One of the paradoxes of the teaching on the Sensus Fidelium is a general acceptance of its importance in determining the validity of any particular doctrine - but a complete absence of guidelines on how to determine if it exists.
One of the characteristics of the blogosphere is that sometimes, great contributions lie buried in the comments threads, which readers do not always open. I liked this response (at the Open Tabernacle) to my post on “What British Catholics Believe”, which included a reference to the SF:

The question of sensus fidelium has come up.

I suggest a re-reading of Teilhard de Chardin for those who wish some insights here.

We are well on our way to a ‘noosphere’. This is de Chardin’s concept as to a possible the outcome of the evolution of the sensus fidelium.

I see it the same way… we are right now, right here collaboratively constructing something recognizable as Tielhard’s noosphere here in the ‘interweb’.

I don’t know about you… but that gets me pretty jazzed up

You want to know the future of the sensus fidelium? Well congratulations… you are reading it right here in these blogs and blogs like them all over the world.

Oh… one other observation… the sensus fidelium I sense emerging is very much a post-christian phenomena.

The place of Christ in the sensus fidelium is really now in all our hands.

Slainte,
Conrad J. Noll.

[ad#In post banner]

This is precisely why I started blogging, and why I collaborate with others at The Open Tabernacle. I am convinced that the net offers us the opportunity (denied us by the institutional church) to join in reasoned discussion and reflection which, when taken to prayer, can lead us to new insights - and collectively, can enable us to assist in a small way in the formation of new theology, informed by the reality of our lives and experiences in faith ( just as the netroots political blogosphere has contributed markedly to progressive politics.)

I was reminded of this by reader responses to Colleen Kochivar-Baker’s post at Enlightened Catholicism on “Reason and Faith“. Colleen begins her piece by agreeing with Pope Benedict that reason should be informed by faith, but continues by arguing that conversely, faith should also be informed by reason. After some discussion of the nineteenth century failures of the churches around slavery, based on arguments from “the historical and scriptural tradition” that are used today to bolster arguments around the exclusion of women and gay men, she makes some important points about the contribution to the debate from ordinary people of faith:

The funny thing is that faith did play a huge part in changing attitudes towards slavery and pushing human rights forward. It was the inspired faith of believers who heard a message about moving beyond literal interpretations and seeing the over all trend in God’s relationship with humanity. They saw a Jesus who opened up His kingdom to everyone. They saw a new covenant based on universal and timeless attitudes of love, compassion, humility and inclusion. They did not see a covenant based on the primacy of right behavior or some form of god approved class distinction which put heterosexual white christian males on the top of God’s pyramid. For these Christians, God didn’t have a pyramid of people. God just had people. God cared for us all the same. That’s the kind of faith interacting with reason that has historically propelled secular society forward on a fairer and more inclusive path.

It is indeed that “inspired faith of believers” that continues to move us ahead in responding authentically to matters of queer inclusion in church, even as the supposed “leaders” of the churches continue, like the Duke of Plaza-Toro, to lead their regiments from behind. Colleen’s posts frequently produce valuable comments, and so it was here. One lengthy comment got this response:

That was a stunningly stupendous comment! The best I think you’ve ever posted! And it is so TRUE!

It should be a blog of its own. It should be printed and disseminated. I hope it takes on a life of its own!

Truly, the Holy Spirit has tonight inspired you.

It is in that spirit, and mindful of Conrad Noll’s observations about developing the SF via the noosphere, that I reproduce Dennis’ comment here:

I studied many years in Catholic Theology, Catholic Philosophy and ended up a physician and a scientist first in hard research science then in a softer type science that can not depend so mush on proof with numbers but science non the less the believes in the scientific method and begins with the hypothesis and ends with theories defining what we see as truth.

What I think has happened in “Old Religion” and particularly in its leadership is a lack of faith in the Holy Spirit and His/Her being with us until the end of time. The idea that belief can be based purely in historical fact is ridiculous. History is like news the telling of what happened. I have been to several discussions and was present at many news worthy events. The news reported was almost always different than I or my colleagues remembered what actually occurred. The Bible tales mostly lack true history but they are true as myths that give rise to thought and our societies moral stands. Myths have a different type of truth attached to them than does history. They are wonderful ways that philosophically help us understand meaning in life. Many people especially the clergy are upset when we discuss the Bible as a mythical book. Scientists are also upset when we discuss the mythical Newton’s laws. Just as Newton’s laws are only true when we live on sphere with gravity, the myths of the Bible are true only when certain conditions are meant. I know its upsetting to many people who wish we lived in a “Black and White” world were truth is pitted against untruth. To those committed to thought, the black and white Orthodox world simply can not be true. Just as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity points out a constant. E=MC2, Scientists, Philosophers and good theologians are always faced with relativism. What happens when there is a small change in C.

The Holy Spirit is with us until the end of time. I was once taught that the Spirit was the feminine manifestation of God. There are some good reasons to see it that way, but for me God is simply genderless. The idea that Jesus was a man and Ordained only men is a no go — non sequitor for me. So the RCC is simply a misogynistic church in terms of leadership and governance and I understand that women must see the Church differently. SO MUST MEN.

The Holy Spirit is here to guide the evolution of all knowledge. As the population of the world became so very large, along came the serendipitous finding from a RCC Researcher at Harvard -THE BIRTH CONTROL PILL. She infuses knowledge to us, particularly to those that are looking for more truth all the time. The Problem with the Clergy is that they believe that reasoned knowledge comes from the MEN of history. That is very hard for thinking people to swallow. I think that it is a very serious sin and even an evil when people refuse to consider the evolution of progressive thought certainly inspired by the Spirit.

The Pope and Bishops with their “creeping” infallibility are only causing themselves to be seen as relatively foolish old men that are refusing to listen to the Spirit as She addressed herself through Vatican II and as she continues to address herself on a daily basis to those who understand that to be human we are finite and any truth we understand will only be relative truth to that of an infinite God. Relativity or relativism are equally important for us all. It seems to me that the ethical problems in this world do not stem so much from the secular world but from the clerical world, since moral thought and rules tend to trail secular ethics by a very large time gap.

dennis

Related articles by Zemanta

• Is There Really No Place For Reason Informing Faith? (enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com)
• Conscience Formation, Spiritual Formation, and The Holy Spirit (queertheology.blogspot.com)