October 17, 2005

• I remember being taught this when I was in Catholic School... In 7th Grade, 1986.
• Can we still persecute and oppress the unbelievers *as if* it were true?
• The Catholic Church has not announced that the Bible isn't all true. Catholic bishops in the UK, however, have again clarified their stance that not every Biblical text is intended to convey historical or scientific fact. There's nothing new in this story. It's akin to a press release announcing: "Some clerics believe there was no actual 'Good Samaritan.'" Just because a writing isn't historical doesn't mean it can't teach truth, be inspired, or function as a resource for faithful living. Sloppy writing of a non-story.
• That's ok, most catholics I know aren't Catholic.
• Eisegesis is much more fun anyhow.
• I agree with Melyplaps. This article is not all true.
• Although, AbiCop has an interesting point. And Stabat, too.
• Not that I'm knocking the link, ladight.
• I'll have exegesis, no cream, and a chocolate-covered please. So if "The" Catholic church isn't saying this - then is it the case that official dogma/doctrine/whatever is that the Bible is literal? Just askin' cause I dunno.
• hush, tequikd.
• >Just because a writing isn't historical doesn't mean it can't teach truth, be inspired, or function as a resource for faithful living. Certainly. However, many of the faithful appear to have missed the parts about loving your neighbor, judging not, etc., but they'll argue with you about whether there was a great Flood and a boat with two of every kind of animal. A caution against too-literal interpretation is not unwelcome.
• hush, tequikd Sorry pest.
• I think you'll be wanting the debates on hermeneutics and sola scriptura there Pete, and maybe consider the scholastic tradition too. I'm kind of hazy about all this really, but I'm in love with the vocabulary.
• You Infidels will die and burn in Hell. (Or some place like it, although it may not really be very hot at all.)
• ahhh, christianity, the best idea never put into practice... so, any word from the new pope on this? or is he too busy counting the ww2-era jewish gold fillings in his private bank vault?
• I haven't been able to find any comment from the Pope. However I'm interested to hear the response from Catholic leaders in America. I haven't seen any mention in the big American newspapers.
• This wouldn't have happened if Quiddy became Pope. Not that I'm still bitter.
• petebest: This is not out of line with mainstream Catholic thinking, as I understand it.
• Is mainstream Catholic thinking, though, the same thing as the doctrine/dogma/whosywhatsits of the Catholic Church? (Err the Roman Catholic church I think I mean) Only curious because me no know. Hulloooo zeeba neighba!
• "The United Kingdom: Ticking off The Vatican Since 1534."
• It's the Protestants who think the Bible is the ultimate authority, accessible to everyone. Catholics have always said it needs to be interpreted in the light of tradition and by the proper authorities, haven't they? I believe they weren't originally very keen on lay people being able to read it at all.
• But they were kind of pissed at Galileo.
• Is this their copout on the stoning the witches and sleeping with your daughters parts? But the parts about every sperm is sacred is still valid, right? 'Cause I'd hate to go to hell for using birth control when I should have been stoning witches instead.
• Just because a writing isn't historical doesn't mean it can't teach truth, be inspired, or function as a resource for faithful living. Sloppy writing of a non-story. 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. Is this what you mean? 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.” Sloppy reading of a "non-"story.
• ladyknight, you haven't seen any shock or surprise in American papers because it's not news - it's a reiteration and clarification of something that's been true for the Church for ages. Perhaps it seems more noteworthy in a nation that's mostly Protestant, while the US has a large Catholic population. The Catholic Church has never believed in the whole super-literal sola scriptura thing. That was more the product of the Protestant mindset, which suggested that every person could [and should] interpret the Bible for themselves. During Roman and medieval times, this mostly meant that the studies of theologians contributed to the catechism; more recently, historical findings and yes, even science are also taken into account. In Catholic schools today, students generally learn about the Bible as a historical document as well as the Bible as a religious text. That includes learning about the two creation stories in Genesis, the flood myth [common throughout the Middle East] which became the story of Noah in the Bible, all that stuff. The idea is that the Bible is a holy text, but it's also a holy text whose many different stories were told by and eventually written down by humans. That's also why the Catholic Church does not have problems with evolution [although I'm sure there are a few ultra-conservatives who'd rather get rid of it.] So no, this isn't some big change, and it isn't the British bishops fomenting some sort of lonely theological battle against the Vatican. It's a bad piece of journalism relating something that's no news at all, at least not to anyone who is actually familiar with the modern Catholic Church.
• . . . hence, it's news to me. But thanks for the clarification ubersturm!
• It's a bad piece of journalism relating something that's no news at all, at least not to anyone who is actually familiar with the modern Catholic Church. Huh. It's interesting that you should come to this conclusion considering the ambiguity of many of these statements coming from the Vatican (it's almost like reading some sort of religious tome or horoscope). Still, it appears that many "modern" Catholics still sit on either side of the fence. Most recent reference on this, page however, is 1999. I'm pretty sure every Catholic since then has decided to throw inerrency to the wind¡
• It's worth noting that that's not a specifically Catholic source. The vast library's worth of writings by Catholic theologians, popes, bishops, saints, etc. over the past two millenia are incredibly contradictory. It's pretty damn hard for even a Catholic well-educated in their faith to make their way through it all without some guidance. Most of the sources on that site that flat-out support the idea of literal biblical truth are, well, older sources. Saint Augustine's writings, while important, do not dictate what's in the current version of the Catechism. Given how much the Church has changed in the past few centuries, I'd be leery of taking anything much older than Vatican II as proof of "what the Church thinks today." Several of the other sources [e.g. Catholics United for Faith] are groups _of_ Catholics, but they're not the Vatican - they're not necessarily any more representative of the Church's official views than, say, groups that support female ordination [who I'd support, but that's another matter.] Of the remaining statements, which are all ambiguous or against a totally literal reading of the bible, I've only ever heard authorities take the view presented by the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: essentially, some version of limited inerrancy. [This was the consistent message I heard at two Catholic schools and several churches in a large diocese.] Can I guarantee that Pope Benedict won't make a papal decree tomorrow stating that the bible is inerrant? No, and sure, given the growing conservative movement and the Pope's comments about pruning the Church, it's possible that things will change soon. However, in the last few decades, the mainstream view presented in schools and churches has been less ambiguous than your link would suggest.
• However, in the last few decades, the mainstream view presented in schools and churches has been less ambiguous than your link would suggest. It'd be nice to see some reference to this being mainstream is my beef with your statements. Are you talking about Europe? North America? Africa? Asia? South America? Australia? I fully understand that there are positions on either side in the Catholic Church. I'm just trying to say that this article that has been linked has validity in the fact that it expressly states limited inerrancy rather than the official ambiguity that seems to have predominated the issue. My link was all about rationalising the article for what its worth because multiple people called it, among things, a "non-story" and "shoddy journalism". I was trying to discover and explain the pertinence of the story because any time someone calls something regarding ecclesiastical change a "non-story," something smells Jesus-fishy.