quote:I honestly don't think that they have been heard and understood. It's more along the lines of an ultimatum, shutting down the debate before it can even really be had.
Perhaps the leadership of the Church, again, does not feel that there needs to be a debate...?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: Lisa, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that Temple was the title more reserved than Synagogue within the Jewish faith. What are your criteria for calling a place of worship a synagogue?
and Kate, hopefully the feeling is reciprocal, but I like theological discussions with you because I always get the feeling that for the most part we're agreeing, but still can get in fairly heated debate (a la with Dag and you there)
IIRC, the Reform movement calls their houses of worship "temples" because one of their tenets is that they're not going to rebuild the Temple, ever, and that Judaism can be complete without it. Or something. I'm probably all wrong, but I do know the Reform movement refers to them as "temples."
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: Lisa, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that Temple was the title more reserved than Synagogue within the Jewish faith. What are your criteria for calling a place of worship a synagogue?
There's only one Temple in Judaism. It's currently not standing in its place on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, because it's being occupied by the Muslim Waqf (with the connivance of the Israeli government). The Reform movement started calling their centers "temples" explicitly to deny the Jewish hopes and dreams of seeing the Temple rebuilt.
As far as my criteria, I'd say at a minimum that they'd have to observe Jewish law. A synagogue is about praying to God. Praying to God while at the same time spurning His commandments is a bad joke at best.
[Edit: or what KQ said.]
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I honestly don't think that they have been heard and understood. It's more along the lines of an ultimatum, shutting down the debate before it can even really be had.
Perhaps the leadership of the Church, again, does not feel that there needs to be a debate...?
There are been many things in the past that the Church did not feel needed debating. Some of those things have changed due to debate being eventually allowed. Some have survived intense debate. If male-only ordination is divine law, it should be able to withstand debate.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't believe I am siding with TomD. on just about everything he has said here! Wow, amazing!
I must say that the idea of a debate on divine law sounds to me laughable. A divine law exists or it doesn't. There is no argument involved, just the declaration by those who have authority to speak for God to say one way or the other according to a revelation from God who should know the answer without a debate. If you can debate a divine law then it becomes, for me, a de-facto human law.
The only debate I see worthy of contemplation is if it came from God or not by discussing proper modes of revelation and authority. Something that eventually brought the Protestant reformation. It is also a question that forms the basis of my religion even beyond Protestant denominational developments.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional, are you under the impression that the Pope receives divine revelation? More so than the rest of us? That some magic occurs and the Pope gets a special "hotline" or something?
That isn't how it works and if you have any notion of the history of the Catholic Church that would be pretty clear.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure I understand this. Can we safely assume that divine law can withstand debate? Why?
Heh, that's a very good point. Unless humanity's understanding of a contentious issue became equivalent to God's understanding of that issue, that issue (whatever it may be) will be unable to withstand human debate.
Human debate not necessarily being the alpha and omega of right and wrong, of course. Although it can often be for people.
It's strange to me, though, the way some gender differences are objectionable-such as male-only clergy-and others aren't, such as women growing new human beings.
Social, cultural, and political issues aside, personally I tend to think women are at least equivalent to men in spiritual oomph, and perhaps even superior, insofar as growing new human beings is a spiritual thing.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If men were physically capable of "growing new human beings" I would have no problem with them doing so. Why do you think (if you do) that women are physically (or emotionally, spiritually whatever) incapable of being clergy?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If men were physically capable of "growing new human beings" I would have no problem with them doing so. Why do you think (if you do) that women are physically (or emotionally, spiritually whatever) incapable of being clergy?
Since there are no physical requirements for being in the clergy (physical labor requirements, that is), I can only assume the reasons for this lack of permission cannot be physical. Emotionally, I believe women to be just as capable of hard decisions and dedication and discipline as men, so I can only assume the problem isn't there either. Spiritually, though...well, that's a different matter.
Clearly, in the established doctrines of our own respective churches-the difference being that I generally respect mine, and for you established doctrines don't mean very much*-there is some spiritual difference between men and women. I don't know what that spiritual difference might be. I'm not God, a prophet, an angel, or someone with special insight into the matter. I do have faith, however, that God says there is. By process of elimination, since the restriction cannot be on a physical or emotional basis, I believe it is a spiritual restriction, based on some unknown requirements or rules that men fulfill and women do not.
It's a personal belief of mine, but I feel that a spiritual restriction is also the ultimate reason behind 'growing new people' gender roles as well.
*This sounds like a shot, and I'd be lying if I said that your approach to being a member of an organized religion is not baffling and often frustrating to me. But it's not meant as a shot. It has simply been my observation that whether or not something is an established doctrine or not has very little to do with how much you respect that doctrine.
---------------------
Incidentally, there will most likely come a time when through the application of science the gender restrictions involved in who can grow babies and who can't will only be a hurdle, not an insurmountable wall. When that time comes, why do you feel men should not give birth to babies, if in fact you do feel that way?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, some established doctrines of Catholicism are absolutely vital to me. Those doctrines are so important to the core of who I am that I can't be anything but Catholic. They are also core doctrines of Catholicism.
All doctrine is not created equal. And not everything that the Pope says is established doctrine. Establishing doctrine does require some consensus. Although God may not offer referenda, contrary to Occasional's opinion, the Church does. "Because I say so" even when pronounced by the Pope, is not sufficient for establishing doctrine.
If men become physically able to bear healthy babies, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do that.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh, some established doctrines of Catholicism are absolutely vital to me.
Granted, but what makes them vital to you isn't that they're established doctrines, or am I mistaken?
quote:If men become physically able to bear healthy babies, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do that.
Well, men won't just 'become' physically able to bear babies. It would have to involve some major gene-tinkering or serious surgery.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Maybe we need to define "established doctrine"? If you mean that if the Catholic Church - not just the Vatican - held as true some central principle that I, after pray, study, consultation, more prayer, could not reconcile with what I deeply bellieve, could I somehow believe contrary to what I believe?
I doubt it. I did not relinquish my ability to reason or my own access to the Holy Spirit when I was received into full communion.
Fortunately, I am not likely to be faced with such a situation. Here is a big part of the reason why: for a teaching to be authoritative,it must be received. It isn't very likely that I am going to be the only Catholic who fails to receive teaching that everybody else gets. It certainly isn't true of, for example, birth control. According to a 1994 poll, 91% of American Catholics my age (and 87% of Catholics over 65) believed that one could be a good Catholic and practice artificial birth control. The vatican's ruling on birth control is not received. If you understand the history of that ruling, it would make sense to you.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the reason behind the priesthood being male only is connected to women's ability to make babies. In the Catholic Church, the priesthood is devoting your whole life to the service of God (in the ideal circumstance). A woman cannot have a baby and devote herself fully. The big flaw in my reasoning is that if we assume God does value babies over priests, why do nuns exist?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Occasional, are you under the impression that the Pope receives divine revelation? More so than the rest of us? That some magic occurs and the Pope gets a special "hotline" or something?
I am not a Catholic. That is a question for members of that faith to answer. I am answering from my own religious beliefs. In fact, I would have to say that:
quote:That isn't how it works and if you have any notion of the history of the Catholic Church that would be pretty clear.
. . . is one of the reasons I am not Catholic . . . or Protestant for that matter. I believe in Prophets with a capital "P" who have at least the possibility of a direct line to God. Discussion on an issue is important, but ultimately coming to a decision by argumentation is to me humans taking the place of God. As a matter of fact, the Catholic belief in authority is one of the reasons I respect Catholics, but recently the "liberalizing" of the faith has made me think it is becoming its own version of Protestantism.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fortunately, I am not likely to be faced with such a situation. Here is a big part of the reason why: for a teaching to be authoritative,it must be received. It isn't very likely that I am going to be the only Catholic who fails to receive teaching that everybody else gets. It certainly isn't true of, for example, birth control. According to a 1994 poll, 91% of American Catholics my age (and 87% of Catholics over 65) believed that one could be a good Catholic and practice artificial birth control. The vatican's ruling on birth control is not received. If you understand the history of that ruling, it would make sense to you.
Let me say 'official doctrines', then. It just seems to me that for you*, there's an awful lot of useless and superfluous infrastructure and governing authority around. Specifically, any infrastructure and authority that disagrees with the point of view you have.
Now, you can suggest that I don't understand that, but the fact of the matter is that I do understand that. It's what I said earlier, in fact, with a slight word change from "established" to "official". Some people are willing to accept an official doctrine they don't understand or agree with and live by it, because it is official and they trust those officials involved.
You are clearly not such a person is all that I'm saying. To you**, whether a doctrine is official or not is almost irrelevant.
*You meaning you specifically, kmbboots. I cannot recall a time I ever saw you post, "I disagree with such and such official Church doctrine, but I will live by it anyway for thus and so reasons." Thus the official clergy of the Catholic Church is, by and large, irrelevant to you insofar as they disagree with you.
**I would not normally speak so freely about the religious notions of another person, but you've spoken in depth about these issues many times in the past.
------------------
And just to cover all the bases: I don't doubt you're a well-meaning person, working to maintain the best and most honest relationship with God that you can. It's just that your approach to the hierarchy in a church that is run and led and organized around that hierarchy is frustrating. I would liken it to being a Boy Scout, and saying, "To hell with merit badges and scoutmasters." No pun intended.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional, do you know the history of the Protestant Reformation? What Martin Luther was protesting?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I'm not sure what your are asking. Could you narrow down the question? Or are you just interjecting random, "why religion anyway?" kind of stuff? That would be okay, but it may (again) widen this discussion past usefulness. At least for me.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
History, tradition, the same reason that democracies are better than dictatorships, that we are all part of the Body of Christ, that we are reasoning human beings, that God reaches out to all of us...
I'm still not sure where to begin answering this.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
'Tradition' outside of church tradition doesn't seem to have much merit to this particular question, to me anyway.
Now, from a purely pragmatic point of view...you're right. Actually establishing a doctrine within an organization does require consensus to be that organization's doctrine. I was not aware religious was such a pragmatic exercise, though.
quote:...that we are all part of the Body of Christ, that we are reasoning human beings, that God reaches out to all of us...
When did God start-or stop-reaching out toeveryone, then? Was it in the Catholic Church's past, when the commonly accepted doctrine was one of hierarchy? Or is it now, when apparently God reaches out more completely to the leity than it does to the clergy...insofar as the latter disagrees with the former?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the confusion here is between the actual will of God and the teachings of the church. Like someone said earlier, heaven is not a democracy--what God says is what goes. However, the church has been wrong about His will before, and once enough people realized it, practices have changed. One thing that comes to mind is indulgences.
Birth control, for example. I've been to classes about why the church bans birth control and I've read a bit on my own, and the reasoning sounds very weak to me. It honestly sounds like the Church decided they didn't like birth control for fear it would encourage promiscuity, and developed the theology backward from that point. This is one reason why the teaching is so widely ignored in the US (and probably also why the Pope has softened the ruling for cases where aids is a risk). I would say this is a case where the will of God is not actually being expressed by the Church, and the teaching should be changed.
I said earlier that I would be fine with the Church deciding to allow women to be priests, but after thinking about it for awhile, I'm not so sure. I think that women and men have differences that go beyond biology; that there are spiritual differences as well. I know that one of the reasons for the 'men only' rule is that if the Church is the bride of Christ, priests take the symbolic role of the bridegroom. Maybe a woman would not be able to fill this role.
I think this question should be opened to debate, because there could be many interesting arguments made for and against it.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that God has ever stopped reaching out to everyone. Remember though, that the Catholic Church was very heavily influenced by the culture in which it formed. That culture was one where governance was generally by monarchy or even empire, where the average person was not considered fit to rule themselves, where most people were illiterate, uneducated peasants accustomed to obeying their lords without question.
Eowyn-sama, you might be interested in reading a book called, "Turning Point". It is the story of one of the very few women who were on the Papal Birth Control Commission. A commission that, despite largely comprised of celibate men and later including bishops and cardinals, overwhelming recommended that the Church reexamine its position on birth control - in 1966.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That does sound interesting, but a quick amazon search shows all kinds of books by that title, who was the author?
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:History, tradition, the same reason that democracies are better than dictatorships...
But none of these things are Catholic doctrine. You seem to be divorcing the practices of the church from the will of God completely here -- and as I understand it, that's incompatible with Catholic teachings on the subject.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Catholic teaching, Tom? By history and tradition, I am referring to the history and tradition of the Church.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Church has stated what is necessary for a doctrine to be ex cathedra or otherwise binding. None of those statements include consensus among the laity.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Church has several different types of infallible teaching. "Revealed deposit of faith" does not mean just to the Pope.
Why don't you tell me what you think is necessary for doctrine to be declared infallible. Are you talking specifically of papal infallibility and do you understand the history of that idea? Are you referring to the infallibility of councils? Are you referring to the ordinary, universal magisterium? Are you referring to submission or to assent? Pre-vatican II opininion or post? Or to what is sometimes referred to as "creeping infallibility" that we are experiencing?
That way I won't have to waste a lot of time trying to explain a complicated concept to someone who is just playing devil's advocate in the first place.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think, kmboots, what people are asking is if you believe in the authority of the Catholic Church or not. If you do, what do you mean by that belief other than rhetorical as a member of said organization?
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do believe in the authority of thr Catholic Church. I don't believe that authority resides soley in the Pope.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do believe in the authority of thr Catholic Church. I don't believe that authority resides soley in the Pope.
'Solely'? Not to nitpick, but it seems to me that you don't believe any authority resides in the Pope, beyond the Pope being an individual Catholic, that is. Obviously you haven't given a 'Kmbboots religious autobiography' or anything, but I can't remember the last time I heard you discuss a Catholic concern in which your decision was swayed by the Pope's authority.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: I think the confusion here is between the actual will of God and the teachings of the church. Like someone said earlier, heaven is not a democracy--what God says is what goes. However, the church has been wrong about His will before, and once enough people realized it, practices have changed. One thing that comes to mind is indulgences.
Birth control, for example. I've been to classes about why the church bans birth control and I've read a bit on my own, and the reasoning sounds very weak to me. It honestly sounds like the Church decided they didn't like birth control for fear it would encourage promiscuity, and developed the theology backward from that point. This is one reason why the teaching is so widely ignored in the US (and probably also why the Pope has softened the ruling for cases where aids is a risk). I would say this is a case where the will of God is not actually being expressed by the Church, and the teaching should be changed.
That is what I've been trying to get at (although I understand and respect the birth control thing, complicated as it will eventually make my life). If the Church is not representing the will of God (divine law), then we are obligated to work to change it. How can we be sure that we are abiding by divine law if we refuse to even consider that it might be different than current teaching? I haven't seen very much honest consideration of the arguments in favour of female priests to think that the Church has fulfilled its mission.
I don't want a Church that bends to the world's opinion. I don't want a Church of entitlement (I am owed priesthood!). I do want a Church that does everything it can, examines every issue, rigorously seeking out the will of God. If I felt at all that this had happened with the issue of female priests, I would accede to it. Reluctantly, perhaps, but I would.
quote:Originally posted by Eowyn-sama: I said earlier that I would be fine with the Church deciding to allow women to be priests, but after thinking about it for awhile, I'm not so sure. I think that women and men have differences that go beyond biology; that there are spiritual differences as well. I know that one of the reasons for the 'men only' rule is that if the Church is the bride of Christ, priests take the symbolic role of the bridegroom. Maybe a woman would not be able to fill this role.
I think this question should be opened to debate, because there could be many interesting arguments made for and against it.
I find the spiritual differences an intriguing facet to this. While it could go one way, the way you presented, it could be seen from a different angle. What if those spiritual differences make it difficult to see the persona Christi in a man? What of those who become so alienated from the Church because they cannot relate to a male representation of God, and/or cannot find a female representation? I've often heard this regarding victims of rape or abuse - a "father" God is entirely alien. Not to mention that there are feminine representations of God in the Bible.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I don't generally argue about issues where there isn't any particular disagreement. I am quite enthusiastic about many of the Church's social teachings. And many of those teachings have influenced my beliefs and my actions.
I do think, though, that this idea of "top down" Catholicism (when we view the Vatican rather than Christ as the top) is a dangerous aspect of a hierarchical institution. There has been a great deal of "push back" to the reforms made at the Second Vatican Council and this is a matter of concern for me.
And it is no secret that the current Pope and his predessor lost a lot of my trust with the way they handled the problem of sexual abuse among priests. They protected (or tried to) protect the hierarchy and their own power rather than protecting the Church. Believing that the power structure of an organization is the organization is a common failing of leadership. We are not exempt from that failing and I think it is one of things that is most likely to lead us astray in the present day as it has in the past.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh, I don't generally argue about issues where there isn't any particular disagreement. I am quite enthusiastic about many of the Church's social teachings. And many of those teachings have influenced my beliefs and my actions.
Well, that could certainly lead to my possibly mistaken impression. It happens in a community like this (well, in a community like this for me-I tend to focus more on contentious threads).
Which of the Church's social teachings would you not have adhered to had it been for the Church's stance on that subject? Or, if there are many, which to you is the most striking example? Or, if there are none, which is the most striking example to you of a Church stance that has had a big impact on your own personal social and political practices and beliefs?
Edit: This is getting quite personal, so I zero perspiration if you'd rather back off or keep it generalized.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
To answer this question, the Church's stance on social justice, my duty to the poor, my opinion on the death penalty (for a few examples) have all shifted due to Catholic teaching. (I used to vote Republican!) Moreover, Church teaching has deepened and clarified my understanding of many issues where my thinking had been in the right direction but unformed and strengthened my ability to act according to God's will.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting! Although I should note (although it's not the stereotype, with good reason) that voting Republican does not preclude favoring social justice, sense of duty to the poor, and most especially opposition to the death penalty.
Just to be clear, you're saying that those things are examples for you of where you used to believe one thing, and then when you became Catholic (or a more active Catholic-I can't recall if you were born to it or are a convert), you eventually held beliefs in opposition to your old ones? I'm just not sure because of what you go on to say, about being formed and strengthened, rather than being dissuaded entirely.
Social justice (in which I personally include 'duty to the poor') and the death penalty have both been issues for which religion has partially or completely changed my mind. It's funny when mentioned in this discussion, but for me it was originally a Catholic perspective which changed my beliefs on the death penalty. Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
kate, the problem I have with your recent statements about the hierarchy is that, as mentioned by others, you seem to have NO regard for it. I completely understand and agree when you say things like the fact that Christ is the head of the Church moreso than the Pope, but it seems like the papacy and the priesthood don't deserve any greater respect/consideration than anyone else amongst the faithful... which in my mind has always been one of the strong points of Catholicism... we're not a religion that solely relies on the scripture, but also on our history/tradition of learned and spiritual individuals who have helped us grow in our understanding of scripture, and God's role in our lives...
Frankly, though I don't always agree with the man in the position, because he is in fact a man, I think the Pope (and to a lesser extent the rest of the hierarchy) IS spiritually more in tune with God than the average person. Else why would he have been chosen through prayerful consideration by the College of Cardinals etc etc... Now I freely admit that there is the potential for corruption and that not every pope or priest or bishop has really been called (look to the middle ages for plenty of bad examples) but I have to think that there is something to it all.
And even if none of our hierarchy is really more spiritually strong than I or others at least they are in positions to better develop that spirituality. I mean, perhaps Father Tom starts at the same place that I do, but when he has the opportunity to pray and study and actively seek God for 50 times longer and harder than I do there's gotta be something there.
I mean, I'm a fairly intelligent person but if I have a legal question I'm gonna rely more on the lawyers and judges than I am on my own intuition. Even though I recognize that they may have gotten things wrong along the way...
Certainly there have been mistakes, and there continue to be, and trying to cover up those mistakes is generally reprehensible, but is there no value to having leaders of the flock?
Perhaps I and others are misinterpreting your views on the matter, but that's what I've been getting (indirectly) out of this.
I don't think anyone is necessarily saying that the hierarchy is perfect or always gets God's will right, but it does seem like you're saying that they don't have any better idea than any of the rest of us...
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that social justice is a bigger concept that just duty to the poor. I agree that voting Republican does not preclude social justice - it just makes it harder to find politicians who are likely to enact legislation aimed at social justice.
My beliefs about things were in the process of changing as I was in the process of learning more about and converting to Catholicism. It was a symbiotic process - I really can't say how much my changing beliefs informed by decision to convert or how much my decision to convert informed my beliefs. Those things happened in conjunction.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding of why women can't be priests in Catholicism is that a priest must stand in the person of Christ while celebrating Mass; and that when Jesus said that the Church is the bride of Christ he wasn't just using a metaphor but saying that the relationship of husband to wife is a microcosm of the relationship of Christ to the Church---i.e., that the husband is the primary giver of love in a marriage, and that the wife is the primary receiver of it, and that the husband must be prepared to lay down his life for his wife but not vice versa. Thus since a woman does not represent Christ in dealings with other people, she cannot represent Christ at Mass.
I know I'm not explaining this well, and I find it pretty repugnant, but I think this is Catholicism's general theology on the issue.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that social justice is a bigger concept that just duty to the poor. I agree that voting Republican does not preclude social justice - it just makes it harder to find politicians who are likely to enact legislation aimed at social justice.
I agree with the latter and note with regards to the former that I said, "...include 'duty to the poor'." Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt there's a Republican in the party who'd have a problem with the Old Testament's teachings on helping the poor. Go over your fields once and let the poor come behind you to pick up the gleanings. It's actually the Republican viewpoint in a nutshell. (Excluding most big corporate CEOs of course.)
Edit to add: If people have different views of what duty to the poor means, it's possible to meet one standard while failing another. If I elect a Republican and he lowers the interest rate on student loans or offers tax breaks to small businesses who institute profit sharing for part-time employees, I think he's doing a great job. Even if he cut funds to welfare. Different standard, different goal.
posted
I did not do a very good job of explaining Catholic teaching on social justice. I also want to make clear that I do not by any means think that Catholicism has a corner on this. In fact in some areas of social justice, we are quite backwards and far behind our sisters and brothers. This is particulary true in areas that have anything at all to do with sex or gender.
It is difficult to articulate where I sense the difference. I think that one area is the idea of corporate or communal salvation. You can't be Catholic without being part of a community. If we all aren't making it, none of us are. There is less of a "pulling oneself up by one's own bootstraps" idea. For example, the Catholic Church* has articulated specific support for unions, worker's rights, and wages that are determined by the dignity and worth of the worker rather than the market value of the work.
This is not so much charity but an understanding that we are all contributing to and all owners in whatever is achieved.
Again, this may not be unique to Catholicism. It was something I had not personally hear explained this way before understanding it from Catholic social teaching.
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I doubt there's a Republican in the party who'd have a problem with the Old Testament's teachings on helping the poor. Go over your fields once and let the poor come behind you to pick up the gleanings.
That is not anywhere near the extent of the Hebrew scriptures's teachings on how to treat the poor.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:For example, the Catholic Church has articulated specific support for unions, worker's rights, and wages that are determined by the dignity and worth of the worker rather than the market value of the work.
You seem to be using an inconsistent definition of "the Catholic Church" when it comes to pronouncements about specific social policies as a means of implementing Catholic teachings on social justice compared to pronouncements about other types of teachings.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
True. Bad habit. These teachings seem less in contention and less controversial - more received - than, for example birth control or divorce, but you are right.
Popes, councils, and many and various groups of bishops and lay organizations have articulated the social justice teachings I mentioned but it is inconsistant of me to label that as the whole Church.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
