This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
2LivelyLady
How is that different from Caucasian Catholicism, Haitian Catholicism, etc? Sounds divisive and not inclusive. What do you think?
3John5918
>2 LivelyLady:
I wasn't at the meeting nor involved with it in any way, so I'm basing my response on what I read in that article, plus my personal experience of the best part of 40 years living in Africa and working with the Catholic church. I write this from Juba, South Sudan, as the internet seems to be working reasonably well this morning.
The first major difference from "Caucasian Catholicism" is, as mentioned in the fifth paragraph, that in Africa we have a "post-colonial" Church. Being on the wrong end of colonialism is an experience which most modern "Caucasians" have not had.
The modern Catholic Church in Africa is also a very young church, mostly less than two centuries old, and indeed not much more than half a century as an indigenous Church. The local hierarchy was only established in Sudan in the 1970s, for example. In many of the poorest parts of the world the Church is not yet financially self-sufficient and still requires external assistance.
The Church, of course, is universal, but nevertheless it is also local, rooted in each place and culture, united but not uniform. For a particular local Church to reflect on itself, to read the signs of the times as Gaudium et spes puts it, is not divisive. Is it divisive for a particular parish or diocese to develop a pastoral plan which suits the needs of that place and time? It may well be that some of the results of this reflection are similar to some other parts of the Church, but that does not negate the exercise.
I have not commented on Haitian Catholicism because I have no experience of it. I do have experience of Catholicism in many African countries and in many "developed" countries on three continents (most of which would probably be included under "Caucasian", although personally I find that a rather odd identifier), and I would certainly say that there are differences.
I wasn't at the meeting nor involved with it in any way, so I'm basing my response on what I read in that article, plus my personal experience of the best part of 40 years living in Africa and working with the Catholic church. I write this from Juba, South Sudan, as the internet seems to be working reasonably well this morning.
The first major difference from "Caucasian Catholicism" is, as mentioned in the fifth paragraph, that in Africa we have a "post-colonial" Church. Being on the wrong end of colonialism is an experience which most modern "Caucasians" have not had.
The modern Catholic Church in Africa is also a very young church, mostly less than two centuries old, and indeed not much more than half a century as an indigenous Church. The local hierarchy was only established in Sudan in the 1970s, for example. In many of the poorest parts of the world the Church is not yet financially self-sufficient and still requires external assistance.
The Church, of course, is universal, but nevertheless it is also local, rooted in each place and culture, united but not uniform. For a particular local Church to reflect on itself, to read the signs of the times as Gaudium et spes puts it, is not divisive. Is it divisive for a particular parish or diocese to develop a pastoral plan which suits the needs of that place and time? It may well be that some of the results of this reflection are similar to some other parts of the Church, but that does not negate the exercise.
I have not commented on Haitian Catholicism because I have no experience of it. I do have experience of Catholicism in many African countries and in many "developed" countries on three continents (most of which would probably be included under "Caucasian", although personally I find that a rather odd identifier), and I would certainly say that there are differences.
4LesMiserables
>3 John5918:
Something ironic here. Colonialism brought the Church to Africa to a great degree.
Is it divisive for a particular parish or diocese to develop a pastoral plan which suits the needs of that place and time?
A leading question.
Pastoral approaches cannot ever circumvent or suppress the deposit of faith handed down from Tradition.
For example, something that has been dogmatically condemned cannot ever become, over time part of a pastoral practice.
The Church cannot change over time. It meets the needs of new generations by educating them with the salvation of truth. The Church does not abandon its teaching to meets modern demands. Each of the 20 centuries since Christ has welcomed new generations to the Church. Only in the latter half of the 20th Century has the Church abandoned the Faith.
Pastoral solutions of a moral order cannot be decided by the conscience of a pastor or a person, when divine and natural law are at risk of being transgressed.
Changing things according to subjective reasoning, the will and fashion is really just Protestantism.
Something ironic here. Colonialism brought the Church to Africa to a great degree.
Is it divisive for a particular parish or diocese to develop a pastoral plan which suits the needs of that place and time?
A leading question.
Pastoral approaches cannot ever circumvent or suppress the deposit of faith handed down from Tradition.
For example, something that has been dogmatically condemned cannot ever become, over time part of a pastoral practice.
The Church cannot change over time. It meets the needs of new generations by educating them with the salvation of truth. The Church does not abandon its teaching to meets modern demands. Each of the 20 centuries since Christ has welcomed new generations to the Church. Only in the latter half of the 20th Century has the Church abandoned the Faith.
Pastoral solutions of a moral order cannot be decided by the conscience of a pastor or a person, when divine and natural law are at risk of being transgressed.
Changing things according to subjective reasoning, the will and fashion is really just Protestantism.
5John5918
>4 LesMiserables: Colonialism brought the Church to Africa to a great degree.
Indeed. But Africa still has to deal with the legacy of being colonised, which is a particular pastoral situation different from that of many older churches.
As for the rest of your post, again all I can say is, indeed. Nobody is saying otherwise.
As the articles states, the church in Africa faced "two primary challenges. The first was keeping pace with astronomic rates of growth; and the second was facing the mind-numbing social problems of the continent, such as armed conflict, chronic poverty, environmental degradation, ethnic and tribal conflict, and HIV/AIDS". Both pastoral concerns, I would say, not dogmatic.
It goes on to mention three "features of the adult African church": (1) "that it’s got a contribution to make not just in Africa, but to the entire world and the universal Church"; (2) "African Catholics seemed more inclined to honestly acknowledge their failures and shortcomings, knowing that there’s sufficient strength in their churches to weather the storm"; (3) dealing constructively with "the other", particularly Islam and Pentecostalism. Seems to me none of these are dogmatic issues either; they are pastoral.
Indeed. But Africa still has to deal with the legacy of being colonised, which is a particular pastoral situation different from that of many older churches.
As for the rest of your post, again all I can say is, indeed. Nobody is saying otherwise.
As the articles states, the church in Africa faced "two primary challenges. The first was keeping pace with astronomic rates of growth; and the second was facing the mind-numbing social problems of the continent, such as armed conflict, chronic poverty, environmental degradation, ethnic and tribal conflict, and HIV/AIDS". Both pastoral concerns, I would say, not dogmatic.
It goes on to mention three "features of the adult African church": (1) "that it’s got a contribution to make not just in Africa, but to the entire world and the universal Church"; (2) "African Catholics seemed more inclined to honestly acknowledge their failures and shortcomings, knowing that there’s sufficient strength in their churches to weather the storm"; (3) dealing constructively with "the other", particularly Islam and Pentecostalism. Seems to me none of these are dogmatic issues either; they are pastoral.
Join to post
