All righty. I'm acting on impulse here, I admit, but this thing is heavy on my mind and I'm infinitely curious about how my readership is going to react and what my online "Friends" think
( Read more... )
I would say that that is a very cynical article. Once again, someone has misinterpreted the Catholic church, and has bashed it without having the slightest clue about what it calls people to believe. Catholics are taught to interpret the Word, not take it literally. This is what seperates Catholics from all other Christian denominations. Catholics are "contexualists" as opposed to "fundamentalists." The Catechism of the Catholic church teaches that "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church, the Magisterium." However, the Church teaches two senses of Scripture, the literal sense (such as the passages found in John referring to Christ's body and blood as the Eucharist) and the spiritual sense (such as the examples you stated in the article above). But all intellect aside, do you really think that the Catholic church would endorse the selling of your daughter into slavery or putting someone to death because they worked on the Sabbath? I think not.
"Catholics are taught to interpret the Word, not take it literally. This is what seperates Catholics from all other Christian denominations. Catholics are 'contexualists' as opposed to 'fundamentalists.'"
Although I'll be the first to admit I am not Christian, I respond to this as someone who was raised in a fervently Episcopalian family, attended all Confirmation classes, and was taught religion by my father, who both ran a church and went through Seminary.
I have to argue this point. I'm happy to see that you have found this amount of flexibility in your Church, but PLEASE be careful when making generalizations about "all other Christian denominations." From the other point of view, other Christian denominations see Catholicism as far more strict because you have someone who is considered infallable. If the Pope is doing the interpreting, you don't have much left to do yourself; whereas, an Episcopalian is encouraged to make those decisions based on their own understanding of Christianity.
This is why an (read: one individual) Episcopalian church can come to the conclusion that the "sin" of being gay is about on par with the "sin" of working on the Sabbath or the "sin" of eating shellfish. In the eyes of some, these are all hopelessly outdated, and need to be understood as such when accounting for the age of the Bible. In the eyes of others, most of these are outdated, but homosexuality is not. It's a personal decision and (unfortunately) a question of comfort level.
While the church teaches that the Pope is infallable soley on matters of the faith (interpreting the Scripture), it also teaches that one must rely on one's own conscience when coming to any moral conclusion. Yes, as a Catholic, a person is responsible for following the teachings of the Church, but conscience plays a pivitol role in the religion as well. Does this mean that a conscience is without error? No, of course not. The Pope, as a man and as a human being, is not infallable. It is in matters of the faith that he is 100% infallable, not because he is God, but because he represents him as a father of the Church. In responce to "making generalizations," I didn't mean to categorize, but being a fundamentalist is not any worse or any better than being a contextualist, it is just another way of viewing things. Many people misinterpret the Catholic faith, as well as many other faiths, because of what they hear and what other misinformed people preach as truth.
"But all intellect aside, do you really think that the Catholic church would endorse the selling of your daughter into slavery or putting someone to death because they worked on the Sabbath? I think not."
...While further reading seems to indicate a non-bigoted, sensible view of homosexuality (for which I commend you), I think you entirely missed the point of the Dr. Laura article. It is Satire, not Cynicism (I have the WestWing monolgue on my LJ...I think it's quite good). The article is not saying that the Catholic church would endorse the selling of ones daughter into slavery or putting someone to death because they worked on the Sabbath, but just the opposite. It is saying: If it would be ridiculous to adhere to a literal interpretation of these sections of Leviticus and Exodus, why is it not ridiculous to take the same viewpoint of the sections deeming homosexuality an abomination. I think your hearts in the right place, but you jumped a bit too quickly to the defense of your Church.
I'm Charlie, by the way. I just figured after lambasting you for 3 minutes I might as well throw you a name. :-)
Good luck on your journey to Spiritual Salvation, --Charlie
Well, in that case...I feel like a moron =) lol. But there are a lot of people that do believe in what that article was making fun of, and I think its pretty sad.
I'm Aimee, by the way, as you've probably gathered. ;)
Reply
Although I'll be the first to admit I am not Christian, I respond to this as someone who was raised in a fervently Episcopalian family, attended all Confirmation classes, and was taught religion by my father, who both ran a church and went through Seminary.
I have to argue this point. I'm happy to see that you have found this amount of flexibility in your Church, but PLEASE be careful when making generalizations about "all other Christian denominations." From the other point of view, other Christian denominations see Catholicism as far more strict because you have someone who is considered infallable. If the Pope is doing the interpreting, you don't have much left to do yourself; whereas, an Episcopalian is encouraged to make those decisions based on their own understanding of Christianity.
This is why an (read: one individual) Episcopalian church can come to the conclusion that the "sin" of being gay is about on par with the "sin" of working on the Sabbath or the "sin" of eating shellfish. In the eyes of some, these are all hopelessly outdated, and need to be understood as such when accounting for the age of the Bible. In the eyes of others, most of these are outdated, but homosexuality is not. It's a personal decision and (unfortunately) a question of comfort level.
Reply
Reply
...While further reading seems to indicate a non-bigoted, sensible view of homosexuality (for which I commend you), I think you entirely missed the point of the Dr. Laura article. It is Satire, not Cynicism (I have the WestWing monolgue on my LJ...I think it's quite good). The article is not saying that the Catholic church would endorse the selling of ones daughter into slavery or putting someone to death because they worked on the Sabbath, but just the opposite. It is saying: If it would be ridiculous to adhere to a literal interpretation of these sections of Leviticus and Exodus, why is it not ridiculous to take the same viewpoint of the sections deeming homosexuality an abomination. I think your hearts in the right place, but you jumped a bit too quickly to the defense of your Church.
I'm Charlie, by the way. I just figured after lambasting you for 3 minutes I might as well throw you a name. :-)
Good luck on your journey to Spiritual Salvation,
--Charlie
Reply
I'm Aimee, by the way, as you've probably gathered. ;)
Reply
Leave a comment