No, i define as hateful the decision to stop doing good and necessary work because of the organization's intolerance towards a small segment of society (and therefore a small segment of the families applying for adoption). The organization is taking its toys and going home, thereby punishing families heterosexual and homosexual alike, and forcing the state to find other ways to link children who need homes to eager adoptive parents... this is an intensely immature reaction.
Why the absolute unwillingness on the part of the church to investigate it's own position and consider that maybe on this they're wrong? After all, the church requests reflection and re-consideration on the part of those with whom it disagrees.
You can try to couch it as "refus[ing] to participate in activity that one finds morally objectionable" but in doing so you have to overlook the greater wrong that is being committed here.
Let me demonstrate my point from another angle. Suppose you are trying to toss food to sheep, but among the sheep there are a few goats who occasionally get the food instead. If you don't want the goats to get the food, are you going to stop tossing food out there altogether? Sure, you've succeeded in keeping goats from getting the food, but at the cost of starving the sheep too.
So I suppose you would say the same to a pacifist who refuses to file as conscientious objector to avoid a draft?
You disagree with Catholicism on this issue. That's fine. But their position has not been disproven, so I don't see how anyone could expect them to abandon it just in order to play the state's game. One of the core messages of Jesus was not to be a hypocrite, and participating in actions contrary to their morality is hypocricy.
The state has made doing this good contingent on being unfaithful to Catholic teaching. This is no different than the law that required that taking political office depend on denying transubstantiation. Considering that there is more need than Catholic Charities can fill, it has decided to focus instead on the good that it can do without compromising its Catholicism.
Your analogy shows how you are approaching the issue completely differently that Catholicism is. Your focus is on the goats, but in the analogy, the thing that would most closely align with what Catholicism is concerned for is the food. And you have just demonstrated my whole point. The state is acting based on political concern for the potential adopters and not for the children.
The state is acting based on political concern for the potential adopters and not for the children.
Let's stop pretending that this has anything to do with the welfare of the children. If the Catholic Church cared so much about the welfare of Children, why did they turn a blind eye pedophile priests for decades (and probably much longer), shifting them from parish to parish instead of actually dealing with their abuses of children. The Catholic Church's issue with gay and lesbian couples adopting children isn't about child welfare at all, it is simply about political agenda.
If we are to be honest, we have to account for the reality that it was an era when psychiatry still believed that it could be treated and cured and bishops believed them .. another triumph of science. How extremely little the Catholic Church has done to advance a political agenda compared to how much she could do - Catholic obligation to obey the bishop on issues of morality is enforceable by excommunication, yet look at how much moral dissent and how few excommunications there are in this country - demonstrates that political agenda is not the primary motivator in issues like these.
If we are to be honest, we have to account for the reality that it was an era when psychiatry still believed that it could be treated and cured and bishops believed them
The Catholic Church was obfuscating abuse up until the media blowout in 2002, not just in some distant era. If it hadn't been for the lawsuits and publicity, it would probably still be church policy.
Catholic obligation to obey the bishop on issues of morality is enforceable by excommunication, yet look at how much moral dissent and how few excommunications there are in this country - demonstrates that political agenda is not the primary motivator in issues like these.
The reason there are so few excommunications in this country is that the Catholic laity has moved so far away from the dogma of the Catholic Church that to excommunicate everyone who disagreed with some part of church dogma would leave precious few Catholics left. The Catholic Church is to pragmatic to do that, however the hierarchy still fervently pursues its political agenda.
The fact that a very small group of bishops have to step in to enforce their anti-gay policies on the the board of Catholic Charities who voted unanimously to allow gay and lesbian adoptions speaks very loudly of the political nature of the Catholic Church's (not Catholic Charities) decision?
The Catholic Church was obfuscating abuse up until the media blowout in 2002
In the early 90s, the bishop of the diocese in which I grew up in mandated that a letter be read from the pulpit at all the parishes that informed us exactly what was going on. Catholics who were paying attention knew what was going on.
The reason there are so few excommunications in this country is that the Catholic laity has moved so far away from the dogma of the Catholic Church that to excommunicate everyone who disagreed with some part of church dogma would leave precious few Catholics left.
They would only have to do it to the politicians .. a very pragmatic course of action.
You've known a couple of people, and your experience falls vicitm to the same problem as so many of those studies .. small sample size.
In the early 90s, the bishop of the diocese in which I grew up in mandated that a letter be read from the pulpit at all the parishes that informed us exactly what was going on. Catholics who were paying attention knew what was going on.
Contrast these two statements, you total and complete hypocrite: you know very well what the MAJORITY of Catholic bishops did with the evidence of abuse, yet you trot out a single example of the contrary approach. And that’s ok—completely acceptable use of YOUR experience to bolster what YOU believe in, about the bishops, but I CANNOT use my own experience, to support my opinion, because it’s not “scientific.”
I repeat, a “bigot” by any other euphemistic, “politically correct” term is still a bigot!
you know very well what the MAJORITY of Catholic bishops did with the evidence of abuse
The massive failure of many bishops is not something that I debate. But what I do debate is this notion that it was just the bishops. It was known, popular culture was peppered with references to abusive priests. The laity was participating in the "turn the other way" campaign. And all you have to do is look at the seminary screening processes for most American diocese, it is no coincidence that most of them were revised between 15-25 years ago.
And that’s ok—completely acceptable use of YOUR experience to bolster what YOU believe in, about the bishops, but I CANNOT use my own experience, to support my opinion, because it’s not “scientific.”
You presented your experience as support for a scientific position not just an opinion. If it is just a matter of your opinion, that's fine, and a valid approach .. but one that carries no more weight than any one else's opinion based on comparable level of experience.
The experience I depicted does not have to do with a scientific position. She contended the presence of an obfuscation that would have precluded my experience. I was shocked when the media blitz hit, but shocked that people were so shocked. Many dicoese followed the pattern of confronting the problem publically - why no media blitz when diocese were proactively admitting to a problem? probably in part because it wasn't the diocese who were the biggest failures in this regard doing it - popular media was peppered with references to abusive priests - it was one of the bigotted attacks that I most dreaded while growing up and in college - and in the debate about a vocations shortage, it was a frequently-made argument that the tightening of seminary admission guidelines in response to what was euphemistically referred to as the improprieties of priests was *one of* the contributing causes to the decline in vocations. Thus, I contend that it had less to do with obfuscation - not that it didn't have anything to do with it - and more to do with a general turning of a blind eye by people, both clergy and laity.
So I suppose you would say the same to a pacifist who refuses to file as conscientious objector to avoid a draft?
Apples and oranges. Catholic Charities of Boston is not being conscripted to kill people.
Considering that there is more need than Catholic Charities can fill, it has decided to focus instead on the good that it can do without compromising its Catholicism.
That speaks to my point precisely. You say their concern is for the children, but is it not "compromising their Catholicism" to stop doing this work altogether? Children are going to suffer because of this, and i submit that this is a significantly greater evil than adopting a few of them to (thoroughly checked out) couples who happen to be gay.
Since the research on this topic is at worst inconclusive, meaning that there is no positive evidence of detrimental effect, the CCB's refusal to compromise or to at least engage in dialogue, demonstrates bald-faced bigotry.
In a statement, the seven board members said they were "deeply troubled" by the bishops' request, and said it "undermines our moral priority of helping vulnerable children find loving homes.
"We also cannot participate in an effort to pursue legal permission to discriminate against Massachusetts citizens who want to play a part in building strong families," the statement read.
"The course the Bishops have charted threatens the very essence of our Christian mission. For the sake of the poor we serve, we pray they will reconsider." [emphasis added]
Apples and oranges. Catholic Charities of Boston is not being conscripted to kill people.
The degree may be very dissimilar, but the situation is the same. Either we defend the right of individuals and organizations to opt out of activities which they feel will be, or will be a participation in immoral acts, or we do not. If we are going to be inconsistant about who we laud for sticking to their ideals, at least we should be honest about it.
but is it not "compromising their Catholicism" to stop doing this work altogether?
No, and that is what the statement from those board members misses. Catholicism is not a relativistic faith, it does not accept the general notion in our society that not as bad as something else is justifiable as good. If this were the last corner of good that could be done, then it might be another matter. But as long as there is need that can be filled without the compromise of *any* Catholic principles, and they are working to fill it, then they are not compromising their Catholicism, rather are embracing the narrow path to which Jesus called them.
Actually, I think the real problem is that Catholic Charities in Boston has been accepting government money at all .. and the fact that almost half of its budget comes from that source speaks quite a bit. Their real fault is allowing themselves to become the servant of two masters, the ideologies of Catholicism and the ideologies enforced by the state.
As i mentioned in a comment on another post, apparently same-sex couples are much more willing to accept adoptive children with HIV than straight couples. Adopting any child with a disability is a huge commitment, so they are very difficult to place (there are many more such children than there are homes for them) and anyone willing to take on that task deserves commendation.
If Catholic morality prescribes that it's okay to let these children suffer longer instead of placing them with a willing home, then i'm more glad today than yesterday that i'm no longer associated with that church.
And Catholic Charities has shown itself to be especially adept at placing those difficult to place children. Yes, anyone who is willing to take in such children, any children without a home, are commendable for that. Even it is proven scientifically that children are negatively developmentally affected by being raised by same-sex parents, that does not change the fact that there are much worse situations that they could be in.
But I find it extremely difficult to accept the notion that Catholics should be expected to compromise their ideals in order to do good and the mentality that would demonzie them for not making that compromise. The freedom to hold our own ideals only exists when it corresponds to the ideals of the currently in power zietgiest? (Catholicism finding itself doubly screwed as it is incompatible with both of the competing zeitgeists that dominate our culture.) And I have a hard time accepting it as a pragmatic proposition, since the compromise of ideals espoused by Catholicism is what put most of those children in that situation in the first place.
But I find it extremely difficult to accept the notion that Catholics should be expected to compromise their ideals in order to do good and the mentality that would demonzie them for not making that compromise.
Well, it's nice to cherish moral principles, but sometimes the world is a very ugly place, and the best course of action is to compromise your ideals. It is not ultimately me or the state of Massachusetts making this demand of CCB, it is the fact that there are more children who need homes than there are good homes for them. These children are in crisis. It is this reality that is the real cause of this issue, not a political agenda on anyone's part.
I am not generating this demand, i am simply stating it. And long after you and i stop discussing it here, these children will go on needing homes.
So your blame should be on the state. The state created this situation. The state forced CCB to make this choice. Catholic charities has been doing this for a century, doing it when the state wasn't. The state stepped in and said, "the only way that we are going to allow you to continue helping the profound need of children is to compromise your ideals." You call on Catholicism to compromise on its ideals in this regard when you are utterly unwilling to do the same.
I for one hope that CCB finds a way to navigate this situation without making compromises. It should be possible, and the only thing that will really stand in its way is if the state refuses to help be part of the solution and insists instead on making the compromise of religion a prerequisite of charity. If the CCB doesn't strive to find a way .. well, just one more failure of Catholics in that part of the country.
embracing the narrow path to which Jesus called them
Indeed. I have written in the past that when Jesus indicated two commandments are greater than all the others, in fact that all of the laws hang up on those two, he meant this as a way to resolve dilemmas where principles come into conflict. On one hand you have orphans, flesh and blood people who need love and stable homes; on the other hand you have words in a book that say homosexuality is wrong. When did Jesus ever take the "narrow path" of upholding words in an ancient book over the needs of people right there in front of him?
And you demonstrate again how much you do not understand Catholicism. We are not sola scriptura fundamentalist Christians. It is not just some "ancient book" that speaks, it is the weight of Holy Tradition that speaks. Ours is a communal faith that spans all time, spans the divide of death, and that Tradition is the democracy of the dead that protects against the tyranny of the living.
Jesus transcended Judaism's Law of ritual purity, but intensified its Law of moral righteousness. I cannot think of one instance where Jesus compromised a moral teaching, only where he subjected those standards of ritual purity to the standards of true righteousness.
It is not just some "ancient book" that speaks, it is the weight of Holy Tradition that speaks.
It is the same to me if what we have on one side of the equation are a set of abstract concepts or principles, being weighed against the needs of flesh and blood people. It makes little practical difference, in my analysis, whether the wisdom under consideration is part of an ongoing tradition or whether it took on final form 2000 years ago.
I cannot think of one instance where Jesus compromised a moral teaching
I can think of two offhand. Picking Wheat on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-8) and the Adulterous Woman (John 8:2-11). In both of these cases, Jesus argued against the literalistic interpretation of the law in favor of cutting people some slack because they need our compassion. To emphasize this point, he quoted the prophet Hosea: "God demands mercy and not sacrifice;" God wants our mercy more than he wants us to uphold abstract principles.
t is the same to me if what we have on one side of the equation are a set of abstract concepts or principles
For us it is not an abstract set of concepts of principles. It is a very concrete philosophy that bears on the whole human person, body and soul. For us, those principles bear directly on flesh and blood people. To turn them into abstract principles at odds with flesh and blood is to accept a body soul dichotomy that, while many Catholics, including theologians, have fallen into, is not a part of Catholic cosmology.
I can think of two offhand
The former was not a moral teaching. And in the latter, we can't forget that he told her to go forth and sin no more. He was not compromising about her sin, but was attacking the infidelity of the crowd to the principles of righteousness .. as your quote demonstrates that they were doing.
For us, those principles bear directly on flesh and blood people.
I can say the same thing about my ethics of personal empowerment. But however much one is concerned with flesh and blood, real-life problems, thoughts and conversations and writings about them are abstractions.
The former was not a moral teaching.
The Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments. "Moral" concern or not, it was (and is) a primary aspect of Jewish culture and identity. Most of the Orthodox Jewish people i've known have to go to great lengths to structure their life around the Sabbath. So it is no light matter that Jesus insisted that the Pharisees cut his disciples some slack for violating Sabbath because they were starving.
And in the latter, we can't forget that he told her to go forth and sin no more.
The law demanded that the woman be stoned to death. That is the OT punishment for adultery. In that respect Jesus compromised on principle in a big way.
I can say the same thing about my ethics of personal empowerment.
Good, then allow us to do the same. Allow us the same freedom of dissent that you claim for yourself. Act with a bit of charity. Our belief system is frequently being challenged like this, our charitable goals being regulated so that we have to choose between continuing to deliver charity as we have been and compromise our beliefs or give up that particular means of charity and maintain fidelity to our beliefs and our very identity, our involvement in social justice issues being denied unless we kowtow to an entire platform which contains planks that we cannot accept, being told to endure the miseducation about our past, being told to shut up and take it when we are maligned in ways that would not be tolerated of most other religious groups. Why is it ok to say that Catholics should be expected to sacrifice their identity when it seems like it is not ok to say the same to other groups?
I suppose we could argue exegesis all day, but...
The Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments.
Keeping Holy the Sabbath is the commandment. Jesus was challenging not the pharisees' insistance on keeping the Sabbath holy, but the method that they espoused, which actually was in contradiction to keeping it holy.
he law demanded that the woman be stoned to death.
That says something about punishment, about civil order, but what does it say about right and wrong. We already know that Jesus intensified the moral law, and this is an example of it, showing them that to judge in this way when they are not worthy of judging is also immoral. It was not a compromise of morality, it was an intensification of it.
Because no one can have everything their way. Certainly we all deserve a fair shot at that, but if different groups in society are aiming in different directions, at some point someone gets less than what they want. I don't see this an an excuse to stop doing good. Lord knows, if queer people stopped doing good because we didn't get everything our way... it wouldn't be pretty.
Jesus was challenging not the pharisees' insistance on keeping the Sabbath holy, but the method that they espoused, which actually was in contradiction to keeping it holy.
How's that? What does "holy" mean? In Jesus day, as today, it was pretty well established in Jewish tradition that the way you keep the Sabbath holy is by not doing any labor. (For good measure, cf. Ex. 20:8-11.) Picking wheat in public is pretty easy to categorize as "labor."
It was not a compromise of morality, it was an intensification of it.
An intensification that has the very odd effect of resulting in LESS punishment and thus looking suspiciously like mercy. Deuteronomy 17:1-7 says that God gave people the duty of 'purging the evil within their community' by stoning wrongdoers to death on the testimony of three witnesses. According to Lev. 20:10, one of the evils deserving of death is adultery. So according to the letter of the old law (of which, according to one statement of Jesus, not a jot or a tittle shall pass) it was the moral duty of the woman's accusers to have her stoned to death.
If Jesus intensified the moral code by asserting that only those who are without sin are worthy of passing judgment, that would contradict scripture by rendering impossible the duty of passing judgment (not the right, the duty) commanded in Deut. 17.
That's not what I'm asking for, all I'm asking is that my faith not be subjected condemnation for acting in accordance with our faith.
Lord knows, if queer people stopped doing good because we didn't get everything our way... it wouldn't be pretty.
Catholic Charities is not stopping doing good, just redirecting. Considering Catholic charities is the largest provider of charity in the world - at one time, provided more charity than all others combined - saying that this move is tantamount to "stopping" is a bit of a stretch.
What does "holy" mean?
Something set apart.
In Jesus day, as today, it was pretty well established in Jewish tradition that the way you keep the Sabbath holy is by not doing any labor.
Jesus explains it in the scene itself, explaining how the Torah also provides the answer.
of which, according to one statement of Jesus, not a jot or a tittle shall pass
We've had this conversation. Considering that he contradicts Mosaic Law in the same scene where he says this, it is immediately obvious that he did not equate "The Law" with Mosaic law.
...You tell him. You obviously know more about Catholic Christianity than he does! (It's actuality a faith that, until it got into the hands of Fundos like him, very much acknowledged a hierarchy of moral priorities.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sophiaserpentia) wrote2006-03-11 01:24 pm
no subject
Why the absolute unwillingness on the part of the church to investigate it's own position and consider that maybe on this they're wrong? After all, the church requests reflection and re-consideration on the part of those with whom it disagrees.
You can try to couch it as "refus[ing] to participate in activity that one finds morally objectionable" but in doing so you have to overlook the greater wrong that is being committed here.
Let me demonstrate my point from another angle. Suppose you are trying to toss food to sheep, but among the sheep there are a few goats who occasionally get the food instead. If you don't want the goats to get the food, are you going to stop tossing food out there altogether? Sure, you've succeeded in keeping goats from getting the food, but at the cost of starving the sheep too.
no subject
So I suppose you would say the same to a pacifist who refuses to file as conscientious objector to avoid a draft?
You disagree with Catholicism on this issue. That's fine. But their position has not been disproven, so I don't see how anyone could expect them to abandon it just in order to play the state's game. One of the core messages of Jesus was not to be a hypocrite, and participating in actions contrary to their morality is hypocricy.
The state has made doing this good contingent on being unfaithful to Catholic teaching. This is no different than the law that required that taking political office depend on denying transubstantiation. Considering that there is more need than Catholic Charities can fill, it has decided to focus instead on the good that it can do without compromising its Catholicism.
Your analogy shows how you are approaching the issue completely differently that Catholicism is. Your focus is on the goats, but in the analogy, the thing that would most closely align with what Catholicism is concerned for is the food. And you have just demonstrated my whole point. The state is acting based on political concern for the potential adopters and not for the children.
no subject
Let's stop pretending that this has anything to do with the welfare of the children. If the Catholic Church cared so much about the welfare of Children, why did they turn a blind eye pedophile priests for decades (and probably much longer), shifting them from parish to parish instead of actually dealing with their abuses of children. The Catholic Church's issue with gay and lesbian couples adopting children isn't about child welfare at all, it is simply about political agenda.
no subject
no subject
The Catholic Church was obfuscating abuse up until the media blowout in 2002, not just in some distant era. If it hadn't been for the lawsuits and publicity, it would probably still be church policy.
Catholic obligation to obey the bishop on issues of morality is enforceable by excommunication, yet look at how much moral dissent and how few excommunications there are in this country - demonstrates that political agenda is not the primary motivator in issues like these.
The reason there are so few excommunications in this country is that the Catholic laity has moved so far away from the dogma of the Catholic Church that to excommunicate everyone who disagreed with some part of church dogma would leave precious few Catholics left. The Catholic Church is to pragmatic to do that, however the hierarchy still fervently pursues its political agenda.
The fact that a very small group of bishops have to step in to enforce their anti-gay policies on the the board of Catholic Charities who voted unanimously to allow gay and lesbian adoptions speaks very loudly of the political nature of the Catholic Church's (not Catholic Charities) decision?
no subject
In the early 90s, the bishop of the diocese in which I grew up in mandated that a letter be read from the pulpit at all the parishes that informed us exactly what was going on. Catholics who were paying attention knew what was going on.
The reason there are so few excommunications in this country is that the Catholic laity has moved so far away from the dogma of the Catholic Church that to excommunicate everyone who disagreed with some part of church dogma would leave precious few Catholics left.
They would only have to do it to the politicians .. a very pragmatic course of action.
Bait and Switch, Bait and Switch...
In the early 90s, the bishop of the diocese in which I grew up in mandated that a letter be read from the pulpit at all the parishes that informed us exactly what was going on. Catholics who were paying attention knew what was going on.
Contrast these two statements, you total and complete hypocrite: you know very well what the MAJORITY of Catholic bishops did with the evidence of abuse, yet you trot out a single example of the contrary approach. And that’s ok—completely acceptable use of YOUR experience to bolster what YOU believe in, about the bishops, but I CANNOT use my own experience, to support my opinion, because it’s not “scientific.”
I repeat, a “bigot” by any other euphemistic, “politically correct” term is still a bigot!
Re: Bait and Switch, Bait and Switch...
The massive failure of many bishops is not something that I debate. But what I do debate is this notion that it was just the bishops. It was known, popular culture was peppered with references to abusive priests. The laity was participating in the "turn the other way" campaign. And all you have to do is look at the seminary screening processes for most American diocese, it is no coincidence that most of them were revised between 15-25 years ago.
And that’s ok—completely acceptable use of YOUR experience to bolster what YOU believe in, about the bishops, but I CANNOT use my own experience, to support my opinion, because it’s not “scientific.”
You presented your experience as support for a scientific position not just an opinion. If it is just a matter of your opinion, that's fine, and a valid approach .. but one that carries no more weight than any one else's opinion based on comparable level of experience.
The experience I depicted does not have to do with a scientific position. She contended the presence of an obfuscation that would have precluded my experience. I was shocked when the media blitz hit, but shocked that people were so shocked. Many dicoese followed the pattern of confronting the problem publically - why no media blitz when diocese were proactively admitting to a problem? probably in part because it wasn't the diocese who were the biggest failures in this regard doing it - popular media was peppered with references to abusive priests - it was one of the bigotted attacks that I most dreaded while growing up and in college - and in the debate about a vocations shortage, it was a frequently-made argument that the tightening of seminary admission guidelines in response to what was euphemistically referred to as the improprieties of priests was *one of* the contributing causes to the decline in vocations. Thus, I contend that it had less to do with obfuscation - not that it didn't have anything to do with it - and more to do with a general turning of a blind eye by people, both clergy and laity.
no subject
Apples and oranges. Catholic Charities of Boston is not being conscripted to kill people.
Considering that there is more need than Catholic Charities can fill, it has decided to focus instead on the good that it can do without compromising its Catholicism.
That speaks to my point precisely. You say their concern is for the children, but is it not "compromising their Catholicism" to stop doing this work altogether? Children are going to suffer because of this, and i submit that this is a significantly greater evil than adopting a few of them to (thoroughly checked out) couples who happen to be gay.
Since the research on this topic is at worst inconclusive, meaning that there is no positive evidence of detrimental effect, the CCB's refusal to compromise or to at least engage in dialogue, demonstrates bald-faced bigotry.
Seven members of CCB's board disagree with this decision and resigned in protest, stating pretty much what i have:
no subject
The degree may be very dissimilar, but the situation is the same. Either we defend the right of individuals and organizations to opt out of activities which they feel will be, or will be a participation in immoral acts, or we do not. If we are going to be inconsistant about who we laud for sticking to their ideals, at least we should be honest about it.
but is it not "compromising their Catholicism" to stop doing this work altogether?
No, and that is what the statement from those board members misses. Catholicism is not a relativistic faith, it does not accept the general notion in our society that not as bad as something else is justifiable as good. If this were the last corner of good that could be done, then it might be another matter. But as long as there is need that can be filled without the compromise of *any* Catholic principles, and they are working to fill it, then they are not compromising their Catholicism, rather are embracing the narrow path to which Jesus called them.
Actually, I think the real problem is that Catholic Charities in Boston has been accepting government money at all .. and the fact that almost half of its budget comes from that source speaks quite a bit. Their real fault is allowing themselves to become the servant of two masters, the ideologies of Catholicism and the ideologies enforced by the state.
no subject
If Catholic morality prescribes that it's okay to let these children suffer longer instead of placing them with a willing home, then i'm more glad today than yesterday that i'm no longer associated with that church.
no subject
But I find it extremely difficult to accept the notion that Catholics should be expected to compromise their ideals in order to do good and the mentality that would demonzie them for not making that compromise. The freedom to hold our own ideals only exists when it corresponds to the ideals of the currently in power zietgiest? (Catholicism finding itself doubly screwed as it is incompatible with both of the competing zeitgeists that dominate our culture.) And I have a hard time accepting it as a pragmatic proposition, since the compromise of ideals espoused by Catholicism is what put most of those children in that situation in the first place.
no subject
Well, it's nice to cherish moral principles, but sometimes the world is a very ugly place, and the best course of action is to compromise your ideals. It is not ultimately me or the state of Massachusetts making this demand of CCB, it is the fact that there are more children who need homes than there are good homes for them. These children are in crisis. It is this reality that is the real cause of this issue, not a political agenda on anyone's part.
I am not generating this demand, i am simply stating it. And long after you and i stop discussing it here, these children will go on needing homes.
no subject
I for one hope that CCB finds a way to navigate this situation without making compromises. It should be possible, and the only thing that will really stand in its way is if the state refuses to help be part of the solution and insists instead on making the compromise of religion a prerequisite of charity. If the CCB doesn't strive to find a way .. well, just one more failure of Catholics in that part of the country.
no subject
Indeed. I have written in the past that when Jesus indicated two commandments are greater than all the others, in fact that all of the laws hang up on those two, he meant this as a way to resolve dilemmas where principles come into conflict. On one hand you have orphans, flesh and blood people who need love and stable homes; on the other hand you have words in a book that say homosexuality is wrong. When did Jesus ever take the "narrow path" of upholding words in an ancient book over the needs of people right there in front of him?
no subject
Jesus transcended Judaism's Law of ritual purity, but intensified its Law of moral righteousness. I cannot think of one instance where Jesus compromised a moral teaching, only where he subjected those standards of ritual purity to the standards of true righteousness.
no subject
It is the same to me if what we have on one side of the equation are a set of abstract concepts or principles, being weighed against the needs of flesh and blood people. It makes little practical difference, in my analysis, whether the wisdom under consideration is part of an ongoing tradition or whether it took on final form 2000 years ago.
I cannot think of one instance where Jesus compromised a moral teaching
I can think of two offhand. Picking Wheat on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-8) and the Adulterous Woman (John 8:2-11). In both of these cases, Jesus argued against the literalistic interpretation of the law in favor of cutting people some slack because they need our compassion. To emphasize this point, he quoted the prophet Hosea: "God demands mercy and not sacrifice;" God wants our mercy more than he wants us to uphold abstract principles.
no subject
For us it is not an abstract set of concepts of principles. It is a very concrete philosophy that bears on the whole human person, body and soul. For us, those principles bear directly on flesh and blood people. To turn them into abstract principles at odds with flesh and blood is to accept a body soul dichotomy that, while many Catholics, including theologians, have fallen into, is not a part of Catholic cosmology.
I can think of two offhand
The former was not a moral teaching. And in the latter, we can't forget that he told her to go forth and sin no more. He was not compromising about her sin, but was attacking the infidelity of the crowd to the principles of righteousness .. as your quote demonstrates that they were doing.
no subject
I can say the same thing about my ethics of personal empowerment. But however much one is concerned with flesh and blood, real-life problems, thoughts and conversations and writings about them are abstractions.
The former was not a moral teaching.
The Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments. "Moral" concern or not, it was (and is) a primary aspect of Jewish culture and identity. Most of the Orthodox Jewish people i've known have to go to great lengths to structure their life around the Sabbath. So it is no light matter that Jesus insisted that the Pharisees cut his disciples some slack for violating Sabbath because they were starving.
And in the latter, we can't forget that he told her to go forth and sin no more.
The law demanded that the woman be stoned to death. That is the OT punishment for adultery. In that respect Jesus compromised on principle in a big way.
no subject
Good, then allow us to do the same. Allow us the same freedom of dissent that you claim for yourself. Act with a bit of charity. Our belief system is frequently being challenged like this, our charitable goals being regulated so that we have to choose between continuing to deliver charity as we have been and compromise our beliefs or give up that particular means of charity and maintain fidelity to our beliefs and our very identity, our involvement in social justice issues being denied unless we kowtow to an entire platform which contains planks that we cannot accept, being told to endure the miseducation about our past, being told to shut up and take it when we are maligned in ways that would not be tolerated of most other religious groups. Why is it ok to say that Catholics should be expected to sacrifice their identity when it seems like it is not ok to say the same to other groups?
I suppose we could argue exegesis all day, but...
The Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments.
Keeping Holy the Sabbath is the commandment. Jesus was challenging not the pharisees' insistance on keeping the Sabbath holy, but the method that they espoused, which actually was in contradiction to keeping it holy.
he law demanded that the woman be stoned to death.
That says something about punishment, about civil order, but what does it say about right and wrong. We already know that Jesus intensified the moral law, and this is an example of it, showing them that to judge in this way when they are not worthy of judging is also immoral. It was not a compromise of morality, it was an intensification of it.
no subject
Jesus was challenging not the pharisees' insistance on keeping the Sabbath holy, but the method that they espoused, which actually was in contradiction to keeping it holy.
How's that? What does "holy" mean? In Jesus day, as today, it was pretty well established in Jewish tradition that the way you keep the Sabbath holy is by not doing any labor. (For good measure, cf. Ex. 20:8-11.) Picking wheat in public is pretty easy to categorize as "labor."
It was not a compromise of morality, it was an intensification of it.
An intensification that has the very odd effect of resulting in LESS punishment and thus looking suspiciously like mercy. Deuteronomy 17:1-7 says that God gave people the duty of 'purging the evil within their community' by stoning wrongdoers to death on the testimony of three witnesses. According to Lev. 20:10, one of the evils deserving of death is adultery. So according to the letter of the old law (of which, according to one statement of Jesus, not a jot or a tittle shall pass) it was the moral duty of the woman's accusers to have her stoned to death.
If Jesus intensified the moral code by asserting that only those who are without sin are worthy of passing judgment, that would contradict scripture by rendering impossible the duty of passing judgment (not the right, the duty) commanded in Deut. 17.
no subject
That's not what I'm asking for, all I'm asking is that my faith not be subjected condemnation for acting in accordance with our faith.
Lord knows, if queer people stopped doing good because we didn't get everything our way... it wouldn't be pretty.
Catholic Charities is not stopping doing good, just redirecting. Considering Catholic charities is the largest provider of charity in the world - at one time, provided more charity than all others combined - saying that this move is tantamount to "stopping" is a bit of a stretch.
What does "holy" mean?
Something set apart.
In Jesus day, as today, it was pretty well established in Jewish tradition that the way you keep the Sabbath holy is by not doing any labor.
Jesus explains it in the scene itself, explaining how the Torah also provides the answer.
of which, according to one statement of Jesus, not a jot or a tittle shall pass
We've had this conversation. Considering that he contradicts Mosaic Law in the same scene where he says this, it is immediately obvious that he did not equate "The Law" with Mosaic law.
Amen, Sister!