).
stoics --
(1) a kind of fatalism or esignation to stoicms. -- just bear things -- life its tough .. but you never rrally express it , you don't lament, etc.
--- esp. when it comes to the emotions -- for the stocis you bear things , you suffer through things but you don' really show your emotions -- because emotions can show weakness
key thing here is that stoicism has a dualistic view of human beings.
for stoics, the highest part of the human is the mind, reason, intellect. this is the most god-like part of who we are.
the lower part is going to deal with our emotions, passions, Bodies.
for the stoics, we don't have a unity of body and soul, .. we're divided.
the danger is .. our emotions and passions are very strong -- and if we don't subdue them the danger is that they will start to control "what's best about us" -- our minds and our reasons.
thus, for the greeks, the highest life was the philosophical life ., life of contemplation.
so what you set this up , anything dealing with the lower part of us has to be in contry -- .. tht seems to be contrary to reason .. reason is what most connects us to the devine -- separates us from creates.
thus, a good stoic is able to supress those emotions not really let them have control.
this gets inside cristianity when the early chruch moves into the greek speaking world.
so very early, cristianity beings to move away from a biblical view of sexuality to
(1) one that begins to see the body and sexuality suspiciously.
(2)sexual pleasure is not only seen negatively but connected to sin -- augustine connects it to the fall -- but the fall had nothig to do wiith it.
(3) affects an understanding of marriage -- it becames very hard for early theologians to call marriage a good -- they will -- because its from God -- but they always quantify it.
-- to marriage becomes a conession to weakness -- if you have to live a sexual life, then do it in marriage.
from this view, celibacy, virginity becomes the higher state for the christian life.
you see this in who becomes recognized as saints -- almost always celibate or virgin people.
even when you no longer have the church of the martyrs, elibacy and virginity are seen as a spiritual martrdom .. giving yourself to god.
where's the bible in this? NOWHERE! its stoic.
2nd -- gnostics -- manichees
gnosticism -
- elites were given a "speical knowledge"
dualistic view of reality -- two Gods --
(1) higher God - god of the spritual -- he was light.
(2) lesser god -- god of darknes, god of evil- he created the lower reality -- the earth , the physical things.
similar to stoicism because of the dualism.
spiritual higher -- physical and material is bad.
with gnosticms -- a kind of cosmic battle between the forces of light and dark - waged within each human being .. between spiritual and bodies.
so for them, not only sexuality is connected with evil, its bad to have a child becuase you trap a spirit in a body.
the whole root of gnisticism is to find a way to liberate the spirit from the body.
the manachees had an answer for evil. -- evil is from this lesser god.
how does something that seems so strange not only get inside christianity but have a profound influence on it????
gnosticism was like a pest that would never go away
and it wasn't just a pest on the outside but it got on the inside too -- it was like a parasite.
so there was a lot of early writing about why we aren't gnostic.
so why did we fall into this
certain things in christianity that could be seen as Gnostic
-- (1) paul's letter -- Jesus is seen as a light that has come into the darkness
(2) in john -- jesus has come to drive out the darkness -- if you walk with him, you walk in the light.
(3) Paul contrasts a life in the spirit with a life in the flesh.
but paul didn't mean the gnostic understanding of flesh -- not bodily existant -- but he means a life under sin, law. life in the spirit is a life free from sin.
gnosticism gets inside christianity and there are people who would read christ as a gnostic figure etc.
Augustine:
towering personality , brilliant
no one shapes cristian theology more than he does.
in the confessions, augustine tells his spiritual autobiography -- but only tells the first 33 years of his life -- story up to his conversion.
writes the confessions at 43.
10 years have passed , he looks back and is trying to make sense of his life.
he sees his life as one long journey and search. tries to make sense of his life.
dables in astrology for awhile, becomes influenced by philosophy . wonders if he will find the ansers to his questions in philosophy.
for 9 years, he joins the manichess.
two levels
highest level: elect
lower level: hearers -- there were the beginners.
he neve gets to the highest level.
he didn't know where else to go
he was particularly facinated by them because they had an answer for evil.
tomorrow:
1) augustine & acquinas
2) chapter 3 of fox .. birth control.
-------
Thu 03/08/07
augustine -- pivital person in shaping understanding of sexuality (?)
augustine's life -- an ongoing search
as he searches, he tries to understand our place in the world
for 9 years, he links up with the manachees.
after his conversion, devotes a lot of his writings to refute the manachees but the influence of them never really leaves him.
"the good of marriage"
writing against the manachees -- they did not see marriage as a good
augustine wants to defend marriage.
(1) says marriage is good because its from God.
.. gen. 2 .. not good for man to be alone.
reads this as a marriage foundation
the manachees rejected the old testament. lots of scandal in it.
(2) marriage is a life of friendship, charity -- very unpatriarchal (friendship is between equals)
aristotle would say that a man and woman cannot be friends because they're not equals.
augustine goes against this -- marriage is not only a gift of God but a friendship between husband and wife. and as a life of charity through that friendship, then can move to God .. that's essentially our understanding today.
if he had stopped here, things would have been different.
starts positive
but then deals with some specific arguements of the manachees.
having to do wioth the patriarchs -- manachees were critical of them because they were married and many had more than one wife.
augustine essentially agrees with them .. if they were really holy, their preference would be not to marry but to be celibate.
so how do you accept that they were married and had more than one wife. says that this wwas old tesament -- premessiah times -- so they need to have as much offspring as possible to produce the messiah.
now that we have the messiah, it is better to be cilbate. what if no one got married .. well then the 2nd coming would come a lot sooner.
augustine wants to say that marriage is undenyably good, but afterwards, essentially says that celibacy is a higher way of life.
so starts with positive view of marriage, but then moves away from it.
why does that happen?
augustine's own life story .. the area that he really struggles with is his sexuality .. when he's 16, he's already in a lot of relationships. .. he gets together with his friends and they brag about all the relationships they have.
when he's 17, he moves in with a woman and stays in this relationship for 14 years (31) .. today it would be called a "common law of marriage"
from that relationship they have a son named adeodatus - a gift of God.
confessions are about the first 31 years of his life - you'd think since this affair would be a big part, you'd think he'd mention something about the woman, but he really doesn't ; don't even have her name.
adeodatus dies before his father does.
not only does he not name his woman, but in a sense she's almost invisible .. and yet you sense her presence preciesly because he says so little about her.
why does he push this woman to the margins of his story.
odd
two key woman .. this one and his mother monica.
monica prays for him every day. monica is in the forground -- she does not approve of the realtionship -- he shoul marry if he's going to be with this lady.
monica pursuades him to leave the relationship -- but he's not ready to live celibate.
monica wants augustine to marry .. but the woman she chose is only 10 ... needs to be 12 .. he makes passing reference to this .. briefly gets involved with her but not happy about it.
"the woman" is invisible ... when he finally breaks up from her, he says that it was as if she was ripped from my side.
left his heart tattered and bleeding --
on the one hand he writes about this relationshp as if it really didn't mean anything .. but at the end of book 8 when he ends the relationship, this suggests otherwise.
this wasn't easy for augustine! it was an experience of loss.
at this point he's in milan ,, she goes back to africa vowing not to get involved again with a man.
adeodatus is left with his son. shortly after his conversion, adeodatus dies.
harder to end the relationship than augustine suggests.
augustine's -- where did i experience the most difficulty -- in his sexualyt -- trying to understand the difference between lust and love
we all have our weaknesses where we realize that we are in need of god's grace.
almost brings him to a nervous breakdown -- wants to give his life to God but he canot say that he's not going to have any relationship. he connects that we sin and lust.
ends up concluding that his love with this woman was keeping him from God.
.. that's not what he says in the firrst chapter on his