The Catholics are hardly biblical literalists...

Right, delmoi. I went to a Jesuit school, and was told from when I was 5 that a lot of the Bible was just a story.

Yeah, I too went to Catholic school and learned that the Bible was a metaphor, a collection of historical stories.

What next, are you going to tell me that water is wet?

A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph had named their baby after a swear word.

HAH!

it's only stunning if you haven't paid attention. say what you want about Ratzinger, he's not a semi-illiterate TV evangelist.


you silly Protestants

O.K., long but necessary.

this is established, official Vatican policy (1994), backed by then-Cardinal Ratzinger. in a word, the Vatican rejects fundamentalism and literalism, considering them wrong and dangerous:

The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods. It pays no attention to the literary forms and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.

Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.

Fundamentalism often shows a tendency to ignore or to deny the problems presented by the biblical text in its original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek form. It is often narrowly bound to one fixed translation, whether old or present-day. By the same token it fails to take account of the "re-readings" () of certain texts which are found within the Bible itself.

In what concerns the Gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus). At the same time fundamentalism neglects an important fact: The way in which the first Christian communities themselves understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his message. But it is precisely there that we find a witness to the apostolic origin of the Christian faith and its direct expression. Fundamentalism thus misrepresents the call voiced by the Gospel itself.

Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith. Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices—racism, for example—quite contrary to the Christian Gospel.

now, let's all slam the Vatican ad libitum, be my guest. but let's do it when they do deserve it

Great post, matteo.

My father is a Catholic, and he's also a theoretical physicist. He doesn't take the bible literally, and he thinks it's ridiculous to do so. He votes--and is--liberal. He doesn't see why science and god are mutually exclusive.

He doesn't proselytize--in fact, he hardly ever talks about being Catholic, or about Jesus, or any of that stuff. He's in love with physics.

He publishes a lot--look him up, he has the same name I do. He was briefly (and controversially) famous for a paper he wrote, but not for subverting science in the name of religion.

This doesn't really surprise me at all; this is the kind of Catholic ideology I was raised with, before I refused to go to church anymore.

I hate all religion, but this news--coupled with matteo's excellent post--really does not surprise me. Catholics are into metaphors and mysteries.

In a stunning turn of predictability, fenriq, an unbeleiving nonreligionist who by rights really shouldn't give a damn has snarkily posted something inaccurate that even if true would only concern beleiving religious folk, in another lame attempt to feel superior to someone or anyone. film at 11.

*Some* parts ...?

Actually, quonsar, I'm a non-believing atheist who does give a damn about the constant assault of religion on my life when I do not care to subscribe. I hate that religion invades every aspect of my life even though I've willfully chosen a non-religious path. It galls me that religion is forced upon me whether I want it or not.

As for the superiority stuff, spot on, mate. You have nailed me yet again, you dashing mastiff of mental muscle. Thanks for telling me what I do and do not care about, I have such a hard time making up my own mind so I'm ever so pleased when such a brilliantly sagacious yogi as yourself makes it up for me.

Let's see, published today, opening paragraph reads "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." And then talks about priests in England, Wales and Scotland. Are any of you in England, Wales or Scotland? Were you raised and attended Catholic school in England, Wales or Scotland?

So it doesn't apply to you. Good for you. The article actually lists passages that are now to not be considered true, news to me. Sorry it wasn't news to you. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go and sit in the corner and cry because quonsar hurt my feelings intentionally and I think he's a big fat poopyhead.

Incidentally, thanks matteo, for the useful information and link.

Yeah, but matteo, I don't think anybody was slamming the Vatican here. If I divine motives aright, what amuses people is that the Vatican's "admission" undercuts beliefs widely prevalent in evangelical Protestantism. To me, this is a bit like blaming Russia when France farts.

In fact, many many evangelical Protestants do not believe Catholics are "Christian" at all. They regard the Catholic Church with the same suspicion that mainline Protestants reserve for Mormonism -- as syncretic heresy. By the same token, Rome has hardly been much of an ally in the Intelligent Design fight, no matter their common cause on abortion.

So I'm not sure they're too non-plussed by such an announcement.

Actually, quonsar, I'm a non-believing atheist who does give a damn about the constant assault of religion on my life when I do not care to subscribe. I hate that religion invades every aspect of my life even though I've willfully chosen a non-religious path. It galls me that religion is forced upon me whether I want it or not.

Actually, fenriq, I'm a sun-loving hydrophobe who does give a damn about the constant assault of precipitation on my life when I do not care to subscribe. I hate that water invades every aspect of my life even though I've willfully chosen an arid path. It galls me that rainfall is forced upon me whether I want it or not.

≡ Click to see image ≡

Cripes then, pisser for you.

What was that about a need to be superior to other people? Or does that not apply to you, oh smirkalonious quonsar?

By the way, move to Arizona, I hear it doesn't rain much there. Or try Death Valley, California, I hear that's quite dry too. Where should I move to get away from religion? Uranus might work but its awfully dark.

Where should I move to get away from religion?

perhaps, only the grave. perhaps religion is a part of human experience, like rainfall, blue sky, and diarhea. where would you go to escape those? perhaps, grasshopper, you are like a tiny grain of sand on a vast beach, part of an immense universe. and perhaps it's not all about you, not about what galls you, not about what you wish to escape. perhaps you will die and be forgotten despite what galls you, despite what you wish to escape. what if you were unhappy during your short life because something galls you? what if you failed to enjoy what you have because the world was fashioned other than as you would have it? what if your tombstone read "i lived, i loved, i strove mightily, i failed some, i succeeded much, i altered the course of history by being here and the whole fucking thing just pissed me off because religion galled me and i could not escape it." you know what galls me? night galls me. yet every fucking 12 hours, here it is again. goddam, night is ruining my life.

In other stunning turns of reality, crying children have admitted they don't like getting bullied, and veteran's groups admit some of their members may have participated in wars in the past.

There was an interesting piece (not available for free) in the (aww, for fuck's sake, Hugh, would you stop shilling for the) New York Review of Books (06Oct05) by Garry Wills about the intersection of American conservative Catholics and the current administration's capital-C Christian base; they're not such strange bedfellows after all. "Governing from the margins," he calls it.

It's funny, as an American, it really burns my ass that I have to keep up on articles of other peoples' faith. Would that I didn't have to know anything about these people and their religion -- don't get me wrong, I respect others' beliefs and rights -- but the political sway they wield (and the religion they continually and unconstitutionally inject into American public life) means I would ignore them at my own risk.

I should be able to look at the Pope the way I look at the British royal family: people who mean an awful lot to an awful lot of people all over the world, but who mean nothing to me. That should be okay.

When I was in high school, I took a class in Hebrew school just on the book of Genesis. It was really fascinating...we got very in-depth. I never really thought about it, but there are two completely different creation stories in that book...different enough so they can't both be true, even for the most literal creationist.

Hugh Janus, thanks for saying what I meant to in a much clearer way.

quonsar, in case you didn't notice, I'm not a windmill, you can stop trying to tilt me. By the way, you used to be witty and funny, what happened?

night galled me and i could not escape it.

In fact, many many evangelical Protestants do not believe Catholics are "Christian" at all.

I found this out only recently, and it just blows me away.

Night? Rainfall? Uh, yes. Religion is just like that. JUST LIKE THAT. Why try to defeat the inevitable with light bulbs and umbrellas?

Sheesh, "candle in the dark" has never been so appropriate.