Why so many liberal Catholics?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
If the Pope and the hierarchy of the RC church are so "conservative," how come they don't do a think about liberals like Andrew Greeley? For example, there are pro-homo student groups at RC universities and even bishops who publicly support the ordination of women. In addition, why do works by liberals like Ray Brown, Joseph Fitzmeyer, John Meier, etc. that deny the historical accuracy of the Bible receive the church impremateur?Maybe the Pope should stop attending so many ecumenical get togethers and start minding the store.
-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), June 26, 1999
Steve, there is an encyclical by pope pius xii, HUMANI GENERIS, very helpful to understand the historical accuracy of the bible. if you haven't read it do it and will do you a lot of good.ENRIQUE
-- ENRIQUE ORTIZ (eaortiz@yahoo.com), June 27, 1999.
I have read it. However, it seems that current RC theology no longer insists on the historical accuracy of Scripture. Why else would the writers I have mentioned write books with the church imprimatur? In fact, Ray Brown was even appointed to a pontifical biblical commission.Let me give you an example. I just pulled a book almost at random of my bookshelf: Seven Pauline Letters by Peter Ellis (1982). This book has the impramatur & Ellis was at the time a professor at Fordham. Ellis denies that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles & the II Thessalonians. So I guess that's just fine in the Vatican II church.
Let's face it you "conservative" catholics out there -- your church was stolen by a bunch of libs at Vatican II.
-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), June 27, 1999.
Steve,Your post is very good and surely thought provoking. For myself I feel the Church is attempting to remove itself from the Medieval mode of tending to the flock. WE have become away through history the fallacies of supressing the masses.
One of the human " revelations " was the Guttenburg Press thus allowing the masses to read and learn the word of God. Reading was for the higher levels of society. Many ordained priests could not read and would throw out their interpretations of the word many times for their own benefit.
Andrew Greeley is a good writer who points out some of the fallacies of the hierarchy - not the faith - of the Church. He in his diciplines as ordained priest and sociologist ( I thing ) draws out attention the human frailty of many many Church leaders.
To think the Pope is in " charge " is false by any standards for we are aware of the political ins and outs of the Vatican for centuries. Even recently with Pope Jean Paul's illness speculation abounded.
You throw in one sentence pro-homo and female ordination. Is there some form of conecction in your mind? Homosexuality is not new to priesthood for again we have known of these things for centuries. Greeley points out a full 72% of ordained priests have had a least one homosexual encounter in ther ordained life. I do not condone this behavior but I surely do not throw stones for " there go I but for the Grace Of God. "
Female priests is an issue I myself have thought of for with so many needs of the community not being met we need perhaps not more priests but be allowed as community to administer the sacraments up to but not including confession and absolution.
There are areas in the U.S.A. that do not see a priest more than four times a year if they are lucky. Kentucky has a group of nuns that go into the rural areas giving communion and bringing the needs of the community back to the diocese.
The Imprematur I believe is given by a local Bishop I stand open to correction on this issue. Many Bishops are not wanting to go forward with Vatican 11 and still hold on to their power base. Again politics come into place.
The Pope I believe has a universal view of the community and hopes to I believe offer reconciliation to the wounds and hurts from the above mentioned Medieval period.
That is it for now from this writer.
Peace And Well Being A Little Brother In Christ Jean B.
-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), June 27, 1999.
That RC priests are sinners like the rest of us is no big revelation. My point is that the hierarchy of the RC church tolerates the open advocacy of this abomination (homosexuality as well as higher criticism) at its universities, seminaries, etc. Why "conservatives" like JP II tolerate this nonsense is a question that deserves an answer.
-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), June 27, 1999.
SteveThe only answer I think of presently and in the past is the Church is made up of sinners whom Christ died for. Every single one of us has sinned and do sin. Our only hope is that we constantly ask for that love in Christ to bring the gift of forgiveness to ourselves.
We are the last person to forgive our own infractions. You have not done so and I surely continue to do the same. To not would be inhuman. WE strive for grace and pace and being one with the Father through Christ.
Your Church group and any community of Chrsitians are not pure for we struggle and struggle to simply be. The following is a poem which I wrote a few short years ago when I questioned this same thing.
The Thief - The crowd laughed and jeered - tears of joy and laughter appeared - The say he got a death that he deserved - Christ turned to His brother and knew - he got a life he did not -. " Who shall cast the first stone. "
Peace Jean B.
-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), June 27, 1999.
I believe it is very clear that the Pope himself does not believe in the literal truth or unfailing historical accuracy of scripture. Many of the early Fathers of the Church questioned whether all the Pauline Epistles were by Paul. One of the great beauties of Catholicism is the emphasis on tradition as the repository of faith in addition to scripture. If you hang the Holy Spirit on the inerrancy of the literal interpretation of the Bible, you will hang the Holy Spirit indeed. Ultimately this has nothing to do with conservatism on social teachings of the church.I do find it amusing that so many "conservatives"threaten others with the authority of the Pope--and then want to tell the Pope what to do!
-- Patrick Irwin (ezterm@yahoo.com), April 25, 2002.
JmjHello, Patrick.
You may find something amusing, but I do NOT find it amusing that you waste time here being critical when you haven't the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
You should know that Pope John Paul II attended the Second Vatican Council as a bishop in the 1960s. One of the greatest of the Council's sixteen documents is "Dei Verbum" ("Word of God"), the Dogmatic Constitution On Divine Revelation. You badly need to read this or at least the new Catechism's section on Scripture, which is based on "Dei Verbum" and prior magisterial documents on this subject.
If you had read these things before coming here, you would know that:
(1) The Church does not expect anyone to take every passage of the Bible literally, but only those that God intended to be taken that way, and
(2) The pope (like every other pope before him) does indeed believe in the historical accuracy -- indeed the complete "inerrancy" -- of the scripture. If you don't believe in that too, you are failing to do something required of a Catholic. This has nothing to do with "hanging the Holy Spirit." God's Spirit is the primary author of Sacred Scripture, and it is thus impossible to be in error.Here is a link to "Dei Verbum." I hope that you will return to the forum some day with a new attitude and an orthodox faith.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 26, 2002.
JohnI would like to add this fact too. Pope John Paul II was also a favorite writer of previous Popes due to his great knowledge and writing skills. He has had much to do in helping to research and gather information for papal letters. I believe it was Pope John Paul I, he worked for quite frequently.
-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 26, 2002.
God loves you all stop fighting. --Allen Smithee
-- Allen Smithee (smitheeallen@hotmail.com), May 21, 2002.
I often wondered why Fr. Andrew Greeley is allowed to write the novels he does, writing very raw sex scenes, and why is he allowed to voice such outspoken views opposing the hierarchy?Personally, I do like some of his views. He takes a strong sand against social injustices and I do respect people who are not afraid to speak their mind, despite the opposition.
However, I always questioned why a priest is 'allowed' to do these things. He has very strong opinions on the abuse scandal, on the hierarchy, on the Pope, and those novels!! He, himself says he is always in trouble because of it...but I am surprised that he is not forced to remain silent on a lot of these issues, and I wonder why he is allowed to write the kinds of books he does. Regarding the books, maybe all the money he brings in for those 'bestsellers' goes to Rome, does it?
As Catholics, we are not supposed to read those kinds of books. At least when we were kids we had to confess if we read material like that and here we have a priest who writes them...Paradoxical, isn't it? MaryLu
-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), May 21, 2002.
JmjHello, MaryLu.
The Fr. Greeley situation is definitely a bad one. You have described his wrongdoing accurately.
You stated: "I am surprised that he is not forced to remain silent on a lot of these issues, and I wonder why he is allowed to write the kinds of books he does."
First, he is a priest of the Archdiocese of Chicago, but he is not a parish priest. He is a sociology scholar and college professor. (He was, and may still be, teaching at the University of Chicago and the University of Arizona.) Currently, the archbishop of Chicago is Cardinal Francis George, who is a no-nonsense man not likely to allow priests to do anything that violates Canon Law without disciplining them.
I believe that Fr. Greeley wrote all or most of his bad books during the lifetime of the previous archbishop, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin. Unfortunately, the late cardinal was notorious for being tolerant of various forms of dissent, liturgical abuses, and other illicit behaviors. To my knowledge, he never spoke an ill word to or about Fr. Greeley, though we can never know what went on behind closed doors.
One thing to keep in mind is that diocesan priests are not religious-order priests. A bishop is not the equivalent of an abbot. Diocesan priests do not take solemn "vows" of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Instead they make "promises" of celibacy and obedience to their bishop. They make no promise concerning poverty. I am not an expert about what the promise of obedience includes (other than, for example, accepting parish assignments), so I don't know if Cardinal George can forbid Fr. Greeley to publish more porno novels. I certainly hope that he can and has done so.
You asked: "Regarding the books, maybe all the money he brings in for those 'bestsellers' goes to Rome, does it?"
My guess would be-- "Definitely not!" I doubt that Fr. Greeley would dream of giving the pope anything, and the pope would not want money earned from porn. As I said, Fr. Greeley has not taken a vow or promise of poverty. He can keep everything that he earns -- or he can give it away.
God bless you.
John
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 24, 2002.
Thank you John for that very informative answer regarding Fr. Andrew Greeley. He was on a talk show the other night and someone asked him how he 'knew' about all those steamy sex scenes he writes about in his book and he said, "It is none of your business."He did say he still belongs to a parish, but I don't know where. MaryLu
-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), May 24, 2002.
Maybe there is light at the end of the tunnel!Here's a great news release on EWTN today. Right on point I believe! Let's hope this is the beginning of a 'big clean-up and clean-out!
24-May-2002 -- EWTNews Brief
DEADLINE LOOMS FOR US THEOLOGIANS' CERTIFICATION WASHINGTON, DC, (CWNews.com) -- A national Catholic organization has called on Catholic colleges and universities to enforce the Church's requirement that teachers of theology must sign a statement of fidelity before June 1.
"A year after the American bishops invited theologians to full communion with the Church, finally the time has come for theology professors to accept or refuse the bishops' invitation," said Patrick Reilly, president of the Cardinal Newman Society-- a national organization seeking the renewal of Catholic identity at Catholic colleges and universities.
Reilly observed: "If Catholic theology departments continue to employ individuals who have not received the mandatum, there will no longer be any doubt about the hypocrisy of those colleges and the substance of their 'Catholic' label."
The mandatum-- a bishop's certification that a Catholic theology professor is teaching authentic Catholic doctrine, is required under the terms of Ex Corde Ecclesiae, the Vatican document released in 1990 to govern Catholic institutions of higher learning. After more than a decade of studying the issue, the US bishops set up national guidelines calling for professors to obtain the mandatum by June 1 of this year. (Newly hired professors are required to obtain the mandatum within a year of their appointment.)
Many theology professors have announced that they will make no effort to obtain the mandatum, And the US bishops have set no penalties for those who fail to do so, or for the institutions that employ them.
The Cardinal Newman Society has urged the American bishops to disclose the names of professors who obtain the mandatum, thus allowing colleges and students to identify authentic Catholic theologians.
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), May 24, 2002.
Hey! Isn't there any answer to all the pablum served up on EWTN??? Can't there b a more balanced view of Catholicism than that which is portrayed on this "Catholism of the 50s" network? I'm tired of seeing robed monks and hooded sisters as the spokespersons of modern day Catholicsm. Why can't we moderates form our own TV network and proclaim the Gospel in a way that speaks to the modern world? I have to hand it to her - Mother Angelica knows the ropes. Too bad the rest of us remain docile while we abdicate the message of Catholicism to the traditionists and their Latin mystique.
-- Bill Hayden (jhayden@midsouth.rr.com), December 25, 2003.
"Can't there be a more balanced view of Catholicism than that which is portrayed on this "Catholism of the 50s" network?"A: You consider this presentation of Catholicism "unbalanced"? "Unbalanced" in the direction of ... what? Orthodoxy? Truth?
"I'm tired of seeing robed monks and hooded sisters as the spokespersons of modern day Catholicsm."
A: These people are modern day Catholics, with intensive training in the Catholic Faith. Who would be better qualified to be spokepersons for modern day Catholicism? Who would you like to see speaking to us as representatives of the Church?
"Why can't we moderates form our own TV network and proclaim the Gospel in a way that speaks to the modern world?"
A: The Gospel as presented by the Church has spoken to each successive "modern world" in each successive century since the first century. Why would we suddenly need a different approach in the modern world of the 21st century? Truth never become obsolete. If the "modern world" can't relate to the truth as presented by the infallible Church of God, then the problem lies with the modern world, not with the Church.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 26, 2003.
The Church must change, it must evolve, being now an institution in the 21st century, it must withold many of it's traditions which make it what it is. These traditions are benificial to spreading the Word of God. Yet at the same time others hinder the message that Christ proclaimed. The Vatican's opinions on homosexuality are that it is intrinsically disordered because it goes against "immutible natural law" natural laws are those of animals. Since when are the creatures born in the image and likeness of God animals? Love the very message of Christ, since when is denying to beings the right to love each other permissable? (regardless of gender) would Christ do this??? No he would not.Thousands of people die in Africa of Aids, when asked about the use of contraceptives, a cardnal replied" No one ever died from chastity!" Is this spirit of God speaking? No, it is the voice of blindness. deeply concerened, Carloman Peace be with you.
-- Carloman Aleric (speewitz@hotmail.com), December 26, 2003.
As soon as the Church changes, and starts teaching less than the fullness of truth, it become utterly worthless. Fortunately the Holy Spirit will not allow this to happen. Every previous century offered secular values which were opposed to truth. The 21st century is no different. It is the responsibility of people to bring their beliefs into alignment with the truth. It is not the responsibility of the Church to water down the truth until it meshes with the secular beliefs of society. At that point neither secular society nor the Church would possess truth. The Church holds forth the truth in its fullness, pure and complete, and society must choose to accept truth or reject it. The Church does not offer an "opinion" on homosexuality. It teaches the truth. Take it or leave it; but know that God has revealed the consequences, both temporal and eternal, of rejecting the truth.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 26, 2003.
Carloman,
You bring up a lot of points about natural law. I think if you had a fuller understanding of what the term natural law means it would aid your understanding. In moral theology, natural law is not simply the law of animals. Instead it is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the God, the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us. This rule of conduct is our whole human nature with its manifold relationships, considered as a creature destined to be with God for all eternity.St. Thomas says that actions are wrong if, though subserving the satisfaction of some particular need or tendency, they are at the same time incompatible with that rational harmonious subordination of the lower to the higher which reason should maintain among our conflicting tendencies and desires. For example, to nourish our bodies is right; but to indulge our appetite for food to the detriment of our corporal or spiritual life is wrong. Self- preservation is right, but to refuse to expose our life when the well-being of society requires it, is wrong. It is wrong to drink to intoxication, for, besides being injurious to health, such indulgence deprives one of the use of reason, which is intended by God to be the guide and dictator of conduct. Theft is wrong, because it subverts the basis of social life; and man's nature requires for its proper development that he live in a state of society. There is, then, a double reason for calling this law of conduct natural: first, because it is set up concretely in our very nature itself, and second, because it is manifested to us by the purely natural medium of reason. In both respects it is distinguished from the Divine positive law, which contains precepts not arising from the nature of things as God has constituted them by the creative act, but from the arbitrary will of God. This law we learn not through the unaided operation of reason, but through the light of supernatural revelation. [from the Catholic Encyclopedia .
The modern world has lost the full concept of what love means. Love is not just sex. Two men can love each other without having sex. But because of the hedonism of this world, love now often leads to lust which leads to sex. However, God created sex for not only the sharing of affection, but also, and primarily, for procreation. If you separate sex from procreation you break the natural law. This is again, not a law of animals, it is a law for humans as set forth in Genesis. This natural law is not something you change, it is permanently in all mankind. Natural law is universal, knowable by nature, and unchangeable.
Churches that ignore the fact that natural law is unchangable slowly decline into teaching that hedonism is OK and that all faith is relative, including belief in God. Two good examples are the Episcopalian churches (which is pretty far along that path, and the Unitarian 'church' which is little more than a philosophy club with a Sunday habit.
Sometimes it is hard to go against the morality of Hollywood and MTV and realize there is more to life than lust, but that doesn't mean the Catholic Church should abandon Christ's teachings and just embrace the decadent societies 'norms'.
Some things to think about (from "Sex Has a Price Tag"):
Sexually active people face odds four times higher for contracting a sexually transmitted disease (STD) than for getting pregnant.
Three million teenagers contract STDs annually.
25 million Americans are infected with the herpes virus.
More than 40 percent of sexually active singles are infected with human papillomavirus, commonly called genital warts.
One in every 250 Americans has the AIDS virus.
An estimated one in five Americans is infected with a viral STD, a figure that doesn't include bacterial diseases like chlamydia, syphilis and gonorrhea.In Christ, Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 27, 2003.
Every time I meet a self-described "liberal" Catholic, I meet a self- admittedly IGNORANT person who occasionally does Catholic things like attend Mass and thinks that this qualifies them to opine on all things Catholic.Let's face it, what do you have to do or know to be considered a "liberal Catholic" other than hold no firm belief in the Church's doctrine and dogma (especially concerning sexual morality) while studiously avoiding reading anything the Pope (current or recent), the Catechism, Vatican II, or any Church doctor and saint has written on any subject?
How many liberal Catholics can explain the similarity between the Incarnation and the Eucharist? (Both pivot on the gift of faith as well as the understanding of the difference between accidents and substance).
How many liberal Catholics can explain exactly why Humanae Vitae is the only logical conclusion to come to given a Christian view of the human person's social and intergenerational nature and supernatural telos (i.e. only if you know WHAT a human being is, and WHERE humanity is destined for can you possibly talk intelligently about ethics)?
"Liberal Catholics" may be well informed and even experts in their own secular fields of study... but a Ph.D in English or Mathematics, Electrical engineering or Business, does not make one a polymath when it comes to the faith!
Time and again I'm appalled by the sheer, collossal absence of anything like a mature, college level education in Catholic theology and anthropology on the part of those who would glibly jettison centuries or millennia of Catholic moral or theological teaching in favor of the latest fad. When pushed for reasons and a clear logical explaination for their position, I invaribly receive an angry (and embarrassed) retort that no reasons are necessary for what their "heart" says is right or wrong. IOW, they HAVE NO REASONS.
So "liberal" must mean non-rational or even anti-rational. This is why sexual ethics goes to the heart of most "dissent" - it's entirely too easy to let feelings and emotions cloud the scene when dealing with such (literally) visceral subjects. The subject matter being so steeped in FEELINGS, uninformed or woefully un-catechised "Catholics" go with their feelings or what excuses Pop-culture coughs up.
When challenged by someone who does know what he's talking about, the result is embarrassment and then anger as no one likes being shown to be a fool: basing one's entire life or serious life/death choices on "flip the coin" guesses and "gut feelings" rather than pondered and prayerfully arrived at decisions.
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 29, 2003.
I loved that last answer...which assumes that all well-prayered decisions can only have one logical conclusion, that of conservative Catholocism, apparently.Hey chump. I have news for you: you and your moral high horse are rooted in "rationale." (Your words.)
But faith has zero to do with rationale, buddy. There's something entirely irrational about faith, and that's the beauty of it all.
Speaking of which...are you familiar with beauty? You sound like an angry person.
-- bill richman (b_rman083@yahoo.com), April 04, 2004.
Bill,The truth is that as Catholics we are obedient to the Church. We follow Her teachings period. If a Catholic picks and chooses he/she is not to be praised as an individualist. That person needs to be aware of their error so that they don't continue in error.
When "catholics" like John Kerry spout their egomaniacal views on the Church it should make us angry. I hope that the recent conference of American Bishops decides to tell people like Kerry that their support of abortion and gay marriage has a price in this world and the next. No Eucharist for these two faced "catholic" politicians would send a strong message.
-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.com), April 04, 2004.
Liberal "Catholics" are Protestants who happen to go to mass.
-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 04, 2004.
Emily, most Potestants are Conservitives/Now, behold the Liberal mind. My answers in {} brackets/
---------------------------------------------------------------
I loved that last answer...which assumes that all well-prayered decisions can only have one logical conclusion, that of conservative Catholocism, apparently.
{Any form of Thouhgt not based in raw emoitonalism and a lust to justify ones own actiosn usually lead to the same conclusions of Morals, that even lato a few centuries before Christ mentioend.}- Zarove
Hey chump. I have news for you: you and your moral high horse are rooted in "rationale." (Your words.)
{Everything is in the ned, however, his are based on soemthign more substantial than the idea of generic allowance based on someones whim or desire.}-Zarove
But faith has zero to do with rationale, buddy. There's something entirely irrational about faith, and that's the beauty of it all.
{Faith is not inherantly Irrational. This is ne of those Liberal Lies they liek to sell. Faith, to them, is irrational because its blind beleif in soemthignnot proven. However, the Dictionary defines Faith as Lotalty, obedience, or beleif, or confedence. Faith can be based on reason, and is not inherantly irrational.}- Zarove
Speaking of which...are you familiar with beauty? You sound like an angry person.
{Ah the usual Ad Homonim... Liberals seek Beuty, and allowign peopel to be happy and free. Sadly, all they can do to win this is to out others down with difering worldveiws. See, the Liberal worldveiw is based on emotionalism and deenial of responcibility, thus allowign them to justify what they want, and it invent "Beuty" out of things liek Homosexuality, fornication, adultery, you name it. problem is in real life these thigns arent Beuiful.
I know Beuty myself, I am a poet. But Beuty is not sin, as sin always leads to destruction, usually it takes the road of sorrow.
By the way, it is interestignthat our Libera friend here actually produces words that are inangered, then said of another he sounds like an angry person. Nohtign in the post he responded to is actually angry. But in the Liberals repsonce post, anger abounds.
Naturlaly, the Liberal wants the conservitice o look heartless, angry,a nd dictatorial, that way the conservitive looks mean and less desirsble. However, the poins raised by the Conservitive are seldom if ever addressed, and if addressed, it is usually inthe form of a straw man, like hsi sttaement about Faith being inately Irrational.}- Zarove.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 04, 2004.
Zarove,"Protestants are conservatives" Zarove.
Yes and no. If you mean fiscal conservative, social conservative etc I say yes. If you mean religious conservative I say no. Few protestants (and unfortunately many catholics)if any agree with devout catholics on all the issues such as contraception, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, sex outside marriage, stem cell research, cloning, euthenasia etc.
-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.com), April 04, 2004.
I do not know what Protestant Chruches tyou refer to, but most do oppose divorce, Homosexuality, Sex outside of Marriage, ect...
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 04, 2004.
Zarove no protestant church on earth agrees with the CCC.My Episcopal brethren back homosexuality (see Gene Robinson) they also permit 1 divorce and remarriage. After that they won't remarry you in the church (pretty lame canon IMO).
All protestants think contraception is OK.
Pentacostals and Presbyterians (spelling?) believe in a woman's right to choose.
Methodists have just backed a lesbian's being allowed to continue to minister. They also accept divorced and remarried members.
All protestant groups frown on many immoral behaviors, but come up short on many as seen above.
-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.com), April 04, 2004.
Protestants have their own conservatives and liberals. The Evangelicals, if they don't absolutely hate Catholicism, are actually the Church's closest allies in terms of values; many have converted to Catholicism and many others defend their faith through Catholic philosophy. I had a philosophy professor who was an Evangelical with a love for Thomism.The liberals, meanwhile, are all over the place; many are no longer Christian (denying the Incarnation and so on).
Re: Bible interpretation, the Bible is inerrant and historical, but that does not mean that it was written like a modern-day crime report. There were no video cameras and no news reporters. The peculiar Western obsession with absolute correspondence (a 19th century distortion of 'adaequatio intellectus nostri cum re') was not in operation in the Sacred Authors. YES, the Holy Spirit was in operation, but the Holy Spirit chose to speak through 1st century Greek-speaking Palestinians, not 19th century Victorian positivists.
When people talk about the Bible as 'inerrant', they sometimes make one of two mistakes: they defend the truth of the Bible in a superficial, "just-as-if-they-had-a-video-camera" way, or else they say that its truth is "symbolic" in a smarmish, barely-true sort of way.
Both of these are grounded in the same error: the restriction of the word "knowledge" to signify only what modern science can tell us, and the expulsion of everything outside of this artificial "knowledge" to "fable and feeling."
Thus, I say:
1. It is a distortion to call the Bible "inerrant" if by that you mean only that every historical detail was "accurately" captured on paper. This is superficial and misleading; it imposes a narrow, contingent, and relatively recent notion of "the True" on a text that was written with Its Own Divine Truth; which may not always be reducible to our puny categories.
2. The inerrancy of the Bible may favor a kind of real knowledge for which it was necessary to push and tug on some of the "factual" details. (But it is important to see this in light of #3)
3. Frankly, once you believe in the Resurrection, there is no reason to withhold assent from any detail of the Gospels, regardless of whether historical science can verify them or not. Ignore the scholars! If Christ is risen, then we gain nothing by casting suspicion on any other part of the Gospels. Further, living in the Resurrection, we should not be bothered or upset by debates about the accuracy of such-and-such a story. Those debates are dust. They cannot stand before the Resurrection.
4. However, good scholarship is still immensely helpful in illuminating us with the setting of God's greatest work on Earth. On that note, I think it is highly unfair to call John Meier a "liberal Catholic." His book was never meant to injure anyone's faith, or change doctrine; it's just science, and he is very careful about the limits of science.
Anti-intellectualism is bad conservativism.
-- anon (ymous@god.bless), April 05, 2004.
Here is a very good interview with John Meier. Some notable quotes:About Meier:
"It’s a peculiarly modern quest—unlike the ancient or medieval worlds, our age wants the facts. Some in our society would say, “If you can’t measure it scientifically, it isn’t real.” Meier doesn’t buy that. And he would fault the most publicized current historical Jesus scholarship—notably a group called the Jesus Seminar—with falling into that trap."Meier a historian, not a theologian:
"I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they’re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed. Go all the way back to Reimarus, through Schleiermacher, all the way down the line through Bultmann, Kasemann, Bornkamm. These are basically people who are theologians, doing a more modern type of Christology"Meier affirms the Resurrection, does not consider its truth subject to his judgment:
"The resurrection of Jesus is certainly supremely real. However, not everything that is real either exists in time and space or is empirically verifiable by historical means... Thus the risen body of Jesus is indeed in continuity with the body laid to rest in the tomb. But nevertheless it has undergone radical transformation as a glorified, risen body."Meier mocking the Jesus Seminar:
"...he and I think a good number of Europeans are completely puzzled, if not aghast, at the Jesus Seminar and the phenomenon around it. I wrote him saying, well, you have to understand all life in the United States including academia, including scholarship, has undergone a certain “O.J. Simpsification.” Everything has been turned into televised soap opera. Robert Funk, head of the Jesus Seminar, at one point was planning televised sessions of the Jesus Seminar in which there’d be debates and then scoring; it almost sounds like a hilarious send-up. You can’t mock it because it is such a caricature even to begin with!"I suppose maybe you could fault him for downplaying the importance of Aquinas and Augustine for Catholic faith and theology. However, Meier represents a HUGE improvement in the historical study of the Bible: humble, self-conscious, and not interested in changing anyone's faith. I don't know about the others (certainly Andrew Greely's writings are embarrassing, heterodoxy aside, if only for their shallowness and lack of critical thinking).
-- anon (ymous@god.bless), April 05, 2004.
One last post! (Sorry, I had too much coffee)Here is the pertinent part of Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation:
"19. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed (3) after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ's life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. (2) The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.(4) For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who "themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word" we might know "the truth" concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4)."
-- anon (ymous@god.bless), April 05, 2004.
This is a great thread! (as heard from the peanut gallery)
-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), April 05, 2004.
The reason we have Liberal Chrisains, rather Protestant or Catholic, is because of the Liberal MO.They like having soem validity t their argument, and so they gain this by putting themselves in a position so they can claim legitimacy for their opinion.
Thus, Liberals, who want to appear spiritual but at the same time want to introduce their own Moral Outlook, and promote their own political vewis, can Jon a Church, ans then claim to be Christain and thus possess a full understanding of the Bible, and Christainity as a while.They then set about to alter, change, and reinterpret things to suit their end, claiminglegitimacy because " We are Christaisn and we belive in Gay Marriage." Thus adding credence to their claim that their is no real reason to Oppose Gay Marriage form a Christain Veiwpoint. ( In the lace of Gay Marriage, place Extramarital sex, living togather without marriage, Abortion, or other Liberal causes.)
Soem even get ordained, and thus like to poin to that as a mean of authenticating their claims.
Thus, from a Cahtolic Perspective, a Liberal may go throguh Seminary, be Ordained a Prisst, an then use that as a mean to trump Chruch treachigns by claimign that he, in his studies, has coem t adiffeent conclusion, and we all Shodl listen to him because he is a preist.
You see, the HCurhc is seen as an authority, the Liberals want authority, so they manage to join the CHurhc, and thus proclsaim their own opinion as a Christain, or even as a clergy, as a mean of promoting their own agenda.
( Of course, one may note that th reason tobecome Chrisain is to Serve the Lord and draw near to him, but Liberals never think that way.O)
As to Protestants not bein Conservitive, again, this is false. Agauin, I attended a very conservitive Chruch. Most I know are in this area. I have met Liberal Cahtolics.
I relaise Liberals like to feel superior, or like they can dictate spiritual maers to others, but this is a probelm wutht Liberalism overall, and not with a particular branch of Christainity.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 05, 2004.
Zarove,Sorry for the confusion. I was talking about Catholics being theologically liberal, ie. not going according to the teachings of the Church. If they don't follow the Church's teachings, they are protesting her authority, hence making them Protestants. Politically, well that's another whole issue that I don't want to get into here.
God bless,
-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 05, 2004.