Existentialist morality

On Wednesday, Michael Sean Winters wrote Pope Francis is right. The Catholic Church can't go backwards. 

I posted with the comment that  the cynical proof of the existence of God is that people find grace and joy in the Church regardless of the errors of its bishops and theologians; especially those who wish to preserve tradition and their traditional prerogative. Reform is not having any more success in ruining the Church than the bishops and cardinals have had in the prior 1930 years since the first Pentecost (but not for lack of trying).

Modern habits of mind may even help bring the Church into the 21st Century (or at least the 19th), shedding the toxic asexual bias and related misogyny which has bothered it from St. Paul to St. Augustine to St. John Paul. The truth is that, for the most part, the Church has reformed itself when it had no other choice. It can be trusted to do so in the future.

The Church has seen the Cross in a variety of ways. Seeing it transactionally caused much of the harm in both Catholicism and Protestantism. The Trinity is One. In Christ, They encountered human suffering in a way that we can now relate to God.

Such debates usually attract those with a grudge about how Francis is now dealing with the Extraordinary (Tridentine) Rite.

TLM is a symbol for the past rejection of all things rational in the life of the Church - the 1/3rd of the Council, led by Wojtila. We are, just now, getting away from that opposition.

In general, due to mobility, people no longer show up at Mass to be seen by their family members and neighbors. Such attendance was obligation, not worship. As Dennett calls it, it was the belief in the belief in God - not actual faith.

People prefer worship that is familiar. For instance, going to an Anglican Church, whose sacraments really are valid, is still off putting because the music is different. Truly, it's all about the tunes.

I got into a Twitter debate friday with anti-modernists. Such dialogues cause you to think at some point, rather than to simply repeat the same beliefs you have previously stated. Here is the gist from my end.

Modernism is a specific thing named by Pius X that has nothing to do with St. John's Council, St. John Paul's attempt at counter-revolution and Francis finally bringing it to life.

Technically, what is called Modernism was a heresy that did not exist from the fevered mind of Pius X and his Curia. They essentially described Protestantism, not a movement in a Church at any time. Modernization, the seeing of the world as it is, is no heresy.

The reaction to it was a vain exercise in scholasticism and nostalgia in reaction to Darwin, biblical and moral scholarship by other than clergy and to democracy and the existence of individual rights in general. It failed, as it had to, because it was false.

God as concept is theodicy.  It develops as we do. Every doctrine is recreated as society evolves. That is simply clear eyed epistemology. Our minds think using language, which changes from one generation to the next. Even with Latin, meanings of what is translated evolve. 

This is not gnosticism, which was a label, not a movement (like modernism). Gnostics did not self identify as such. True belief is about group dynamics. It is not important. 

Sociology includes the study of religion, the humans who believe. Theology is about God. You confuse the two at your own peril. The goats at the last judgement are the true believers.

You are collapsing faith in God with loyalty to the hierarchy. If you wish to be among the goats on the last day, that is your privilege. That version of God is needy. God is not codependent. His commandment was love and not judging. You are digging a deeper hole.

Salvation as transactional is what diminishes God. Jesus called for perfect love, which is of the Father. Nothing secret (gnostic) about that.

They also stated that "I think therefore I am seems to be your Gospel." 

They are conflating epistemology with theology. Indeed, that little bit of Cartesian wisdom has been overturned by neuroscience. Our brains think first, then our consciousness notices. In this life, the mind, body and soul are one.

We know scientifically that we have a materialistic soul which starts at gastrulation and ends with the permanent end of brain function (when we start to rot). This bit is electrochemical. What is spiritual is beyond the realm of science. We cannot know, except by common faith, in the Resurrection that there is anything else. NDE's may provide hints, but they cannot be measured. Grace cannot be either. Both, however, can be reported.

My interlocutor stated that progressive Catholics are simply Protestants.

They asked, why don't I just leave? 

That would be Protestant. My baptism is as valid as yours or as anyone with holy orders.

Protestants are sectarian. They leave. Existentialism is interesting in a religious context. It requires authentic faith rather than obedience and certainty. It is the narrow door.

The people are the Church, not just the hierarchy. You are turning faith into an intellectual exercise rather than dependence on God. His eyes are on the sparrow, as the spiritual goes.

Ezekiel says it best. If my brother sins and I do not warn him, then I bear his guilt. - die (suspend disbelief on how this jibes with what I say on mortality). If I warn him (bishops) then they bear the consequences of their errors. Protestants walk out. I am not going. Why would I give them the satisfaction? I will not accept what amounts to ecclesiastical bullying.

They equated what I was saying with existentialism, which is what they thought Pius meant as Modernism.

Pius needed to worry about existentialism and its concept of inauthentic (and unquestioned) "bad faith." Simply obeying is the essence of bad faith.

What we do is more important than true belief. That is the whole point of the Gospel. Acting in love is the eternal message.

Dwell in the concept of God as perfectly humble rather than perfectly just and you just might be useful to those who must be seen as the anima Christi. The least the world despises. 

Religion and spirituality exist together, because Loyola and Assisi. Morality is made up for man's sake, not God's and free will concerns not just individual acts but in deciding what is right and wrong. Even in formalist systems, it is up to  individuals to accept teachings.

Morality does not exist to appease God. Neither does salvation. Nor deeds. Read 1 Cor 13. We encounter God by loving others, especially the unworthy. Compassion is good for its own sake. The extent to which the Church teaches that is a measure of its closeness to Christ.

BTW, this is not the easy way out. Morality is a social phenomenon. It includes the individual's belief on the morals of others. To base those expectations on love of others rather than simply labeling them as wrong is an impossible exercise without the awareness and assistance of God. Not for direction but the will to love. Relying on others to make those choices for us is the cowards way out. It takes no responsibility or love to rely on obedience. 

Considering that the clergy has an unconscious asexual bias - meaning their assumption that what is natural for them is natural for all is simply foolish. They need to become aware that they are the A in LGBTQIA. It can mean asexual, accepting or both/and. 

Each person is responsible for their moral expectations of others and the harm that may result if those expectations are not based in love. For example, every gay teen suicide is the responsibility of those who would condemn rather than empathize. Blaming God for such a lack of empathy is moral cowardice. It is cheap faith, which is as bad as cheap grace.

A major element of existentialism is authenticity, which requires responsibility for what one believes. Not doing so is called Bad Faith. The description is apt.

YouTube Videos:

 https://youtu.be/cyrCH5wbn1Y

 https://youtu.be/ItxUtGShjZc