Group read?

Since it's so much in the news and on the minds of many in the church, who'd be into a group read of Kasper's Mercy: The Essence of the Gospel and the Key to Christian Life?

Alternately, how about a group read of Martin's Jesus: A Pilgrimage?

My vote is for Martin's book, as I can borrow it.

It's also very "chunkable." And people can participate who haven't read it because, well, it's ultimately a commentary--sometimes personal, sometimes not--on specific incidents in Jesus' life.

I'd be more interested in Kasper but can't guarantee that I can get a copy. I've sent an e-mail to the Pauline Sisters in Nairobi to see if they have a copy in stock there or in Juba, otherwise I might be able to get one when I travel to the USA next week.

I have a feeling the Kasper book is a bit tough and long for general interest… I've listed to a number of his lectures on the book. I'm of two minds about 288 pages of it.

I've just got hold of a copy of the Kasper book, which I was interested in anyway regardless of a group read.

6

John, Tim, 2WonderY.

Can you outline how you see a group read working in practise?
I have never read a book as part of a group. My closest experience was with a friend, now retired, who picked me up for work in the morning for our half hour drive. We would read an agreed book in our own time and pace and chat about it and any issues that it explored as we drove. I enjoyed that.

I am initially keen to join in and can get the book on kindle, but just wished to see how you guys envisioned the 'group read'.

Thanks

>7 LesMiserables: Like you I've never done a group read so I have no idea. I'm open to a new experience!

8

Hi John. Perhaps Tim has some ideas as he's in the business. Other than that, I think that one way might be as follows.

1. Start a thread with the title of the book
2. Read at own pace
3. Post any questions or comments for discussion
4. Reflect and assess.

How does that sound? I think that means that folk are not under pressure to be at page 'x' by a given date. It also allows people to contribute (or not) as and when they feel comfortable.

One other thing I wanted to discuss was in reference to imprimatur/nihil obstat.
Obviously few books have this declaration for more than likely publishing factors. The Kasper book has been read and commended by Pope Francis so I think we are in safe hands, but why no stamp of approval? Or do few authors bother with such things. I suppose on theological matters where people might be exploring new or contentious issues, then the imprimatur might not be suitable.

Any thoughts?

Okay, I'll get it.

There are various ways of doing group reads. One way is to go chapter by chapter. Another is to do the whole thing in one swoop. I suggest that, given the complexity of the topic, chapter by chapter is best. It also depends if it's John talking to each other--which would be nice--or what?

I have just purchased it on kindle from amazon.com for a very reasonable $9.85 USD.

Tim do you think a thread titled Group Read: Mercy: The Essence of the Gospel and the Key to Christian Life by Cardinal Walter Kasper is needed for this? Or happy to do so here?

Given that my read is over, I was going to say that I wish we had opted for the other book Jesus: A Pilgrimage by James Martin SJ.

On the other hand if I had not read Kasper's Mercy I would not have discovered so soon how damaging a person this is to have at such an influential role in the Vatican. My only hope is that he will slip into a quiet retirement sooner rather than later given his age.

LesMis,

I don't know if a book by a modern US Jesuit would make you feel any better. That order, at least in the West, are the promoters of many "progressive" errors which seek to afflict the Church.

But remain hopeful - The Church is not going to accept their errors. In fact, in many ways the time for their errors has past, as the Church and even the world have moved on.

>13 LesMiserables:, >14 hf22: Oh dear, such negativity! Such labelling and stereotyping! Such personal antipathy! I'm almost tempted to say, such bitterness!

"Errors" itself is a value-laden word in this context. The Church is reforming itself, in continuity with Tradition, and some avenues will be explored which turn out not to be appropriate. The Church evolves (moves on) and those particular avenues wither as more appropriate forms become clear. To me that's a much more accurate description of what is actually happening in our vibrant and exciting Church.

But I suppose if your dominant paradigm is that the Church is in crisis and approaching a debacle, "errors" is a more comfortable word.

And apologies in advance; this is not meant as a personal attack, but just an expression of deeply-felt frustration at the pessimists and nay-sayers within our Church.

> 15

John,

Oh, no bitterness, or crisis for that matter. The Church is Christ's, and it is growing in both numbers and understanding. We are not living in a time of a faithful remnant, but a time when the global Church is grander than ever (Not sure grander is the right word, but you know what I mean :) ).

But I happily use value-laden words - I am after all making value judgements.

And some ideas, which continue to be promoted, are things which have already turned out not to be appropriate. Sometimes decades ago, sometimes many centuries ago. And they are errors, and in some cases formally declared heresies. Labels have their place, false prophets do exist, and the Devil still does his work.

And you know this as well - Do we not agree some traditionalists hold errors? Can't modern US Jesuits as well?

We are joyful, and hopeful, but need not be blind.

Also I would disagree the Church is vibrant and exciting because of the number of ideas being thrown around, good and bad. That is to mistake movement for progress, or perhaps the faith of the Church for an intellectual play thing.

The Church is vibrant and exciting because it lives its faith, ever reaching out to real people, and bringing them to Christ.

# Also, not being personal. We are both in a sense discussing abstract groups, rather than each other, which might not be the best approach. But it is how Pope Francis does it, when having a go at tendancies he does not like, so we can't feel too bad.

>16 hf22: I didn't say vibrant and exciting "because" of those ideas. It is of course vibrant and exciting for the reasons that you state. But I still see such negativity and pessimism in the way you state things. While stating that the Church is not a "remnant", you appear to espouse a safe, fortress mentality. Reform is risky and of course there will be mistakes. Failure to reform (always in continuity with Tradition) is far riskier (and indeed is contrary to Tradition).

> 17

John,

Not sure why calling a spade a spade promotes a safe fortress mentality, nor why it is negative or pessimism.

To take some issues which I assume are common ground, anti-semitism is an error in Catholic terms, as is say Ayn Rand economic libertarianism.

And yet people calling themselves Catholic are promoting both as consistent with the Catholic faith today.

Error exists. Calling it out is the proper thing to do.

And further, error often comes in the clothes of reform, and calls itself progress.

That does not mean reform is not required. As Edmund Burke said, a thing "Without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation".

But it does mean judgement, including value judgement, is needed when assessing proposals for reform. And that trying to do too much at once is a bad idea, because then judgement can not be prudently applied.

Surely this is reasonable?

>18 hf22: Thanks for responding. It's probably a question of tone as much as substance, and of perception of the reader rather than intent of the writer. As such, my perceptions are of course subjective. I just perceive a barrage of pessimism, criticism, reactionary-ism, warnings, bitterness, warnings of error and crisis, negativity, etc from a certain brand of Catholic, and some of your comments triggered that reaction in me. I, of course, am making the mistake which I often warn about of labelling people and assuming that because you made one or two particular comments which triggered something in me you are therefore part of that label. Apologies again. Mea culpa.

> 18

John,

No problem - I know how you feel. In the history of the Church, now is so far from the actual times of crisis which have existed, it is not funny.

Historically speaking, this is a great time for the Church and its mission.

I would hate to see some of those peoples reaction if we ever met with a real crisis. I suspect it would not be characterised by a lot of faith or courage.

John,

By the way, I am nearly through the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church after your promptings, and have found it very useful.

I might post a review after I have finished, but I can say it has encouraged me about the upcoming document from the Pope on the environment.

I think the social doctrines focus on the human person will be a very helpful contribution to things like the discussion of global warming, which seems to have gotten lost recently between purely economic ideas and modern green paganism.

I love reading Catholic teachings like this - So often the truth of the Gospel just shines through.

>21 hf22: Ironically I have never read the Compendium from cover to cover. For me it is a well-thumbed tool which sits by my desk and to which I refer frequently as part of my daily work, along with the Vatican II documents. The Compendium points me towards authoritative sources, and I often find myself reading a papal encyclical or some other document, or refreshing my acquaintance with a particular bit of scripture, as a result.

> 22

John,

I am a strangely cover to cover kinda guy. When I was first thing about becoming a Christian, I read the whole Bible cover to cover, despite that not really being what it was designed for.

I did the same with the Catechism and the VII documents at a later point.

But then, I am a little odd.

15

Oh dear, such negativity! Such labelling and stereotyping! Such personal antipathy! I'm almost tempted to say, such bitterness!

Well I must have missed it, but when did censorship take precedence over critique?
It is in my humble opinion that Cardinal Kasper is the very archetype who stands for a modern day Naucleides given his insistence in reinterpreting just about everything that was standard practice through the tradition of Church teaching.

Having read Mercy and a few of his speeches I can say with some certainty that he is the master of doublespeak.