Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
From The Times:
THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.
The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million
worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible. “We should not expect to find in Scripture full
scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.
The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US. Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.
But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.
In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is “God’s word expressed in human language” and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions. They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”.
The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.” They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach. “Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.”
As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing. Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb. The bishops say: “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.”
Well, what an impressive step forward for the Catholic Church – and a slap in the face for the Fundamentalists. Maybe we can stop having the 'Literalist' Argument now?
About Me
- CyberKitten
- I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.
16 comments:
You know the world's in a bad way when the Catholic Church is the voice of reason. :)
BTW, we discussed this at my place a while back.
JA said: You know the world's in a bad way when the Catholic Church is the voice of reason. :)
My thoughts exactly. Frightening isn't it.
Thanks for the link. Informative - as is your site/Blog in general.
"THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true." Well what other parts aren't true?! And hurry up with that answer because I'm about to make a sacrifice here, hold still junior, just waiting on an answer from God.
(rotflmao)
I LIKE you... You're FUNNY.
I'll try & post a link to the actual document.
Maybe we can stop having the 'Literalist' Argument now?
doubt it.
The Catholic Church speaks for the Catholic church, only. They sure as heck don't speak for me. I don't believe in praying to Saints, I don't think priests that molest children should be allowed to continue their service in the church and I don't need to speak my confessions to a priest so that he can give me a recipe for getting God to fogive me. Frankly,
the only thing me and the Catholic Church agree on is Christ and him crucified.
Oh... I had a pretty good idea that this wouldn't be the end of things... This argument will be running long after both of us are dead Sadie....
well in the mean time I think it's important to make destinctions between the different denominations. I think it's pretty presumptious of you to say," a slap in the face for the fundamentalists" as if a fundamentalist's beliefs are that easily shaken.
Sadie said: as if a fundamentalist's beliefs are that easily shaken
Oh, I think fundamentalist beliefs are actually pretty unshakable. That's why they're fundamentalist. They are beyond reason. Hence using any kind of reasonable argument is quite pointless and very frustrating.
Then again, I am coming to the rather sad conclusion that it is rather pointless 'debating' any issue with Christians.
CK,
News for you - the Catholic church has *never* held to a fundamentalist belief in the infallibility of the biblical text. They have always held that it should be interpreted through the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the church). All they are doing here is restating their traditional position, it's only news because of the enthusiasm certain secularists in particular have for fighting culture wars.
And as for your last post on fundamentalism - well, Matthew 7:5 is brought to this Christian's attention by it.
CK said: Oh, I think fundamentalist beliefs are actually pretty unshakable.
Not necessarily so. I knew a very fundamentalist Christian woman for a number of years. Her faith began shaking when her husband, who regularly beat her and put her in the hospital, was told by her church elders to forgive him and it was her husband's role as leader of the family to discipline her and that she should search her heart to see what she did to contribute to the beatings. Then when he began to cheat on her in violation of the church's teachings, the church elders turned a blind eye. But when she began sharing her story with other battered women in the church and tried to get them help, they threatened to excommunicate her. She finally woke up and left the church. And another thing, she wasn't supposed to socialize with people outside the church, lest they tempt her into sin. But she became friends with me and refused to end the friendship. Then when I told her (after a few years of being friends) that I was gay, she still didn't end our friendship. She told me I was a better person than many she saw at church and needed to pray to God on the churches teachings, because some things didn't make sense. She's still very religious and strict in adhering to her beliefs, but has never rejoined another church. She tries to follow the Bible and what her heart and prayer tell her is right. I think people change when they're either hurt by the group they're in, someone they love is wrongly hurt by the group they're in, or they end up walking a mile in the shoes of those they're taught to hate.
Then again, I am coming to the rather sad conclusion that it is rather pointless 'debating' any issue with Christians.
That's a ridiculous thing to say. I have been nothing but polite to you and I have demonstrated openmindedness on JA's blog since I started posting there. That might be a true enough statement for you personally to make but it's not a rule of thumb for everyone.
Van.V--
That's a sad story. However, stories like that, while difficult to understand, are not common practice.
I don't know of any elder in a Christian church (I know a lot of elders) that would encourage a woman to stay in an unsafe marriage. That's just not common place where I come from.
I don't know how common abuse is or how common it is for elders to ignore it, but I do know it was wide spread in the church my friend was in, and I do know, the Catholic church turned a blind eye for years to Priest pedofilia. So I'm certain abuse happens all over, and that unfortunately it probably happens more than I'd like to know. That said, I know many, many good people who are religious and are in churches that appear to treat their congregants with love and compassion and are tolerant of people not of their faith. Just goes to show, we're all human and all capable of both good and evil, regardless of what labels we cloak ourselves in.
Just goes to show, we're all human and all capable of both good and evil, regardless of what labels we cloak ourselves in.
I can totally agree with that.
I think that the Vatican has looked at the scientific evidence and they can't refute it. Believe me, they probably have tried to prove the earth is 8000 years old, but just couldn't do it. I don't think the Fundies have put in much of an effort though.
Oh yeah, check this out: http://juliasweeney.blogspot.com/
Yep, Julia Sweeney from SNL (remember Pat) is a former Catholic and now an Atheist. She even wrote a book.
okay, I was gonna wade in here, but rather than piss EVERYONE off, I'll take a pass.
random: Thanks for your comments. Can I ask you in future to post the verse you are refering to rather than just the reference (eg: Matthew 7:5) as some of us don't have Bibles handy (grin)
Sadie Lou said: That's a ridiculous thing to say. I have been nothing but polite to you and I have demonstrated openmindedness on JA's blog since I started posting there. That might be a true enough statement for you personally to make but it's not a rule of thumb for everyone.
Firstly I was having a bad day (or rather anticipating a few bad days) so it was very much a quick from the hip comment - probably brought on from a pointless argument I was having on Q's Blog. Second, I actually enjoy debating with you - even though we sometimes appear to be talking completely different languages at times. I hope my comment hasn't put you off coming back. Third, it WAS a personal statement hence the "I am coming to" at the start. I do indeed find discourse with Christians very difficult at times (as you no doubt have noticed) and sometimes the frustration boils over.
Post a Comment