Waterboy:

Are you going to say something constructive, or do you just throw bombs?

relda,
As already mentioned, I do not know the writings of Fr. McBrien, neither those of Fr. Rychlak. However, if it is true what the latter claims about the former, then indeed Fr. McBrien could be labelled “liberal”, and if these statements that Fr. Rychlak rejects are only his own summaries of what Fr. McBrien said, then Fr. Rychlak can indeed be labelled “conservative”, as much as I hate this kind of labeling. I think that many problems in the Catholic Church arise from the fact that the “liberal” and “conservative” theologians misunderstand each other. However, I am not a theologian, I just have the feeling that the situation is not unlike the one during the 1990s “science wars”, where the two sides (the C. P. Snow’s two cultures) either talked past each other or attacked their own interpretation of what the other side claimed.

Nevertheless, liberal or not, the quote from Fr. McBrien you gave, as I understand it, represents more or less faithfully the Catholic teaching about the freedom of conscience. As mentioned elsewhere, having grown up in a Stalinist country I never had RE, my father (with a degree in Family and Canon Law) being my only teacher. He liked to illustrate the freedom of conscience on the trivial example of compulsory church attendance on Sundays: you are exempt if you are too old, too sick, the next church is too far, etc., but you cannot expect the Church to spell out in detail when such an exception applies to you - that must be left to your conscience. Well, in questions of sexual morals the situation could be more complicated, and where civil courage is concerned - should I put my family in jeopardy to protect somebody threatened by e.g. the Nazi or Communist regime - this could indeed be a huge responsibility resting on one’s conscience.

waterboy,
yes, this is what I meant, and also HarryG seems to have indirectly confirmed it.

“Its cathedrals are among the West’s most magnificent artistic achievements - and they will remain to be its headstone.”

The cathedrals were built with the skill and ingenuity of common craftsmen, paid with money extracted by the taxing rights of theologians of the middle ages.

It is similar to observing, Alan Bond owned works by Van Gogh and such ownership is Bonds “most magnificent artistic achievement” (as if Van Gogh had nothing to do with it).

“Several European countries which were once classed as Catholic in 1900 have become neutral to any religion as they have become more educated and prosperous.”

Education advocates the deployment of a questioning mind.

Theology, the Church of Rome in particular, demands unquestioning obedience.

Therein lies the conflict,

The Church of Rome is dependent upon ignorance for its power.

That and the disaster of its management of its pedophile clergy, leaves the whole edifice hollow and with financial circumstances heading toward what is already its moral bankruptcy

The problem with most Churches, Rome included,

they put the interests of their priests and hierarchy before their congregants and God.

runner: "This is the end result of flawed secular teaching that laughably make out that we humans are somehow gods and can solve the worlds problems. Most can't even hold a family together let alone fix other issues. The lack of humility and arrogance is incredible when you consider where secularism has got us."

Allow me to state where I think 'secularism has got us.'

When you look out the window, you seem to see some horrible world, which has gone wrong. Presumably because it's not keeping with 'god's' teaching.

Firstly, I know you can't tell me when the world was 'right' before secularism turned it wrong. As far as I can see, the world has gone in a much better direction in recent years, fearmongering and exaggeration not withstanding.

When I look at the world, I see a world that is mostly populated by good people, a majority of whom don't spend every Sunday in a church. In fact, I see billions of people getting along every day, without any need of your religion. I see a beautiful place, and while there are ugly things out there, I don't consider them to be the rule, rather the aberration.

I consider this to be a far healthier view of the world than your constant berating of other views.

You've said it yourself. You consider secularism a denial of god and thus arrogant. Or said in another way, anything that isn't adopting your god is arrogant.

That you speak of arrogance here is rather ironic.

So when you tell me everything's wrong and ugly because of man, I call your bluff and say that's crap. Worse still, it's ugly, depressing and a very unhealthy way to see the world. No wonder you need a god to fix it.

'We have already had about a dozen blogs on homosexual paedophile priests. Why don't we have a few on paedophile doctors or earth worshippers or sports coaches or Labour Ministers? I wonder?'

Could it be because the AMA or the Labour Caucus doesn't require its members to profess chastity and pretend they are asexual? If sexual desires are forced underground in this way it is inevitable that they will surface in situations that can be kept secret -- for a while at least -- by the abuse of power. Even Chaucer knew what the results of officially-imposed 'celibacy' were.

I agree George, as people we do often talk past each other – due often to the nuance of language, but, not always. Wittgenstein and Austin, for example, have shown how the complexity of language works - it refers to not only facts about the world, but it also assumes and helps create social contexts. In short, however, we do not have to choose between oversimplified accounts of language. The language of ‘liberals’ will turn supposedly to universal human experience and conservatives to supposedly inerrant Scripture.

Scientific empiricism, whilst valuable, has a limit – it cannot define ‘courage’ nor ‘faith’; the Church, even if an anachronistic institution, may stand for both – albeit, I might add, not always living up to its own ideals or principles. Perhaps the “postmodern" philosophers help us realise that the system of our beliefs is more like an interconnected web than like a building with only one foundation. Our different beliefs support each other in complicated ways, and we do not have to find some single foundational starting point.

The challenge contained in our dialogue and action, however, is for us to be consistent, the hypocrisy of our time is found not only within our Churches, but also within the secular, “The consistent ethic of life is an integrated approach to moral analysis, concerned with the protection and nurturing of human life across the entire spectrum of human existence, from conception to death. It encompasses such life-issues as abortion, capital punishment, war, social justice, human rights, and euthanasia. The approach is also known as "the seamless garment." - Fr. McBrien. I think, George, you’ll agree.