Elena 
TSO of Video meliora, proboque; Deteriora sequor : ” had this interesting bit to say on his blog a few days ago:
I think the “sin” most St. Bloggers make, myself definitely included, is to recognize that modernity has an obedience problem while failing to address the root of it. We make the incorrect assumption that everyone knows that God knows and loves them. The root of the problem is seeing God more as master than father. It seems sort of a lost cause to go around trying to fraternally correct people without addressing that cause. Laws and morality makes no sense without a sense that God loves us. The real sin of Adam and Eve was entertaining in their thoughts that God could not be trusted and that he did not have their best interests in mind. Once they didn’t trust God, the jig was up and eating the forbidden fruit was a given.
The conservative mistake is to emphasize morality outside of its proper context of God’s love. The liberal mistake is to suggest God’s love means he’s not interested in law. For the liberal, power and love are mutually exclusive. For example, the Pope is loving only if he divests his power to bishops and laity, and the Church loves women only if it makes them priests and popes. Modernity rejects that the Church, or even God, seeks their best interests. (By the way, for what it’s worth, I think the late Gerard and Steven Riddle have been particularly good at emphasizing God’s love without sliding into heterodoxy.)”
I think he’s right. If the love of God is assumed, you sort of tend to bypass that basic tenant when you go on to other aspects of what evertopic you are discussing. It’s like expecting your child, or neighbor, student, etc. to speed read when they don’t even have a grasp of the alphabet, or phonics, or English is not their first language.
Another thought that comes to mind though, is that catechesis has been awful for the past 3 decades or so with an over emphasis on the “love” aspect as the touchy- feely part of God the Father. God IS a Father and sometimes fathers have to do things that seem unloving when you are 8 or 18. You realize at 28, 38 and 48 that dad was smart all along. What I see through some parts of St. Blog’s is that the unorthodox tend to reject God the Father as disciplinarian, and because of that they see the laws of the church (and the doctrines and dogmas that back those rules) as just Phariseceal inventions meant to hold people down and keep them from being happy. There is no long-term eternal view many times in what I see from the unorthodox perspective.
My 10-year-old thinks I’m mean when I don’t let him drink a can of pop. But he can’t see the point is not getting cavities or consuming lots of unnecessary sugar. He probably will when he’s older, but right now he doesn’t see withholding that from him as a loving act. In fact, to put this in the terms of “the Golden Rule” and how that gets perverted – if I really loved him, (in his mind) I would just get him an unlimited supply.
What’s really scary though is when this unorthodox view of God’s love and the distortion of that Gospel turns into a repudiation of any form of just war. If the greatest generation had held to that view we’d all be speaking German or Japanese now. Historically I think it is a scary view to have.
I do agree though that Gerard and Steve did/do a good job of it as does Talmida with her interest in biblical languages, particularly Hebrew.
Eegad, I did a terrible job of writing that! It’s edited and easier to read now!.