I wouldn't try to deny you your skepticism of the modern Church.
We should be a bit careful, though, not to dismiss wisdom that is 2,300 years old in a sort of toss-the-baby-out move.
There is a philosophy to be distinguished here from the actual failings of the Church as an institution consisting of many fallible persons. I was more interested to deal with the ethics philosophically, as opposed to doing a forensic analysis of whether the modern church has 'walked the walk'. If they haven't (and most of us don't think they have), the latter does not negate the former, although I'd admit: it's a bad look, and it's fairly tragic that the Church itself is doing more to obfuscate its own ancient message than any other cultural force attacking it from without.
and it's fairly tragic that the Church itself is doing more to obfuscate its own ancient message than any other cultural force attacking it from without.
This was necessary, since all attempts to weaken the Church from without only made it stronger. "Built on the blood of the martyrs" etc. Just as Christ was only crucified through the betrayal of Judas, so too was it necessary that the Church be infiltrated and attacked from within in order to force her into her own Passion.
(post is archived)