Posted on 09/13/2010 7:09:07 AM PDT by marshmallow
I respect your experiences.
Still, the fact remains that almost all contemporary Catholic "evangelism" and apologetics is aimed at people who reject the very idea of the events of the "old testament" as ever having actually happened. Courses, magazine articles, homilies, sermons, books, all assure the seeker that "we now know more than we used to" and that one need not reject the modern, "scientific" worldview.
There is NO similar assurance given to seekers who are comfortable with the pre-modern, pre-"scientific" worldview. No book or article or homily assures the seeker he need not accept evolution, or higher criticism, or that he reject any event of Genesis as mere allegory or parable, much less mythology. It simply isn't there. Because the current leadership of the church seem to think these people either don't have souls worth "saving" or that they simply don't have what it takes upstairs to hack it in such a glorious, intellectual church. These people have been, are being, and will continue to be written off by a church whose dioceses hypocritically proclaim respect for the "dignity of every human person" and demand love and compassion of "gay, bisexual, and transgendered persons." Gays aren't a problem. "Biblical literalists" are a problem. You think this doesn't send a message? You think there is no connection whatsoever to this attitude and the crisis in the Catholic Church today? Please. You can't possibly think such a thing. You're simply too honest.
I appreciate Bishop Vasa, and Hugh Owen, and Clement Butel, and Donal Anthony Foley, and Brian Harrison . . . believe me I do. But let's face facts. These men's writings are not promoted by the Catholic clerical or intellectual establishment. No "seeker" is going to be told to visit the Kolbe Center or given something to read by any of these people. They are pariahs. They are embarrassments. And they're not getting anywhere. They're losing. They're losing badly. They're being beaten like red-headed stepchildren. And I believe some of them are weakening (John McCarthy, Brian Harrison's colleague at the Roman Theological Forum, who has written anti-Darwin articles in the past, now rejects the "young earth" demanded by Biblical chronology as impossible to reconcile with the "evidence"). The Kolbe Center's site hasn't been updated in ages. No new "personal testimonies" have been added in longer than that. Meanwhile Scott Hahn and Karl Keating and Peter Stravinskas endorse the whole evolution/"it's only a parable" thing. Ignatius Press does also. Pope Benedict is an evolutionist. JPII was an evolutionist. JPI was an evolutionist. Paul VI was an evolutionist. John XXIII was an evolutionist. Pius XII was an evolutionist. Give it up. Throw in the towel. It's over.
No wonder Catholics don't engage in aggressive "door-knocking" campaigns. Most American chr*stians are too "feeble-minded" to accept the new reality. Let the Fundamentalist churches have these poor deluded souls, these spiritual/theological mongoloids who can't make it in "real religion." It's not the "one true church" but it's all they can handle. Let those brave souls who have the gray matter to handle nuclear physics make the effort to join the "one true church," which is apparently no longer universal.
I do not mean to quarrel with you and I hope I am making my point passionately but respectfully and without rancor or insult. From what you have written in the past I assume that you actually interpret Genesis very similarly to the way I do, but you fit in the Catholic Church precisely because you hold this as a personal opinion only that has not yet been decided and thus you have never promoted it very heavily. I apologize if I have misinterpreted your opinions.
Let's give it a rest. There are creationists and literalists in the Catholic Church but they are a dwindling minority with no influence. The Catholic Church as a whole simply does not care about this issue. And it hasn't in a very, very, very long time.
I am not among those "scientific creationists" who anticipate the scientific vindication of the historicity of Genesis for the very simple reason that so long as cosmogony is considered a legitimate field of scientific inquiry (rather than a matter of history and theology that can be known only by Divine Revelation) the very idea will be excluded by the very definition of the word "science." HOWEVER--should the day ever come when the whole naturalistic physical/biological worldview collapses in a heap of dust, I hope the Catholic Church won't rush in and beat its chest as having been "the only one" that stood against the tide. You, I, and everyone else know who has done that, and done it alone and against the ridicule of the entire world.
I am proud of my people. I am honored to have been born one of them.
You wrote:
“Still, the fact remains that almost all contemporary Catholic “evangelism” and apologetics is aimed at people who reject the very idea of the events of the “old testament” as ever having actually happened.”
I don’t think there’s any evidence of that. You would literally have to examine all apologetics and actually know the motives of everyone who wrote those pieces to judge that. Apologetics is aimed at helping people understand the faith. It is not aimed at people who have come to one certain conclusion about the literalness of the OT. The very idea is nonsensical. Apologetics in general is about the New Testament, and things specifically Christian, anyway.
The rest of your post seems more like an exhausted man’s rant just before he throws in the towel.
Dude. Check out any mainstream Catholic evangelical/apologetic book/magazine/publication. It all assumes the inquirer regards Genesis as a troublesome albatross that needs to be shed.
Check out This Rock . . . Catholic Answers . . . any of them. It's written for hepcats. People who don't have the anti-Genesis mentality aren't even addressed. They're ignored. They don't exist.
You would literally have to examine all apologetics and actually know the motives of everyone who wrote those pieces to judge that.
No, I'd just have to be familiar with the material they produce.
Apologetics is aimed at helping people understand the faith.
How is "the faith" to be understood if Genesis is a fairy tale?
It is not aimed at people who have come to one certain conclusion about the literalness of the OT. The very idea is nonsensical.
Only if you're referring to non-existent literature aimed at people who accept the OT literally. But in fact Catholic apologetical literature is aimed exclusively at people who reject the literalness of the OT. That is simply the way it is.
Apologetics in general is about the New Testament, and things specifically Christian, anyway.
If the OT isn't "chr*stian," why did the Church accept it into its canonized, inspired bible? Why not do what the moslems did and just produce your own holy book independently, without an "old testament?"
The rest of your post seems more like an exhausted man’s rant just before he throws in the towel.
I threw in the towel with regard to chr*stianity twenty years ago. I have never thrown in the towel in my position on the facticity of the events of the Torah.
Your last statement reads like it came from someone who not only keeps his own views private, but doesn't even consider the issue very important.
You wrote:
“Dude. Check out any mainstream Catholic evangelical/apologetic book/magazine/publication. It all assumes the inquirer regards Genesis as a troublesome albatross that needs to be shed.”
Nope. Sorry. You’re basically taking a few examples and assuming it is omnipresent when it is not.
“Check out This Rock . . . Catholic Answers . . . any of them. It’s written for hepcats. People who don’t have the anti-Genesis mentality aren’t even addressed. They’re ignored. They don’t exist.”
I think Catholic Answers treats many traditional things as if they do not exist. That doesn’t mean they have the assumptions you impute to them or that that view is omnipresent in “any mainstream Catholic” work.
“How is “the faith” to be understood if Genesis is a fairy tale?”
I don’t know of anyone who suggests it is a fairy tale at Catholic Answers. Do you?
“But in fact Catholic apologetical literature is aimed exclusively at people who reject the literalness of the OT. That is simply the way it is.”
No, actually it isn’t. You are making an assumption that is simply untenable. You are assuming that apologetics is predicated by an assumption not held by the apologists as to why they exist or work as apologists. This has everything to do with your obsession and obsessive outlook and nothing to do with the reality of why apologetics works are designed.
“I threw in the towel with regard to chr*stianity twenty years ago. I have never thrown in the towel in my position on the facticity of the events of the Torah.”
No, what you apparently threw the towel in on was reason. You seem to mistake every opposing view as opposition to Genesis. You seem to view everything act by every person in every instance as a reflection of their view of Genesis even when it has nothing to do with it. Catholic Answers’ apologetics efforts are not predicated upon a doubting of Genesis - and that is true even if every single person who works for CA doubts Genesis. You are replacing solid cause and effect with your obsession and assumption and nothing else.
“Your last statement reads like it came from someone who not only keeps his own views private, but doesn’t even consider the issue very important.”
No, my last statement reads like an accurate assessment of your posts. You post essentially on one issue no matter what the thread is about. It is your obsession.
Wow. What universe do you live in?
No, my last statement reads like an accurate assessment of your posts. You post essentially on one issue no matter what the thread is about. It is your obsession.
Thank you. I am honored.
You wrote:
“Wow. What universe do you live in?”
The one in which evidence still matters. Come visit sometime.
“Thank you. I am honored.”
You might be.
“Wow. What universe do you live in?”
The one in which evidence still matters. Come visit sometime.
Vlad . . . you're a nice person. I mostly get along with you. And as I understand it, although you're not dogmatic about it your personal interpretation of Genesis is similar to mine.
However (and if you say these things to simply cause me pain then it does you no credit) I wish you would stop dismissing my own personal experiences of the Catholic Church. You act as if all my animus is based on absolutely nothing.
Please believe me when I say you have no idea how hard I tried and what I went through with. And you're denying this doesn't change it one bit, though it pricks to know that I cannot prove anything to you.
I suggest we end this conversation amicably at this point.
You wrote:
“Vlad . . . you’re a nice person. I mostly get along with you. And as I understand it, although you’re not dogmatic about it your personal interpretation of Genesis is similar to mine.”
Guilty as charged.
“However (and if you say these things to simply cause me pain then it does you no credit) I wish you would stop dismissing my own personal experiences of the Catholic Church.”
1) If what I have been saying to you causes pain, then you really need to stay away from the internet forever. Seriously, forever.
2) What I have been “dismissing” - and actually I have demanded evidence rather than merely dismiss what you’ve said - is your claim that OBJECTIVELY certain things are when they clearly are NOT. If you want to tell me that you see the world in a skewed way, fine. But to claim that something is objectively so, not be able to defend that claim in any way, and then tell me you’re hurt over the fact that I demanded evidence? Well, that means you need a new hobby. Clearly posting here is simply too difficult for you. And if you think that I am saying this to hurt your fellings, you’re wrong again.
You asked me what universe I lived in. I told you I lived in the one where evidence still mattered and that you should come visit sometime. Now, does that really hurt your feelings? And if it is hurtful to you, then how could you not - in your own opinion and to your own standards - see how your comment to me must be hurtful. Mind you, I didn’t find it hurtful, but by your standards you must find your own statement to me hurtful. Think on that.
“You act as if all my animus is based on absolutely nothing.”
No, I don’t. I act as if you have an obsession that cliuds your judgment of everything and compells you to post about it even in threads where it makes little or no sense. And that is EXACTLY the case. I am not the first person to point that out to you either.
“Please believe me when I say you have no idea how hard I tried and what I went through with. And you’re denying this doesn’t change it one bit, though it pricks to know that I cannot prove anything to you.”
I think you need to do a reality check. Where in this thread did I deny that how hard you tried or what you went through? What I challenged you on were your sweeping comments about things you DID NOT TRY and DID NOT GO THROUGH. You made comments that were so sweeping - they were not about you at all - but about the ENTIRE Catholic Church, the ENTIRE field of apologetics, and just about every RCIA class in existence by implication.
“I suggest we end this conversation amicably at this point.”
I never viewed it as anything but amicable. Look at my last comment at the bottom of post #11.
I have dealt with the claims you made about the Church. You seem to respond by insisting that I am dismissing your personal experiences. Your personal experiences are not the Church. I do not confuse the two.
Well . . . since my "evidence" is my personal experience and you reject it out of hand (and even if you didn't, not being a psychic or a telepath I have no idea of how to reproduce it for you), I guess we are done.
You wrote:
“Well . . . since my “evidence” is my personal experience...”
YOUR PERSONAL experiences do not encompass the ENTIRE Catholic Church. Your claims DID. Thus, your experiences do not in any way back up your claims. You seem to make the mistake of basing your claims - all presented without any objective evidence whatsoever - on your completely subjective, undocumented, unprovable and irrelevant experiences.
“...and you reject it out of hand (and even if you didn’t, not being a psychic or a telepath I have no idea of how to reproduce it for you), I guess we are done.”
Again, your experiences only tell us about your experiences. They tell us nothing about the ENTIRE Church, or every RCIA class out there, etc. You can deny that reality all you want, but I won’t deny reality under any circumstance.
I don't suppose you've ever had an "undocumented, unprovable, and irrelevant" experience that taught you something.
I'm sorry I didn't realize that my experience with the Church was irrelevant. Someone should have told me at the time.
We're gonna be going all night, huh? I don't suppose you'd cut it short because I'm just getting over a week of strep throat and sinus?
You wrote:
“I don’t suppose you’ve ever had an “undocumented, unprovable, and irrelevant” experience that taught you something.”
Yes, I have. What I didn’t do was assume that my “undocumented, unprovable, and irrelevant” experience was in fact the case for the entire Catholic Church or every RCIA class or whatever. That’s what you’re doing. Do you see the difference?
“I’m sorry I didn’t realize that my experience with the Church was irrelevant. Someone should have told me at the time.”
Your experience is completely irrelevant in regard to using it as a basis for judging the entire Church. Does that sound harsh? Tough. I would never judge all of Judaism by an experience at one synagogue or one rabbi or even several of them. That simply makes no sense.
“We’re gonna be going all night, huh?”
Nope.
“I don’t suppose you’d cut it short because I’m just getting over a week of strep throat and sinus?”
That’s fine. I’ve been sick for two weeks. I know how you feel. But your experience of illness is not a basis to judge the entire medical field. Just so you know. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.