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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-03-13 08:21 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2006-03-13 08:49 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2006-03-13 09:29 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2006-03-13 10:25 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2006-03-14 04:44 am (UTC)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
Date: 2006-03-14 05:05 am (UTC)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.