h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I went to an RC primary school in the 80s. At age 12 we were given a sex education lesson by a nun and a priest - we assumed (wrongly as it turned out when Father ****** ran off to spain with his housekeeper) that we probably already knew more than they did.

'Marry a Catholic' was the message.

This subject heading wins my personal award for subject heading of the year. Yes, the quotes are from Karel Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II.

My school was a (state comprehensive) De La Salle school, though there were only two monks still teaching when I started there, and the lunatic Chaplain, who was eventually replaced by a local Parish priest who was having a very well known affair with his housekeeper.

The De La Salle order is a strange one - their founder St John Baptiste de la Salle is the patron saint of teachers and gave up money and influence to run free schools for poor boys. His order run schools around the world. However, no-one was able to explain to me what they're doing running *private* schools in the UK as well a state schools. Oh well.

Long hair wasn't fashionable for most of the time I was at school, but became so while I was in the sixth form. The school didn't mind as long as it was tied back for lessons involving dangerous chemicals, plaster of paris, or drilling. From what I remember, my sister's school allowed stud ear-rings, but not makeup, and had some odd rules about skirt length. Her school had nuns and was nuttier than mine, I think.

Papa Ratzi is coming out with some interesting stuff, doctrinally speaking. There's the rehabilitation of Judas, which is interesting. When I was eleven, I remember asking my primary school teacher about Judas. He had to betray Jesus for the divine plan to work, Jesus knew he'd do it, so did he really have any choice? Thus, it would be unfair for God to punish him for being the wrong person for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm glad the Catholic hierarchy is coming round to my way of thinking!

Beaver and chips for lunch, with a side order of guilt please.....

Tefkat, many times I have pointed out that I am not a Catholic - but I do pay attention to the news, and I heard in the '90s, that the Pope not only accepted evolution but advocated it! You might want to look at this, for instance ...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060120/WORLDREPORT20-1/TPScience/

<< do agree with you that the bible is a load of nonsense, but I thought you were sticking up for it originally?>>

I do continue to stick up for it. But I am tired of people who want to slag off Christianity, picking bits out of the Pentateuch, ignoring that the New Testament is the *new* revelation, and that the Old must be read in the light of it.

P-C <....but my Mum remains committed.> That would explain it, then.

Explain what...?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

<> (Della)

Yet many Christians pick and choose whatever bits of the bible suits them best. The bits they feel they can live with. And they disregard the rest of their supposed Holy Book by saying all those nasty bits are meant to be allegorical? Well, I've always wondered - who are *they* to judge which bits of their Holy Book was meant to be allegorical and which bits are meant to be considered as fact. Who gave them the power to interpret the Holy Bible to fit in with their personal concept of what it *actually means*?

I dunno. It's either a Holy Book or it isn't. That makes sense to me. Surely translating what one's Holy Book says to suit one's personal interests is blasphemy. Isn't it?


az

I've always thought it perfectly reasonable that christians to view the new testament teachings (containing the stuff about/from Jesus) as superceeding those in the old testament (which preceeds his teaching).

I think so too, kelli. Except the Holy Bible as it stands is the book most Christians use - both OT and NT.

Therein lies the confusion. Surely a Christian is someone following the teachings of Christ - ie, New Testament. But they still include the Old Testament in their religion. The Holy Bible I have here at home contains both the new and old testaments.

Is it possible to have a Holy Bible that only includes the New Testament? Or would this turn the New Testament into a different sort of Holy Bible that then eschews what was written in the Old one?


az

<>

The use of the word "superceding", rather than "adds to" suggests that there are contradictions between the two. If that's the case one wonders *why* the OT is still part of "Holy Scripture". If it's not the case, then there seems to be no legitimate reason for not following its teachings.

So what is the status of the OT for Christians?

Noggin

On an RC theme:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4630892.stm
"Catholic group Opus Dei has called for the film version of The Da Vinci Code novel to be given an adult rating"

Classic quote from Opus Dei:
"Spokesman Marc Carroggio said: "Any adult can distinguish reality from fiction. But you cannot expect a child to make proper judgements.""

What was that Jesuit phrase along the lines of
"Give me a child until the age of..."?

Yeah, my mother's dead keen on them . Ghastly people.
"Any adult can distinguish reality from fiction." eh?
Is that why she believes everything she reads in the Universe and the Catholic Herald then? And the reason she's witnessed so many miracles?

We were taught that the bible is the word of God. All of it. basically He's supposed to have dictated it.
And if you suggested that Adam and Eve didn't REALLY eat a fruit you got a backhander at the very least.

We weren't allowed to wear studs but we were allowed to wear sleepers. no make-up, no heels, skirts below the knee, two pairs of knickers for PE so there was no danger of anyone glimpsing the pair nearest your body ;-/, velour hats/straw boaters to be worn at all times outside school (and the fact that the kids from the normal schools had thrown it into the trees/pond was no excuse)...

No sex education, of any sort (which is why it took us 4 months to figure out I was pregnant ) though we did learn about crossing peas and rabbits (not with each other I hasten to add!)

There again we both went to the sort of schools in which they made you say set prayers before and after each lesson and the Angelus every lunchtime, daily Mass and weekly Confession (how many "sins" can a 7 year old commit in a week? "um, i wasn't always polite Father") and Benediction (and he had to say the office every morning and evening - I escaped that, but had the entire Rosary instead), fasting from midnight in order to take holy communion, no meat on Fridays, had to actually WEIGH the food we were allowed on fast days...

And they used the cane (even on 6 year olds).

Our schools were probably extreme examples though, since they were the ones to which all the immigrants sent their kids - and some of the Goans, Spaniards and Eastern Europeans were even er than our lot! (Though most of the Irish weren't as bad). Never mind the shrines and the holy water at the front door - one of my Polish friends had a mother who actually went around swathed entirely in voluminous black, like a moslem, so all you could see were her eyes .

In my experience there were two kinds of Catholics - the ridiculously credulous, superstitious ones that make annual pilgrimages to the likes of Lourdes, Fatima, Medjugorje, climb the mountain on their knees, believe everything any priest tells them (including what they're not allowed to read!) and terrify young children with stories of Hell - and the "Progressive" hypocrites who use contraceptives and pick and choose which bits to believe, while still insisting they're Catholics.

er than a bucket of monkeys. A H*ll of a lot more dangerous though.

Eeeek. Tefkat, that sounds absolutely dreadful. I suppose I'm able to defend Catholicism to a certain limited extent because my experience was much more benign. I'm sure if I'd had your experience I wouldn't do so.

"Progressive" hypocrites who use contraceptives and pick and choose which bits to believe, while still insisting they're Catholics."

I don't think this is quite fair. I think it is possible to produce a belief system from Christianity that is reasonable. It's just not possible to believe everything in the Bible because it is so obviously inconsistent. So, you take your starting point - say, the life, teachings, and examples of Jesus - and work from there. Anything that contradicts this is ruled out. Jesus regularly clashed with the religious authorities of his time, lambasting them for focusing on pomp, ceremony, rules and tradition rather than the real meaning of their beliefs. On a number of occasions, Jesus explicitly rejects OT teachings. I don't think it's easy or unproblematic to go through this process, but I think it is possible to produce something that's more defensible theologically than just 'pick and choose'.

Having said that, I don't think it's possible to be a liberal and call yourself a Catholic. I tried, members of my family tried, and eventually the tension is just too much. There are many Catholics who still try and keep the balancing act going - somehow. I think they're misguided, but I wouldn't call them hypocrites. That's someone who doesn't practice what they preach - liberal Catholics don't practice what their religion preaches.

>> "Progressive" hypocrites who use contraceptives and pick and choose which bits to believe, while still insisting they're Catholics."

I don't think this is quite fair. <<

In order to be a Roman Catholic you have to accept that the Pope is the head of the Church on Earth and is infallible.

If you habitually do something il Papa expressly forbids, such as using contraception, or divorcing your first wife and marrying Anne boleyn you cannot go around still claiming to be a Roman Catholic. You're a Protestant, non-conformist, call it what you will. If you profess to belong to an organised religion you can't pick and choose which rules you're going to obey.

Being a hypocrite isn't the same thing as holding contradictory beliefs.

>>"If you profess to belong to an organised religion you can't pick and choose which rules you're going to obey"

Surely that depends which parts of the religion you consider are important. If you don't view a particular set of beliefs as being necessarily inviolate and unarguably correct, should you be bound by the views of people who think differently? If you have any kind of skepticism at all, surely the very first thing one would logically have to doubt, if not actually disregard, would be any assertion of absolute correctness.
Someone might view the Catholic church as containing human flaws, yet still consider it the best path for them to follow.

But surely saying you're a catholic and then surreptitiously using contraception is hypocrisy Otto?

P-C, shouldn't you, in that case, say you have leanings towards Catholicism, or you follow most RC teachings? to BE RC you have to acknowledge the pope as head of the church, and obey him. After all that is the main reason for Protestantism - not to mention all that excommunication rubbish.

(There was a priest in France, when i was a teenager, who was excommunicated because he carried on celebrating the old sung Latin mass after the pope had forbidden it - I'd say that was a fairly minor point)

OUCH! mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa...
seems one can't transcend one's early conditioning even after leaving the sect

http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general677.html

"Traditionalist Catholicism is a reactionary movement against changes within the Church after the Second Vatican Council ended in 1965. Its followers uphold beliefs and practices predating Vatican II: They attend the Tridentine mass in Latin, abstain from meat on Fridays and the women cover their heads in church.

Traditionalists are also dismayed by what they see as the loss of Rome's disciplinarian hand on the faithful, resulting in "cafeteria Catholicism." They argue that today's mainstream Catholics pick and choose which church teachings to follow in areas such as sexual morality and the priesthood."

I kneel corrected

Potholer (sorry, thought you were P-C), Canon law 752 states:

"While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine."

"But surely saying you're a catholic and then surreptitiously using contraception is hypocrisy Otto?"

No, I don't think it is. I think this is just a semantic disagreement about the use of the word 'hypocrite'.

I use it exclusively for one who preaches one thing and does another. So someone who said that contraception was immoral but used it himself is a hypocrite. But someone who calls herself a Catholic but uses contraception and doesn't lie about it isn't a hypocrite. Although they have some explaining to do about why they still regard themselves as Catholic. It's inconsistency, not hypocrisy.

All hypocrisy is inconsistency (between what they preach and what they do), but not all inconsistency is hypocrisy.