Can we trust a sinful Church?

Blogged by James Preece on 6th August 2012

We evil bloggers spend most of our time sat in darkened rooms. It's not that we like the dark, it's just that the concentrating we have to do to maintain the constant feelings of hatred tends to bring on a headache and the darkness helps with that.

When I'm not sat in a darkened room trying to think up ways to make life more difficult for people I've never met (an activity which obviously has nothing to do with protecting my children and is entirely driven by malice) it is always nice to get an email from an enquiring young mind who is asking big questions at an age when I spent most of my time painting little models of goblins.

Anyway, with his permission, here is our brief exchange. His question...

Catholicism and history seems to be inseparable. My issue is in the absolute conviction the church encourages its members to have in the Church. No-one can say the Catholic Church has a perfect history. Of course not, who has? Yet, history is, as Catholics well know, is not simply past. Through the 'laying on of hands', the sacraments and the apostolic succession history is carried forward. This is where my argument lies.

By perpetuating the history of the Church, Catholicism does not leave much room for criticism or change. There seems to be a distinction here: Christianity and the Catholic Church. In the Church's embrace of history, it promotes the Church over (some) Christian principles. Why is it that, after five years in a Catholic School, I have not heard honest acceptance of some of the barbaric and flatly inhumane history of the Church? The Crusades, the persecution of protestants, the abhorrent Christianisation of South America, the opposition to the enlightenment and support for slavery come to mind. In other circumstances, I would not mind, as this is only history. Yet, in a Catholic environment that seeks to perpetuate and instrument this history, history should be available as it happened. By cherry picking its history (in sacraments, the Catechism and liturgy) the Church is guilty of contradicting itself over the importance it has in its past. I am not here to say I oppose history. I can fully imagine the beauty there must be in reading, praying and singing words that have done so for centuries; the beauty in receiving wine not dissimilar to the drink Christ took at the last supper; and in worshiping in buildings where worship has happened for possibly thousands of years. The Church - rightly - encourages and places importance in such aesthetic and spiritual beauty. But just as the Church venerates this history, it suppresses the history of torture, death and deceit; the very same history that is passed on through the apostolic succession.

I notice you quote Thomas More on your blog. It seems somewhat ironic that the Utopia that he lays out in his book mirrors the Church today. It seems good, very good at first. Later, however, all is not as good as first seemed. Thomas More, as I am sure you know, was cannonised by the Church in 1935 and then declared 'heavenly statesmen of politicians and statesmen' by Pope John Paul II only 12 years ago.

The Church, surely, is aware of More's fatal persecution of those who 'dared' to read the Bible in English. More burnt these 'English Bible readers' until charred and dead. And, I have argued, this is not simply history! This is passed on, sainted and then venerated by the most infallible of male human beings on the planet. Thomas More, a man who committed far worse than the martial use of condoms, not attending mass one Sunday or day of obligation or participating on a Gay Pride parade. A killer, a callous and pernicious murderer who shows absolute contempt for human life whilst simultaneously promoting the Catholic Church. How, not as a Catholic but as a human being, can you nod through the veneration of such a hypocrite? The very type who Christ, who all can admire, had the most loathe for. It is interesting to note that Christ did not criticize the prostitutes, the drunks or the thieves. No, he turned his criticism to the establishment, the pharisees and the ostensible 'holy men' (the Popes of their time). Those who acted contrary to how they preached. I do not claim to know what Christ would say now. But, it would not surprise me if he had a lot to say to the Catholic Church. Despite their spread of the 'body of Christ' and his message, the Church is responsible for barbaric acts of contempt for human life, doctrinal prejudice and often undue judgement. I am sure he (or her!) would be very impressed with the loyalty of 1.2 billions Catholics. My only question is, loyalty to what? Christ or the Church?

My initial rhetoric that the Church does not encourage change embodies the conviction in the authority of the Church. From what (little) I have seen, I see that this is not confined to the Vatican. Catholics take it upon themselves to carry out the teachings of the Church. Whereby I have seen hetresexuals judge homosexuals, males judging females and the stick in someone else's eye noticed before the log in their own. If the judgement of God really is so great, as the church purports, then why do we need to judge? No more than whites can tell blacks they are inferior can hetreosexuals tell homosexuals they are immoral. Why not look to your own sexual immorality before leaping upon someone else's? One man sleeping with another will not affect another. If this is wrong, God will decide. Not, I believe, the Pope or any other inherently fallible human. If the homosexual is disordered or 'wounded' as I heard an (otherwise wonderful) priest tell our class then so is the priest. By denying the natural call for sexual relations they are, by the Church's teaching on homosexuality, disordered. Or, no more disordered than the homosexual who foregoes procreation for the sake of a relationship with another. Akin to the Pope (or any other Clergy) who foregoes procreation for the sake of a relationship with God. Why is the stick in the other noticed before the log in one's self?

I know I have missed out in the above the commitment of missionaries, the kindliness of priests and the work of CAFOD and SVP. Essentially I am throwing stones to see what is returned.

Many thanks for reading. I am greatly anticipating your reply!

My response..

The following answer to your email may seem a bit strange and I hope you don't think I am trying to dodge the issues - we can have an in depth discussion about the details of particular historical events if you want to, but I find it more helpful to talk about these things in general terms.

For example - of torture, slavery, death, war, deceit etc. These are all specific examples of moral evils. What your email takes a lot of words to say is simply this: The Church has permitted, encouraged and engaged in moral evil. In fact, we can boil it down even more, we can simply say: The Church has sinned. That might sound like dodging the issues but it is actually an admission of defeat. Yes, you are correct - the Church has sinned. You win round one.

At this point it is tempting to discuss the scale of it - a few white lies by a Pope in 1462 wouldn't be quite so bad as the wholescale genocide of native south americans by the Spanish Catholic Conquistadors (you can add that to your list if you like). But remember why we are having this discussion - we are trying to decide whether to trust the Catholic Church when she tells us the answers to big questions about God, Salvation, the meaning of life etc..

Obviously the scale matters - it matters terribly to the victims and it is vitaly important in discussions about how to avoid atrocities in the future and so on. But on this particular question - the question of "can I trust the Church?" - I submit that the scale is not important at all. An otherwise perfect Church that stole one currant bun from a fat kid in 1264 has clearly proved itself capable of being at fault, so how could I trust it?

There is no minimum safe sin level. It is not as though we could trust a Church that performed below a particular sin threshold. The Church didn't pass it's quota in 325AD or render itself untrustworthy when it reached a particular level of depravity. It's also something of a red herring to look at things like CAFOD and the SVP as though giving money to the hungry can some how cancel out burning people to death.

We can either trust a Church that sins, or we can't - and we know that the Church has sinned. That's what it all boils down to.

I'm going to leave that question hanging in the air for now before this email gets too long and it seems silly to proceed any further without giving you a chance to respond, but I do want to add two quick points:

Firstly, that from a scriptural point of view it seems we should expect the Church to sin. Jesus recruits sinful men one of whom betrays him to his death and another of whom denys him three times. Jesus then promotes the denier to "the rock on whom I will build my Church" and then almost immediately tells him to "get behind me Satan".

Secondly, that we should be careful what we wish for - would we actually want a perfect Church? I mean to say - am I perfect? are you? Neither of us really wants to join a club for perfect goody goody two shoes people. We both want a Church that is a "hospital for sinners". We object when the Church forgives St Thomas More for his involvement in the administration of cruel punishments, but is that forgiveness not the very thing we hope to receive ourselves?

Anyway, I look forward to your thoughts on all this,

James

P.S. I have ommitted from this email a whole category of questions the Church should ask herself about the future, quesitons like "should we continue to venerate St Thomas More?" etc. Those questions are massively important if the Church is true, but if the Church is false then why waste our time? Who cares if a false Church venerates St Thomas More? If the Church is false then to hell with it. Why waste our time?

Rate this blogentry: + -

+11

Reader Comments

Chrysostom said...

As always, the Old Catechism by which I was taught the faith, supplies the answer:
Q 93: "What do you mean when you say that the Pope is infallible?"
"When I say that the Pope is infallible, I mean that the Pope cannot err when, as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians, he defines a doctrine concerning faith and morals, to be held by the whole Church."

Our Lady Help of Christians - pray for us.
St Athanasius - pray for us
All Ye English Martyrs - pray for us.
St. Charles Lwanga and Companion Martyrs of Uganda, who died resisting homosexual rape - pray for us.

Jack Regan said...

Some good answers there.

This is always an area which interests me. All Catholics have to face the Church's history, and I remember how much stress it gave me when I came back to the Church in my twenties.

The fact is that we are presented with some pretty dire things that the Church has done and there are basically three responses: the first is the revisionist response, which says that most of it is made up. This has it's uses, but it's credibility only goes so far. Saying that the inquisition and the recent priest abuse scandals have been wildly exaggerated, for instance, is quite correct, but saying that it's all boloney just doesn't wash.

The second response, which you often see on the far right, is to say that things like burnings at the stake etc did happen but that they were actually good and justifiable acts. There is one particularly well-known blog (amaZingly) where this view used to be quite common in the comboxes. It's just nuts, plain and simple and is born of a desire to prove that the Church can never be wrong. Something even the Church itself doesn't claim.

The third response is to remind ourselves and others that we are human. Yes, the Church has sinned. Even Peter sinned after being made 'the rock.' It happens.

I'm obviously a proponent of the third response, and in a strange sort of way I find it comforting to know that the Church has human frailties. I also think that there is a limited place for the first response though, as some revisionism is required. The scale of the abuse scandals, for instance, has been wildly exaggerated by the media and the Church's role in slavery, to give another example, is also badly misrepresented:

The Church supported slavery in an era where absolutely everybody else did, and she sinned by doing so. What the Stephen Frys of the world won't tell you though, is that the Church was one of the first and most powerful voices to break ranks with this and actually started speaking out against slavery in a time when it just wasn't cool!

New Friend said...

James

Has there been any more correspondence, or is that it? Your questioner asks some good and well expressed questions, but whilst you express the hope that he doesn't think you are dodging the issues, you nevertheless do so. You sidestep them pretty comprehensively in your generalisation. I just wonder if he, or she has come back to you again.

To summarise your answer you say we all "sin", the Church included, but what we need is a "hospital" which cures us and not a utopia where no "sin" exists.

I don't think that your questioner would disagree but I also don't think that what was being asked. I think what he, or she, was asking was why the things that were highlighted are conveniently hidden and disregarded when the history of the Church, both ancient and modern, is being discussed. You seem only to refer to the heroic and bury the bad. As we can learn as much from the bad, as from the good, this seems strange. You are far from alone in wishing to concentrate upon success and to forget failures. Most do the same but you claim to be better than most, so why?

I don't accuse you, or any of the other regular posters, but here in the Catholic Philippines there is often a total lack of morality amongst a large section of society. They are often regular church goers who seem to believe that so long as they turn up at church and confess their "sins" their slate is wiped clean and they can go out and do whatever they like again. I am quite sure that you would not approve of this attitude but for me there is an echo in it of the generalised answer you gave your questioner. You "sin", the Church forgives and forgets.

shieldsheafson said...

The history of the church and/or its most difficult doctrines are more often the easiest for unbelievers or doubters to use to attack Christian religion. You know the kind of question; "Can I really believe that marriage is indissoluble? Can I really believe it is possible to go to hell as punishment?"

The single most important point upon which to focus ones attention is this; Can I trust the Catholic Church as the final repository of revealed truth? If you can, all the rest follows; if you cannot, it makes little difference what else you believe, or disbelieve.

"[Belief] of its nature breeds a reaction and an indifference. Those who believe nothing but only think and judge cannot understand this. Of its nature it struggles with us. And we, when our youth is full on us, invariably reject it and set out in the sunlight content with natural things. Then for a long time we are like men who follow down the cleft of a mountain and the peaks are hidden from us and forgotten. It takes years to reach the dry plain, and then we look back and see our home. What is it, do you think, that causes the return? I think it is the problem of living; for every day, every experience of evil, demands a solution. That solution is provided by the memory of the great scheme which at last we remember. Our childhood pierces through again... "

Belloc

Catherine said...

James

after 5 years in a "Catholic" school I notoice our young friend has NO understanding or appreciation of the Real Presence, Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, referring to the 'wine' as something similar to that which Christ drank at the Last Supper. But then after his long screed there comes the real purpose and meaning of his attack....the equating of homosexual acts with those oradined by God in marriage. Therein lies the nub of our poor young friend's [and so many of his peers who have attended so called Catholic schools] problem. They have been systematically robbed and denied the fullness of Catholic truth on sexual ethics nourished and nurtured by a full and proper understanding of the dogma of the Eucharist. As for his slur on the sainthood of St. Thomas More it is interesting to note that not only did he encourage his daughter Meg to publish the treatise on the 'Our Father' in English. She did in fact accordoing to the historian John Guy have probably the best linguistic skills in Europe at that time to translate the Bible in to English b ut that it was the bishops who failed to act not her father. And let us not forget that the London Times itself described More as 'the most saintly of humanists, and the most human of saints.' (Hugh Trevor-Roper in the Sunday Times newspaper. 27 November 1977)
and of course as far as the proper reading of history is concerned inlcuding ecclesiastical let us not forget:
"we are realists in expecting that evil always attacks, attacks from within and without, yet that the forces of good are also ever present and that,*in the end, the Lord is more powerful than evil and Our Lady is for us the visible, motherly guarantee of God�s goodness, which is always the. ast word in history."

Pope Benedict XVI, Interview with Journalists during Flight to Portugal, May 11, 2010

Christian said...

Catherine

Allow me to respond - I would not like for James to have to answer for something he did not write or, I imagine, mean. As 'our young friend' I feel obliged respond to your qualms personally.

I do not take kindly to your beginning line. Particularly because it is a Catholic precept that I am not the only one who may have 'NO understanding or appreciation of the Real Presence, Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ in the Holy Eucharist' - by definition, the Church talks about the Eucharist as 'transcending human reason'. It is impossible to understand fully therefore. I am not Catholic but i understand that the Eucharist is the transubstantiation of substance. Although the wine remains alcohol - as in, should you drink a bottle of communal wine after blessing you would not be exempt from drunkenness - but its substance is no longer alcohol but the actual blood of Christ. This mirrors the incarnation of God through Christ. God becomes man as the wine becomes blood and bread becomes body.

Second, you try to rubbish my points on the premise that they are not Catholic points. Exactly. They are my points. You seem to suggest that a Catholic education should necessitate to indoctrination whereby every pupil comes off the conveyor belt a loyal and believing catholic. I would love to see your face when I tell you that not only did I attend a Catholic school for 5 years I also became the head boy of a Catholic school in my last year. Shock Horror! Just because a school teaches Catholic ideas doesn't mean every pupil should accept them - that more like totalitarianism. Thought control. You seem to have a real problem with personal opinion, autonomy and discretion.

If my education has taught me anything it is not to accept. Don't accept the church; don't accept atheism; don't accept communism; don't accept the tory party; don't accept Gandhi; don't accept Bin Ladin. Question everything or nothing. There is nothing I am sure of. Apart from: don't accept something because someone tells you to.

I really resent the manner in which you expect a Catholic Education to equal unnerved catholicism. And then to call it a 'so called Catholic school'. On the contrary, the R.E teacher (a theologian from Cambridge) and the local priest, Fr. William Massie, are two of the most interesting, enlightened and righteous people I have met. Despite holding forth on their own strong catholic beliefs, they exercise a great deal of humility and reason. For that reason, I have nothing but respect for the both of them.

I am sure they would want the pupils to question, to argue and to debate. Afterall, it won't mean anything if one doesn't believe in it.

James said...

Hi Christian,

I think Catherine's objection to this part of your email is reasonable:

"I can fully imagine the beauty there must be in reading, praying and singing words that have done so for centuries; the beauty in receiving wine..."

The context here is that you are saying you can see beauty in the way Catholics view things. Imagine if I had written about Anglicans: "I can fully imagine the beauty there must be in eating bananas". You would say that I do not know much about Anglicans!

You are describing our views and you say "receiving wine". Yet we do not receive "wine" - we receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

I don't think Catherine expects the school to force you to accept that we drink the body and blood of Christ, but it is a bit dissapointing that after years at a Catholic school, such an important point never came up.

Christian said...

Hi James

Fair enough - I understand its of the upmost importance to Catholics that the drink is not 'wine' as it is the blood of christ. But, I don't quite follow how that is the schools failure - I hope I expressed that I understood the transubstantiation of the matter. If I didn't, it would be unfair to blame the school.

Just to re-enforce, I am arguing here that Catholic/faith schools are good institutions as they encourage thoughtful discussion as well promoting their own catholic principles. The transubstantiation came up regualarly during the five years and my reference to 'wine' obviously doesn't show that. Please pardon my misuse of a word; it's my fault not the school's.

New Friend said...

Christian

Well done, you make strong and relevant points which I completely agree with. There have been many past discussions about the role of Catholic schools with many feeling they are failing to "teach the faith". I have argued that this is not and must not be their role. This is the task of parents and the Church. The school's job is to teach and open minds.

Mockery of the Sacraments said...

I think that James answers the question in the Post Script:

"Those questions are massively important if the Church is true, but if the Church is false then why waste our time? Who cares if a false Church venerates St Thomas More? If the Church is false then to hell with it. Why waste our time?"

Shieldsheafson offers us the following insight:

"The single most important point upon which to focus ones attention is this; Can I trust the Catholic Church as the final repository of revealed truth? If you can, all the rest follows; if you cannot, it makes little difference what else you believe, or disbelieve."

I agree. If the RC is true then all the shortcomings of the church can be excused, they are nothing compared to the ultimate truth of life ,the universe & everything. If the RC is false then even if it is otherwise blameless we have no salvation to gain from associating with it.

Mark Dobson said...

You know, James and MotS, I think perhaps you�re cutting the Church too much slack.

�Who cares if a false Church venerates St Thomas More?�

The Church proposes St. Thomas More as a model to imitate. If he, in fact, behaved wickedly, that�s something to be concerned about whether or not you think the Church is anything more than a bunch of like-minded people.
There�s a bust of Mussolini in the Doctor�s surgery in Offagna; I could say that he�s free to think as he likes about Mussolini and put more or less what he likes in his surgery, which would be true, but the fact is that the ideas that Mussolini represents are reprehensible and deserve opposition.

�If the RC is true then all the shortcomings of the church can be excused�

Nuts to that. Who will excuse the sex-abuse scandal? Scandalously, the Church does believe in forgiveness, but that forgiveness was paid with the Blood of the Son of Man, who will return as the judge of man. The sins of the Church are �nothing compared to the ultimate truth� in the same measure that Christ�s incarnation, life, passion and death were nothing. We can�t just write off our sins because we happen to be in possession of the truth.

Mike said...

I don�t want to get involved with the big issue (it�s too big for a comment) but I do have a question. Several people have associated the Church with slavery. It has been my understanding that the Church has opposed slavery. I see part of the problem: the confusion between the decisions of the Hierarchy (eg. The Pope) and the behaviour of individual Catholics (eg. the Conquistadores). Could someone who believes that the Church (the teaching hierarchy, not individual Catholics) has supported slavery please provide some evidence for this.

Scout said...

As late as 1866, Pope Pius IX declared:

"Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons � It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given."

shieldsheafson said...

Scout, I am unable to locate this quote in any Vatican documents: I would be grateful for a reference.

For your info; Pius in the second century had been a slave; in 1462 Pius II declared slavery to be "a great crime" (magnum scelus); in 1815 Pius VII demanded of the Congress of Vienna that the the slave trade be suppressed; Pius IX branded the "supreme villainy" (summum nefas) of the slave traders.

Mark Dobson said...

This one definitely deserves an answer, doesn't it?

Of course, you don't need to go so far as papal pronouncements to pose a problem: slavery was permitted under the Mosaic law and St. Paul exhorts slaves to obey their masters.

The quote, apparently, is from an Istructio of 1866, but I only find citations online. It seems to have been referenced in published works.

The following links provide some background information on the matter:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/961706/posts

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm

Now, I hope to find the time to look into this properly later and draw some actual conclusions, but my impression is that this is one of those cases in which the Church has simply erred (along with the rest of civilisation), and developed it's understanding in time (along with the rest of civilisation). And, clearly, members of the Church have also sinned greviously.

Not every teaching of the Church must be considered infallible, still less every statement of a Pope.

shieldsheafson said...

Many thanks, Mark. The first reference certainly reminds one how important 'context' is and how we choose to translate, for example, the word 'servitus' to 'slavery' but not 'servitude', eh?.

Mark Dobson said...

Yes, a very delicate business, translation. As a professional translator, I'm finding the "pro multis" discussions very interesting.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350294?eng=y

You won't impress many people by saying that the Church condemns slavery but thinks servitude is alright, however!

shieldsheafson said...

Mark, 'Servitude' could mean people sent to prison, for example.

However, not only is context in these matters vitally important but also what axe is being ground by those who repeat this type of comment and who may be antipathetic to the Church.

Christian said...

At my school, I co-founded and edited a theological journal that featured the opinion of staff and student on matters of religion. There was no conformity to any one school of thought - we had atheists seperating religion and science, Catholics supporting gay marriage, agnostics questioning themselves and others etc. It was great. There was such a vibrant range of opinions, styles and subjects that even the local priest (Fr.Massie) joined in!

If you're interested, here is a list of questions I wrote to encourage thought:
What do you think about the idea of a God?

- Were the English Crusades a Christian act?

- What might it mean for Christians if there is a God, but it is the Muslim God?

- Will a baby who dies minutes after child birth go to hell because of not knowing God?

- Was Henry VIII�s decision to break with the Roman Catholic Church right?

- Should we be discussing faith?

- Do animals have souls? What is special about Humans?

- Is evolution the only scientific explanation for the existence of life?

- Should the Catholic Church have lots of money?

- Even if Jesus was not the son of God, did he exist? Should this matter?

- How far can the Bible be metaphorical?

- Does religion encourage people to accept their present state � however bad � with

the idea everything will be alright in heaven?

- Are all religions equal?

- Any fiction or short stories, however abstract.

- Does homosexuality deny the Male and Female distinctions?

- What do you think of art and religion?

- Has there been a bad Pope?

- How did Dr. Martin Luther King act upon his Christian religion?

- Is Christian faith compromised by Christian scientific theory?

- Science and Religion. Discuss.

- Did maths contradict religion for Albert Einstein?

- What good is there in being old fashioned in mass?

- Religion has been the deaths of millions. Has God?

- If Humans have free will, how does God know what will happen?

- Is God a person, an emotion or a universal truth?

- Even if Christ did die a bloody and violent death, why aren�t the holocaust survivors

and sufferers of cold blooded torture called the Son of God too?

- What happens to all the people who were born, lived and died before the time of

Jesus?

- Even though the Queen is the head of the Church of England, does she live

a Christian life?

- Should Christianity mean a denial of pleasure?

- How can Christians sleep at night?

- How have you come or been turned away from Religion?

- If Jesus is going to come again, why should we bother with a Christian life?

- Can you really predict the end of the world like some noisy American pastors?

- Can anyone be a religious scientist?

- If the Bible, the Pope or the Church says something, does that make it true?

Salisbury John said...

When I worked in Catholic schools it was policy of those schools that no pupil other than a practising and fully bel;ieving, Mass attending, Communicating [fully beleiving in the doctrine of Transubstantiation -NOT gay marriage] pupil was appointed Head Boy or Head girl since they were to be role models for what a young Catholic ought to be. You are living proof that most Catholic schools are not Catholic enough or at all now to espouse such a policy never mind implement it and that such schools are factories of lapsation not agents of evangelisation. All the more reason to pray for you and so many like you who know no better and who have been let down by ALL those who ought to have formed you in a loving loyalty to Christ, His Church and Her teachings.

New Friend said...

John

So if an individual uses their own mind, comes to their own conclusions and rejects the faith that YOU believe, this is a failing of the school and it's employees? What you are saying is that no-one has the right to honourably come to another view. You expect the school to ensure that their pupils never arrive at a different decision, which is, quite frankly, ridiculous. We need to encourage sharp, open and enquiring minds and not brainwashed, unthinking robots.

Christian said...

Amen.

Marguerita said...

No one can force anyone to believe anything. I don't think it unreasonable for a Catholic school to be expected at the very least to give its pupils a full understanding of Catholic teachings. Most young people leaving Catholic schools do not even have that. The school cannot force them to believe anything, but it should select for positions of authority those who do hold to the teachings of the Church. The whole point of Catholic schools is that they should pass on the faith. Whether pupils decide to continue in it after leaving school is entirely up to them, but they should at least have a full understanding of what they have left behind.

New Friend said...

Marguerita

"The whole point of Catholic schools is that they should pass on the faith."

This is simply wrong. The whole point about a school, any school, is that it should teach the curriculum on offer, open minds to enquiry and prepare the young people to face life.

Passing on the faith is the task of parents and their Church.

The Catholicism, Methodism, Islamism, or whatever else in a school, is demonstrated through it's ethos and the way it performs these duties.

These constant demands that "your" schools are failing to deliver sufficient Catholic instruction fails to comprehend that they are not "your" schools. Every child is entitled to receive a decent education, but what is decent is determined by the whole of society and not by narrow, sectional interest groups.

James said...

There you go with that word again...

"should"

You have no justification for using that word. "Should" is a supernatural concept and you don't believe in the supernatural.

Your only definition of "should" is "what the majority want" which history clearly demonstrates is not always a great idea.

New Friend said...

James

Firstly it was not me who used "should". I was quoting Marguerita!

Secondly I don't follow your reasoning that "should is a supernatural concept"! It is simply a term used to express probability, which is hardly a very complicated matter.

Thirdly, you have just read my definition of "should" which is clearly not what you suggested I believed. Please stand corrected.

Fourthly, I do not believe that we should always do what the majority want. That is a parody of my opinion. Indeed I do not believe in government by popular opinion or plebiscite. I believe in representative government, of the type we enjoy in the UK, whereby we elect full time representatives empowered to take decisions on our behalf.

James said...

"I do not believe that we should always..."

You definitely used it yourself there.

What on earth do you mean by "a term used to express probability"?

Mark Dobson said...

It might mean that in a completely different context, like �it should rain on Tuesday�, for example. Here it�s obviously nonsense.

New Friend said...

James

Of course I used it myself, but only because I was referring to the original quote from Marguerita.

"Should" means it is probably going to happen, thus a term of probability. Less certain than "will" and more likely than "perhaps". It can also convey your personal approval of an action, to a weaker degree than "must", but it is primarily a term of probability.

You ask for explanations from me. I give them. I ask from you and you ignore them. Why is this?

James said...

So if I say "Catholic schools should not indoctrinate their pupils" you would interpret that entirely as a statement of probability or personal approval with no absolute moral element at all?

New Friend said...

James

Everyone's personal approval will include judgements made using their own moral code, or lack of it. Put the approvals of our representatives together and we have a policy, which then moves from "should" to "will".

Perhaps you can explain how "should" can possibly be considered supernatural as we have been diverted away, quite deliberately I believe, from the main point onto a side issue.

James said...

The statement "you should not murder your wife" is not a statement of probability, it is a moral judgement.

If we take your view that this is a personal preference then the above sentence really means "I would personally prefer it if you did not murder your wife" - fair enough, nothing supernatural there.

However, if you consider murder to be wrong even when the majority of people think it is right, then you are appealing to a code of ethics which exists outside of the material world.

Science cannot build an instrument to measure whether or not a wife should be murdered.

New Friend said...

James

I would respectfully suggest that you are using the word incorrectly. The commandment, I believe is actually "Thou shalt not kill".

That allows for no doubt whatsoever. It is prohibited. Your statement allows for choice, which, I am quite sure, you don't intend to convey.

We have argued before, and could do so endlessly again, as to how and why society reaches these judgements. You believe it arises from "outside the material world" whilst I don't. I think it is behaviour developed through evolution, to be the best way to organise ourselves.

James said...

So murder is wrong simply because people whose DNA has lead them to that view survived better than people whose DNA lead them to think that murder is okay?

New Friend said...

James

Do we really want to turn this into a discussion about how evolution works?

You are entitled to believe that morality comes from elsewhere. I, and many others believe it is the product of evolution. There is plenty of information available to support this, which you can find if you really want to understand the point. For starters read this:-

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/morality_evolved_first_long_before_religion/

Murder is not wrong because those who rejected it survived better. It is that those groups who evolved social structures which enabled a better quality of life (which included rejecting murder) progressed and prospered. Murder became accepted as immoral through the evolution of morality.

James said...

By your logic, a social structure could have evolved (and may yet evolve) in which murder is accepted and even encouraged in such a way as to allow that group to prosper and progress. That social structure could prove so successful that all non-murdering structures would die out.

Would murder then be okay?

New Friend said...

James

I hope and believe that it is very, very unlikely as the cultural norms are now deeply embodied in all societies. Evolution has brought us a long way and we are not going to be turning the clock back.

The only way that I can conceive of a society coming to regard murder as socially acceptable would be if life became such a struggle that to survive you had to kill. The only way that could possibly happen is if too many people were competing for too few resources.

So to return to one of our recent debates, I can conceive of a future situation in which unrestrained population growth leads to a breakdown of currently accepted moral standards, including the possibility of murder becoming acceptable.

You can see this already happening here in the Philippines. When faced with a choice between starvation or taking actions you would regard as "sinful" people find sinning easy, including murder. "Guns for hire" are common here and many murders carried out for the equivalent of �75.

For those within the groups carrying out the murders they are OK, because they are feeding their families.

My expectation is though that evolution will ensure that we learn how to control ourselves before such a disaster occurs. Not that I expect much help from you!

James said...

You talk about murder "the possibility of murder becoming acceptable" but that is not my question.

My question is - once murder becomes "acceptable" is it still wrong?

New Friend said...

James

Speaking only for myself I would, of course, hope that I will always regard murder as wrong. Others have already changed their minds.

I hold my belief because of my evolved morality. As you are taking us round in circles if you have not already done so please read the web article I referred you to.

Mark said...

That's plenty to be getting on with; it reads like a list of episodes of CAL.

"Has there been a bad Pope" has a very simple answer, which is yes.

Same for "Are all religions equal?" No, they're different.

"Can anyone be a religious scientist?" So it would appear:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists

Of course, most of the rest require a bit more effort.

Christian said...

Not convinced by your answer for 'Are all religions equal?'

This touches upon an incredibly important matter that is overlooked a lot, the purpose of religion. I would be very interested what anyone thinks about the purpose of their religion.

You claim all religions are different. Maybe so: but many share a belief in the metaphysical existence of a deity. As do many religions stress the importance of doctrine and practice. Silence, similarly, features across many religions. Religion tends to see man as 'fallen' and in need of guidance/redemption etc.

The point of the question was to get an interesting discussion about the purpose of religion and common ground they may share.

Mark Dobson said...

�Not convinced by your answer for 'Are all religions equal?'
...
You claim all religions are different. Maybe so: but many share ...�

You surely appreciate that whether or not religions are similar or have things in common is a different question to whether or not they are equal?

�I would be very interested what anyone thinks about the purpose of their religion.�

Reminds me of the Pennny Cathchism:

�Why did God make you?

God made me to know him, love him and serve him in this world, and to be
happy with him for ever in the next.�

The purpose of religion is closely related: God�s revelation, and revealed
religion, is intended to bring us to ultimate happiness, through knowing, serving and loving God, the true source of all joy.

Christian said...

I am no theologian, but wouldn't Islam teach a means to 'ultimate happiness' through 'knowing, serving and loving God'? It may not be worded the same, but perhaps the religions are different in their means but share the same end. Aren't all religions concerned with 'ultimate happiness'? There is, then, perhaps scope in the idea that all religions are equal in their ends if not means.

I am not saying they are, it was just a question to get readers to think about the purpose of religion.

Mark Dobson said...

I daresay. Not sure about the �loving� part, but I�m no student of Islam either. I think all religions aim to explain/satisfy the fundamental needs of mankind: given that we are all human, it makes sense that all human religions overlap. However, they can�t all be factually correct, since they differ.

I don�t think Buddhism, for example, is concerned with ultimate happiness; Nirvana, I am led to understand, means �cessation� / �extinction�, freedom from passion and desire. I think reconciling that aim with happiness might be a bit tricky.

The Catechism (843-4) has:

The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."

In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them.

Nicolas Bellord said...

I think the problem here is that whilst it is good to have an inquiring mind and discuss difficulties it is the role of a Catholic school to first of all teach the faith and secondly to discuss it. All too often in discussion groups somebody poses one of the questions about the Church and one gets a variety of opinions from fellow Catholics which usually goes to show that they have not the first clue about what the Church actually teaches and why. The sequence should be first to set out the teaching of the Church and the reasoning behind it and then discuss it. Otherwise muddle and confusion follows.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

I am appalled at the attitude apparently held by so many Catholics over their schools. Do they not realise what doors they leave open for other faiths to take advantage and indocrinate their own children in a similar way?

As a society we need to ensure that ALL schools operate to the same standards, teach broadly the same curriculum, and put tolerance and understanding of others high on the agenda. I don't myself believe that any school should actually directly instruct in any faith during the normal school day. It's faith base should be demonstrated through behaviour and pupils inspired to want to learn more as a consequence. The actual teaching should be out of school, in church and at home. Shoving it down their throats at school is much more likely to result in rejection than allowing just the taste to be given, so they are hungry for more.

epsilon said...

They don't confine it to religion - It's more or less how all subjects are taught!
Nothing must trounce the holy grail of opinion. "What's your opinion?" not "here are the facts, arguments, contradictions, etc. get to know them before you offer your own opinion" - hence the low standards in everything!

New Friend said...

epsilon

Which is fine. To form an opinion you need to be aware of the facts. All the facts, and not just the opinions of a particular group.

Would you agree that the arguments in favour of atheism, abortion and contraception should be presented to Catholic schoolchildren in an unbiased way, utilising as much time as the arguments in favour of belief, against abortion and against contraception?

That is one of the points of school, alongside teaching basic knowledge. To allow the children to have access to all shades of opinion so they make their own enquiries and can form their own opinions.

You don't seem too interested in this. You just want them to imitate you.

Salisbury John said...

9. The Catholic school forms part of the saving mission of the Church, especially for education in the faith. Remembering that "the simultaneous development of man's psychological and moral consciousness is demanded by Christ almost as a pre-condition for the reception of the befitting divine gifts of truth and grace"(6) , the Church fulfills her obligation to foster in her children a full awareness of their rebirth to a new life(7). It is precisely in the Gospel of Christ, taking root in the minds and lives of the faithful, that the Catholic school finds its definition as it comes to terms with the cultural conditions of the times.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_19770319_catholic-school_en.html